Talk:2002 Gujarat riots/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Stop misguiding and vandalism

@Shovon 76, Can you show which part of the content is my POV so that it will be easy for me to remove that. Also you have lied that you have removed none of the sources. but you have vandalised these sources.

  1. http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/feb/28train5.htm
  2. http://www.india-server.com/news/nanavati-report-gives-clean-chit-to-3999.html
  3. http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=75485
  4. http://www.hindu.com/2006/10/14/stories/2006101405431200.htm
  5. http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2002/india/India0402-02.htm
  6. http://www.hindu.com/2005/01/23/stories/2005012303901400.htm
  7. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1843591.stm
  8. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-2256789,prtpage-1.cms

and many more. I have left some because of short of time.

Now its up to admins to decide who is vandalising. Wasifwasif (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

As you have posted the same in my talk page, I have replied there. Btw, all the above sources are very much there in the article. Shovon (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
All the above links are from the contents which are deleted by you saying as vandalism. Why a lie saying all the above links are there. Repeatedly i am asking, which part do you say as my POV? Reply with valid data points. or else i have to take this to admins. using words of "nonsense"'s kind won't help much in wikipedia. Wasifwasif (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Wasif, I'm getting tired of this whole thing. If you continue putting forward nonsensical arguments, how else can one call these then? I am telling you again to look in to the article and find for yourself if the sources have been removed or are still there. Also, one of your edits removed the link to the main article on Godhra Train burning. How do you justify that? The people killed in that incident were all Hindus. Why do you always try to deny that through your edits? Any answers? Oh, please feel free to post the matter to Admin Noticeboard/Incidents. Because if you don't and revert this again, I'll personally do that. Shovon (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

user:SpacemanSpiff

This user continuously reverting and pushing his personal thinking and biased POV. Can anybody stop this ? 112.80.151.186 (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, in this particular case your actions are really vandalism -- changing the incident title to exclude one part of the events etc. —SpacemanSpiff 11:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
SpacemanSpiff has actually been one of the reasons this page has not gone to the dogs. Its fairly evident whose edits are being guided by "personal thinking (sidenote: I would hope your edits are guided by "personal thinking") and biased POV".Pectoretalk 03:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Mischief? [edits] by user:Wasifwasif

Hi, are there any reasons why sources are deleted and replaced by old sources, to change contents of material and make Godhra carnage look like accident when it is already proved that it was a conspiracy? This looks intentional.Thisthat2011 (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

One reason might be that your edits appeared to remove a reliable source and insert an unreliable source in its place. This is based on a quick look and not extensive investigation. Perhaps Wasifwasif will reply. In the meantime, let's assume good faith, please, and not suggest "mischief". Rivertorch (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Sources I mentioned are not unreliable. The sources mention only as much as judges, investigation officers and lawyers of courts say. user:Wasifwasif quoted older sources before judgment.Thisthat2011 (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected regarding the reliability of your source. My apologies. Unfortunately, I don't have the time just now to look into this in enough depth to develop an informed opinion on the content dispute. Rivertorch (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I think the edits are done again by the same user. What is the procedure to deal with this when he is not responding?Thisthat2011 (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The verdict is not final. Appeal is to be made based on Justice Banerjee committee report. Never come to a conclusion. Also, wikipedia is not the right place to show your anger through using words like Mischief. There is an etiquette followed here across the globe. Wasifwasif (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Verdict is not final has no meaning till it comes. By your logic till the Supreme Court declares that 1+1 is indeed 2 one will not accept it. The judgment of courts are out. It is indeed mischief to change contents to hide anti hindu massacre and pass it off as an accident. In fact, there is a court case in India against this that says-
Other survivors and relatives of those killed reacted with outrage at the Banerjee committee conclusion saying this flies in the face of evidence that they were not allowed to leave the coach and [20] burning rags were thrown inside by a mob that had gathered at the station. A court case was filed by survivors of the carnage against the committee.[21]
On 13 October 2006, the Gujarat High Court ruled formation of UC Banerjee committee "illegal" and "unconstitutional". The court also said that the report terming the Godhra fire as ‘accidental’ deprived survivors of his right to a fair trial, and the finding as “contrary to the facts of the case”.[22][23][24].
Which is exactly similar to this behavior i.e. "deprived survivors of his right to a fair trial, and the finding as “contrary to the facts of the case". I don't think that these kind of edits should be done without consensus and ignoring ruling of courts with outdated references.Thisthat2011 (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC).
So whatever is not favoring your bias is not to find a place here? Fact is always fact. let me post this in notice board and a wide range of audience decide this. Wasifwasif (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Let a wide range of audience decide for or against what is already proven in open courts in India after a long case trial. I would also like to see this. I just hope that no injustice is done to those Hindu pilgrims, their families and their human rights in the name of Human rights of those who burned the train and are convicted. They also deserve a fair trial. Thisthat2011 (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Its very obvious that injusice was done and being done with all the arms to the families of 3000+ human beings who were murdered for no reason. Its unfortunate that still people, even in this open media place wordings of this kind. " that no injustice is done to those Hindu pilgrims, their families and their human rights " . Wasifwasif (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that in riots innocent people were killed on both sides, and there could be no reason justifying that. But how does it make Godhra train burning look like an accident, or there are even 'reasons' mentioned blaming the Hindu pilgrims for their own massacre.Thisthat2011 (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
There should not be any discouragement of recognizing human rights of anyone, and in case of Godhra train burning especially Hindu pilgrims who were burnt alive. As mentioned above, it could mean to be misused in a fashion so as to "deprived survivors of his right to a fair trial, and the finding as “contrary to the facts of the case"Thisthat2011 (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
This discussion shouln't be about injustice or mischief. 31 people were convicted of the burning. It wasn't an accident, and its quite obvious that any promotion of the contrary view is tantamount to POV-pushing.Pectoretalk 15:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
ok. I must say though there is no need to make the massacre look like accident.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 16:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)
It is disturbing that an incident which took lives of 59 people is given more importance than an incident which took lives of 3000+ communally targetted people. Both are to be condemned for sure (If former was not an accident). But balancing the latter incident saying innocent people were killed on both sides is nothing but addition of fuel to the flame. Wasifwasif (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This matter of edits in the Godhra massacreis only regards to Godhra incident. In no way it affects other portion of the article and no way diminishes the later part. This edits are not about the rest of the article at all.
Please don't confuse the matter and pass off the massacre as an accident for any other reason.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 16:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)
Where's this figure of 3000 coming from? As per the reliable sources, around 750 Muslims and 250 Hindus were killed in the riots which took place after the Godhra incident. Wasif, you need to STOP pushing your POV. You have been told to do so numerous times earlier also, but haven't paid any heed till date. Shovon (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
@ Shovon. I was just looking for your entry here. Thank God you did. Yes. OFFICIAL are not all the time ACTUAL. Just give a google. You'll come to know the ACTUAL numbers of PGV. Wasifwasif (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Eitherway that does not change the facts that the edits about Godhra train massacre is correct. Lets get this thing done with because I don't want to discuss this any longer.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 20:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)
Wasif, will you ever understand the very basic principles of Wikipedia? I guess not. Instead of Googling, why don't you refer to the following - what Wikipedia is not, what are considered as reliable sources, neutral point of view. And no, Popular Front of India's website does not constitute a reliable source. Enough said. Shovon (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Browse through the reliable sources and come out with teh actual figures. Where from PFI came into picture here? Looks like fanaticism. Come with a open mind to wikipediaWasifwasif (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is not about how many people died after Godhra massacre. Please avoid edits you have done as pointed above..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 12:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Fanaticism? Oh! Well Wasif, your edits in this page and the article on Abdul Nazer Mahdani are enough to clearly understand the single point agenda behind your every edit. After having a first hand experience of dealing with your relentless POV pushing in multiple articles, I can no longer assume good faith. Even this section of this very talk page shows your lack of understanding of the policies. Shovon (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Even if i haven't well read the wikipedia policies, as claimed by you, that doesn't mean that you are not trying to push your POV. Me or you need not speak but most of your edits will as the above of dragging PFI does. Wasifwasif (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
@Wasifwasif: ROFLOL! Do you even know, what POV is? Shovon (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I BMHROFL. Do you know what POV means?? Wasifwasif (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 7

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 8

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 9

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 10

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 11

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 12

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

  • http://www.dawn.com/2002/04/30/top6.htm
    • In 2002 Gujarat violence on 2011-05-25 07:21:35, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
    • In 2002 Gujarat violence on 2011-06-10 09:26:12, Socket Error: 'An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host'

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 13

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 14

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 15

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 16

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 17

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 18

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 19

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 20

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 21

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 22

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 23

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 24

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 25

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 26

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 27

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 28

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 29

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 30

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 31

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 32

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 33

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 34

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 35

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 36

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 37

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect reporting of dead links

Hi, A few of the links above work alright. The dead links mentioned above are apparently because two '}}' are added to links when checking, perhaps by cite/book etc references.

Eg. "http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/2576855.stm%7D%7D/default.stm" is reported incorrect but in fact http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/2576855.stm is the correct link.

..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Hindu terrorism

Is this a joke? Its patently obvious that both sides, Muslims and Hindus were involved in the killings. Yes, the Muslims bore the numerical brunt of these riots, but nevertheless, an incident like this can scarcely be defined as terrorism. These were riots, and there possibly were massacres, but calling this terrorism smacks of Islamism.Pectoretalk 21:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Army Deplyment

wiki page says "One thousand army troops were flown in by the evening of 1 March to restore order. Intelligence officials alleged that the deployment was deliberately delayed by the state and central governments."

