Talk:Marad killings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

commission Enquiry report[edit]

Please find the report retrieved. The report mentions explicit references to Oraganizations and individuals [1] 59.145.142.36 13:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Lib Democrat[reply]

allegations should not be put[edit]

Please dont drag different organisaitons and individuals to the issue. It has to be either ruled by court or police report. For example in the Marad - Joseph Commisson Report [2] There is no refereces to the parties and groups that were refered in the previous versions.

The incident narration was partial. I have added the correct details based on the facts -- Sundaram7 13:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Notability. We can put as many notable allegations as we want. The facts are only admissible as facts when they are cited by reliable sources, not by terrorist mass murderers like NDF. Lionheart5 14:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
user:sundaram7 is trying to put the facts only and Lionheart5 is trying to put back the allegations. Please remove the allegations of BJP, CPM and other party in the article. Also please remove the statements of Pinarayi from the article. This is not the place to put the daily statements of political parties. There should be some credible evidences from court or enquiry agency. Why Lionheart5 is not commenting something related to Joseph Commisson Report [3] that was cited by Sundaram7? Also Lionheart5 has put wrong information about Aboobacker who was killed in front of police as the news sources says. He was not shot by Police. But he was stabbed by criminals in front of police as reported by refereces. Please explan what is POV and what are the allegations here before you change the article -- Truehindu 18:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not about "The Truth", it's about Verifiability. Lionheart5 23:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to my previous points, There is no references says that the Muslim woman blocked the entrance of Mosque. This is a clear vandal and POV from the editor. This is an attempt to put vandalism and it is clear from the hindu news that Cases have been registered against 40 women, including the district secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Uma Unni, under Section 353 (obstructing public servants from discharging officials duty) of the Indian Penal of Code (IPC). as reported by Hindu.[4]. Also in the leadership of Uma Unni, there was a violence to stop the peaceful visit of A.K. Antony to this RSS Liberated Area [5] --- Sundaram7 14:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uma Unni incident has nothing to do with the NDF perpetrated massacre other than it was something that occured much later.Bakaman 08:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dont divert, come to the point:It looks like some editors has some intension to divert the topic to something else. Did i mention about the party in my paragraph? I am talking about the argument of editor Mulsim women blocked the entrance to the mosque where the terrorists were hiding, which was invented by some editors here. It is defenitely an information imagined by the editors. We are not talking about the party here. --- Sundaram7 13:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

  • The Marad massacre - The Hindu 5-31-2003. Again in the Hindu. I cannot believe an undiscussed, unjustified page move was conducted here. This is rather blatant POV pushing and Hinduphobic behavior.Bakaman 04:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil. The last two sentences of the above comment were wasted space.
207 articles in GNews archive use the words Marad and massacre. 215 use the word Marad and killing. We thus have some discretion; and 8 people would make this the smallest massacre in cat:massacres by a considerable distance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 05:16, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
The first line of the above comment is wasted space. I would incur WP:SPADE at this point. Noting that google has about the same for both, and that a large number of sources refer to it as a massacre, its quite evident why it belongs. However I know this comment will be wasted space, as you will not cease tendentiously editing political pages.Bakaman 06:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Asking you to be civil is wasted space? Well, perhaps it is. An astonishing amount of self-knowledge there, actually.
Google is about the same for both; given that, why precisely is it the case that you wish give the article title the less inclusive, less accurate version?
I see no reason why your edit comment should be "undiscussed article move" when I had discussed it. You reverted the changes well before you even looked at the talkpage. Would you care to apologise?
Oh incidentally, one more time you call me a Hinduphobe, and some form of request for intervention will take place. You need to control your language. Hornplease 19:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your copy-paste job means that history remains unmoved, which is a violation of GFDL. I suggest you correct that. Hornplease 19:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cant correct it, because you decided to move the page to the politically correct title.
When did you discuss it? You have no constructive participation on this page at all. Actions speak louder than words, and your actions adequately reflect your biases.
Your preferred title is dehumanizing, and is also a much less popular tagline, acccording to google. "marad massacre" has 1370 ghits vs. "marad killings" with 392. Bakaman 02:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I explained my reasons after you objected. My actions demonstrate a concern for accuracy, namely that a.eight people died, which means its a bit much to call it a massacre, and b.the article is about the entire set of circumstances surrounding two sets of killings and the investigation.
Note that i specifically said google news rather than google. Google includes the blogosphere, which is likely to show much more bias than news archives. At least, that's what's generally accepted, and since you seem to detect it everywhere, perhaps you agree? Hornplease 04:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there is nothing under the dicdef of "massacre" discussing a certain number. The massacre only refers to the may killings of the eight Hindus and Aboobacker, and the january incident is only serving as background (this obviously didnt happen just out of the blue).
4x the ghits, with papers such as the Hindu, New Ind Press, Tribune - Chandigarh, Rediff, New Kerala, etc. utilizing the word "massacre". Bakaman 04:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the dicdef, do you seriously expect M-W to put down "the wanton murder of at least twenty individuals"? I suggest you look at category:massacres.

