Talk:Godhra train burning

Early comments

This is an important incident in the Indian recent history.Will work on it to enlarge.

I removed the db tag. Travelbird 12:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Article is unblanced and incomlete as it does not discuss causes and only cites an anti-Hindu article to promote propaganda. Until I (or someone else) modifies this article to include a full perspective on the situation this article is not neutral.Netaji 09:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Title and 1st paragraph dispute with Sturunner ==

To Sturunner:- Motion to change title is passed unopposed long time back. Why a problem now?

Original title "Godhra Train Incident" is vague and is POV. Anything from birth, marriage, graduation can be described as incident. There is no other attack-event on wikipedia or any where else which is titled as "incident". There is not a single media report which denies the "attack". More then 72 eyewitness testimony are found in nanavati commission report detailing "attack". The title should be "Godhra Train Attack" or "Godhra Train Massacre". Sturunner make your choice.

What is exact nature of problem you have with following 1st paragraph ? The Godhra Train Attack occurred in Godhra, which is a city located in the Indian state of Gujarat in 2002. The train massacre triggered widespread rioting in some parts of Gujarat.

The train, the Sabarmati Express, left Godhra Station at 07:47 hours (7:47 AM) on 27 February 2002. It was forcibly stopped and attacked soon after leaving the railway station by a Muslim mob of 500. During the attack, the Woman's reserved Coach no. S6 was burned [1]. A total of 58 Hindu pilgrims (23 men, 15 women and 20 children) were burnt alive. This pilgrims were returning from the holy city of Ayodhya after offering prayer at disputed Shri Ram Birthplace temple Babri Mosque site. This attack led to the 2002 Gujarat violence, which resulted in 254 Hindus and 790 Muslims being killed.[2] [3][4]

Do you have problem with size of mob? Most estimates put it between 500 and 1000. 500 is at the lower side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedpov (talk • contribs) 17:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

removal

Sabrang is not at all a credible source of opinion. They are a very left organization, and very very prejudiced towards Hindus. So I am against quoting Sabrang. R. Patel 16:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is total rubbish and looks like a Sangh Parivar propaganda. Neither the commission set up by BJP itself nor by the government of India has concluded that there was an attack from outside. When will these fanatics stop spreading non-sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.5.178 (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

One columnists opinion is irrelevant to the article. Also Sabrang is a partisan site, and can be disqualified under WP:RS. I am removing the columnist quotes and commenting out the Sabrang until a reliable and objective source is found.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the Sabrang stuff, but why is a columnists opinion irrelevant to the article? All news articles are written by journalists, many of who are columnists as well. Columns are frequently cited on Wikipedia. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Per Talk:2006 Malegaon blasts discussion of columnists. There are millions out there, and there is no need to turn this into a soapbox for certain views.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

A discussion between 2 or 3 editors on the talk page of another article is not conclusive. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the columnists are nn. Jyoti Puniyani sounds like anti-Hindu activist Ram Puniyani but has no credibility or notability, other than on this wiki article.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources don't need to be notable; the subjects of articles have to be notable. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Show me the exact wikipedia policy that says so.Hkelkar 01:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you show me the wikipedia policy that states sources have to be notable? You won't find anything like that in WP:RS. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No. You made the assertion you back it up. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you used "Anyway, the columnists are nn." as an argument first, after you tried using "Per Talk:2006 Malegaon blasts." BhaiSaab ^talk 02:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah looks like someone is using a smokescreen. Find a poicy yet? Columnists can be selectively quoted, I might as well add Togadia, Modi, rajnath Singh and the like while I'm at it.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What does a smokescreen have to do with this? You can use those columnists as long as they publish in sources that are generally regarded as reliable. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, show me the specific wikipedia policy that says so.Hkelkar 02:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and btw. How will you verify reliability in the absence of notability????Hkelkar 02:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to. You'll find that the concept of the journalist having to be notable in order for a newspaper article to be used is nonsense if you look at, e.g., articles that cover recent news events. A journalist need not be notable if the source he is using to publish his material, i.e. The Hindu, is generally regarded as reliable. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is the policy backing this assertion up? I find hinduunity reliable as well then.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:RS - I can't do the reading for you. Hinduunity.org is a bunch of nonsense. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with user:BhaiSaab on this. Please try to understand both the letter and the spirit of the policies before editing controversial articles because that will save everybody lot of time. Andries 09:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of giving us a nonsense you know nobody will listen to, why dont you actually read the article. You might notice I kept the Puniyani link anyways.Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Opinions