In reality first batch of army reached Ahmedabad at March 1 2:30 am and At 11.30 a.m, army was staging a flag march in Ahmedabad. It clearly suggests that army reached Gujarat on early morning not evening. The article also mentions that Modi requested army on feb 28 12PM [1] 116.74.11.59 (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


TIMES OF INDIA FIGURES NOT OFFICIAL

The myth spread by TOI that 93 muslims were killed and only 77 hindus in police firing is mere myth. No other news channel or media mentions this figure, BJP, GUJ POLICE AND VK MALHOTRA(IN RAJYASABHA) clearly mentions that majority of hindus were killed by POLICE FIRING and this seems more appropriate as i dont see many cases against MUSLIM MOBS, this is only a tactics of SECULAR MEDIA to show that GUJ GOVT AND POLICE were helping hindus(court and SIT rejected this allegation recently).ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


The indian media cannot be treated as a neutral media, dozens of articles exposes its hatred towards hinduism and their typical definition of secularism is just out of the world. Guj govt never gives any official toll, these indian media they create their own stories(all of whom were destroyed in courts). ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


A series of news articles can be put up here "WHICH WERE TERMED FALSE BY COURTs" this is the definition of "SECULARISM" by indian media. They defended the muslim mob responsible for godhra incident "UNTILL THEY WERE GIVEN DEATH PENALTY BY COURT" this shows that the main aim of indian media is very very malicious .ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3401728.ece this is the report which exposes another lie of TIMES OF INDIA and other indian media(anti hindu means secularism for these channels). I know that most of us(both hindu and muslims) knew that TOI claimed that MODI gave this speech " HAR KRIYA KI PRATIKRIYA HOTI HAI"(every action is followed by reaction) and muslims think that "MODI" was saying this to support "ANTI MUSLIM RIOTS" but once again "FEW DAYS LATER TOI PUBLISHED AN APOLOGY AND DENIAL THAT MODI SAID THIS BUT PRINTED IT IN SUCH A MANNNER THAT NOT MANY READERS READ THIS" therefore muslims you are fooled by these media by making you "MODI AND RSS PHOBIA"(the statement of Zakir Husain about RSS is the most correct one that "SOME FORCES ARE TRYING TO MAKE INDIAN MUSLIMS RSS PHOBIANS".

This report also proves that none of INDIAN MEDIA can be quoted as neutral article as far as "RIOTS ARE CONCERNED".

ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Muslim mob" wording

It's my opinion that while it's a quote from the source it should stay (see third line references, 2 & 3), but I am happy to discuss and reach consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 15:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


Vandalism by Ideologues both Muslim and Hindu. Please no propaganda (both sides)

Given a perception by Indian media that Amicus Curiae has "accused" Modi, many muslims and some pseudo liberals are trying to deviate the actual 25 Page report of Mr Raju Ramchandran, which actually praises and absolve Modi of all the conspiracy and other charges. Mr Raju as a lawyer express a Probability that "If Sanjiv Bhatt is true, lets assume then a case can be lodge and if Modi is found innocent in court then the case can be closed". This is the whole report of amicus curiae which has been distorted by Indian Media as "Evidence against Modi". Here are the releveant sources hope , all of you will go through the whole report(its only 25 pages).

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/gujarat-riots-teestas-plea-for-report-rejected/271651-3-238.html

http://www.firstpost.com/india/sit-vs-amicus-curiae-report-a-triumph-of-democracy-308146.html(wonderful article, the exaggeration of amicus report by indian media completely exposed)

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IwFYBbPGTv8J:www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3401728.ece+amicus+rely+on+sanjiv+bhatt&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vQnm40YKpi4J:tarabenmojagar.in/city-news/%3Fp%3D842+sanjiv+bhatt+strategiser&hl=en&gl=in&prmd=imvns&strip=1(Sanjiv Bhatt a strategiser as pointed by Amicus himself, his point that who is SIT to reject sanjiv bhatt evidence and that Modi should prove himself innocent are both useless.)

In short Mr Raju wants Modi to prove his innocence in Court. As far as i know the constitution , One has to be proven guilty in Court and not that one has to prove his innocence in court. Similarly who is SIT to reject Sanjiv Bhatt evidence. "SCIENCE" and "MODERN TECH" are the one to reject Sanjiv bhatt(congress agent) evidence , the time at which he claimed he was with Modi , however his Mobile record shows that he was 200 KM away from Modi Office that whole Day.ARIHANT SUB (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


Hi Arihant. your point of view seems pretty biased just like the people you are accusing. You are accusing Sanjiv Bhatt to be a "congress agent". whatever that means. Just like modi has to be proven guilty in court; so should sanjiv bhatt. Further there are accusations about the 'biased' indian media and then instead of the actual Amicus' brief you are linking to another media report.

Lets avoid all this propaganda from both sides (and the media? if possible). Lets find the actual SIT report and briefs to the SC and then we could use that to build the article. Case status' should be available here: http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/casestatus_new/caseno_new_alt.asp

but i dont have enough information to look it up. Thank you Anything2 (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism by editor

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Godhra+carnage+a+conspiracy:+Nanavati+report/1/16270.html

tHIS source was deleted by a user, which mentions the real theory that how the conspiracy was hatched and how the abduction of muslims girls by Hindu Men was spread to spread the riot which led to train burning. As expected no reason whatsoever was cited, most probably the user is a muslim using fake username of "sir and blah blah blah".Nitesh kumar nishu (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated

I have reverted this as the two articles are unrelated. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Article doesnt mention hindus who tried to help muslims.

This article makes it looks like all the muslims and hindus in Gujarat are right wing ideologues. The role of numerous hindus who opposed the Government and have actually been responsible for getting convictions in court.

This is from the Urdu media i guess: Anything2 (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC) http://www.siasat.com/english/news/hindus-fight-get-justice-muslims-gujarat-riots-great-untold-story-secular-india

citation needed tag

I have removed the citation needed tag in the section Attacks on Muslims as I found the section to be referenced well . If any user thinks it needs additional citation please discuss here before inserting the tag. --Naveed (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Mediation

There was a contrast of day and night in the versions of the riots as projected by the 'national' English media and the local Gujarati media. Not only that, there was a huge difference in the versions of the riots as projected by this same media in March-April 2002 and in the later months. The Hindu reports in its issue dated 2nd March 2002 that-"Unlike Thursday (Feb 28) when one community was entirely at the receiving end, today (1st March) the minority backlash has further worsened the situation".

The Times of India dated 18 March 2002 reports-"Riots hit all classes, people of all faith" that 10,000 Hindus were homeless in Ahmedabad alone driven out of their homes by Muslims. The Indian Express dated 7 May 2002 and 10 May 2002 also reports the Hindu refugees of Gujarat.

Muslims are on record starting 157 riots in Gujarat after 3rd March 2002. Hindus were brutally murdered by Muslims in Gujarat even after Godhra. There have been convictions of Muslims for rioting many times. On 28 March 2006 the Ahmedabad sessions court sentenced 9 Muslims for attacking and murdering Hindus in Ahmedabad's Danilimda area on 12 April 2002. On 16 October 2003, a Vadodara fast track court sentenced 4 Muslims to life imprisonment for killing a Hindu in Ahmedabad in March 2002. There have been two more convictions of Muslims when 7 and 2 Muslims were sentenced by various courts in Gujarat. 10 Muslims more were sentenced by POTA court for carrying bomb blasts in Ahmedbad buses in May 2002 by a special POTA court dated 13 May 2006.

India Today weekly also has reported many times on Hindus suffering in Gujarat. These primary sources should be enough to blast the myths carried out by the Leftist media on the Gujarat riots.

Sign for archiving Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Request move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Nathan Johnson (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


Per the following academic sources. Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India Princeton University Press. The Blackwell City Reader p141 Wiley. India: government and politics in a developing nation p74 Cengage. India briefing: takeoff at last? p5 M E Sharpe. The State of India's Democracy p184 The Johns Hopkins University Press. Technology and Nationalism in India: Cultural Negotiations from Colonialism to Cyberspace p5 Cambria. Perspectives on Modern South Asia: A Reader in Culture, History, and Representation p24 Wiley. Islam in South Asia in Practice p31 Princeton University Press. After Secular Law p281 Stanford University Press. Social Movements In India: Poverty, Power, And Politics p62 Rowman & Littlefield. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - So you cherry-picked a few sources and want to move the page there? That is not only adding insane undue weight to a certain opinion, it contradicts multiple well sourced and notable paragraphs of information in the article already, as well as being the more accurate and common title.Pectoretalk 00:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Are we just writing about Muslims killed in the violence now? There were more than 200 Hindus killed. --sarvajna (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Pectore, accusations of cherry picking is a personal attack, I was actually looking for sources on this being a genocide when I noticed that academics call it by the proposed title. As for the article being well referenced, the majority of sources are newspapers the few decent academic source say it was an Anti- Muslim pogrom The Production of Hindu-Muslim Violence in Contemporary India Reconciliation in Post-Godhra Gujarat: The Role of Civil Society calls it a Pogrom, Coalition Politics and Hindu Nationalism (wrongly cited as Hindu Nationalists and federal structures in an era of regionalism, that is the chapter name) calls it a pogrom. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Saying that you "cherry pick" sources is not a personal attack. It is a comment on your behavior, not on you as an editor. Secondly, the more common parlance in both academic and journalistic writing (which by the way are also considered reliable sources) is violence. Thirdly, the fact is that while the violence affected Muslims disproportionately, Muslims had agency and committed both the opening act of violence that sparked these riots, and multiple acts of violence that followed, so not only is this a fringe term but it is woefully inaccurate.Pectoretalk 17:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there is any evidence of any formal connivance from the authorities of Gujarat. Is there? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Post script
Google hits:
"2002 Gujarat violence": 75,700
"Anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat 2002": 500
"2002 Gujarat violence" seems like a far more popular way of referring to this post Godhra violence. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
It is quite depressing to see those opposing this supporting Godhra train burning being moved to the title Godhra train massacre what the majority of academic sources call it either a burning or an incident. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the fact courts of law have not only found that incident to be an assault, but have convicted people responsible for it play a role in people's decisions. Perhaps it is the fact that carnage is used very commonly in the media. Perhaps it is because (like Naroda Patiya) these are standalone events, rather than loosely tied violence that happened in a similar time frame.Pectoretalk 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you ought to read western academic sources instead, then you may actually learn something that you will not get from crappy newspapers. However this has given me a few ideas and something to mull over. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
There are policies governing reliable sources that I wonder if you have ever looked at. The fact you have to specify "western academic" and deem other sources "crappy" is a clear indication you are here to cherry pick sources and push POVs.Pectoretalk 22:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Proposal seems to be POV. Moreover, I'm disturbed by the fact that at present there are multiple attempts at AfD to delete articles somewhat-related to Gujarat violence. This could be a coincidence or not. Crtew (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes pectore, there are policies regarding RS, let us see what they say shall we? "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." So deeming other sources crappy, as in newspapers would in fact be spot on. I would strongly recommend you stop with the accusations of cherry picking and POV pushing, comment on the content, not the contributor. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Isn't that cherry picking? Do the policies on reliable sources start and end with the above sentence only? Shovon (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC) (deleted by Faizan, restored by Mrt3366)
Why this narrow focus on anti-muslim violence, Hindus were killed too, weren't they? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
One must wonder how many Germans died in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, and as to why that article is not titled 1943 Warsaw Violence? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
So what? Are we talking about 2002 Gujarat uprising? Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the name is as devoid of allusions to religious beliefs as it can get. Kindly resist the temptation to digress. (cf. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) You won't get any sympathy from me by doing that. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • During 2002 Gujarat Violence many Hindus fled their homes to stay in makeshift shelters after being attacked by Muslims mobs. Muslims weren't sitting ducks either, they were not acting like a bunch of pacifists during that time. Hindus have also suffered greatly from the violence in Gujarat. This attempt to narrow the focus down to only "anti-Muslim" violence is totally unbecoming. It was a Hindu-Muslim communal riot, that's it. Who started it first is hard to say since it's on from the time immemorial really. Wikipedia should not take sides. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
If the references supported that the genocide of Muslims was mainly inflicted by other communities, then obviously another "Requested move" will be there. Faizan 11:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
(ec)Nationalist assholes killing people over their religion, how is it different? I do not require "sympathy", you may reserve that for those butchered. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed with DS. Faizan 12:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

  • "Contrary to popular belief that only Muslims have been affected during recent riots more than 10,000 persons belonging to Hindu community have also become homeless." — "Riots hit all classes, people of all faith," Times of India, March 18, 2002.

