Talk:2002 Gujarat riots

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2002 Gujarat riots article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

India: Gujarat / History / Politics C‑class High‑importance

	India portal 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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Gujarat (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Top-importance).

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 27, 2005 and February 27, 2012.

NPOV dispute [Gujarat Violence 2002]

Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3
Talk:2002 Gujarat violence/2006 revision

Please sign all your posts on Wikipedia talk pages by typing ~~~~ to be accountable and to help others understand the conversation.

Tehelka Sting

There is'nt a single mention of the Tehelka sting operation. To say that the sting provided undisputable and original information is to state the obvious. At least a link to the operation's article should be provided. ~~~~

I agree.ManasShaikh (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

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

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

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

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

Mediation

An Admin suggested mediation as a means of addressing problems here. I'm not entirely familiar with the processes, but if that is what is necessary, I'll go for it. Are others here willing to participate in mediation? Is there anything about mediation that participants would be obliged to follow once its concluded? The situation here is a joke, and one would think mediation wouldn't be necessary to persuade people to abide by existing WP policies. MinaretDk 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In turn, some have accused these news media agencies, non-governmental organizations and human rights advocacy groups of media bias and bias against Hindus[14][15][16][17]." - these "some" could always be in any story - say if you write that Zarqawi killed x number of people. There will always be "some" people who will find themselves on the wrong side and they will criticise the media bias or bias against Al-Qaeda.What use is this sentence, other than as a weasel Neptunion 17:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a weasel, no doubt. RumpleStiltSkin and Bakasuprman don't care though. They've deleted content with reliable sources, opting to retain 'original research'. The article emphasizes unreliable sources such as blogs and articles on community portal websites written by nobodies. They don't care. Unfortunately since my correcting these problems means me being accused of 'edit warring', I have to sit and just look at this bullshit. MinaretDk 17:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BhaiSaab and TerryJ-Ho isnt there a better place to argue this?Baka man 18:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism

This was an act of terrorism and should be listed as such under "Terrorism in India". Almost all, if not all, of the terrorist acts listed under it were perpetrated by Muslims, and we all know Hindus have committed terrorist acts as well. This needs to be listed. JBull12 13:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some bias against Muslims in this articles and it represent in some datas for example, when they say 254 hindus killed, most of them in the police firing. At the same time they should tell them those "254 hindus killed most of them police firing" are just amount to 20% where Muslims were killed in police firing were 80% from the total killed by police firing. So, its obvious that when they were carrying out attacks on muslims, how could 80% of muslims die in Police firing being as a victim of this tragedy. There are many views in this article are placed in such a way that the cold blooded killings of muslims can be shown as a common phenomina. There is no hint in this article that if the train is not burned from outside according to all the reports. Why they did not touch a possibility of preplanned strategy from Gujarat Government to get down so dirty to play politics on the dead bodies human beings. They are confusing the role of the gujarat governments by just posting the stupid excuses of Modi group while on the other hand all the human right organisations talking with the real datas.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence/Comments"

JBull, By most accounts this was a state sponsored act of terrorism against people of Muslim faith in Gujarat [Most of the good links, journalistic ones tend to get disappear, you can imagine why] .This article - the way it is being maintained serves to wash away the crimes of the perpetrators at the same time showing the incidents as fairly normal and two sided.Even the title of the article suffers from the same - instead of Gujarat Killings or Anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat [Some sources even call it Gujarat Genocide], it says Gujarat Violence..and you can still see why the end paras are all like ..[Bias of Media (against Hindus),Bias of X (against Hindus) ..and so on.I am wondering if there is a way we can make someone neutral actually own this page.The democratic aspect of WP is actually becoming a bane on this article , for there is an overwhelming presence of the like minded persons of a particular community who would rather think this page never existed.Mcleodganj 03:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the titles of the sections such as "Bias of the X" seem POV. I think they should be edited to be more neutral. Buddhipriya 03:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've only heard spurious allegations from Muslim extremists (BhaiSaab (talk · contribs)) and sockpuppeteers (like Jbull). Terrorism is like blowing up a train, not larghe swaths of people beating each other up. Did you forget 200+ Hindus died, and tribals were killed in cold blood by Muslims? Its not terrorism, its a string of riots and killings, accurately summed up as violence.Baka man 18:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhipriya, to respond to you, the biases of left-leaning pappers and correpsondents are often mentioned. Since this conflict was the only thing that happened in 2002, there are many conflicting views, accurately detailed by their prejudices and predilections.Baka man 18:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely not an act of terrorism. It was a communal riot. It was not pre-planned but an unfortunate series of events that enraged one group of people against another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.175.93 (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