I Removed columnist opinions from the article. These opinions should not be the article but only on that columnist's page. An article is not a collection of opinions. Even comments or opinions of Bill O'Reilly whose The O'Reilly Factor, is routinely the highest-rated show of the three major U.S. 24-hour cable news channels (CNN, FOX News and MSNBC), are not in Wikipedia articles. They are only on His page. See Abortion Same-sex marriage and 2003 invasion of Iraq Preetikapoor0 00:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

category - clarification required

Why is the article being covered under "Terrorism in India"? This is not a terrorist activity, it is a communal violence event. Thus, shouldn't the template be updated and the template tag removed from this page. Kalyan 14:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Banerjee commission was declared as unconstitutional ,it's findings were not described as faulty. Thus the conclusion that the burning was due to a planned massacre or a spontaneous carnage by Muslims is not a logical deduction.

Proved as preplanned now. Any findings of Banerjee Comission does not stand valid.Thisthat2011 (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Documentary

Perhaps I should create a little section about the film Final Solution (Gujarat Riots) instead of adding it to external links.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.94.236 (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"In this Godhra Train Burning incident it got burnt either from outside or inside the train."

I removed this sentence because it provides no information. There *is* only an inside and an outside of a train. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.64.68 (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

The "Allegations of Planned Conspiracy" section is contradictory. The first sentence states that: "[..] often reported as a huge mob of Muslims burnt the train (Sabarmati Express), knowing it contained pilgrims, monks and kar sevaks *leaving for Ayodhya*". While a few paragraphs later, "[..]the strategy was to launch an attack at the slightest provocation from the Kar Sevaks who were *returning from Ayodhya*."

The first sentence should be removed/edited to reflect the fact that the attack happened when the pilgrims were returning from Ayodhya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.64.68 (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Article title

What are the policy based arguments for a move from 'Godhra train burning' to 'Godhra train massacre' ? The policies that spring to mind are WP:NAME and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). Sean.hoyland - talk 09:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the article title is fine at status quo (burning). I think massacre could be accurate as well, but burning is the most accurate wording.Pectore^talk 14:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

In case people do try to look up the article as "Godhra train attack" (or "incident" or "massacre"), with or without capitalized words, I've made REDIRECTs there so they see the article at Godhra train burning. This should remove any need to rename the article, and I hope it will end the dispute. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Deobandi "sect"

Since the Deobandis are not regarded as a separate "sect" but a movement within the Sunni sect I've changed the article. The wikipedia article on Deobandis states as much. 86.137.103.121 (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Motion for changing the title

I think that Godhra Train Burning should be changed to "Godhra Train Massacre". Does anyone know the process of initiating such an action of title change? R. Patel 16:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, since the request has been made, I will move it.Bakaman 18:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes this shows a real face of HINDUTA they will do anything for the political power

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3829364588351777769&q=%22Gujrat%22+%22Rakesh%22&hl=en ^^ the above link is a dead one , does not work .The statement reeks of bias .RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"Godhra Train Incident" is a vague title. Anything from birth, marriage, graduation can be described as incident. There is no other attack-event on wikipedia or any where else which is titled as incident. There is not a single media report which denies the "attack". More then 72 eyewitness testimony are found in nanavati commission report detailing "attack". The title should be "Godhra Train Attack".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimesmonster (talk • contribs) 07:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Requests to change the title of an article need to be based on policy. What are the policy based arguments for the name change ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Credibility of Tehelka "investigation"

How credible is Tehelka as an NPOV source? How credible are its investigative methods and personnel? Nshuks7 (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not credible at all. I personally feel it is bankrolled to go after certain political parties and not touch others like Congress(Indira), and therefore its views are not balanced, and sometimes its reports are blatantly incorrect.Thisthat2011 (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sabotage?

Should the attack type not be better considered to be arson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackattack1991 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No it was a preplanned massacre established in court.Thisthat2011 (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion for correcting broken links - a bug perhaps

Hi,

I have noticed a rather annoying occurrence of absence of links, when some section is removed when the link is mentioned in the removed section and the same link is referenced at other place in the article. Correcting such links becomes cumbersome and that is why I will not correct the last change I could have done easily.

Therefore I would like to suggest if this can be taken by developers of the content system, and as a first step I would suggest that when such a change is done, the entire link can be either placed at bottom of the article with references in the link or moved to the next occurrence of the link.

Thanks. 180.188.234.147 (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Does this article need "accident theory" content now that conspiracy is established?