  • In Ahmedabad, violence broke out on March 17 when Dalits in the Danilimda area were attacked by Muslims. On March 19, it was Modasa, a town in Sabarkantha district. A police officer's son was stabbed and two communities went berserk.... The stories only got more macabre. In Himmatnagar, a young man who went to a Muslim-dominated area to do business was found dead, with his eyes gouged out. In Bharuch, the murder of a Muslim youth led to mass violence. Next the Sindhi Market and Bhanderi Pole areas of Ahmedabad, hitherto calm, were attacked by mobs. This phase, really, was one of Muslim mobs attacking Hindus. — Human Rights Watch. Asia Watch. April 2002. Vol 14. No. 3 (C) p. 36

Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
The 2002 Human Rights Watch report[8] that you cite is an interesting case. According to the opening statement of the report:
  • "Indian government officials have acknowledged that since February 27, 2002, more than 850 people have been killed in communal violence in the state of Gujarat, most of them Muslims. Unofficial estimates put the death toll as high as 2,000. At this writing, murders are continuing, with violence spreading to rural areas fanned by ongoing hate campaigns and economic boycotts against Muslims. The attacks against Muslims in Gujarat have been actively supported by state government officials and by the police."
The HRW press release for the report[9] states:
  • "(New York) - State officials of Gujarat, India were directly involved in the killings of hundreds of Muslims since February 27 and are now engineering a massive cover-up of the state's role in the violence, Human Rights Watch charged in a new report released today....."What happened in Gujarat was not a spontaneous uprising, it was a carefully orchestrated attack against Muslims," said Smita Narula, senior South Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch and author of the report. "The attacks were planned in advance and organized with extensive participation of the police and state government officials.""
It is also true that there is a section of the report which documents "Retaliatory attacks on Hindus" (3 pages of the 67 page report). If I turn to our article what I see is the report is cited once to describe violence against Muslims (cite note 30) and 5 times to document violence against Hindus (cite note 33). The press release for the report is cited 3 times in relation to HRW claims of state complicity and cover-up (cite notes 32, 62). Dlv999 (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Read what the HRW wrote,

″Human Rights Watch visited Mahajan No Vando, a fortified Hindu residential area situated within the Muslim dominated area of Jamalpur, on March 23. Mahajan No Vando was the site of a retaliatory attack by Muslims on March 1.
According to residents, approximately twenty-five people were injured in the attacks and at least five homes were completely destroyed. Residents closer to the periphery of the fortified compound and its entrance also suffered extensive property damage. Muslim residents attacked the compound from the higher Muslimowned buildings that surrounded it using light bulbs filled with acid, petrol and crude bombs, and bottles filled with kerosene and set some Hindu-owned houses on fire. According to the residents, who had collected and saved the remnants of what was thrown in and showed them to Human Rights Watch, “There was acid in the glass bottles and in the light bulbs that were thrown in. They used solvent petrol, kerosene, and acid. They filled some Pepsi bottles with them.”ref
Like many Muslim victims of attacks, the Hindu residents of Mahajan No Vando were surprised at the overnight animosity of their neighbors. One resident told Human Rights Watch: “There were no problems before February 27. On the 28th, the VHP declared all of Gujarat closed. We didn’t attack anyone. We are all poor people, we live on our labor.”ref″ --Human Rights Watch. April 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3 (C)

All I am trying to prove here is although Muslims were the ones who suffered greater losses, that doesn't mean there weren't a considerable number of Hindu residents who suffered losses and/or were tortured, killed. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Since this article is supposed to cover all the aspects of the violence that took place, the current title seems the most appropriate one. It was not one single "pogrom", and it was not (only) "Anti-Muslim". It was a series of conflicts, in which people of more than one religion was targeted. - Aurorion (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Rename: Though I would like it to be renamed, the target page can be something like 2002 Hindu-Muslim Gujarat violence. As the Hindus and Muslims were the major participants, mentioning them would do no harm... —Шαмiq ☪ 📝 16:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
But you didn't explain what's wrong with the current name? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong, but particularising it would be better, I think. —Шαмıq ☪ т✍ 08:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment- If there is no consensus to change the name perhaps a solution could be to make a spin off article that specificalyy covers the anti Muslim pogrom, summered and linked in this article which will remain a collection of the totality of intercommunal violence including the train burning (which already has its own article which is summarised and linked here.) Dlv999 (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean content forking? That would need another discussion as to why do you think this article is not covering them suitably. But that's not to take place in this thread. Keep the focus on name for the nonce. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Is the section and link to Godhra train burning content forking? I am only suggesting doing the same for the anti-Muslim violence. Dlv999 (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
No, why would it be content forking? 2002 violence started after Godhra Incident, it is not subsumed by 2002 Gujarat violence. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: “pogrom” is incorrectly used here. This term originates from 19th-century Tsarist Russia where it was first used to label attacks against Jewish civilians that were instigated by the authorities but carried out by civilian mobs who acted with impunity while the police watched idly.
    But in Gujarat, the violence resulted from an anti-Hindu attack by Muslims, and there is no proof that it was solely based on instigation from the authorities. The authorities actually declared a curfew immediately after the first signs of attack — and this was spelled out even in the BBC report [10] — that's an attempt to lower the probability of riots. In the aftermath a good many people were sentenced to life in prison for their part in the riots, most of them Hindus, so the rioters did not go scot-free. These are the well-established facts. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
What you say are obviously not agreed facts. HRW, for instance, who you have been citing in this discussion, describe events as: "State officials of Gujarat, India were directly involved in the killings of hundreds of Muslims since February 27 and are now engineering a massive cover-up of the state's role in the violence, Human Rights Watch charged in a new report released today.....What happened in Gujarat was not a spontaneous uprising, it was a carefully orchestrated attack against Muslims....The attacks were planned in advance and organized with extensive participation of the police and state government officials.....The police were directly implicated in nearly all the attacks against Muslims that are documented in the 75-page report"[11] Dlv999 (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
What you say are not agreed facts either. They are only accusations, hyperbole and speculations (sometimes unfounded). I am saying we cannot act solely basing upon them. We cannot name it a "pogrom" based on people's unfounded conjectures and guesses, can we? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Well I didn't claim any agreed facts, I was simply pointing to a significant view that would refute your claims of "agreed facts". I should say I am not convinced about the rename. However I think the article has WP:NPOV issues. Let's take one example from this discussion. You cite the 2002 HRW report to prove facts about violence against Hindu's. When I point out to you that the overwhelming thrust of the report is that the violence was premeditated, state supported violence targeting at Muslims, all of a sudden the same HRW report that you have just cited yourself is now "only accusations, hyperbole and speculations (sometimes unfounded)". That's not consistent, whichever way you look at it. Dlv999 (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Which portion of my assertion exactly is dubious?
  • The word "pogrom" originates from 19th-century Tsarist Russia where it was first used to label attacks
    against Jewish civilian with the connivance and imprimatur of authorities ←checkY fact
  • Godhra Train Massacre was an anti-Hindu attack by Muslims ←checkY fact.
  • Hindus fled their homes to stay in makeshift shelters after being attacked by Muslims mobs ←checkY fact.
  • Authorities imposed a curfew in Gujarat ←checkY fact.
  • a good many people (mostly Hindus) were punished (sentenced to life in prison) ←checkY fact.
    • If you don't agree google it up, or search for archived pages of Indian News Papers. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

    Comment: As the use of the word ‘pogrom’ is disputed, why not consider replacing it with other alternatives? —Шαмıq ☪ тαʟκ✍ 12:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

    • Note to all: it is not established whether this article even needs a move or not. Tell me why do people think that this article needs a move? What is wrong with the current title? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose: Current title is neutral whereas the proposed one would indicate only atrocities on Muslims and exclude those on Hindus. Also the proposed one has wrong hyphen and spacing placement. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose: Wikipedia isn't a repository of illusory and allusive titles. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

    See also section

    I removed an entry per WP:Seealso. If I missed any, can these be removed as well? Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

    Three entries of Religious violence in India, Dabgarwad Massacre and 1969 Gujarat riots only should be placed here. Rest all are already included in the article above and hence should not be repeated. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    The article has a line "Further, RK Shah the public prosecutor in the Gulbarg Society massacre resigned as...". The wikilink of Gulbarg Society massacre is present here. Thats why it is not needed again in "See also" section. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    He regrets that and didnt know that his edit messed up. He said that on my talk page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    I removed some duplicate links and alpha sorted. --Malerooster (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

    CfD

    .-sarvajna (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    Darkness Shines' EDIT WARRING

    I reverted the edit that claims the view that the '02 gujarat violence is "riot" is only Narendra Modi's view. But the source says the opinions are divided, and it's Gujarat government press release that quotes Narendra Modi, hence it's not that he is only person who claims it. The source says (Reconciliation in Post-Godhra Gujarat: The Role of Civil Society p.71):

    Opinion has been divided over the labelling of 2002 Gujarat Violence. While the official Gujarat government press releases quote the Union Home Minister Advani and the Gujarat Chief Minister Modi as referring to the train burning as 'Godhra genocide', the subsequent massacres, looting and rapes are described as 'disturbances' and 'violence'. Would it be correct to term the violence as Would it be correct to term the violence as 'riots'?

