Talk:2002 Gujarat riots

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:2002 Gujarat violence)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India / Gujarat / History / Politics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Gujarat (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (marked as Top-importance).
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
Note icon
This article was last assessed in August 2013.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Hinduism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Islam  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Largely one sided and biased article[edit]

The article seems to have been biased and extensively cites books and articles strongly favoring one side of the opinion while largely ignoring the other side. The editors of this article have chosen to ignore the facts upon which the courts have pronounced their judgements, a problem which the entire article suffers.

The section on the train burning incident is largely one sided and written like an advertisement for the defendants of the subsequent court case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclaren9 (talkcontribs) 00:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I have fought a long battle here and I was cornered by the anti-Indian editors here that I am sock-puppet. Imagine, how a Neutral Wikipedia editor like me will feel. I nearly lost my energy in touching this article henceforth. - Vatsan34 (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that there was a right-wing Government in Gujarat when the riots took place. The human rights organisations accused that the Government was complicit in the riots and those accusations have stuck. They have been widely distributed and repeatedly reused in the academic literature. Only after submissions have been made to the Nanavati Commission and the Special Investigation Team of the Supreme Court of India that we realize that many of these accusations were rumours, fabrications and unfounded allegations that cannot stand up to judicial scrutiny. However, these allegations are out there in the literature and Wikipedia dutifully reports them. The people interested in balance need to go and find other sources (preferably academic sources) that provide alternative descriptions of the happenings and add them here. That is the only way to achieve balance. Uday Reddy (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The "problem" here is that people conflate "complicity of the government" with "complicity of Narendra Modi." The complicity of the government, or at any rate members of the government, is rather non-controversial at this point; Maya Kodnani was convicted, for god's sake, and her guilt was acknowledged by Modi's government. Modi's own complicity has been alleged, but never proven in a court of law. Wikipedia policy says that academia is given more weight than court rulings; therefore, the article reflects this. If you are unhappy with this policy, take it up with Jimbo; don't complain about it here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 I didn't complain; I was making a constructive suggestion. I am not sure which "people" you mean conflate the complicity of the government with complicity of Narendra Modi. If you mean the authors cited on WP, I agree. I believe WP should be more discerning, and I believe it should cite authors who are discerning. That is not the case at the moment. For instance, the article says at this time that the US State Department has alleged that "Modi" has revised textbooks. Did it? Did he? I have no idea. Cleaning up this article seems like a humongous task. Martha Nussbaum says, "Because evidence of his criminal activity is so overwhelming, he has been denied a visa to enter the United States". I haven't seen the US State Department say anything about any "criminal activity" of Modi. It cites the Indian Human Rights Commission, which talks about failure of the "government," not of Modi. As you know, I have objected to Nussbaum being used as a source. I find her writing on this subject to be of poor quality. Uday Reddy (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Peace. My comment was directed less at you and more at the general body of users that periodically make comments here about how the article has a anti-Modi bias, or something along those lines. I still stand by what I was saying, though, in that any "bias" in this article is a product of the policy on sourcing, which gives more weight to academic sources. You appear to appreciate this, which is good. This is not to say that the article is perfect, but in terms of neutrality, I believe it reflects academic consensus fairly accurately, and this is especially true of the train incident section. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The academic consensus is changing and will continue to change. Now that Modi is the Prime Minister and the world paying attention, the academic writing will come under much closer scrutiny and they can't get away with using Modi as their favorite punching bag. The Nanavati Commission report, due to come out any time now, should also give us a much better handle on the facts. Uday Reddy (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Academic consensus on Modi as an administrator may be changing; I see no evidence of academic consensus on this particular incident changing very much. The shift seems to be around how much this incident defines Modi. Regardless, that is somewhat speculative on my part; you seem to agree that it reflects current academic consensus, so let it rest. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
hmm... Long story. I was banned when I protested replacement of whole article by just one editor. It is so disgusting story, I was harassed to such an extent that I left this article. Abhi (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Biased Article[edit]

Article is highly biased and tone is Anti BJP. e.g. "Chief Minister Narendra Modi has been accused of initiating and condoning the violence, as have police and government officials who allegedly directed the rioters and gave lists of Muslim-owned properties to them.[12] In 2012, Modi was cleared of complicity in the violence by a Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court of India." In July 2013 allegations were made that the SIT had suppressed evidence.[14] On 26 December 2013, an Indian court upheld the earlier SIT report and rejected a petition seeking prosecution of Mr. Modi.

This should be part of Inquiry and not main section, if required.

Again section

Modi and Rana had used inflammatory language which could worsen the situation.[49]

Mostly reference is given as some book specially from foreign author which is not solid evidence as newspaper. All such sentences should be removed/rephrased and article need to be wikified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepeshdeomurari (talkcontribs) 19:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The sources are fine, academic ones are better then newspapers. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
These people are clearly racist. They consider Indians as no-brainers and consider Hindu names as bigotry and need to be avoided. I say it, straight from my brain here. -Vatsan34 (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@Vatsan34:Sorry, who is "clearly racist"? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Those who had claimed Indian editors as pro-BJP, pro-Hindu. For Anyone's Info, I consider myself as irreligious and have no sympathy for any religion. As a logical thinker, I found too many lapse from neutrality in this article from my past interactions here. I still stand by it. This article is written purely in Muslim side. And this is not blind accusation. -Vatsan34 (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but who here has claimed that "Indian editors as pro-BJP, pro-Hindu." are what? Your statement makes little sense. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
It was claimed here that all Indian editors try to insert pro-BJP material into the article. I am not at all related to BJP, nor does my political affiliation forces me to edit this article. I once again affirm that I wanted to make this article NPOV, which this article totally lacks. Respected Sir, Please correct me If I had not followed any WikiPolicy in this statement - Vatsan34 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Biased article[edit]

I request administrators to read the links of sources given below in order to come to a conclusion.The current version of this page is heavily biased in favour of a particular community.

