Talk:Godhra train burning

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2024

117.215.213.55 (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The fire in the train was planned and prepared for. The court has given verdict that the accused to be given punishment and life imprisonment

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ⸺(Random)staplers 16:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Godhra Train Massacre

The Godhra train massacre incident occurred on February 27, 2002, when a coach of the Sabarmati Express, carrying Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya, was set on fire by a mob of local Muslims, near the Godhra railway station in Gujarat. This led to the deaths of 59 passengers, including women and children.

The incident led to widespread riots in Gujarat, resulting in significant communal violence and loss of life.

Aravind Sivaprasad (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no universal agreement over "was set on fire by a mob of local Muslims". Capitals00 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

-Criminals involved have been punished by the court

-The official inquiry into the event concluded that the fire was a pre-planned attack by a mob of local Muslims. According to the investigation, a group of individuals gathered near the train and threw petrol bombs into the coach after locking its doors from the outside.

-Banerjee commission report, which stated that fire was "accidental" was flagged unconstitutional by the court

What more information is needed to classify the incident as a massacre?.

What do you mean by "Universal agreement"?, Is this a platform that cares about opinions rather than facts?. Aravind Sivaprasad (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia cares about what reliable sources say, preferably secondary sources rather than primary. Court rulings are primary sources. Please read references 2, 3, 4, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 in the article, which all dispute the idea that the fire was deliberately set by Muslims. We cannot simply ignore those sources. CodeTalker (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Real shame on your suppression of truth and denial on court results on godhra train Hindu Pilgrim burned by Muslims. Muslims can do terrorism and beheadings of innocent Hindu people but you as wikipedia will still cover that. Real shame on you wikipedia. 2600:1004:B00B:CFD8:C8AA:1FFF:FE77:1873 (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

. 103.29.116.83 (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@CodeTalker "seconday sources" You mean to say the "Journalists" & "Acamedicians" sitting in their 3x3 feet cubicle mulling the theory whether this is accident or arson? And the courts which goes through thousand of evidence and a trial which runs over decades are primary source and have equal/less weight as those guys in AC cubicles. Tell me , if some mad man file a litigation (Like WMF and ANI), could you really defend those editors who added accident theory and those who maintained it. 103.29.116.83 (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 You are admin based in India. Right? Whats your thought? 103.29.116.83 (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

103.xx, your contempt for academic sources is very different from the principles Wikipedia adheres to, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." If those principles aren't for you, I'm sure there are other places on the internet where your disparagement of scholarship would be welcomed. Please note also that it's none of your business where editors are based. Don't discuss the personal details of others, please. I would never advise an editor to answer the kind of question you just put. Bishonen | tålk 18:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC).

References

The Cause of fire remains disputed

I think this line should be removed as Cout have already convinced Criminals in this case related to train burning. 103.247.52.141 (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The statement is extensively sourced. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I confess I am at a loss as to why this point keeps coming up. The court came to its conclusions. We report those conclusions, in considerable detail. Scholars nonetheless continued to debate the causes of the fire, and therefore we also document that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Title/'Part of series on Violence Against Hindus'

If the cause of the fire is disputed, then should this incident be included in the series? As someone who grew up convinced that the fire was a terrorist attack deliberately targeting Hindu pilgrims, looking into the reportage & history over the years myself has been shocking, to say the least. The use of certain terms implies meanings & conclusions within them, as we very well know. Just referring to a railway carriage fire as a 'train burning' supports a conclusion of intentional violence, as does the inclusion of this incident in the series on 'violence against Hindus in independent India' (the latter also undermines the series at large).

As is, even the article alone makes clear that the cause of the fire is unclear, probably accidental, & heavily communalised. Keeping these things in mind, a more truthful title, in my opinion, would be 2002 Sabarmati Express Carriage Fire, or 2002 Godhra Railway Carriage Fire (Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, p. 299). And as it is unclear whether the incident was even an intentional act of violence, let alone one that discriminately targeted Hindus, it should not be included in the concerned series.

I felt these ideas were worth discussing. I am new to Wikipedia, so please let me know if I missed anything. Mouli Sharma (2003) (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This is the correct way to make a proposal. The use of the "violence against Hindus" template was discussed in the past. I was opposed to its use, because scholarly sources by-and-large do not describe this as an act of religious violence: but consensus was against me then, and so we need to establish a new consensus before making any changes. You should wait to see what other editors have to say about this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, makes sense. Will wait for others to weigh in. Mouli Sharma (2003) (talk) 09:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)