    DS says here: Only Modi said this according to the source. Although this source is entirely anti-Modi, nowhere does it say that it's only Modi who refers to these acts as riots. Modi is a public representative, when he or other politicians makes official claims on the record that means he has the backing of the party to say the least. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    I had one revert, you had two, how am I edit warring? And the source says that Modi has said this, not anyone else. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    As the factual accuracy tag has been removed, the reason it being there somewhat obvious from above, I have had to tag this article as POV due to editors obvious ownership issues. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    It is the other way round, when I provided a source which gives court verdict you prefer some other source, it is same here. You do not like something and that is the reason why you are adding the tags.-sarvajna (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    Erm, no. I am adding the tags as I am fixing obvious POV and factual issues which are being reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    I am not opposed to the failed verification tag here.--sarvajna (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    But you are opposed to the addition of well sourced content? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    First, Paul and Gyanendra Pandey are not even mentioned in the body, I hope you understand that lead is a summary of the body. How important is the opinion of one person? even if it is important you need to mention it in the body as it is not proven that the govt was involved in the violence(Also, the admin who will see this section while closing 3RR, just note that this is the first time DS's additions of Paul and Gyanendra are being discussed).-sarvajna (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    sources to be incorporated

    • "Gujarat minorities facing 'marginalisation': Activists — Ahmedabad — City — The Times of India". Indiatimes. Retrieved 2 August 2010.

    Citation needed?

    Why has a CN tag been added to the lede? That line is already supported in the body of the article, the woefully inadequate and short Attacks on Muslims section. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

    Controversies on the riots

    Why is the Atrocities against women a subsection of this section? It ought to be a subsection of Attacks on Muslims section, so I am going to move it to there. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

    DS, this is POV pushing, I have changed it a bit [13].-sarvajna (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    One more question,In this edit, is this a governemnt estimation or estimations of some independent organization. I do not have access to the source. -sarvajna (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    Actually I have removed your edits from aftermath section as the same thing is present under security failure, feel free to revert. -sarvajna (talk) 03:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    No. From the look of it, I don't think that the source is quoting the official estimate. If it had, it would have made it very clear. The source says, "Under indulgent gaze of the state government, and against a backdrop of ransacked houses and desecrated temples, at least 250 women and girls were brutally gang-raped and burned alive."
    Although the current wording in the article is

    "It is estimatedA that at least 250 girls and women had been gang raped and thenB burned to death."

    On A. It doesn't frame it as an official estimate.
    On B. it does not say that the girls were first raped and then the same girls were burned alive. After reading the source it reasonable to think that it is giving a collective figure of those who were either burned alive or gang-raped. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    No, in this case it isn't. I realize English is probably not your first language, but you too could please look up the meaning of "and". The sentence is quite unambiguous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

    "Testimony heard by the committee stated that" ← is it Citizens’ Tribunal? Those long emotive quotes are needed, I presume? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

    Since when is an "official estimate" wikipedia policy? This is an academic source which says exactly what I wrote and which you keep changing, so stop. I told you in my editsuammary to look at p147, have you? But as you feel news outlets are better than academic source here Most of the rape victims were burnt alive Darkness Shines (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    If it is not an official estimate then you can mention it "According to ....". -sarvajna (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    Your suggestion is not consistent with core policy of the encyclopaedia. WP:NPOV states: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." - An academic source is good for facts in the Wiki voice unless another source of equal quality is produced that disputes the statement, in which case we present the opposing statements as "significant views". I don't think your preference for "official estimate[s]" has any grounding in Wikipedia policy or practice or any source evidence related to this topic. In fact if you look at what has been written in RS on this topic government data is not considered reliable. See e.g. "The Political Logic of Ethnic Violence: The Anti-Muslim Pogrom in Gujarat, 2002" (PDF). Politics & Society. 40: 483–516. December 2012. doi:10.1177/0032329212461125. Retrieved 19/06/2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link): "A systematic causal analysis of these events becomes a challenge in the absence of reliable data, assuming that government data tends to be biased.2" Dlv999 (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Don't put words in my mouth please I never said, I "feel news outlets are better than academic sources". I only opposed labeling news sources ′unreliable′ out of hand. I occasionally argue that the author is making personal claims which is based on illegal reports and are diametrically opposed to the official findings and verdict from a court of law. Thus it might not be logically sound to frame those as sources for extraordinary assertions of fact.

      I didn't delete the estimate. I just made an observation that it's not correct to frame it as an assertion of fact.
      About BBC report, it doesn't say 250 women were raped. It was published on 16th April, 2002. So it might be out-dated. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

    Dear sweet god almighty, the BBC link was just to show you how wrong you are, did you not get that? Read what FPaS wrote, and then self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    Kindly stop appealing to emotions and histrionics don't help. My comment still stands. If you have nothing to add to your arguments it's better that you leave this RFC alone and let others comment on it freely so that people like me don't feel the need to reiterate obvious clarifications. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    What? Your comment is wrong, unsurprisingly. You gonna self revert or shall I save you the embarrassment of admitting that, again, you are wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

    External Links

    Somebody please conform the "external links" section to WP:EL. There are multiple links which are already present as references. If I delete or add anything, there is possibility that I will be attacked, or vilified. I don't want that. Hence somebody please do it in a neutral manner. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

    Tag, why

    This article is a joke, I have explained in previous sections why we have NPOV and factual issues, until such a time as these are resolved I expect people to abide by policy and not remove the tag. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

    Again, you add tags when we are in the process of solving the issue plus you have already opened an RFC. "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    Where is that actually written in policy? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

    You gotta be kidding me

    here How is that not undue weight? The opinion of one person which lays the blame for the carnage directly at the doors of the victims. The article is just getting worse with every edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

    who were the victins in godhra train burning? -sarvajna (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    Is this article about the train burning or the violence in Gujarat? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    The last time I read, Godhra was in Gujurat and train burning was part of Gujarat violence.The first section is about Godhra and rest are post Godhra.-sarvajna (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    Again, is this article about the train burning or about the violence? The article already has as much an the train burning a it does about the violence. When a minority community is attacked and we have an article on it the focus of the article is meant to be on the people who got attacked. The violence against muslims section is shorter than that against Hindus, yet the vast majority of the violence was against muslims. Like I said, a fair few times now in fact, this article has massive NPOV issues, of course my tagging it is a waste of time as it is alwasy removed in violation of policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    I did answer that, cannot help if you do not want to hear it. I will repeat it again, train burning is part of the 2002 violence. This article is a general one about the violence, we need to mention about the attacks on all the communities. Have you read the article? The section on violence against Muslims is bigger. Cannot help if you see NPOV issues when they are not present. -sarvajna (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    And there was me thinking this article was about the violence after the train burning, NPOV issues, RS say this was a preplanned attack, article does not say that. Other issues I pointed out above. And as for this "An interesting observation with regard to media handling of Gujarat riots is that at the time of riots, the media reports had been pointing out the steps taken by Modi administration to curb riots and how even the combined strength of Indian Army which Modi had requested with few hours of riots having broken, and State Police could not control the situation. However, later, the media editorials became critical of Modi, sidelining the facts they'd already published" sourced to a blog piece. The article is a joke. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment: Darkness Shines, did you say obviously to my question about 1946 Bihar Riots? Shifting goal posts? Shovon (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    What exactly has that to do with this article? Darkness Shines (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    Of course, you can't comprehend! Wearing colored glasses do not help in creating or editing wiki articles. Shovon (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    No seriously, what does the violence in 1946 in Bihar have to do with this article? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry. I didn't notice the talk page discussion. Blogs and opinion editorials don't count as reliable sources as we all should know. Plus, if you're going to argue that the media is confused (which it always is!) or duplicitous, you're going to need something solid to back that up. Like an academic source that analyzes media coverage of the incident rather than an opinion. --regentspark (comment) 14:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

    So I removed the OR sourced to an Op-Ed which I pointed out here days ago, and it was of course reverted? Explanations please. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

    Here where? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
    Read the section, the entire thing is quoted about 6 response up. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

    Request for comment

    The following content was recently removed from this article, should it be restored? Darkness Shines (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

    These attacks have been described by Gyanendra Pandey as pogroms and a new form of state terrorism, and that these pogroms are not riots but "organized political massacres".[2] According to Paul Brass the only conclusion from the evidence which is available points to a methodical Anti-Muslim pogrom which was carried out with exceptional brutality and was highly coordinated.[3]

    References

    1. ^ http://www.indiatoday.com/itoday/20020318/cover2.shtml
    2. ^ Pandey, Gyanendra (2005). Routine violence: nations, fragments, histories. Stanford University Press. pp. 187–188. ISBN 978-0804752640. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    3. ^ Brass, Paul R. (2005). The Production of Hindu-Muslim Violence in Contemporary India. University of Washington Press. p. 388. ISBN 978-0295985060. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    • Comment: Just to be clear, the content was removed from the lead of the article not from the body and the content was not present in the body, Lead is the summary of body and if few editors want to overlook this simple logic then nothing can be done.-sarvajna (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If it is covered in multiple highly reliable sources, it can be included. I don't think the 2 authors you mentioned have enough credibility for such exceptional claim. neo (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    There are no shortage of sources which call this incident a pogrom, help yourself to a few Darkness Shines (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    I have do agree with DS. We have multiple gold standard academic sources giving a similar picture. See e.g.Barbara D. Metcalf; Thomas R. Metcalf (28 September 2006). A Concise History of Modern India. Cambridge University Press. pp. 299–. ISBN 978-1-139-45887-0. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help): "In the first years of the new century, as in the decade before, communal violence accompanied the growing liberalized economy. By far the most serious was the 2002 railway carriage fire at Godhra and the subsequent weeks-long concerted ‘pogrom’ directed against Gujarat’s Muslims..... The Gujarat state government, far from seeking to contain Hindu ‘reprisals’, tacitly connived at the ensuing violence. For three days the police stood idly by as Hindu mobs, led by VHP and BJP activists, using computer printouts from the records of the Ahmedabad municipal corporation, identified Muslim shops and residences, pulled their owners outside, killed the man and raped and killed the women, and then set the buildings afire. From Ahmedabad the violence spread to other Gujarat cities and even into the countryside. Order was restored only when the army was deployed throughout the state. At least 1,000people died and some 150,000 had to take shelter in relief camps.Few Muslims ever returned to the neighbourhoods in which they had originally lived." Dlv999 (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    First, the applicability of the word "pogrom" was discussed in detail here as well as on the AFD here. Harping on the same thing again and again is disruptive. I don't wish to repeat my claims again and again. This was not a pogrom, period.
    Second, Author's contentious claims are nothing but personal opinions. We must look to balance the weight. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Not the same discussion. Moving the article to a name containing pogrom, is not the same as including significant published views in the article (per our WP:NPOV policy) that characterise the events as a pogrom.
    • "This was not a pogrom, period." - I believe this comment is characteristic of major POV issues you have with this article. To wit, you believe you know the truth of the events and that your own beliefs about the topic trump what has been published in high quality academic RS. This is not how we write wikipedia articles. We should be putting aside our own beliefs. Identifying high quality sources and dispassionately representing what they say. If high quality RS (e.g. books published by distinguished University presses, written by professors in relevant fields) disagree on particular points, then we include the different viewpoints. That is what our WP:NPOV policy says.
    • Your final comment is incoherent. Academics published by scholarly presses are the best sources for articles such as this. Please see WP:SOURCES: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history..."'; WP:HISTRS:"Historical articles on wikipedia should use scholarly works where possible....Historical scholarship is: Books published by academic and scholarly presses by historians"
    Currently the article relies to much on primary source journalism from the time of the events. This type of source is not preferred for historical articles (again see WP:HISTRS) and should be phased out and replaced with the kind of scholarship DS is proposing. If there are alternate views in high quality academic sources, of course they should all be included per WP:NPOV. But as it stands trying to keep scholarly sources out of the article that is largely based on lower quality sources is simply not tenable. Dlv999 (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • It is not what MrT believes or some other author believes, this cannot be called a Pogrom unless it is proven. Did any court in India or International held the Gujarat or Indian government responsible for the violence?. There was an investigation against the Chief Minister for his alleged involvement in the violence, the Investigation team did not find any evidence. You provided a 2006 source above which is outdated because it has not taken into consideration the SIT report(2010) which did not find any fault with the state government.-sarvajna (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, it doesn't matter what I believe or anyone believes unless the allegation is proven in a court of law. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)@Dlv: I really don't know what to say, if your mind is already made-up. This IS about the same issue. It may not be identical but the refutations are going to be the same.