(Incidentally, "Jenin massacre" gets 25000 hits, "Battle of Jenin" 13000. I dare you to make the same point you've made above on the appropriate page.)

The fact is that "massacre" is a term that is loaded. I understand why you would therefore wish to use it, but on WP we can't use it when there is (a) a more accurate (b) a more apt for the article and (c) an equally popular (in terms of reliable sources) alternative.Hornplease 05:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created category:massacres, a massacre is not defined by numbers alone.
Just because "massacre" isn't PC does not mean it can't be used. The accurate term is massacre. Also gnews has 97 hits for "marad massacre" and only 39 for "marad killings".Bakaman 05:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you created the category. (I am surprised to see that it isn't category:Massacres by religion.) You didn't populate it as well, I suppose? Because I fail to see how you think its an 'accurate' description of what happened, when 8 people died in the killing spree, which is, as I said, considerably less than in practically all (I haven't checked each one) of the incidents that editors think should qualify for the category you so helpfully created. The use of the word is highly doubtful/debatable at best, and much more likely an obscure rhetorical ploy aimed at creating further victimhood.
I notice that you have avoided the Jenin point.
Oh, and I said above "207 articles in GNews archive use the words Marad and massacre. 215 use the word Marad and killing." Naturally "killing in Marad" or "Massacre in Marad" are also relevant. Oh, and Marad +massacre -killing and Marad -massacre +killing are about the same as well.
To repeat: this is hardly a 'massacre' by the standards of 'massacre'; while there is definitely a tendency to use the word in this relation, I think that when a more accurate, equally common in RSes, and more befitting-the-article option exists - which would have the additional option of not breaking GFDL - keeping the doubtful phrase seems to be deeply inappropriate.Hornplease 06:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google news used one 3x as much as another, and I do not subscribe to your narrow and politically useful definition of massacre. There is no "discussion", only an inquiry into why an unjustified, dehumanizing page move was made.Bakaman 03:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. It is false. To be absolutely clear about this, it is an untruth. You refer to the phrase within inverted commas, I have pointed out that that may not be an accurate gauge; that does not take into account occasions where "killings at Marad" are used. In any case, references using massacre are a fraction of the references to the Marad murders; GNews archive drags up [6] on a search for Marad AND (Muslims OR NDF OR killings OR murder OR kerala OR CBI OR carnage OR hindus OR BJP OR RSS) turns up 1170 hits! So your claim of numbers on your side is absolutely worthless. Under such circumstances, when GNews archive for (Marad AND killings) gives exactly the same results as (Marad AND massacre), it is clear that the more neutral, accurate, and appropriate title be chosen: definitely, in fact, the one that has no doubt about its applicability. These were definitely killings. It may not have been a massacre by everyone's standards, since some people may believe that eight people does not count as such.
"Dehumanizing"? How? Does one dehumanise people to indicate they are killed even if their murderers did not participate in a massacre? Unjustified? When I have been justifying it for days? I must remind you again about incivility.
Please revert your move so that page history is preserved per GFDL. This discussion can then continue, once it has been listed at WP:RM. I will not ask again. Hornplease 06:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still avoiding Jenin? How about Gujarat Riots vs Gujarat violence vs Gujarat carnage? Still want to talk about dehumanization? Please. This is about accuracy. Hornplease 06:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Numbers on your side are worthless. The title of the page is not Marad+violence+BJP-NDF+RSS or whatever carefully picked search terms you chose to use. The title "Marad massacre" gets 3x the hits as the title "Marad killings". The more accurate title is massacre, and the number of people killed is largely irrelevant. Columbine has 13, Stockton_massacre has only 5, and Marad is right smack-dab in the middle.
"Incivility" is a hackneyed term used by you to stifle discussion and sidestep the real issue. Your gerrymandered interpretation of it is not consistent with any legitimate view of the policy.
The move was perfectly unjustified, since you have used the politically useful term of killing rather than the term "massacre" used by the Thomas Joseph commission. It is dehumanizing to call the one sided killing of 8 defenseless individuals subscribing to one viewpoint as killings rather than the correct term massacre.
Gujarat is not analogous to this incident at all. Nearly 25% of the people killed were Hindus, and that was a large scale communal riot. It was not a one-sided wanton killing spree The ghits also give Gujarat violence a 10x edge over all the favorite titles ("Gujarat genocide", "Gujarat pogroms") of the Indian left.
Jenin is another situation that is irrrelevant. Only 66% of the people killed were palestinian in that battle, compared to 100% of the murders here being executed in a deliberate manner (Aboobacker was chopped up burying the dead Hindus, one can assume that doesnt go over with Osama and company.)
  • Cruelty? - The gruesome murder of Aboobacker definitely meets that.
  • Helpless? - Reports indicate even if the police were called, they had no weapons.
  • Atrocity? - Wanton murder is quite atrocious behavior.
  • Unresisting? - Nobody on the murderers side was touched.