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] I have added few extra links.Rest are same as the previous ones. and darknessshines don't remove this section. --ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would I remove a section? I have however removed some linkvios and one BLPPRIMARY violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This link was part of the article in old version.there were others also which was removed.The attack on hindus section is biased as can be seen through my links.But some bad faith editor removed this http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/postgodhra-riots-dna-test-nails-4-killers/4719/0 ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no purpose in discussing anything with you, given you are about to be blocked for sockpuppetry. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I think most of the above links come from RS. But are these references already part of this article? I didn't check the page112.79.38.174 (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC) You don't want to discuss with me , I have no problem with that.But you must give some reason why the above references from reliable sources can't be included in this topic--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

How to find Sockpuppet the User:Darkness Shines way? Anybody trying to bring neutral point of view to this article is a sockpuppet. -Vatsan34 (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
He is currently blocked for socking, so keep your pointless allegations to yourself. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
That's a pointed allegation. I had mentioned it in point. wink wink -Vatsan34 (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes Vatsan34, i think you are right. if the opinion is free opinion and not in favor of some people then they start to make point of sock in order to prevent your opinion from coming to the surface. This article is biased. 112.133.203.148 (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Sock on a proxy, now blocked Darkness Shines (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
As DS pointed out, the user in question has in fact been blocked for sockpuppetry, and so your accusations are completely off the mark. I suggest both you confine yourself to content based arguments henceforth. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
It is not. I had been accused for Sockpuppetry based on evidences as strong as a bird's feather. I felt offended , but I conveyed it here in a funny manner. -Vatsan34 (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Vatsan; I was referring to the IP, who was indeed blocked for sockpuppetry. I said that the lesson to be learned there, was to confine the conversation to content. I did not make any accusations about you. Is that clear? Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Mention of religion[edit]

Either do not mention the religion of attackers and victims, Or mention them both. It is mentioned only when the victim is Muslim and attacker is Hindu, while it is not mentioned when the attacker is Muslim and victim is Hindu. Take, for example, in Godhra train burning section, it is mentioned 'a mob of 1000 people'. Almost all press reports (no, not even single newspaper in India is pro-BJP or pro-Hindu, so just relax) point to the direction of Muslim mob burning the train. Coming to the books being more reliable than newspaper, How can foreigner know about what happened in India? What kind of people he had interviewed? Will the investigation by Special Investigation Team be lesser accurate than investigation by a nobody knows Foreign author?? I have doubts on the accuracy of the facts mentioned in the books sourced here. So, let me just say it here and then raise it in the reliable sources section. Thanks! - Vatsan34 (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you here, the clean chit and whatnot is already mentioned in the lede, why add it again? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood it. Those are the recent developments in the case and I am sure it is related to the article. -Vatsan34 (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

Any possibility of including an infobox at the top right? I think "Infobox civil conflict" will be of good use. Can provide a statistical brief data about the riots. - Vatsan34 (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No, what is the point? Anything added to it will be disputed by another source, that is why the infobox was removed to begin with. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Disputed by another source is the backbone of Wikipedia. Only when we give room for all reliable sources, we can achieve a Neutral article. Books and Newspapers may contradict each other, but both are reliable in its own way. Both goes through scrutiny of its publishers. Let us not decide what is best, let us decide what can be added to show all sides of a particular topic. - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
DS, for once I have to disagree with you, I believe a carefully monitored civil conflict box may be useful. We can leave out any and all information about perpetrators, and so forth, stick to casualties, damages, timeline, locations, and such....what do you think? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Which casualty figures? There are several, Damages? There were thousands of structures destroyed or damaged, which ones do we add? All information about perpetrators? That is in the thousands, who do we pick out for special treatment in an infobox? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Um, okay, that's fair. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Articles as complex as Syrian Civil War has infobox. See its size and contents even. Casualty figures mentioned by Indian (non-BJP) Government is there. Structural damages are not there in Civil Conflict infobox, for I myself had added it for similar riots articles. - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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: moved. A majority of !voters opposed the move, but the only evidence presented showed that the WP:COMMONNAME is overwhelmingly 2002 Gujarat riots. The opposers preferred to substitute their own judgement of what the events should be called, which is not how article titling works except where there are WP:NPOV issues. In this case there were NPOV arguments on both sides, both unsupported by any sources, so have I discount those in weighing the discussion as a WP:CONSENSUS to move. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)



2002 Gujarat violence2002 Gujarat riots – This article essentially covers the period of rioting that followed the Godhra train burning. Reviewing news sources covering the event shows the large majority of these sources refer to the period as the "2002 Gujarat riots"; thus, in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME, I propose this page be moved to "2002 Gujarat riots". Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC) NickCT (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose This was a deliberate attack against a minority community, violence is the correct term, will support a move to Anti Muslim pogrom in Gujarat, which is backed by RS Darkness Shines (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Considering the references given here[19] still you are not changing the Attack on Hindus section.254 Hindus got killed but still this is anti Muslim pogrom.You are very clever and experienced.The editors should not have any bias towards any community or religion. Previously I had to face LX in Total Siyapaa who was neglecting my reliable sources and now I have to face you. You have got lots of medals for anti-vandalism.I don't know how you got support from administrators--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Riots" suggests that they were spontaneous; sources say the violence was anything but. "Violence" is appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It is spontaneous, not pre-planned. So definitely not a pogrom or even violence. Gujarat riots will be perfect title. Indian media (not pro-BJP) use this word. - Vatsan34 (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Vanamonde95.—indopug (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2014 (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.

WP:UNDUE to Martha Nussbaum in lead[edit]

There are many authors who commented on the issue. Though her views are noteworthy, why should the views of one author be highlighted in the lead? We have already said it was ethnic cleansing (" Still others have said the incidents were tantamount to ethnic cleansing"), premeditated ("Some commentators, however, hold the view that the attacks had been pre-planned, were well orchestrated, and that the attack on the train was a "staged trigger" for what was actually premeditated violence"), the complicity of the state government and officers of the law ("called it an instance of state terrorism."). What new idea does the quote add? The quote just repeats what the lead has already said. Martha Nussbaum is not the ultimate authority on the subject and there are hundreds of scholars who have commented on the issue. Why does Nussbaum get the privilege to be in the lead over all the others? The only two other people linked to, in the lead are Modi and Teesta who are part of the event. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The source is exemplary: A scholar published under a prestigious academic press. And in fact the quote does add something significant, Nussbaum is not giving us her opinion on the issue. She is stating that there is a "broad consensus" on the nature of the events. In Wikipedia we are obliged to WP:Weight articles according to the prominence of different views in RS. Our policy also tells us that academic, peer reviewed sources are the highest quality sources to use. If a high quality academic source tells us that there is a "broad consensus" on a topic, that is certainly something that is notable and important. Also if you read WP:RS/AC, it tells us that statements regarding consensus on a topic "must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." The current statement in the lead is sourced appropriately in line with policy, while your approach ("There are many authors who commented on the issue") seems to be based on your own opinions/assessments - something our policy tells us directly to avoid. Dlv999 (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Dlv999. Nussbaum's quote establishes that in academia, which is what Wikipedia is primarily based on, there is little debate about the nature of the violence that took place in Gujarat in 2002.—indopug (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Nussbaum summarizes the view of the hundreds of academics who have written about the matter - which is why that particular quote is significant and notable. Nussbaums personal opinion is not notable, but the consensus of academics is, and that is what the quote establishes. It is not undue. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Redtigerxyz.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