    If I had a bucket and showed you the bucket would you still ask for a newspaper article to prove that I had a bucket? That was not a pogrom because if it were majority of the sources wouldn't call it by any other name. They would clearly mention that POLICE connived at all this. The fact of the matter is, they didn't connive (look it up) even though some would have liked to see that. I reiterate, I doubt anything is more credible than the Verdict, presented by a Judiciary committee in a Court of Law, basing on the findings of a Supreme court appointed investigative body which were supported by years of investigation and literally thousands of testimonies. No charge could be brought against Narendra Modi. He was in a way exonerated by the report presented by the Supreme court Investigative Team.[14] As Dharma wrote here, ″academic research of any superior quality cannot replace a judicial decision″. I don't believe that the article currently depends very much on primary sources. Authorities imposed a curfew in Gujarat they didn't sit back and watch idly. A good many people (mostly Hindus) were punished (sentenced to life in prison). If this was a ′pogrom′ then I dare say every random act of communal vengeance is a pogrom.

    About Barbara Metcalf and her book:

    1. In the same book Barbara Metcalf calls the violence following Babri Masjid demolition an anti-muslim ′pogrom′, that is a far cry from violence, let alone a real pogrom. Plurality of Hindus died too. Don't forget Indian Mujahideen a banned outfit carried out terrorist attacks on Hindus citing demolition of Babri Mosque as a justification.[15] How is it a pogrom then?
    2. About the cause of Godhra Train Fire, she very brashly proclaims, "it was almost certainly not deliberately set by Muslims on the station platform, as Hindus frequently alleged". There is not a shred of doubt in her mind. She had already independently precluded the possibility of veracity in the allegations of Hindu witnesses before the investigations themselves were over. That reeks of an utterly inauspicious prejudice and a doctrinaire attitude.
    It seems as though she, in 2006, had more access to the info and evidences than the authorities of India did. She has clearly done it on purpose and I am not sure if that purpose is neutral or penchant-free. This one-sided focus on Anti-muslim violence while ignoring the plights of other faiths really strikes me as conspicuous to say the least. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)Let us leave aside the intentions of the author. In 2006, the author might have made some assumptions, many of the important verdicts like the verdict in Naroda Patiya massacre case the Godhra train burning case came after 2010, so we cannot use this outdated source.-sarvajna (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

    "this cannot be called a Pogrom unless it is proven." We have high quality academic sources that describe the event as a pogrom. WP:NPOV, a core policy of our encyclopaedia sates that we should represent " all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." These academics in appropriate fields that have been published by distinguished University presses are significant views published in RS on the topic. If this article is to comply with core policies and principles of the encyclopaedia this viewpoint must be included. You can't really get around that. We can't say that it is a fact unless there is agreement in RS on the point, but the text under discussion is for the material to be correctly attributed to the academic. Your point about the date of the publication of the source has some validity. But here we must be consistant. If you want to prohibit all sources prior to 2006 or 2010 do it consistently. As I have already pointed out a lot of the sources currently in the article are primary source journalism from the time of the events. Mr T's arguments critiquing academic sources based on his own beliefs on the topic are not arguments that carry any weight at all in Wikipedia. The two sources he does cite are journalism. We do not write historical articles based on journalist sources. You cannot cite a piece of journalism to refute what has been written by academics published under scholarly imprints (gold standard sources). Dlv999 (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

    • Comment: In addition to what Neo said, I say the following. Politically organized?? Who was convicted? In India, like other nations, people are presumed innocent unless proven guilty, if no politician is guilty of conspiring then how is it a politically organized massacre? Precisely these sort of unfounded innuendos we are required to bar from inclusion. Darkness Shines is pushing a very specific agenda on multiple articles and discussion boards. From Anti-Muslim pogroms in India‎ to 2002 Gujarat violence to Religious violence in India and so on. This is turning into an unacceptable pattern of persistent POV-pushing. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment - Both citations are high quality academic sources: professors in relevant fields published under notable academic imprints. I think the article is suffering from major POV issues and the way to get it back on track is to shift towards these kind of high quality sources and away from the lower quality sources. Dlv999 (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Question: Some have argued the viewpoints expressed in these academic sources should not be included in the article because of WP:WEIGHT. What sources are there of equal quality or better (i.e. at least professor of relevant field published by notable academic press) that dispute the viewpoint in the sources under discussion? Dlv999 (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment - I was directed here by the RFC bot. After reading the article and discussion I have to say that that the Stanford University Press and University of Washington Press are top notch academic sources. In the absence of compelling academic or other RS saying this was explicitly not a pogrom, they should be used in the article and lead. Further, the lack of criminal convictions of authorities is not dispositive. Pogroms, as I understand them, are violent attacks by a majority against a minority often with official inaction or support. Hence official inaction (lack of criminal convictions) doesn't rule out pogrom. I agree with Dlv999. Something has gone wrong at an article when solid academic reliable sources are dumped. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    Thats a sensible comment Capitalismojo. I have been asking this question of mine at various forums wherever this issue has been dragged by editors but everyone has refrained from answer me. Probably you wont. My question is; what is a pogrom? Your understanding is that the attacks are often with official inaction or support. Is this a universal definition of pogrom or are other definitions also available? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    RS saying this was explicitly not a pogrom - We don't include radical claims into articles based on absence of word-for-word negation. Majority of RSes don't call it as ′pogrom′ that is intrinsically saying something. You cannot demand that reliable sources specifically claim it was not a "pogrom". They won't do that. What they would do is call it by the right name and that's what majority of RSes are doing.
    official inaction (lack of criminal convictions) doesn't rule out pogrom - official inaction? But my point is, that the administration, the police were not inactive.
    lack of criminal convictions of authorities is not dispositive - but the verdict from the court of law is, I think. That this was a pogrom is an unsubstantiated fringe opinion and that is why measuring DUE weight is relevant. Something has gone wrong at an article when personal opinions of authors and syntheses of sources are callously included. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    Here are two more very recent academic sources describing the events as "pogrom".
    1. "The Political Logic of Ethnic Violence: The Anti-Muslim Pogrom in Gujarat, 2002" (PDF). Politics & Society. 40: 483–516. December 2012. doi:10.1177/0032329212461125. Retrieved 19/06/2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
    2. Parvis Ghassem-Fachandi (8 April 2012). Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-4259-9. Retrieved 19 June 2013.
    It is simply not credible for editors to keep making unsupported claims that this view of the topic is a "fringe opinion" in light of the source evidence that has been presented. Stanford University Press, University of Washington Press, Cambridge University Press, Princeton University Press. These are among the most prestigious academic publishing imprints you will find anywhere. They are not in the business of publishing "unsubstantiated fringe opinion". Dlv999 (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Here some more news reports(my emphases):
    1. [16]:

      The Supreme-Court-appointed Special Investigation Team, which submitted a closure report on the probe into the Zakia Jafri petition levelling serious charges against Narendra Modi and 62 others in connection with the 2002 communal riots, has not found any evidence of the Chief Minister having promoted enmity among various communities on religious grounds.

      In the section dealing with Mr. Modi in its 541-page report, the SIT on the contrary claimed that the Chief Minister had repeatedly appealed to the people for peace and had also taken due care for the rehabilitation and medical facilities for the riot victims in the relief camps.

    2. [17]

      ″SIT, which recently submitted a status report to the Supreme Court, has found no substantial evidence to show that Modi allowed the riots to rage on.
      Sources said the SIT found no substance in petitioner Zakia Jafri's allegations that there was dereliction of duty on Modi's part.

      Zakia is the widow of Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, who was killed along with others during a mob attack on Gulbarg housing society in Ahmedabad in 2002.
      Zakia had alleged the state administration failed to discharge its constitutional duties during the riots. Her complaint had identical charges against others, including cabinet ministers and MLAs.

      In March, Modi was questioned by the SIT after the Supreme Court asked for an investigation into Jafri's complaint.″

    3. The allegations are biased and baseless.

      ″Putting up a strong defence of the Gujarat Chief Minister, Mr Advani said in his 60 years of political life he has not known any of his colleague “so consistently, so viciously maligned by opponents as Narendra Modi”.″[18]

    4. SIT-representative R. S. Jamuar said in response to the much-touted "appeal":[19]

    "In comparison to the complaint as defined in Criminal Procedure Code(CrPC), this (the FIR) is not at all a complaint, it's a piece of waste paper to be thrown away, [..]It's a fiction or novel written by 4-5 persons and complainant Zakia has no knowledge about anything written in it."