explain reversion

[1]on the contrary, it is not NPOV to word an allegation of a criminal act as "believed to have done", after the allegation has been dismissed by court-appointed enquiry, without reporting either Setalvad's denial[2] or the court's findings[3] and without reporting the many other allegations[4] thrown around both by Zaheera Sheikh and others. Doldrums 11:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...that Teesta Setalvad was accused of bribing witnesses is not a disputed fact at all and it is backed up by sources. Wikipedia's policy on neutrality does not deny entry of facts that are backed up by relevant and reliable citations. You can easily fix the lacunae by adding relevant information alongside with the assertions of allegations instead of reverting. Go Dhokla! -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 11:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"believed to have been" is not an accusation, it is a weasal-worded statement of fact. it is also a contentious statement about a living person reported in a non-neutral manner. so i did what i can do to fix it. Doldrums 11:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you there, we should take utmost care that we do not violate WP:LIVING in any manner. I hope you do agree with the change I have made now. But if you don't, please feel free to revert! :) Go Dhokla! -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 12:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

duplicated content

why does the Roy piece in particular need to be duplicated (in full) as "context"[5] out of more than half the article (sections on the role of the government, hindutva organisations, press) that is also context for the violence? Doldrums 07:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs

Too much of the material has been sourced to blogs of dubious notability. All of that has been removed. Also, the SAAG 'guest columnist' is described as an undergraduate. I hardly think that this is an encyclopaedic reference. Hornplease 08:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. All references to advocacy groups and sites with dubious repute should also be removed from the article. Best of luck! -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 08:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with that in principle, but do you think HRW counts as a common or garden 'advocacy group'? I don't think so. Hornplease 19:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HRW is not unbiased in the matter, so there should be no undue weight given to their views. SAAG on the other hand, is a think-tank, used by many universities as a legitimate avenue for research.Baka man 01:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That statement has little or no credibility. HRW, whether or not it is biased, was the most widely read source on Gujarat. Statements can be sourced to the report even if HRW is not linked directly, as the report, in the public domain, was quoted widely in reliable sources. As for SAAG, I have no opinion at this time; the paper their website hosts, however, is known to be written by an undergraduate, with a clear denial of editorial review, and is thus not WP:RS.Hornplease 05:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether HRW is biased or unbiased is not the locus of dispute, it is a reputable source which should be included but not overused in a manner that compromises neutrality of the article. In the same manner SAAG cannot be considered a source failing WP:RS, as this website has a number of renowned authors/journalists contributing with editorial oversight. Undue weightage on a single source should be avoided so that the article does not skew in favour of a particular point of view. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 09:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is no indication that there is editorial oversight. The comparison is to working papers in academic fields, which are frequently hosted on university websites but are not peer-reviewed and are thus not RS. In this case, I certainly see no way that an article by an undergraduate without peer-review could possibly be considered RS. Naturally, this does not extend automatically to articles by B.Raman.

About HRW, we do not want to skew the reporting, and are forbidden to under WP:NPOV. We have to report in rough proportion to the number of reliable sources that actually relied on HRW's fact-finding. Naturally they will be heavily represented here, because they were heavily represented in the mainstream media at the time. Hornplease 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fHRW had been widely belived then gujarat would have acted on thebais of dictats that it has not happned clearly indicates that hrw views are not accepted by people who were close to reality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.134.205.57 (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bias of Human Rights Watch"

text removed from article.

Justice G.T. Nanavati of the Nanavati Commission has rejected the HRW claims of exclusive Hindu involvement, stating that On the evidence that they have recorded so far, it would not be fair to say that only Muslims were targeted. And there was a contrast of day and night in the versions of the riots as projected by the national English media and the sharply contrasting versions appearing in the local Gujarati papers of all hues. Every Gujarati newspaper reported the riots in the same way, that after the first three days of rioting from 28 February to March 2, from 3 March 2002 to the last riot, every riot was started by Muslims. Initially though Hindus may have been the perpetrators of violence because they were angry, later members of both communities were engaged in the violence^[1].