It meets all the criteria for a massacre.Bakaman 16:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may say thatGujarat was not a 'one-sided wanton killing spree'. Others may claim that every incident in Gujarat was, whoever the perpetrator or the victim. I fail to see how 'killing' or even 'murders' are politically 'useful'. What is undeniable is that 'massacre' is politically useful. We don't serve as a soapbox.
IN gujarat, "Gujarat riots" gets 20x the hits of "Gujarat violence". So much for your research.
You have not addressed the fact that the subject of this article is both the 2002 and 2003 murders, which are undeniably interconnected according to a large number of reliable sources.
I trust you note that my definition of 'incivility' is not 'gerrymandered' after the discussion at Wikiquette alerts.
I demonstrated that references to the Marad killings using the word massacre are a miniscule fraction of the total number of references to the Marad murders, establishing that 'Marad massacre' is far from a consensus title.
Finally, however cruel an atrocity, however helpless and unresisting its victims, calling the death of eight people a massacre unless that term is widely used. Fascinating that you should bring up Stockton: calling that a massacre was carefully strategised by gun control pressure groups. The article itself is at the title they managed to popularise; the Stockton article itself has a subheading saying "The 1989 Cleveland Elementary School shooting", that mentions that it is 'sometimes called the Stockton massacre'. Very simply, the POV-pushers in the real world havent done such a good job with Marad, so the same arguments don't apply. Hornplease 17:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You have failed to establish that any title is less widely used than any other. The title "marad massacre" is the most popular, as gnews would show.
Gujarat is not analogous situation. Gujarat riots and Gujarat violence are nearly identical terms. Neither indicates a one sided massacre of individuals. Both indicate two sides duking it out.
Wikiquette alerts merited no consensus. I do not regard your monologues as anything other than partisan bicker. Its impossible to take the words of an admin abuser and a POV-warrior to be some sort of educated consensus.
Calling Marad a massacre was carefully strategized by mainstream media in India. The Hindu, Rediff, Indian Express, BBC, The Tribune, Chandigarh.
You seem to have deliberately ignored the usage of Massacre by The Joseph Commission, tantamount to official acceptance of the term.Bakaman 03:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Errr? Which POV-warrior are you talking about on wikiquette alerts? I certainly think you should learn that your incivility is unacceptable.
"Massacre" is not used more often than "killing" in this context. Can you deny that?
As for whether one indicates a one-sided murder, and the other doesn't, WP isn't the place where we either decide these things, or choose to think in terms of communities as a whole.
And once again, individual examples prove nothing. I am already well aware of these particular articles; obviously. I ran a search, remember?
Also, I note the rediff.com quotes several government officials all using 'killings' rather than massacre. Hornplease 03:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marad Massacre is the more widely used title. This has been noted ad nauseam, but in case you want to see again gnews has 97 hits for "Marad massacre" and 39 for "Marad killings". The term "Marad murders" has an incomprehensibly high 1 ghit.
Crying "incivility!" doesn't make it the "marad killings". Unlike you I dont have to resort to dastardly ad hominem attacks to prove a point.
The Joseph commission uses the word massacre consistently to describe the incident


Now Frontline is really the last place you would hope to find this. Frontline is a magazine widely regarded as pro-leftist.

The later-created case taken to the Kerala High court had the title "Marad massacre case".[7].Bakaman 03:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bakasuprman! Once again, stop searching with quote marks! If we wish to know whether the incident was generally called a massacre or killings, we cannot restrict it to phrases. When one searches for "MARAD" AND "massacre", and "marad" AND "killings", one gets identical results! I've said this before, but perhaps you have not noticed. (From above: "207 articles in GNews archive use the words Marad and massacre. 215 use the word Marad and killing.") Hornplease 06:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't replied. You shouldn't move it again without discussion. Hornplease 01:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Thomas P Joseph report[edit]