    This sort of mudslinging and allegations are a part and parcel of a POLITICAL game. Wikipedia, fortunately, is not part of that political circle. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    As previously discussed journalism is not a good source for articles on contentious historical events, especially in this case where academic sources cite the "inflammatory" press reports as a significant factor in the events themselves (see e.g. citation 1. pg 486 in my comment above). Myself and DS have cited only academic scholarship and I would ask you to try to keep to a similar standard of sourcing. Dlv999 (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    If these were op-eds or personal opinion then your comment would have had some merit. But these are essentially analysis of SIT reports and quotes from the representatives. What's wrong with that? In fact what you think is "academic" is not neutral, I would argue. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    My comments are based on Wikipedia policy and guidance, which I have cited to you, which tells us to base historical articles on academic scholarship, and that journalism is not academic scholarship. Dlv999 (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    We are straying away from the main issue

    It is the allegation of State terrorism. These sort of outdated, prejudicial personal commentaries became even more irrelevant after the Supreme Court appointed investigative team's report was put forward. That accusation was a personal perspective of the "author" and what he thought was going on. He thinks India is a sponsor of "state terrorism". To frame India as a sponsor of State terrorism based on people's personal opinion is intolerable. As User:Dharmadhyaksha wrote at an AFD: "A historian doesn’t decide on whether a act is terrorism or not. He might opine on whether it is terrorism or not. A judicial system decides on whether it is terrorism or not."(emphasis in original) This is exactly the sort of scandalmongering Wikipedia tends to actively avoid. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

    Writings of a professor of a relevant field published by a prestigious University press in an area of his competence is not regarded by Wikipedia as "prejudicial personal commentaries". In fact this is just the kind of source that we can and should be including in our article according to our WP:NPOV policy, which tells us to include "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources".
    There is a substantial body of high quality academic scholarship discussing state government involvement in the violence. We have seen that published academics refer to the violence as a "pogrom". Gyanendra Pandey uses the term "State-sponsored terrorism" (text amended per DS comment below). I think the different ways the events have been characterized should be discussed as an aspect of the topic in our article, according to the high quality RS that have been cited in this discussion. I would say that what is more important than the semantic debate is the actual substance of what these sources are saying about the violence and the state involvement in the violence. Dlv999 (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    It is state terrorism, not state sponsored terrorism. And it is not the only source which says this. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    Even worse than State-sponsored terrorism. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Here is another up to date academic source to add to the list:
    "Unless later research disproves the proposition, the existing reports give us every reason to believe the riots in Gujarat were actually full-blooded pogroms. Two common reference sources define pogrom as follows:
    An organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group, especially one conducted against Jews. (www.dictionary.com)
    A mob attack, either approved or condoned by authorities, against the persons and property of a religious, racial, or national minority. (www.britanica.com)
    After the train was torched, the state made no attemot to preven, or stop, revenge killings. State police looked the other way, as gangs murdered scores of Muslims with remarkable ease. 7 The statements of NGOs most closely associated with Gujarat state government, run by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), openly supported anti-Muslim violence. According to the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), the BJP government did what was absolutely necessary: namely, allow Hindu retaliation against the Muslims, including those who had nothing to do with the mob that had originally torched the train in Ghodhra.8"(Atul Kohli; Prerna Singh (2013). Routledge Handbook of Indian Politics. Routledge. p. 157. ISBN 978-0-415-77685-1. Retrieved 20 June 2013.) Dlv999 (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Multiple reliable sources characterize this as a pogrom. To deny this because the Indian government did not prosecute the pogromists is absurd: the essence of a pogrom is that authorities look the other way and often covertly assist or collude with the attackers, as seems to be clearly established happened in 2002. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    • It would seem to be that the consensus would be to include the content. Any objections? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    Straw poll on moving the article

    I am thinking of doing a RM to 2002 Anti-Muslim violence due to my recent research on this incident. "There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law"[1] Before I do I would like to discuss the issue with those involved in editing the page. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

    Looks like attacks on Hindus, the Godhra Train Burning, and the Akshardham Temple Attack (all of which figure in 2002 Gujarat violence) and clearly factually disprove your research arent being considered? Obvious oppose.Pectoretalk 16:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    Oppose. Again? After you failed with "pogrom", now this? What about the Hindus, who accounted for 25% of those who were killed during the rioting? Shovon (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    This article is about the events after Godhra, all sources say this violence was an attack on the Muslim community, so how is my research factually disproved? Please note the academic source which says there is a consensus that these attacks were premeditated. If you do not come with sources of comparable academic quality to refute this then I will initiate an RM. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    Q: As I have asked above, how do you account for the Anti-Hindu violence unleashed by the Muslims post Godhra? You are always free to go ahead with your requested move at any point of time, but there also, will have to justify this. Shovon (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    There was no "Anti-Hindu violence unleashed by the Muslims" some were killed in self defense during their attacks on Muslims, some were killed by the police, the simple fact is that this was an orchestrated, sustained attack on a minority community. The article title needs to reflect the consensus of sources and what the academic sources say about the matter. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    Ohh! So you deny the authenticity of the news reports published in reliable sources? Shovon (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    Please provide an academic source which says there was an "Anti-Hindu violence unleashed by the Muslims" Darkness Shines (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    If you think that Indian Express and India Today are not reliable, please move to the concerned noticeboard. Shovon (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    Compared to academic sources, no. But feel free to provide the links. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment - The anti-Muslim violence/pogrom in Gujarat in 2002 is treated as a separate topic in its own right in academic sources already discussed at length on this talk page. It is also true that there were incidents that could not be characterised as "Anti-Muslim violence" that occurred in 2002 in Gujarat. E.g. the Godhra train incident and retaliatory acts by Muslims during and after the anti-Muslim pogrom. If the Godhra train burning warrants its own article and is also summarised here, the anti-Muslim Pogrom/violence certainly does, based on widespread academic coverage per the sources discussed in various threads on this talk page. One possible solution could be to create an article covering the Anti-Muslim violence/pogrom in Gujurat, 2002, which could be linked and summarised here in the same way the Gujarat train burning article is linked and summarised here. This article would remain a collection of all the incidents in Gujarat in 2002, with the topics whose coverage in RS (e.g. Godhra train incident, anti-Muslim violence) warrants separate articles being linked and summarised, as per Godhra train burning is currently treated in this article. Dlv999 (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    So by your way we also have to create article on 2002 Anti-Hindu violence/pogrom in Gujarat. The Legend of Zorro 17:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    Good idea, I will retitle this draft and move it to mainspace. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    rSolomon7968 My impression of the sources is that it would not be warranted, but I am open to persuasion if editors are able to produce a similar quality, quantity and depth of academic coverage that has been shown on this talk page for the topic of anti-Mulsim violence. Dlv999 (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    "I focus on the coverage of the political violence in the western Indian state of Gujarat in the spring of 2002 - which was widely seen as a pogrom against Muslims" Conflict, Terrorism And the Media in Asia p82 Darkness Shines (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    Do any of your *academic sources give examples of violence before Godhra? The Legend of Zorro 23:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    Any discussion of violence before Godhra would belong on the talk pages of articles on those subjects, not here. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    So since all of your *academic sources only give examples of violence after Godhra I propose the naming of your *future article be 2002 Gujarat post Godhra Anti Muslim violence. The Legend of Zorro 23:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    I come with the best sources per Wikipedia policy, you come with? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    Can't understand the controversy. I just proposed the name of your *future article and you agreed to what I asked. The Legend of Zorro 23:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

    Still waiting on the sources which describe the "Anti-Hindu violence unleashed by the Muslims". Darkness Shines (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

    Is that so Darkness Shines? Doesn't that mean that you haven't read the very article which you would like to move? Huh? Shovon (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    Actually I have, other than HRW, who BTW say the attacks on Hindus were retaliatory the section has nothing. In fact what I have written in userspace has more information. So, you got the sources which describe the "Anti-Hindu violence unleashed by the Muslims", or not? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    Do you mean to say that "10,000" Hindus walked out of their homes to prove something to people like you? Shovon (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    And, what does "retaliatory" mean? By many a persons' logic, the entire Gujarat episode was a "retaliatory" measure of Godhra. Don't come up with circular arguments! Shovon (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    Call me old fashioned but if a mob were to burn my home to the ground, rape my wife and children and then burn them to death, I figure I would seek retribution. That is what "retaliatory" means. Muslims were being systematically targeted and murdered, so they took retaliatory action. And 10000 displaced Hindus were a result not of "Anti-Hindu violence unleashed by the Muslims" as you claim, but as a result of either retaliatory attacks (which according to the sources were few) or fires which had gotten out of control, fires started by the Hindu attackers. Still waiting on your sources for your claim of "Anti-Hindu violence unleashed by the Muslims" BTW Darkness Shines (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    That argument, I guess, puts an end to all the claims to pogroms and all. The entire "Anti-Muslim violence" was unleashed as the Hindus saw their brethren being roasted. Per your argument only! Ohh, and for the sources, refer to the violence against the Hindus section in the article, if you have chosen to overlook it. Shovon (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    I already told you that the only source in that section is from HRW, the attacks by Muslims on Hindus are minimal. You have yet to provide a single source which refutes the sources I have given here, do you have the sources to support your contention of an "Anti-Hindu violence unleashed by the Muslims" or not? If you do not have the sources just say so. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    And, as I already pointed out, if you chose to push only your own POV and overlook others, just say so! Btw, that section also has references from Indian Today and Indian Express. Shovon (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    Erm, not a single source then for your claim of "Anti-Hindu violence unleashed by the Muslims" then. As I thought it would be. As for the other sources, pure junk. TOI an interview, should not even be used as a source. Indian Express, the same, neither of these sources should have any weight and are probably PRIMARY sources as they are interviews. And as for India Today it is already quoted in the HRW report, so circular citations there. So in total that section has one decent source, HRW. Now where are your academic sources which refute the ones presented here. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    So, sources do not carry any weight when they describe anything which is not to your liking? How else, do you justify your above comment on the Indian Express piece? Btw, where did I say that "Anti-Muslim violence" did not take place? I have said, and still do say, that anti-Hindu violence also took place, which you refute! Shovon (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    No, here is what you said "Anti-Hindu violence unleashed by the Muslims". I have asked you numerous times for sources to support this, you have failed to deliver. And I just checked WP:PRIMARY, those sources which are interviews, fail it, as such I will be removing them. Now, supply the sources, academic ones, which refute the entire purpose of this section, which was to discuss a page move. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    Nopes. Those are NOT primary sources. You may read those again. I will, although, wait for another uninvolved editor to revert your edits. And, talking about your proposal to move the article, it seems that only you think/believe the whole unfortunate episode to be a one sided affair. Why don't you provide a reliable source which says that there were no attacks on Hindus during the period? Shovon (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    From WP:PRIMARY "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." So yes, interviews are primary sources. Regarding your other point, I have already stated there were attacks on Hindus, however they were few and far between and were in retaliation for the systematic slaughter being visited upon them. All the sources, and I mean all of them, say these events were an attack on the Muslim community, you have failed to provide a single source to refute that. Unless you do I see no point in further debate, as all you have provided is empty rhetoric. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

    POV pushing by User:Darkness Shines

    I have noticed that User:Darkness Shines is replacing whole article with his POV article created in his user space. He is giving WP:UNDUE weight to some sources and trying to project that it is significant view of all sources. User should stop pushing his POV in article and self-revert all his today's edits. neo (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

    Excuse me? I have spent six days gathering sources and reading up on this subject, I am removing newspaper sources from 2002. thats right we have sources in this article from 2002, and am replacing them with academic sources. Per the obvious consensus in the RFC above, and policy, we ought to be using these sources. I have merged unnecessary sections, formatted references, and worked damn hard on the content. I will not revert all that work just because you think I am pushing a POV, I am following policy, NPOV. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    One other thing, I cannot, and nor can anyone else wholesale revert all my edits, I removed not only PRIMARY sources, I removed some per WP:BLPPRIMARY So if you want to revert you will have to do it a bit at a time and ensure you do not reinsert those BLP violations. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

    The article was totally inconsistent with the academic scholarship on the topic on which it should be based. Unfortunately I don't have the time to go through all the edits and read all the sources, but from what I have looked at and what has been discussed on talk DS is moving the article in the direction of the academic scholarship on the topic. In all this long list of discussions on this talk page I haven't seen a single editor cite a serious academic source to support their criticism of DS work.