This is not directly related to the topic of the lede. But there is a very good book review of Nussbaum's book in India Review, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 73-90 (which might require subscription for access.) A couple of quotes from there:

  • "In some respects, the largest ego in this book is Nussbaum’s own."
  • "Nussbaum’s editors at Belknap/Harvard University Press have applied a fairly light touch, and the book comes across almost as a star vehicle for its author."
  • "What makes her stylistic choices here so disappointing is not just that they are beneath commonly held standards of professional scholarship, but that they fall short of the standards of conduct that Nussbaum herself sets for India and America."

I am reading it, if only because I know that it will be standard reading for every American politician for the next 20 years. It is kind of a like a freshman undergraduate text, quite entertaining, and often comical. Uday Reddy (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Please rate this article not for children to read on 25 April 2014[edit]

Very Biased Article. If you choose to give numbers and the brutal way in which people were killed please give the true facts on both sides. I don't think you personally done any of the research except search the web and every link to the sources is by a non-Hindu. please put a rating on this article. It is too violent for kids too read. I feel statements like these are there just to provoke. "Children were force fed petrol and then set on fire, pregnant women were gutted and their unborn child's body then shown to the women" Why are you polluting the next generation mind! Being a responsible human being. Do not add fuel to fire even if it mean gain to some people. 192.55.79.165 (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. Sorry! Wikipedia is not censored and we also don't have filters for adult or children suitable articles. All is open for all. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
If that is what happened or written as happened, then it shall be known to the next generation. Though I would surely say that this article it totally biased. - Vatsan34 (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent revert[edit]

I just reverted the removal of Martha Nussbaum, for a couple of reasons. First, Nussbaum is there not for the weight of her opinion, but because her book summarizes all academic opinion. Second, consensus favors keeping her in. Please see the related discussions on this talk page and also at the Godhra train burning page. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then I will ad another sourced opinion and then don't ask me to remove it. (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
It does not quite work that way. I did not arbitrarily add this content just now; it has been here for a while, and has been discussed multiple times, as explained above. You are welcome to add new content, but it may be reverted, depending on what it is, as per WP:BRD. Also, you might want to read WP:INDENT as well. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I forgot to mention WP:CONSENSUS, which clearly exists (such as it may ever be) for this source; two editors besides myself supported it in the above discussion, a couple more on the Godhra train burning page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
@Kumarila: I did not revert you, because I have done that several times already; but if you had actually read the article, you would have noticed that the same point is made higher up in the lead, with the exception of the "supervised by" bit, which is untrue. If you do not want to look silly, you should self-revert. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
@Kumarila:What do you think you are doing? Are you aware of what "complicity" means? Every point you make with that addition has been covered above, and the place for details is certainly not the lead. Discuss it on the talk before you make additions like that; you know very well how sensitive a topic this is. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: U r just showing tour bias. The final line just provides a balance. Remove the final line and the whole paragraph shows that there is consensus that state Govt. was involved and did nothing. Also, statement by Matha Nabassum is unwarranted. Who decided that there is consensus on that ? My line talks about state not Modi. Kumarila (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
You are being ridiculous. Half the second paragraph is devoted to saying the State was innocent of anything. And do not bring up Nussbaum again; I already asked you to read the talk both here and at Godhra train burning, which you are not doing. Also, you might want to look at I didn't hear that; what you are doing with respect to Nussbaum is exactly that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I do not intend to revert you once again, but if you continue to insert that content, you are liable to get reported by somebody else, and then blocked. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is awful and needs serious work[edit]

