Talk:Godhra train burning

Regarding removal of number of women and children from the victims

I am opening this new Talk topic regarding the recent revert of the mention of 25 women and 15 children from the victim count. 15 children dead shows an advanced level of brutality. Killing those that can not defend themselves (usually referred to as women and children) and is often used in journalism. Even if one was to not mention women separately, children are especially vulnerable, and their killing is widely considered more heinous. A similar analogy (although both despicable) would be child rapists vs adult rapists. --Sdmarathe (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha! You carry on mate! I'm tired of trying to instill some NPOV in articles related to Gujarat riots and I was even declared a sockpuppet, trying to do so. Let the hijackers of Wikipedia continue hijacking it. - Vatsan34 (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I started reading some of these articles and I was shocked to see only one side of view point pushed. India is a secular country where there are opposing view points. It is a common knowledge that both the sides have their share of issues and it needs to be put forth in WP:NPOV--Sdmarathe (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

They consider Indians editors as some third-class and they have aversion to any Hindu names. That is the real reason. These NPOV and RS are just superficial ones. - Vatsan34 (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

you are so correct. I was going through all the revisions of this page - and the page has been radically changed in last 2 years! Going from a pre-planned train carnage by a local muslim mob of 2000 on a Karsevak group - all the way to a staged trigger by Hindus! Some of the sources on those old pages (which I can still see) had been mysteriously removed as dead links - and then questions asked to support with links. I am going to dig those out now.. All I want is to treat Godhra train massacres and the massacres that followed with same brush.--Sdmarathe (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Did everyone forget about this? Three people reverted Sdmarathe, but it still was left on that person's version with "women and children" without any discussion. Dustin (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Dustin V. S (talk · contribs) - that is not "my" version. It was there before I made any changes. I merely reverted back to where it was - and it was put to discussion... Please look at history before my edits on this page--Sdmarathe (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Distin V. S., I'm ambivalent about this; but if you feel strongly about removing it, please explain why. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Distin V. S., I believe it is important to mention women and children to distinguish this incident from a normal "communal riot", where only the combatants might get killed. The apparent "brutality" of the attack is treated as justification for the equally brutal retaliation. So I believe NPOV requires that the mention of women and children should be present. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Keep the article being biased if you want. You justify this as "NPOV", but in reality, as you consider men less important than women just because (a factor that they had no choice over), I can see right through your logic. The same may be considered with regard to the children who were killed; the things is, there is no specific relevance, and all this implies is that the lives of men are worth less just because they are men. This makes it appear that the moment a man or woman has reached adulthood, his or her life is worth less and he or she may as well just replaced by another child. Consider I already gave my reasons in my edit summary and on my talk page, but nobody cared to give my thoughts any consideration. Dustin (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, my user name is "Dustin V. S." with a "u" after the "D" and a period after the "S", which is why your attempts to notify me more promptly have not worked. Dustin (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

We wish you the best of luck with your "man's rights" movement, but we have far more important issues to worry about on this page. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I never said anything about rights. The thoughts of others matter; I try to give others consideration, but even when I do, I frequently am still disregarded. Did you even read what I said? Okay, so some woman is not capable of saving herself from a fire. What makes a man more capable of doing the same? There is no actual justified reason to make points like this, and I believe that use of the word including should only be used on an extremely restricted basis anywhere on Wikipedia with regard to any group, and only if the reason is made quite clear by the subject being described. Dustin (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

There is an RfC about the 2002 Gujarat riots. To view and/or participate, follow the link at: Talk:Bombay_Riots#RfC:_Equality:-Add_series_.22Violence_against_Hindus.22_or_Remove_series_.22Violence_against_Muslims_in_India.22.3F. Note: This RfC link fully complies with Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Placing_an_RfC_in_a_page_other_than_a_talk_page. Do not delete without consensus. Unbiasedpov (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that one is not allowed to edit this article and provide links without being called a vandal and getting into an edit war. 122.176.129.101 (talk) - anonymous user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.129.101 (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

First of all, you are not signed in. Second, You have provided zero links. Third, have gone on changing article that is quite sensitive to say the least, without first coming to Talk page to gain consensus. I am glad you started the talk entry. Please articulate what you want to change and why you want to change with sources. If you provide sources up to date, reputable sources , your changes are more than welcome! thanks!--Sdmarathe (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Surely one doesn't need your personal permission to make an edit within the parameters of wiki without seeking your approval first. I know it is sensitive, therefore adding as much information one knows of is in all our best interests. Do look at the news articles, and published government and other reports without calling people vandals and recursively undoing what value they hope to add.

//You have provided zero links// Which is why I need to take your permission before I can finish making changes, in violation of the 3 undo's rule? I did read up, for the first time thanks to your endeavours. :) -122.176.129.101 (talk) - anonymous user

What value add have you done? DO enlighten. The changes you made, had ZERO backing in either news or academia or otherwise and you are just making vandalism changes to suit your desires. You certainly do not need anyone's permission to edit, but are subject to reverts for making vandalism edits as you yours. 3 RR does not apply to revert vandalism edits like you have done so far. --Sdmarathe (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

) I see you point. Fighting on the edits page and on talk before a person has finished and then claiming validity by stopping them is not an edit war.

Do keep your version of history, if incorrect.

//Vandalism is "action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property". The term also includes criminal damage such as graffiti and defacement directed towards any property without permission of the owner.//

Care to explain where and why the word "Mulsim" lead to this with links?

Or are you just a vandal claiming validity because you made an ID :)