    As I have said previously to make an WP:UNDUE claim you need to cite a body of academic scholarship that would contradict or dispute the sources that DS is citing. Just claiming undue with no evidence is not even worthy of a response. Dlv999 (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

    @Dlv999 Don't response then. Nobody is asking your response. No where in wikipedia there is any guidelines which states that we have to only use academic sources. The Legend of Zorro 08:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    WP:RS "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." Darkness Shines (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    This is not article on Quantum Mechanics to give importance to academic sources. Professors do not roam on streets during voilence. Courts, journalists and witnesses know better about such situation. Common people switch on TV or read newspapers for info about such situation. They don't buy such academic crap which make up stories long after the incident. Also it is well-known fact that conspiracy theorists tends to screw straight forward cases and publish books to earn money. Anybody can see that September 11 attacks article is using media sources. Wikipedia community is not using biased academic crap to support contents. Again, this is not article about Special theory of relativity. So pls do not try to impress with 'academic sources' words. Pls self-revert yourself. Thank you. neo (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    Are you seriously saying that the best sources per Wikipedia policy are "academic crap" and that newspaper reports from the period are in fact better sources? Do me a favour and go say that on the reliable sources noticeboard. And I am quite sure I already told you why a blanket revert cannot be done. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    BTW, Parvis Ghassem-Fachand, who wrote Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India Princeton University Press, he was there. Read his book, it is very good. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    We need scientists or professors to explain complicated science theories. We don't need them to explain why two persons on the corner of streets were fighting. Almost all the time some author publish book to tell something which is not covered by media significantly. If book covers what is already in media, then nobody will buy it. Their aim is always to create sensation to sell their books. Not every news source is reliable, likewise not every professor is reliable. Which media sources are reliable that is known, but which professors/book authors are reliable that's not known. That's the reason articles like September 11 attacks do not use so called 'academic sources'. Your attempt to screw facts by discarding reputed media sources and picking up biased 'academic' crap will not succeed. Thank you. neo (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    Read BLPPRIMARY before you revert again. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

    In your userspace you have evidence presented by one side of a court case, even though most of the court cases have already been completed. Wikipedia should not be standing with the prosecution or defense in a trial. Also statements like "Prasun Sonwalkar believes the media can play an important role in highlighting acts of action, or inaction and abuses of power" are obviously irrelevant to the article. Shii (tock) 16:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

    What I have been working on is far from complete, I have requested some journal sources and am waiting on them, both the trial and aftermath sections are very very far from completion. And media reactions to the events obviously have a bearing on the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    Okay, but I object to any attempt at "trial by Wikipedia". Adding pre-2012 accusations that the riots were orchestrated, despite the 2012 ruling that they weren't, is worse than using 2002 newspaper sources if they haven't been contradicted by later sources. That is not to say that there is no possibility of corruption in a self-appointed Indian government investigation. But it means a bigger claim is being made and an extra burden should be placed on books such as Internally Displaced People: A Global Survey or The Geography of Genocide which clearly are not about the violence in particular. Shii (tock) 16:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    The court judgement is irrelevant per our policies. Sources from 2013 still say it was deliberate, policy dictates so do we per NPOV, you will note I hope that in the lede I had written that Modi was blamed for the violence, and directly after added that he was cleared, no doubt that source is fine for the second bit </sarc>. How do you conclude that books which deal in violence The Geography of Genocide for instance is not about violence? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    As for the possibility of corruption, ‘KG Shah Is Our Man. Nanavati Is Only After Money’ Darkness Shines (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

    Template

    Template:pp-protected should be added on the page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

    Done. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

    Edit request on 6 July 2013

    Quote from WP:FULL:

    Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists.

    User:Darkness Shines started inserting his POV contents from this edit on 3 July. During 29 June to 3 July there is only 1 edit and that too non-controversial as you can see it here. So "clear point predating the edit war" exists. Hence I request Admins to restore this version. Thank you. neo (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

    I strongly object to restoration of a version you edit warred to keep. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    I have not made even a single edit on this article before today. I am requesting Admins to restore fairly stable version written by community over 10 years. You pushed your massive POV contents and then article is protected. This protection is rewarding your POV version and that's unfair. neo (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    Except it was not my revert which put it in this version was it, you reverted another editor twice and he reverted you. And I can tell you right now that, that mess is not "my version" it is now a mish mash of the old stuff and my fixes. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    That's why fairly stable version should be restored. That User:The Rahul Jain edits only Jainism articles. I think he jumped in here only to oppose me because of our disputes elsewhere and he mindlessly gathered your stuff and inserted in the article. neo (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    By stable version you mean the one you edit warred to keep right? The one which violates WP:PRIMARY, which I told you about above, and violates WP:BLPPRIMARY, which I also told you about above, yet you still edit warred to your preferred version because, in your words the academic sources used are "biased 'academic' crap" because they "make up stories long after the incident" as it is a "well-known fact that conspiracy theorists tends to screw straight forward cases and publish books to earn money". Of course I am the POV pusher, not you at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    You are using diversion tactits to divert attention of Admins. Citing some possible minor problem in the article to keep your massive POV contents. neo (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    You have yet to explain anywhere, let alone on this talkpage what is not neutral about the edits I did, and there are far more than minor problems in an article where the articles owners point blank refuse to discuss, call the best sources crap, and insist that any editor who disagrees with them is a POV pusher. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    (1) Some hindus harassed muslims on platform. (2) At the same time fire accidently started in train compartment. Magic happens! (3) Then hindus went on doing pogrom, genocide, ethnic cleansing blah blah blah of muslims. (4) Hindus were so murderous that they even went on killing hindus and during this hindu-hindu riot police fired bullets and some more hindus were killed. (5) 31 muslims were convicted for burning train and killing hindus but court judgements are irrelevant and POV as per wikipedia policy so they might be innocent.
    Thank you and good night. neo (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    Wow, so you casually dismiss all the academic sources which backed every line I wrote? Try reading our NPOV policy sometime will you. And you have the audacity to call me a POV pusher, sheesh. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

    The new version is not rewarding any particular person, due to the nature of the sequence of edits. More importantly, the WP:BLPPRIMARY concerns mean that we cannot switch to the old version until it is clearly established that said problems are removed. What I mean is, we must always be conservative when dealing with potential BLP issues. Everyone should participate in the WP:DRN proceedings. You should also all focus on policies--it doesn't matter how long the old version was up--if, as Darkness Shines claims, it was violating numerous policies, then it should be changed. Focus on finding good sources, on verifying claims, and on neutralizing language. Do not worry about who was first or second on the edit warring, do not try to guess what personal opinions someone has, do not tell your narrative of what happened, do not rely on primary sources to make claims. Find out what the secondary sources say, and report those. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

    @Qwyrxian: To be honest I wished you could have reverted it back, I dread to think anyone looking at this article may think I wrote what is now there. I do have a question however, when I spend six days finding the secondary sources, and then write what they say, I get call a POV pusher, and am told the sources are "crap", see above section. What does one do then? In user space where I have been working on sources and content I currently have 86 sources, am I expected to discuss every single one of them? Am I expected to discuss every single line I change? If so I may as well give it up, I had to do an RFC just to get two lines added, see RFC at the top of the page. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

    @Darkness Shines: You are experienced editor. You know article subject is highly controversial. You know every single sentence added in the article is being reviewed. Still somehow you think that editors will allow you to replace whole article with your version. neo (talk)

    If they had any interest in following policy, then yes. You have yet to point out a single thing wrong with the content I rewrote and added, all you keep saying is the sources are "academic crap", and I can tell you right now, unless you come with sources to refute what I have written, I will restore that content. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Tomorrow some other editors may come up with whole new version of the article and may expect other editors to point out mistakes in their version. Articles are written with consensus. Wikipedians do not review or discuss whole new version of articles. You are supposed to point out what is wrong in current article and submit your changes one by one. Don't expect at least me to discuss your version of article. If you try to insert your version of article, well... you know what will happen. neo (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Can you cite any references from Wikipedia policy or guidelines to back what you are saying? Rahul Jain (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Still waiting for you to actually point out a single part of the content I had written which was not backed by RS. Or what is wrong with any of the content I had added, reverting for no reason other than you do not like it is not really a policy. Pick any one section I had improved and tell me what was wrong with it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Comment This version is definitely better than what is currently there. I have no problem if the article is reverted to this.
    What's wrong in this version of article? neo (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    It violates WP:PRIMARY, BLPPRIMARY, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and a host of others. This has already been pointed out, are you going to discuss the content I added or not? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Which contents violate what? neo (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Please focus on the discussion at hand, you have objected to content I added, so I ask again, pick a section of the content I rewrote and sourced and tell me what is wrong with it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

    OK, refer this. Why you removed sourced contents supported by reputed media sources like CNN, BBC, TOI ? neo (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