^ Ltd evidence against VHP, Bajrang Dal in Guj riots,Outlookindia.com

The only thing supported in the cited article is that Justice Nanavai says that on the evidence the commission recorded they have recorded so far, it would not be fair to say that only Muslims were targeted. HRW does not make claims of "exclusive Hindu involvement", in fact the WP article describes earlier, HRW's characterization of attacks on Hindus by muslims.Doldrums 09:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Include the sourced part(s) and seclude the misrepresented part(s). -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 09:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'bias of' this and that

this article is not the place to state general criticism of people and organisations mentioned in it. criticism that addresses their actions related to the riots are appropriate. such criticism needs to be proportionate to its importance to the riots and the coverage it received in the real world. Doldrums 04:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those relevant organizations have been criticized for anti-Hindu bias by a mainstream journalist in India. Baka man 22:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant. this is not the place for general criticism, only criticism relating to the riots. any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. (WP:NOR) Doldrums 05:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then Celia dugger's hinduphobic rants do not belong in the article per WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight.Baka man 18:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celia Dugger's reporting is on-topic, Varsha Bhosle's is not. one stays, the other goes.

feel free to identify any particular bit that you think is being given undue weight, and we'll see if the weight it is given reflects its real world prominence. if you're comparing Dugger and Bhosle, keep in mind that Dugger is reporting, Bhosle is writing an opinion column. Dugger is reporting local's views, not her own, unlike Bhosle. Dugger writes for the NYT. Bhosle, a Rediff ~~blog~~column.Doldrums 05:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A notable journalist on a reliable source? Should be included. (specific reference to Varsha) -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 09:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a "notable journalist" talking about the riots or media coverage of the riots is appropriate. but this article is not the place for the same journalist's opinion of media sources unless they're expressed directly relating to the riots. that's why we don't, for example, report the ten thousand other things various people have said over the years about the NYT, or the Guardian.Doldrums 03:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Biased reporting" and "criticism of media and sources" is regularly added in articles across Wikipedia. Please refer me to the guideline stating otherwise. Go Dhokla! -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 08:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. (WP:NOR). Doldrums 09:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, oh, what...? Pleading original research? Varsha was published by a reputed online source, and this is in relation to the topic of the article. The media criticised the government and the media criticised other media for biases in reporting. You can have a look here for example. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 09:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is in relation to the topic of the article. ummm... Bhosle criticises the NYT in 1999. She finds her favourite bias in the Guardian in its coverage of a Supreme Court verdict regarding education standards. and to respond to any forthcoming posts about the same bias that Bhosle talked about being present in coverage of the Gujarat riots; source it. Doldrums 10:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These two sources specifically make references to the 2002 Gujarat violence. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 11:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do These?Doldrums 17:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist in keeping every tablighi lament in the article, then its quite prudent to keep those that have criticized Hinduphobic journalists in a liberal biased newspaper. If the allegations were published in the Wall Street Journal, a criticism might not be so relevant, however its no secret the NYT despises conservatives, and the BJP is not a liberal party.Baka man 22:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

attempts to lend "balance" to an article by adding unsourced material are a non-starter. after discussing this for close to a week now, do i still need to point out that Bhosle has not in fact criticised Dugger's or the Guardian's reporting of the 2002 Gujarat violence, "specially for misusing the term 'Genocide'" in the sources provided? Doldrums 06:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any misrepresentation should be removed from the article. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 09:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balbir Punj

Balbir Punj is a very notable journalist and a notable politician as well.Baka man 22:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 09:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fact check

have tagged the article after finding several instances where source material has been incorrectly or misleadingly reported [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Doldrums 09:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

undid reversion

this revert

adds unsourced material ("Celia Dugger's [...] reporting of the 2002 Gujarat violence [...] criticized", "The Guardian [...] criticized for [...] misusing the term "Genocide"")
removes sourced text ("Supreme Court [...] critical of [...] state government's investigation and prosecution") and
misrepresents sources (removal of "unsubstantiated rumours", "official commission led by G.T. Nanavati concluded").

these changes have certainly not been "aptly discussed", as claimed in the edit summary, let alone resolved in favour the changes actually made. i've reverted the changes so as to remove the unsourced text and restore sourced text. pls do not revert this change without addressing the issues raised. Doldrums 12:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The commission headed by G.T. Nanavati is official (note set up by the State of Gujarat). Balbir Punj is more than just another BJP MP, he is a quite notable journalist, a la Arun Shourie. He worked for the Financial Express for 22 years and is quite competent in commenting on these issues.Baka man 18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The commission is yet[11] to submit an interim report in 2007, let alone conclude anything in 2003, as your edit[12] suggests. all the source supports is that Nanavati said in an interview, which is precisely[13] how i've worded it.

you can take up ur debate over whether Punj should be named or not with User:Zamkudi, who is the one who removed it[14]. i couldn't care less.