This report was tabled in the kerala assembly around late 2006, and the details as well as reccomendations had made headlines in all the august Print and visual media. It has explicitly pointed out role of individuals ,organizations and political parties in the riots which happened in 2 phases. The only instance where commission could not substantiate with evidance was the role of foreign organizations, and for this it has recommended an enquiry by CBI. This reccomendation was forwarded by the Kerala home ministry to the central Buraeu Of Investigations , which had turned it down subsequently stating that a partial enquiry on the whole issue may not provide feasible results. <<All these can be verified through news reports of TOI, NewIndExpress, Hindu>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.142.36 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 30 Aug 2007

After reading the Thomas Commission report, I was not able to see presence of extremist outfits with foreign links as put by somebody in the article. The news paper put their Point of Views on the commission report. But as the report is available to read and comment, there is no need to put such WP:POVs in WP. So I removed the portion The report talks about the presence of extremist outfits with foreign links operating in Kerala, and slams the current and previous state Governments for their failure to take any effective action against these elements, being ‘‘interested only in the vote banks.’’. -- Sundaram7 10:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is also found that the evidences by Special Branch is just a POV. No such point is noted in the report. Read the full report for the details as referred in the article. So removing portion: Enquiry commission states with evidence provided by Special Branch of police about physical training classes conducted by NDF even in the night at Marad beach ,it also mentions these classes are attended by Muslim youths alone and taken by persons who came from outside. -- Sundaram7 10:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus of Muslims from Marad[edit]

In the article there is a sction with heading Exodus of Muslims from Marad. The content is a comment from a party leader and it is not related to the topic. Either it need to be removed or POV of all the concerned parties like Hindu organisation, all political parties, and others need to be added. why we need to add comment from alleged CPI(M) leader. -- Sundaram7 10:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding some relavant points to the context instead of the POV of CPM. I am removing the commnets from Pinarai Vijayan because of the following reasons:
  • Chapter 4 in the Thomas P. Joseph Commission report is completely arguments of parties A, B, C, D and E with different political and religious parties' arguments. CPI(M) is only part of it. If we put arguments from CPI(M) here, then there should be arguments put from other 5 parties.
  • The reference provided is totally a mouthpiece of CPI(M) and cannot be accepted as well accepted media. So it is just the Point of View of Marxist party. -- Sundaram7 04:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moves to/from 2002 Marad masssacre[edit]

The massacre was 9 on one side. I think you are mistaking it for the riots that happened before the massacre. Massacre is the title used by the official Thomas P. Joseph Commission as well. [8][9]. It is also the more popular title among mainstream news sources.Bakaman 00:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Word used by official Thomas P. Joseph Commission is "massacre", as pointed by Bakasuprman, hence it is improper to change it. -VJha 14:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the justification for changing it from Massace to Killings? I would like to see when/where it is used this way and some supporting citations Kkm5848 15:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream sources and newspapers predominately called it "Marad Massacre", as did the government's Joseph Commission. That's likely due to the nature of the deaths, and not the number of them. Regardless, "Marad Massacre" is the official and predominately used name, and therefore should be the name of the article. (Ghits for "Marad killings" = 455, for "Marad massacre" = 1510.) ॐ Priyanath talk 01:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the "official" commission(the ones who investigated it and hence should know it best) calls it a 'massacre', then is must be a massacre. And intuitively also, a massacre is a lot different from a 'killing'. For one, people can get 'killed' accidentally.. but cant get 'massacred' accidentally. Sarvagnya 01:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the word "Massacre" over "killings" as per above.-Bharatveer 07:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above comments, and it is clear that there is no consensus for a move. -- Karl Meier 08:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Utter nonsense. As i state above:" In any case, references using massacre are a fraction of the references to the Marad murders; GNews archive drags up [10] on a search for Marad AND (Muslims OR NDF OR killings OR murder OR kerala OR CBI OR carnage OR hindus OR BJP OR RSS) turns up 1170 hits! So your claim of numbers on your side is absolutely worthless. Under such circumstances, when GNews archive for (Marad AND killings) gives exactly the same results as (Marad AND massacre), it is clear that the more neutral, accurate, and appropriate title be chosen: definitely, in fact, the one that has no doubt about its applicability. These were definitely killings. It may not have been a massacre by everyone's standards, since some people may believe that eight people does not count as such. "Hornplease 23:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love how you like to do things totally random and unjustified...doing a google news search for marad AND (Killings or murders) turns up 202 results while doing a search for marad AND (Massacre) turns up 207. Finally, doing a google news search for Marad AND (massacre AND (Killings or murders) ) turns up 42 results. The result -- 155 articles that call it murder or killings, the rest refer to it as massacre...so, do you feel that despite the fact that news articles do tend to refer to it as massacre more than just killings or murders and the fact that the official commissions/etc refer to it as massacre, that killings are more appropriate? Kkm5848 04:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marad_killings&oldid=1079706053"