This article needs a serious split into a factual summary and a commentary. What we have now is a horribly biased factual depiction of violence, throwing opinion and commentary into every bit of history. I'm also skeptical of an article that cites only print sources inaccessible to the general public. I have to take it at your word that these books do say what you claim they do, as there are no quotations given, only broad cites. If I can get any backing on this, I will begin a large edit job, keeping in tact as much of the commentary as I can. I see this ultimately breaking into three parts: (1) Facts (2) Anti-Hindu Commentary (3) Commentary defending Hindus. Obviously, much work has been done here on (2), but (1) and (3) are pretty much nil.The-Postman (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The article is supported by high quality academic sources (scholars published in peer reviewed journals or under academic imprint). If, as you say, you have been unable to read the academic literature on the topic it is difficult to see how you can make an informed judgement as to how consistent our article is with the literature. I also see that you only have 100 edits total as a Wikipedia editor. Some of your comments suggest you are not familiar with Wikipedia policies. For instance, your idea about breaking the article into sections based solely on POV is specifically discouraged in WP:NPOV - one of our core policies.
In your recent edit, you deleted the text which discussed the state wide bandh claiming that it was unreferenced: "even though these have been declared by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional and illegal. It is common knowledge in India that these strikes are usually followed by violence"
I checked the source and it fully supports the statement you deleted: "It had become common knowledge in India that bandh days brought riots in their wake. On this occasion, the violence started on the evening of the Godhra event, making it evident that it would continue the next day. Despite the Indian Supreme Court’s 1998 ruling that the call for a bandh is ‘unconstitutional and illegal’ and ‘violative of fundamental rights’,61 no action was taken by the government to prevent the bandh or to curb the violence."
I'm not saying the article cannot be improved but it seems to me that your judegments are not grounded in the source evidence and Wikipedia policy so, from a Wikipedia perspective at least, they do not hold much merit. Dlv999 (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Dlv. In addition, we are not obligated to provide balance between the different theoretical reactions which could exist with respect to this. We are obligated to reflect what reliable sources say. The broad consensus among these is that the violence was targeted at Muslim people; therefore, the article will naturally contain more material about this, which could appear "anti Hindu" to some people. There was a much lower lever of violence against Hindus, so there is some mention of this as well. You would be well served by reading WP:NPOV. NPOV does not mean symmetry. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Thirded.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
If you honestly believe that "it is common knowledge that" is acceptable in Wikipedia, then you need to stop editing. Now, there are other parts of this article that use similar phrases in quoting particular sources. If you're quoting a reputable source who says this, that's not necessarily a problem. If all you're saying is "it is common knowledge that X," then this is blatant Weasel Wording. This is very simple stuff and the nuance is explained at Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Unsupported_attributions. If you're going to use phrasing like "it is common knowledge that," it needs to be in the form of a direct quote.The-Postman (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect you only have about 100 live edits in the project so I will take your suggestion for me to stop editing with a pinch of salt. It is not weasel wording because the statement is directly supported by the cited source, which is a high quality academic source. You haven't provided a scrap of evidence of any significant opinion in RS that would dispute the statement. If you provide evidence of equal quality that would dispute the statement then there is no problem attributing and including both viewpoints. However, as it stands you are deleting well sourced material that accurately represents the cited source based solely on tour own (unreferenced) personal opinions. Dlv999 (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying this MUST present some sort of pro-Hindu POV. I'm not really even saying anything here is even inaccurate. I'm saying this is a terrible article, with blatant editorializing and poor, seemingly non-native writing throughout, which is not well-organized. An ideal article is ultimately going to cite with quotations, not with broad cites, and ideally it's going to present both sides. This should be set up to allow that, even if the opposing viewpoint is going to be much thinner. Sections of this are pretty good. The intro, for example, is strong. The further into this we get, though, the worse it gets. Post-Godhra Violence, for example, is not about Post-Godhra violence. It's about Modi's involvement in the violence. The way this is set up, Modi comes first in a section in which he should occupy the bottom paragraph. Do I have any evidence that he didn't make these statements? No! But that's not the point. The point is that the section isn't about what it needs to be. The Talk page is full of similar comments about the POV here, and yet even what should be utterly non-controversial edits, such as removing blatant weasel words, are instantly reverted, along with comments about my seniority. Have I been crafting this page since its onset? No. I am an outsider reading this page for the first time and stunned that, not only does this not get close to the standards I expect, it somehow isn't even flagged. Something stinks here.The-Postman (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It's clear I will receive no endorsements here, so I'm charging ahead while altering as little of the content as possible. I have worked on Post-Godhra Violence to trim that down to the facts. That section was previously full of commentary regarding State Involvement, which I have moved there. That section is now much more organized as well, although there are three hanging paragraphs that don't belong there, as they, while tragic, do not relate to state violence. Other sections need similar work. The passive voice is a major offender here--I'm the FIRST person to advocate the passive voice when it makes sense, but it DOES NOT make sense here. We need to be using active subjects--WHO in the media made these statements, WHAT government entity issued the edict, etc. "It is common knowledge that," "Reports in the media stated," and "A curfew was put in place" are not acceptable here. Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 still require major work.The-Postman (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • In fact I agree with your desire to avoid the passive voice and your argument that the phrase "it is common knowledge in India" s not a proper phrasing. But you should probably propose your changes first on the talkpage then gain consensus and then carry out the edits. That is a better approach for a controversial topic since it avoids editwarring.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is claiming the article is perfect; like every article on "sensitive" topics, it has serious flaws. But you are serving nobody's interests if you come here with no background, and make massive changes to sourced content. Take it section by section, propose NPOV edits here, and you will find people very receptive; at least, those involved in this discussion are likely to be so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I really don't see any of my current edits as controversial. I haven't removed much, if any, content. I've simply removed the anti-Gujurat statements from the "Post-Godhra Violence" section and placed it where it belongs. I recognize that the content is here to stay, for better or worse. But we can at least keep this organized. Look at the Post-Godhra violence section as it now stands and compare it to what's below. Now the offending paragraphs are here twice, albeit cut up.The-Postman (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I support The Postman's edits. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the article is of low quality. I had come to this page many times over the years to learn about what happened in Gujarat riots, but went away disappointed. Now that I have read some decent materials on the riots, I have returned to see if I can make some improvements. However, I find that the senior editors are picky about every word, every phrase and every citation, and it is not easy to make any changes. That seems to be the nature of the subject. If the Nanavati Commission took 10 years to produce anything worthwhile, Wikipedia is likely to take twice as long. Good luck with your edits! You have my support. Uday Reddy (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed edits[edit]

Considering what the postman has to say, I think the best solution may be to merge the "Post Godhra," "Anti-Muslim" and "Anti-Hindu" sections, creating subsections as necessary. I agree that the "Post-Godhra" section is rather artificial; and this could deal with that. Thoughts? @Maunus:, @Dlv999:, what do you think? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I support that change.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • support looks like it could balance out the article better for one thing. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 19:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the article needs improvement, can you elaborate your proposal -- You want to merge three sections and create subsections as necessary? Jyoti (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not suggesting any significant content changes at this point; User:The-Postman brought up the issue of the rather contrived "Post-godhra violence" section, and I'm trying to fix that. I would merge the three sections, create subsections as needed, and remove repetitions (defined in the strictest sense.) Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Modi's Steps To Stop The Riots.[edit]

Please Add These Points To MAKE This Article More Neutral.These Are The Steps Taken By Modi To Stop The Riots.

1.On The Day Of Godhra Incident On 27 Feb Modi Alerted ALL Security Agencies To Save People.[1]

2.On 28 Feb As Soon As Modi Came To Know About VHP 'Bandh'(Closed) He Written A Fax To Central Government Asking For 4 Companies Of Anti Riot Forces And 10 Companies Of CRPF(Central Police Force).[2],British Paper The Telegraph Also Reported Proper Deployment Of Police And CRPF In Riot Affected Areas By Gujarat Government.[3]

3.On The Same Day Modi Ordered Shoot At Sight Orders To Police.[4],[5]

On 27 Feb Modi Appealed To People Of Gujrat For Peace.[6]

4.On 28 Feb The Next Day Of Godhra Incident He Met Then Defence Minister Mr. George Fernandes To Discuss The Prevention Of Riots.[7]

5.On 28 Feb Morning Modi Called Army And Given This Information On Press Release,Then Army Came Shot At Sight Killed More Than 200 Rioters And SAVED Around 5000 Muslims.[8],[9]