Hi, Considering that High Court has upheld conspiracy part, does this article need any content repeatedly mentioning "accident theory" part? I am sure the investigation has enough stuff on them to convince the courts so (http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-exclusive-godhra-case-investigator-speaks/20110228.htm). 210.89.52.52 (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, it should probably be removed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Should this article be called "Godhra train Burning" now that Massacre is established?

Considering that Massacre has been established beyond reasonable doubt in High Court, Current title is no longer appropriate. No other Massacres in Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia in the world has this kind of vague and biased title. It's time to call massacre a massacre. I will change the title to "Godhra Train Massacre" unless anybody objects in next 2 weeks. (http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-exclusive-godhra-case-investigator-speaks/20110228.htm). unbiasedpov1 —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC).

I would say put it as a conspiracy and massacre which is correct.Thisthat2011 (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Tehelka Investigation

Hi, I would like to point out that Gujarat High Court has given its verdict stating that the burning was a preplanned conspiracy. In view of this open lengthy trial in courts and case investigated by competent officers, the self proclaimed investigation and judgment by Tehelka does not stand. Mentioning the same in the page is nothing but an attempt to confuse and in effect goes against judgment of High Court of India. Please remove the section. I removed it once but the edit was reversed.Thisthat2011 (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, a Hindutva ruling by a court appointed by the Genocidaire Modi is your source? LOL!Sturunner (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Sturunner

How is this a Hindutva appointed courts? Stop throwing wild allegations..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 04:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The findings of the court case and the convictions deserve a prominent place in this article, despite Sturunner's articulate and unbiased claims to the contrary.Pectore^talk 20:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Gujarat HC and special court verdicts and judgments

Editors (such as User:Aurorion) had introduced a neutrality issue tag to the above article (especially concerning the lead and intro section) saying there are "controversies" about the incident which must be honored before the matter is fully resolved by law. I would like to bring to notice that the same (court verdicts) has already happened, most notably the Feb-March 2011 Gujarat HC rulings on the matter last year. The courts have decisively ruled that:

1. The incident was a preplanned conspiracy hatched a few days in advance by local radical Muslims of the Signal Fadia area near Godhra railway station, and specifically a conspiracy to target karsevaks. The court has mentioned in its case closure judgment statements that the train burning incident was NOT either (1) an accident or (2) provoked by any act of the passengers in that train when passing through Godhra. See:

• [1]
• [2]

2. Furthermore, the court convicted 31 persons 11 of whom were given capital punishment. See:

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

3. The Gujarat HC had earlier already termed the Banerjee one-man committee (started by Lalu Prasad Yadav as railway minister just after UPA came to power in 2004 and just before elections in his home state Bihar) as illegal, unconstitutional and politically motivated and also ruled that the findings of the Banerjee committee (which said it could have been accident instead of conspiracy) were null and void.

This is pretty decisive by all respects. BTW, the article does give lots of space to the alternative controversies and Banerjee committee and its findings etc in the article content and text anyway ... the lead and intro section, obviously, must be short and stick to facts. In light of this, it makes sense to remove the POV tag. 202.3.77.183 (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• The POV tag was not just because of the controversies on the nature of the fire; it was also because of the wording. The wording had a clear bias against a particular religious community. I have reworded the intro to make it more WP:NPOV. Aurorion (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• • It was reworded to make it appear as the fire just occurred. "A particular religious community" unfortunately took it upon themselves to burn the train, and the IP user has provided reliable sources from mainstream newspapers to back up that assertion. Unfortunately, Verifiability trumps the idea of a neutral point of view. We can verify the court cases, and the legal proceedings that established Muslim guilt in this attack.Pectore^talk 18:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Pectore - the older version of the intro to this article is heavily POV. The intro needs to be encyclopaedic with clear facts, with very little judgement especially considering the court cases and appeals on this are still going on. Plus, it is also not worded accurately. For example, the burning was not the conspiracy - it was the result of the conspiracy. The rewording has all the facts of the previous version, and additionally mentions that 31 people were convicted of the crime, but presents it in a much more WP:NPOV style. Aurorion (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are the coordinates in this article commented-out? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

My edits on the Godhra train burning page =

Hi! Aurorian - I see that you have removed edit I made to the page. Can you please explain why, when I had provided several high-quality sources to support that edit? Please discuss on the Talk page of the article. As per wikipedia policy, You are free to add more facts and enhance the article. I am adding them back. Please discuss before removing it. Thanks. Unbiasedpov (talk)