    Please explain your objections to the content I had added, previous versions of the article are not the locus of dispute. Again, choose a section I had rewritten and sourced to the best sources per policy and tell me what is wrong with it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Again, why you removed sourced contents contributed by community? You could have added your sourced contents below it. neo (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Darkness Shines challenged the status quo sO I will expect that he can explain what is wrong with the previous version of the article with pointing out faults in each single source. The Legend of Zorro 18:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    (ec)For the fourth and final time, explain what you found objectionable with the content I rewrote, sourced to academic publishers, the best sources per policy. You are objecting to content I added, you need to explain yourself as to how the content is not in accordance with our policies. Your refusal to discuss only leads me to the conclusion that you have removed the content for no reason other than, you do not like it. That is not a policy that I am aware of for removing improvements to either sourcing or content. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    And your refusal to discuss why you removed sourced contents only leads me the conclusion that you removed it for no reason other than you don't like it. BTW, this is also against wikipedia policy. See WP:NPOV. neo (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) He is not objecting to your adding of academic sources but why are you removing sources without explanation like this. The Legend of Zorro 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    We are going in circles. I can think of two possible solutions; one we can use RFC to gain consensus that which (this or this) is a better version of the article or two, User:Darkness Shines can create a final draft in his user-space and then use RFC to move it here. Of relevance might be WP:CAUTIOUS Rahul Jain (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Nobody in wikipedia owns any article and I do not know of any instance where any editor is allowed to replace a 10 year community written version with a user space drafts. The Legend of Zorro 18:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    (ec)The locus of dispute is the content I added and rewrote in accordance with our policies. As you have now point blank refused to discuss the content I had added I will restore my changes once protection has expired, further removal of academically sourced content in violation of our policies will be reported to the appropriate notice boards. Should you wish to discuss the content I will respond, until such a time as you do this conversation is over. I would recommend you start with the first section I had expanded and rewritten in accordance with NPOV. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • @Solomon7968: This is like some user removing sourced content "Earth orbits around the Sun" from Solar System article and then adding sourced content "(15760) 1992 QB1 orbits around the Sun" and arguing with users to show mistake in his addition, not removal. Weird. neo (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Faulty analogy and completely irrelevant to the discussion. Rahul Jain (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    TRJ, I know you are here only to oppose me. If I say that Earth is round, you will try to prove that Earth is flat and you will keep eating my head. But still let me explain what DS is doing. DS removed sourced contents which state or imply that muslims were involved in train attack. Then he inserted contradictory sourced text which repeatedly state that fire was accidental and muslims were just accused. As per WP:V:

    When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view.

    DS should have kept both sides of story as per NPOV. Why present only one side? Somehow he is thinking that he can force community to focus only on his version and forget the 10 year old sourced contents in the article. I am unable to grasp why he resorted to such attitude. neo (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Finally, we are discussing my edits, your assertion that I removed content which says the train incident was not an attack is easily disproved, as can be seen in this diff "This investigation known as the "Shah-Nanavati commission" concluded that the attacks on the train had been pre-planned and was the result of a conspiracy by locals." Darkness Shines (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Also from the lede which I had rewritten, this diff "The attack on 27 February 2002 on a train, assumed by most to have been carried out by Muslims" Darkness Shines (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    What? That diff clearly shows that you have removed sourced contents. Why are you reading out your version? neo (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Please indent and format your posts correctly. You stated above that "DS removed sourced contents which state or imply that muslims were involved in train attack." This statement is obviously incorrect. I am reading from the content I had written as that is the content you took issue with. Please move on to the next part of my content you believe is problematic. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    The lede is decided by contents. Let's talk about it later. You have not answered why you removed sourced contents from 'background' section. You have just read out Nanavati commission sentence which is your version. neo (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Please read WP:INDENT, I intend to discuss only the content you reverted as that is the locus of the dispute. Please move onto the next issue you have with the content I rewrote, improved and expanded upon. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Let me try again. While adding your content, you removed existing sourced contents. Removing sourced, verified contents from articles is not allowed. If some editor do it, we editors in anti-vandal, patrolling unit simply revert his/her edit. Then editors are supposed to explain why they removed sourced contents. Got that? So again, why you removed sourced contents? neo (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Again, content was rewritten, improved and expanded upon. I will only discuss your revert of the improvements made to the article, I will not respond again unless you discuss your issues with my improvements. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

    Let me jump in here and correct a number of errors in policy in the above posts. First of all, "removing sourced, verified contents from articles" is certainly allowed, so long as there is a specific reason for do so. Meeting WP:V is not a guarantee of inclusion, it's merely the bare minimum requirement. Other policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:PRIMARY, etc. also come into play. Solomon7968, it is actually absolutely acceptable to replace an article, even one with a long history, with an entirely new version--I've done so myself, and gotten the new version promoted to good article status. A complete replacement is, in fact, sometimes the best approach, if the previous version is fundamentally flawed (note that I'm not saying that applies here, merely that there is no special deference given to an article based on age).

    Having said all of that, Darkness Shines, I do have to say that I think you're reversing the burden here a bit. You're the one who made the major changes, so it really is up to you to show what was wrong with the previous version. You don't need to explain every change in detail, but you need to explain something more than you've already done in edit summaries. I can see 2 basic ways to proceed. The first is to go through the article section by section and explain the problems. Again, this doesn't need to be line by line, but tackling each section can be easier--and DS needs to be the one to start with the specifics. Alternatively, DS can propose an RfC asking the community to compare to versions of the article, and just attempt to make the changes wholesale; that's fine if it works, but keep in mind that if there's no consensus for the whole change, it may make changing individual parts more difficult for you. Finally, though, until such time as someone can answer the WP:BLPPRIMARY issues, the old version cannot be reinstated. BLP always trumps other rules, and the concerns raised by DS are sufficient (though unproven) as to require that we defer to the changes until consensus can be established. If necessary, involved WP:BLPN on this point. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

    (ec)I disagree, two reasons were given two sections up for removal of the improvements made, one was NPOV, it has yet to be explained how my edits violated NPOV, whereas what I rewrote did. Here is an example, from the first section I rewrote. diff Compare the two, old version, no mention of BJP & VHP incitement to violence, no mention of the fact the attacks were coordinated, or preplanned, or that local newspapers printed false stories. This is obviously not neutral. As can be seen from a later diff I had begun to add that curfews gad been imposed, I was then reverted for the reasons already mentioned before I had finished. The editor who reverted my edit needs to explain what was not neutral about the edits. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Agree with Qwyrxian. It is POV of DS that what he has added is 'improvment'. But I am seeing that while adding contents he has removed sourced contents which severely affect neutrality of the article. On wikipedia articles are written by consensus. Wiki articles are not facebook status where people can post what they want and expect others to 'LIKE' or comment but not to remove their status. Good night. neo (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Neo, you did not listen to me, or not understand me. You keep saying "his version was POV" and "affected the neutrality of the article"...but you have never once even begun to explain why. If I were arbitrating, which I'm not, I'd reinstate DS's version purely on the basis of the fact that his opponents are just making crap up. You can't just say "POV POV POV POV POV" and then not give even one example, not provide one piece of policy to support your position. Yes, some of the burden falls on DS, but every time he's raised a specific, you've simply ignored him. If you and others continue to do so, it will be clear that consensus (which, by definition, cannot include positions which are unsupported by policies) will be in favor of his version. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

    @Qwyrxian: I have asked DS above. In this edit he removed sourced content which state that muslims attacked train in conspiracy and court has convicted 31 muslims and then he inserted entirely different version which essential state that fire was accidental and muslims were not involved in it. He is refusing to answer it. Removing sourced contents is acceptable only if there is reason and consensus. neo (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

    Erm, did too. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    No, you didn't. You removed contents and sources which describe the train attack and conviction. Then you inserted "locals" word for "muslims" citing 'Shah-Nanavati report'. And you went on to add in next sentence that Shah was BJP's man and Nanavati can be bribed. This tone is used to make readers believe that Shah-Nanavati report was fake. You also removed info that muslims are convicted for train attack. You could have added your contents below the existing contents. But you are still refusing to explain why you removed it. Your contents do not cover what was previously in that section. neo (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    Per NPOV the Tehelka report has to be added, and it has to be added there for the same reason. I removed that Muslims had been convicted as that information was already present in the Prosectutions section where it belonged. Duplication of content is quite simply bad editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    And as for NPOV, anyone who thinks this is neutral has no concept of what neutrality is and should not be allowed within a mile of contentious articles. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    You have replaced entire section. If the text is relevant, duplication is allowed. Placing the text somewhere else to affect the tone of article is POV. Also the 'prosecution' section is changed as per your tone in your version lateron. If you think this version is not neutral then you could have included your contents below it. What makes you think that NPOV of entire community is concentrated only in you? Until you agree to include existing contents, this discussion is useless. neo (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    No, Neo, information should not be duplicated in an article, except one duplication between lead and body, and sometimes duplication between templates/charts and body text. I'm growing more and more concerned that you are simply making up policy as you go along, because every time you make claims, they seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with our rules. Oh, and just to be clear, I'm no longer acting as an admin on this page; I think I've made enough comments to be WP:INVOLVED. And DS's link to the old version shows both POV and BLP violations. There clearly was a need for a major overhaul of the article. Now, perhaps DS's method was extreme, and could have been done differently, but there is no doubt in my mind that the old version violated several of our policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    Why are you magnifying that 2 line of BLP thing to support replacing whole article? That is removed and done and is over. And I am saying he removed entire section about attack by muslims, not just conviction thing. And as a admin you have declined edit request, made edit to the article, now you can't pretend to be normal user.
    Community's consensus is necessary to consider. I can't talk on behalf of entire community about replacement of the article. I may ignore some points during discussion. Hence I am going for Rfc. neo (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    I find the Rfc highly inappropriate. The opening statement should have been brief and neutral. Something like "Should this article be reverted to version 563017140 or version 563072333" would have served the purpose. Rahul Jain (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    I did not remove an entire section, stop with the obviously false statments diff I expanded the section and brought it in line with NPOV. Nothing was removed, it was rewritten to comply with policy. Question, Neo. is this source suitable for the edit it supports, which is this "in a conspiracy" and has that source been used in a neutral way? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment As stated on ANI, I have walked out of this discussion as I can't discuss the issue freely under threat by Admin Qwyrxian. But that doesn't mean that I have endorsed version of DS. If I see POV contents in the article, I will edit the article as per WP:BRD, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Thank you. neo (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    You are not under any threats at all, if you refuse to discuss then you have no right to revert any improvements made to the article. You are basically saying you will edit war to your preferred version and not discuss, that is not on. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    ah? Due to some recent happenings my head is screwed and I walked out in protest. I will discuss lateron, not now. BTW, I have replied to your question on ANI. neo (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    1. ^ Craven Nussbaum, Martha (2008). The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future. Harvard University Press. pp. 50–51. ISBN 978-0674030596.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots/Archive_5&oldid=1075955483"