6.Modi Repeatedly Said To Media Including Muslim Reporter Shahid Siddique That "If I Am Found Guilty Of Even 1 Charge Or Allegation Of Allowing Or Spreading Riots Then NEVER Forgive Me But Kill Me.[10],[11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.238.230 (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent Revert[edit]

I just reverted the addition of the infobox, basically because none of the information therein is uncontested, and cannot be used without POV issues. Why the government estimates of the deaths? Why the portrayal of Hindus and Muslims as equal parties? etc. If you still feel the need for it, please discuss it here. And please note, I was until recently in favour of an infobox, until a conversation with DS brought me over. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Rjwilmsi, User:Vanamonde93 We use government count because we may not use estimates from editors. They are Parties to the civil conflict party. I think you are making your personal inferences. It just reflected the article content, no? Jyoti (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Jyoti, not sure I understand you. The government estimates about 900 total deaths. Scholars like Jaffrelot and Brass estimate about twice that number, or more, and they are more reliable than the govt source, as per our policy. Which estimate does the infobox use? And where do the editors estimates enter the picture? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 is correct. We use estimates from reliable sources and scholarly sources are considered the most reliable. Official statements about the deaths can be included but should not be presented as primary estimates. --regentspark (comment) 12:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I thought official statement figures are considered most reliable. How would, say Brass, get the count himself? Jyoti (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, academic sources are considered the most reliable. We don't really concern ourselves with how they figure things out, that would be original research. --regentspark (comment) 14:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Madhu Kishwar[edit]

This section concerns a sentence I have added in the Introduction, after the "anger and disbelief" sentence, which I reproduce below for context: "The Muslim community are reported to have reacted with "anger and disbelief" and activist Teesta Setalvad has said that the legal process was not yet complete as there existed a right to appeal.[12] At the same time, support for Modi among Gujarati Muslims has been growing and leading police professionals have said that Gujarat is the safest place for Muslims today.[13]." My addition was immediately reverted by Vanamonde93. Uday Reddy (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Kishwar may be reliable, I have not investigated him in too much detail; but the sentence that was just inserted into the lead, which I removed, is certainly UNDUE, because the article is not at any point talking about the generic response to Modi among Muslims. If it were, you could certainly use him. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Madhu Kishwar is a "she". Since she has a book-length academic work on the relationship between Modi and Muslims, and the particular chapter that I referenced is explicitly about how Muslims gravitated to Modi and how they have been countering the allegations and negative propaganda against him, this opposite academic view point is necessary to balance the superficial statement about the "Muslim community" in the preceding sentence. I agree that this article is not about Modi. I would be perfectly fine to remove all references to Modi. But, if references are made, they should be presented in a balanced way. Uday Reddy (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Apologies to her, that was careless. The sentence about the Muslim community is very specific; it discusses their reaction to the court verdict. It does not discuss their relationship with Modi in general. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you are being pedantic. How exactly would you expect the 31% of the Gujarati Muslims that voted for Modi in 2012 to express their reaction to the court verdict? Isn't the fact that they voted for him enough of an expression of satisfaction? The fact is that there are 3 groups of Muslims involved here: (i) the Gujarati Muslims that know the best about Modi through their first-hand knowledge of his administration, (ii) the victims of 2002 riots and their advocates, who are understandably angry with him (iii) the Muslims in the rest of India who only know Modi through the incessant anti-Modi propaganda in the media. You are saying that the voice of the most knowledgeable group among these should not be represented on Wikipedia, while the negative views of the others should be represented just because they "reacted" while the first group didn't? I maintain that we should either represent all of them, or none of them. No selective censorship. Uday Reddy (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
This article is not about Muslim sentiment toward Modi. It does not contain sweeping generalizations about anti-Modi sentiment; therefore, it requires no sweeping generalizations about pro-Modi sentiment either. As I said once already, the statement in the lead is very specific. To contradict it, you need a source making an equally specific contradictory claim. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, you really need to make a better case to include Madhu Kishwar. The two views present in the lead are the "riots theory" of the administration, and the counter-argument that it was a pogrom. You are presenting a "counter-counter-argument;" which is totally unnecessary. If you believe otherwise, you are going to have to look for more support here on the talk. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 There is a strong view that a section of the media/academic/NGO grouped together to attack Modi and BJP. The motivations of this group have been questioned by many. Some of them were also found to be corrupt. It is important to the narration here to also cite these accusations against this group. Prodigyhk (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
True or not, that is a complete non sequitur; that was not what the added statement said. More importantly, that "strong view" is not as strong among reliable sources, especially academia. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 what you push as "reliable academic sources" are comments by some academic/NGO folks that are NOT based on any fact nor hard evidence. I am OK for you to push this, if you are willing to place suitable counter arguments for this, as requested by Uday ReddyProdigyhk (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
If you begin dismissing sources like Nussbaum and Brass, you are not likely to be taken very seriously here. Academic writing, or "comments," as you call them, are Wikipedia gold standard for sourcing; questioning their methods and results of your own accord is classic original research, as you well know. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
you are the one who has been pushing this drama "Oh, Nussbaum is gold standard...Nussbaum can not be criticized, blah, blah". This is WP, not your private blog. Since If there are reliable arguments questioning the intentions and conclusions of Nussbaum and her opinionated tribe, then it must be included it. Prodigyhk (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
"If there are reliable arguments questioning"; that's a very big "if" isn't it, seeing as you have not produced a single such source? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93: I can understand why you feel that Kishwar would represent a "counter-counter-argument". But, the way I look at it, the State Government is the subject and there are two strands of opinion on how effective it was. To achieve balance, we need to represent the two strands of opinion. If we take it that the State Government on the one side and the national Press + academics on the other are the `protagonists', then there is a clear `David vs. Goliath' feel to that contest. The State Government is provincial, ill-educated in English or handling mass media, whereas the national Press + academics are expert communicators, well-versed in English, with national and global audience. The State Government is also busy governing, rather than fighting PR wars. So, it is a highly mismatched PR contest. Somebody like Madhu Kishwar brings in a much needed balance, much as she is an academic, investigative journalist and a human-rights activist rolled into one. All her information comes from first-hand accounts of the State's populace, and it demonstrably proves that the information we have gotten from the national Press and the academics is a narrow and distorted picture. I will find a better way to phrase what I wrote, but at the moment I am busy in the midst of travel. So it will take some time. Uday Reddy (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Our obligation is not to display "balance" between all views; our job is to reflect reliable sources, duly weighted. Most reliable sources contradict the government view; the article reflects this, and that is the way it should be. If you see Kishwar as simply strengthening the government view, then there is a severe problem of undue weight. Also, there are serious questions of reliability; I am still looking at the source, but it is clear that the author (Kishwar) is also the person who founded the publishing house; where then is the editorial oversight which is a hallmark of an academic publisher? Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I was just checking for information on the editorial policies of Manushi this morning, but couldn't find any. My guess is that Madhu Kishwar is the editor of the magazine (which is clearly not an academic journal), and she makes the decisions about whatever reviewing is done. Nevertheless, you will find several of her articles from Manushi cited in academic papers (as seen on Google Scholar), and many articles were also collected into volumes published by Oxford University Press (as seen on the Books & Videos section of the Manushi web site). In any case, the veracity of the army deployment doesn't depend all that much on Manushi or Madhu Kishwar. I quoted from her article merely because she gave precise details. But the fact that the army was deployed is known from tons of news articles and also the Human Rights Watch report, which is presumably a reliable source. Uday Reddy (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide[edit]

Wikipedia expects to be better than traditional Encyclopedias because of its open source nature. So, I don't see why it should be citing or quoting from other Encyclopedias.

The "Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide," in particular, seems to contain serious misinformation and blatant lies. For example, it states that the Central Government in New Delhi "refused to send in the army". This is known to be utterly false. Madhu Kishwar's article Modinama - 2 documents that:

  • Gujarat requested the army from the Centre at 2:30pm on 28th February.
  • The Union Defense Minister personally came down to Gujarat to oversee the deployment and met Modi at 10:30pm.
  • The first air lift of army arrived by midnight on the 28th February.
  • 13 columns of army were deployed by next morning.

In fact, Madhu Kishwar states that no other communal conflict in India saw the deployment of army at such high speed. (In her book, Kishwar also states that Modi asked for the Army units based in the State to be deployed on the 27th night itself. But the Army could not do so because of the prevailing border situation - Operation Parakram.)

In the light of this blatant misinformation, I would like to state that this Enclypedia is not reliable source, and all references to it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddyuday (talkcontribs) 22:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Also an encyclopedia is considered WP:TERTIARY and not used. And since it contains misinformation, it is best to remove it Prodigyhk (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
There is absolutely no rule against using a tertiary source; a secondary source is preferred, that is all. Also, one article in a magazine (as opposed to a peer reviewed journal) is not sufficient to discredit an encyclopedia. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
This is what the policy stated Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics . In the present case, specific allegation with exact quotes from the articles have been included. Also, the specific encyclopedic source has been shown as unreliable and contains misinformation. So, needs to be removed. Prodigyhk (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It has not been "shown to be unreliable;" the only contradictory piece you have produced is from Manushi, which is not a peer reviewed journal. Not sufficient. Also, it is the nature of a source that makes it primary or secondary, not its name; in this particular case, the "encyclopedia" is collecting primary statistics, making it to all intents and purposes a secondary source. Finally, it has been in the article for a long time, and I was not the one who put it there; so you are the one who needs to seek consensus, not me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this encyclopedia that you want to keep "peer reviewed" ? Per WPblame, this edit was done a year by DarknessShines. Now, as per policy, just because an edit has been here for a year, does not mean it can not be removed. read WP:PRIOR Prodigyhk (talk) 24 June 2014 (UTC)
You are shooting yourself in the foot. WP:PRIOR says "consensus can change;" which means you have to change it. If you get consensus to remove it, remove it by all means; but you have not done so, which is exactly what I pointed out above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 The source was required to be removed by Reddyuday. I agree that his arguments are valid. You are the only person not agreeing, which means the onus is on you to convince us on why to keep the source. Prodigyhk (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 What? The fact that the army was deployed is quite well-known. Even the Human Rights Watch report has acknowledged it (though they complained that the State Government delayed the deployment). The source's claim that the Central Government refused Army support is quite ridiculous. It did not give its sources either. I don't agree that it counts as a "secondary" source. Uday Reddy (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
@Uday Reddy:; Friend, "well known" is not an argument on Wikipedia, as you well know. I'm making a very basic point; to remove a source like the encyclopedia, you need a source of higher reliability; Manushi is not a peer reviewed journal, and therefore does not count. @Prodigyhk:; you are trying to "prove" that a certain source contains incorrect information. Given that by normal standards the source is perfectly good, I have to prove absolutely nothing; the onus is on you. Take it to RSN by all means; alternatively, do what I asked, and find a more reliable source contradicting the specific claim, in which case that particular claim can be changed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 The arguments by Uday are also valid. My additional argument, is it need to be removed since the policy WP:TERTIARY state - Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics - In the present case, specific allegation with exact quotes from the articles have been included. So, need to be removed. Hope it is clear ? Prodigyhk (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
You have not yet produced a reliable source contradicting the encyclopedia. I am rather fed up of debating WP:Tertiary with you, but in any case that policy does not cover using tertiary sources for specific material, so like I said before, if you wish to remove it, take it to RSN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
can you show me which WP policy allow using "tertiary sources for specific material" Prodigyhk (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Generally, reliable tertiary sources are useful and valid and the Manushi piece is not reliable. However, I suggest we be wary of using this particular "encyclopedia" source. Even though it carries the encyclopedia label, it appears to be a book. The authors appear to have no academic affiliation (they write on general subjects in a variety of areas). My suggestion, unless there are good secondary sources that support the same statements, drop it. --regentspark (comment) 07:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Regentspark:, I agree that the source is not quite exemplary; but I did look it up before this argument, and at least one of the authors (Catherwood) has had academic affiliations in History departments before (even if he does not currently hold one). The publisher is also not a university affiliated one, but has published serious academic material. I also tried to make the point above that this is effectively a secondary source; but that did not go down too well. Given that, and also given that the source was first added by DS, whose judgement I trust and who cannot unfortunately comment here, I felt the source should stay until we have a reliable contradictory source; if such is found, I'd be the first to remove this. Is that unreasonable? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
See page 21 of the Human Rights Watch report and the references cited therein. The times reported there (deployment on Friday 11am) are consistent with Madhu Kishwar's timeline. Uday Reddy (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
It turns out that we have been quite silly, because our own article says that the army was deployed on the 1st March. See the paragraph starting with "The day following." So, I am going to get rid of this stupid source. Uday Reddy (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
@Reddyuday: I have removed it myself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
removing the sentence that is from this source Prodigyhk (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The information is not necessarily invalidated; the mistake the encyclopedia made was with the army deployment date. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, this is a violation of WP:ALIVE: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." It appears that User:Prodigyhk did the right thing. First of all, the quotation of Modi's remark is partial and distorted. He said the attacks were a "terrorist attack, not communal violence." He said that the state government would bring the culprits to book and people should not take the law into their own hands. Nothing in this could be interpreted as an incitement to violence. The disgraced source was libelous. Retaining this libel on Wikipedia is uncalled for. Uday Reddy (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The only material covered by the BLP is the quote; the quote itself is not contentious, and therefore can remain. If it is incomplete, then you are welcome to complete it. In any case, I have now sourced it. The rest of the paragraph is about the public interpretation of what Modi said; this is not covered by the BLP, nor is it libelous; therefore, it can remain with the tag. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
If not libelous, it is a text book example of weasel words, of which we are asked to wary of on WP:ALIVE. In any case, thanks for the excellent Tribune source! Uday Reddy (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I repeat, a statement about how Modi's words were interpreted is not covered by the BLP. If it is weaselly, then we can improve it; but striking it is inappropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Vanamonde93, The reference does not back the content "Modi declared that the attack on the train had been an act of terrorism". Kindly revert it, you may let cn tag stay. Thank you. --Jyoti (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What? Answer No.1 given by Modi to his interviewer. "...Godhra incident was not communal violence but terrorism." Explicit enough for you? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 I failed to see that "Godhra" here is taken to refer to the train incident alone. That is where I got confused. Could you make it closer to the source following WP:SAY; I don't see any reason you want to use 'declared'. I propose: In an interview to The Tribune, Modi expressed that Godhra incident was not communal violence but terrorism. --Jyoti (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Jyoti: I don't see the problem here. "Declared" is exactly right. This was part of the CM's Press Release on 27th February, issued in Godhra. (See Modinama-2.) Modi followed it up by invoking POTO (Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance) to bring the accused to book. Uday Reddy (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Uday Reddy, existing reference does not back it. Please add the reference you are mentioning or change the content. Regards. --Jyoti (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Jyoti: I have cited Andy Marino's book, which is a better reference than Modinama-2 from the Wikipedia point of view. Of course, that doesn't have to stop you from reading Modinama-2 for yourself! Uday Reddy (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay. --Jyoti (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Terrorist acts incite communal violence?[edit]

The article says: Modi declared that the attack on the train had been carried out by "terrorists", these words were interpreted as a signal to take vengeance on the Muslim community.[14]. Apart from the fact that the source is the disgraced Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide, I am hard put to understand how any one can interpret a terrorist act as a signal for vengeance. Are there any instances of terrorist acts having given rise to communal violence? Did anybody in Gujarat claim that they were attacking Muslims because they were "terrorists"?

From Modi's own words quoted by Kishwar, "This inhuman terrorist crime of collective /mass violence is not an incident of communal violence," Modi apparently thought that he was distinguishing a terrorist act from an act of communal violence. Was he completely off the mark here? What do the experts say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddyuday (talkcontribs) 01:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The experts are cited in the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
There are no "experts" cited in the article. What is cited is the disgraced Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide, which does not provide any answers. WP:WPNOTRS and WP:BIASED. There is also a dangerous mix of fact and opinion in this sentence. WP:YESPOV. Uday Reddy (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Reddyuday - It is waste of time talking about NPOV here, because nobody wrote about the other side of riots. This is going to stay like other similar events here in WP, which is drawn upon academic sources alone and not newspapers. As though newspapers do not have editors scrutinising it. A small typo or error in newspapers is usually apologised in the next day newspaper, so newspaper can be highly reliable source. If you do not believe Indian newspapers or consider it third rated, you can very well see the American newspapers. By the way, I still wonder how Brass, Nussbaum or Jaffrelot went through the streets like some Investigation agency and found out everything. They might be some superheroes I believe. ;) -Vatsan34 (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia sourcing policy says academic work is in general better than media sources. If you disagree with the policy, go take it up with Jimbo. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Vatsan34: As I have said before, we need to bring in new sources to provide alternative viewpoints. Do you have such sources? The academics you mention have very likely gathered their material from Indian news sources and the human rights organizations. The biases in these sources will show up in their work which will in turn show up on Wikipedia. This is inevitable. But I don't see any reason why alternative viewpoints that are not covered in the academic works cannot be directly supported by newspaper sources. Uday Reddy (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
WP allows the use of news media sources. WP:source * WP:NEWSORG#News_organizations Prodigyhk (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Nazi textbooks[edit]

I am deleting the passage dealing with Nazi textbooks, which currently reads as follows: "The [NHRC] report also made mention of the BJP and Modi in "Promoting the attitudes of racial supremacy, racial hatred and the legacy of Nazism through his governments support of school textbooks in which Nazism is glorified". The US state department also found "that Modi revised high school textbooks to describe Hitler's 'charismatic personality' and the 'achievements of Nazism'.[130][Note 1]" The reasons are as follows:

  1. It is completely irrelevant to the 2002 Gujarat riots.
  2. The supposed NHRC report hasn't been cited, and I couldn't find any such.
  3. The US state department doesn't say that Modi revised high school textbooks. Neither did Nussbaum claim that it did.
  4. There were a bunch of US Congressman in the pay of Pakistan that raised issue, but let us not go there.
  5. This is a big boondoggle. See, for example, this article that says that Gujarat's textbooks were far more balanced than those of other states.
  6. Nobody produced any proof that Modi revised text books. For all we know, these text books might have always been like that.
  7. It is completely irrelevant to the 2002 Gujarat riots.
  8. It is slander, violating WP:ALIVE.
I'm reverting your edits. The Marino source says that Modi put the blame on gujarat's history of communal violence - not the same thing. About the 'proof' and the NHRC source, a secondary source is present in the text. We don't need to prove anything nor do we consult primary sources. Finally, do note that blogs are not considered reliable sources for material on Wikipedia. --regentspark (comment) 07:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with RP. In addition, the "not relevent" part of your comment is contradictory to what that source says; and we do not second guess reliable sources, except when evaluating due weight. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
regentspark: First of all please don't revert multiple edits on unrelated issues. You are wrong about the the Marino source because it has exactly the words I wrote "This inhuman terrorist crime of collective/mass violence is not an incident of communal violence." (from Modi's press statement in Godhra). As regarding "Nazi textbooks", you are again wrong because the Nussbaum book doesn't say that State Department accused Modi. She said that Congressmen accused. You haven't answered the question, what does all this have to do with 2002 riots anyway? Uday Reddy (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93: I have retained the relevant part, viz., the State Department revoked the visa citing NHRC report. If people want the textbook issue discussed, that should be done on the Narendra Modi page, not here. Uday Reddy (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Let me also note that the State Department page on the visa issue, which is linked in our own article, has held Modi responsible as the Head of the Government, not in any personal capacity. If a secondary source distorts a primary source and makes remarks, those remarks should be attributed to the secondary source, not presented as fact. Uday Reddy (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Reddyuday, the connection between the riots and the textbooks is drawn by Nussbaum. She is reliable, and is not a fringe source, so we present what she says, period. I repeat, we do not second-guess a reliable source, that would be OR. Also, you are wrong about Nussbaum; the bottom of page 50 says that the US state department says that Modi revised textbooks. The blog is unreliable, and the presence of a secondary source explicitly supporting the statement means that it is certainly not slander.
Also, the consensus version is the one that existed before you got here; so please don't tell RP to seek consensus, it is you who need to do so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I am willing to debate the textbook issue further. But, regentspark also reverted the Modi quote at the same time (which we agreed on here earlier). That was uncalled for. Uday Reddy (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
All that we agreed on was that the quote was appropriate, and that it was not a BLP violation; in any case, RP didn't comment there, so disagreeing was his prerogative. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
regentspark, like Uday Reddy said I also think you should be more careful when rolling`back several edits, it undid unrelated edits. Since I am here, my take on this textbook thing -- it does not belong here, particularly the English examination question is utterly irrelevant! --Jyoti (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
FYI, the Gujarat textbook affair was well summarized as a non-issue in this recent online article (excerpted from a book) here. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93: I think you haven't understood the point. Our article says: The US state department also found "that Modi revised high school textbooks...". If the US state department found anything like that, it should be easy enough to find it in the State Department report here. Can you find it? No. Can you find it in the House Resolution 156? Yes. So, if you want to keep this text, please change the attribution to the Resolution 156, which will allow me to bring in the questionable Congressman and his background. Or, you can honorably quote from the State Department report and keep things civil. Your choice. Uday Reddy (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Not sure what quote you're (udayreddy) talking about but if there is consensus to include it then that's fine with me (and it's easy enough to re-add it(. The rational above was incorrect so I reverted the edits (and explained why). If you believe that some material shouldn't be in this article, then feel free to seek consensus for excluding it here. --regentspark (comment) 18:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why I need to repeat this so often, but we do not concern ourselves with how secondary sources figure out what they say; that is OR. If there is indeed a mistake, then you need to find another secondary source that says that. And no, Elst does not count; he is a fringe source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93: Elst is not important. Please don't get get sidetracked. You haven't responded to the substantive issues I have mentioned. Basically, your interpretation of Nussbaum or that of whoever first paraphrased Nussbaum is wrong. She doesn't say what you think she says. The current text in the article is a gross distortion and a lie. It violates WP:BLP. Uday Reddy (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong in evaluating a source, if a secondary source distorts a primary source how can that secondary source be considered as reliable? -sarvajna (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The state department report does mention the re-writing of textbooks. If Nussbaum chooses to interpret that to mean Modi was responsible, or if she has other sources confirming that, it doesn't matter; that is her prerogative as an academic. The quote from the book is as follows; "Significantly, [the house resolution] also referred more generally to the role of Modi and his government in "promoting the attitudes of racial supremacy, racial hatred, and the legacy of Nazism through his administration's support of textbooks in which Nazism is glorified," and to the finding (by the US State Department) that Modi revised high-school textbooks to describe Hitler's "'charismatic personality' and the achievements of Nazism."" (Emphasis mine). Is that explicit enough for you? The article currently paraphrases this. So quite spouting stuff about gross distortions. If you want to go and find a secondary source that contradicts this, that is fine by me. sarvajna, "if a secondary source distorts a primary source;" yes, that would be an issue, but looking for such a distortion ourselves is a prime example of WP:OR. Go find a source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93: Thank you for getting to the point. But you are not quite there yet. (1) State department does not say that Gujarat textbooks have been rewritten. It just says that they are in a certain way. (2) Nussbaum did not choose to interpret that Modi revised them. The House Resolution did. (3) In contrast, Wikipedia claims that the State Department interpreted it that way. So, this constitutes original research and must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Wikipedia also claims that the National Human Rights Commission Report commented on these things. No such claim is in the source and therefore consitutes original research. That should also be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Since you chose to revert my well-intentioned edits, you must remove this material right now, immediately without further discussion. Uday Reddy (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
What part of "finding (by the US State Department) that Modi revised high-school textbooks to describe Hitler's [XYZ]" is unclear to you? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, the so-called "finding by the US State Department" is a direct quote from the House Resolution. I have given you the link for the House Resolution. Did you read it? Nussbaum did not say that the US State Department actually found such a revision having occurred. She is talking about the House Resolution and nothing else. If she wanted to quote from the State Department, she would have done so. She didn't. In any case, since Nussbaum is clearly focusing on the House Resolution and directly quoting words from it, why do you want to change that to State Department and bring in your own WP:OR? Uday Reddy (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The quote as written is absolutely straightforward, and supports the text in the article. If you disagree, find a source that contradicts this, or take it to RSN; I have little patience left for this particular argument. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
What is the relevance of the allegations to this article? Since these were just allegations, and the textbooks "did not praise Hitler, did mention the Holocaust, and had been issued by a previous Congress government", the sentence in the article is not written neutrally, it should be made clear that these are allegations. Also, "Mein Kampf" is a best-seller in India and most Arab countries, should we mention that also in this article? I just don't see why this article needs to invoke Godwin's law just because some biased scholars do. --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)How many times do you need to be told that Elst is not RS? Also, the relevance is described by the sources we use; further justification is not needed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)