and instead of continuing to do wholesale reverts of proper edits, consider that you've failed to justify the one issue you addressed among all the problems with your edit. Doldrums 18:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are begging for blocks on ANI and whining based on an issue of semantics ? The only "unjustified reverts" are the ones you and the wikistalking troll and sockpuppeter have been tag teaming to accomplish.Baka man 18:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is this your response to the substantive issues raised? Doldrums 18:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

misrepresentation of sources

User:Bakasuprman reverts my changes to the article to a state where it misrepresents the sources used. Doldrums 06:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source	User:Doldrums' edit[15]	User:Bakasuprman's edit[16]
At the Gulbarg Society, the mob's anger was apparently fueled By a rumor -- encouraged By a senior leader OF the World Hindu Council Wednesday in an interview -- that Muslims had kidnapped Three Hindu girls from the train and raped them. Raju Bhargava, the superintendent OF police IN the district where the train attack occurred, said today that he had found no evidence to support the rumor.[17]	The initial violence was instigated by unsubstantiated rumours, endorsed by a senior VHP leader, of Muslims having kidnapped three Hindu girls during the Godhra train attack.	The initial violence was instigated by Muslims having kidnapped three girls from the trains
Evidence recorded so far does not indicate any serious lapse on part of the Gujarat Police or administration in handling the communal clashes that erupted followed the Godhra train incident, Justice G T Nanavati, heading the two-member commission to probe last year's riots, said on Sunday.[18] (The Commission is yet to complete its work in 2007 [19], so Nanavati's statement to the media shouldn't be reported as "official commission ... concluded".	G.T. Nanavati, who leads the official commission investigating the riots said in 2003 that the evidence recorded till then did not indicate any serious lapse on the part of the government or police in Gujarat.	The official commission led by G.T. Nanavati concluded there was no lapse on the part of the government or police in Gujarat. "The commission had given time to all the affected to file additional affidavits on incidents that had taken place in their respective localities during the February-March riots" later modified[20] to "The official commission ... gave a statement"
Bhosle criticises the Guardian's reporting of a Supreme court (not "Gujarat courts") verdict concerning changes to school textbooks by the NCERT, does not criticise its reporting of the riots. [21]	<removed the text>	The reports of the Gujarat riots by the United Kingdom based newspaper The Guardian has been criticized for leftist bias, specially for misusing the term "Genocide" by former Rediff columnist Varsha Bhosle writing that their claims of "Hindu bias" in Gujarat courts are unfounded.

Third Opinion

I agree that some of the edits by Bakasuprman do not appear to match with the cited sources. In particular, the first and third edits (above) seem to be entirely unsupported by the sources. I don't see anything particularly off about the second edit with the second phrasing ("gave a statement" rather than "concluded").

I would suggest that the wording of the article be returned to that suggested by Doldrums for the first and third points. The second might warrant some additional discussion about exact wording, but I see no significant discrepancy between it and the cited source. — Coren ^(talk) 02:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Regarding the third point, my suggestion is of course that the paragraph be removed unless a source can be found that supports the statement— there is no previous wording to return to). — Coren ^(talk) 02:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reg. the second edit, no source[22][23] (reprinted [24][25]) reports Nanavati's comment as a "statement from the commission" (which makes it sound like its a formal or official word of the commission).

i suggest the following wording and expansion-

G.T. Nanavati, a member of the official commission investigating the riots said in 2003 that the evidence recorded till then (which did not include the most-affected districts of Ahmedabad and Vadodara) did not indicate any serious lapse on the part of the government or police in Gujarat.[26] He subsequently said he had been misquoted and clarified that the remark did not refer to the more than 3000 affidavits filed by riot victims or hearings on the Godhra incident, but only to evidence recorded in district-level hearings.[27]

Doldrums 08:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like it's beginning to stray from neutrality, although I expect the edging to be from the sources rather than you. Do you feel that strongly about this paragraph? I don't think it brings a lot to the article, and is a probable source of contention. Personally, I'd waid for the commission to make an official statement before going into that much detail; but YMMV. — Coren ^(talk) 00:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but that i'm afraid is how it is. the significance of the statement is not so much that it gives a definitive verdict about what happened (it doesn't, but those who support the government would like to say it does) but it created a controversy[28] - reportedly prompting India's Human Rights Commission to respond[29]. the incident got a fair amount of media coverage, so i'm reluctant to omit it altogether. the sources, Times of India and Indian Express are prominent mainstream newspapers. would showing more sources help assuage neutrality concerns? would a more barebones sketch help? and would you agree that "Nanavati said" describes it better than "Commission stated"? Doldrums 05:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that "Nanavati said" is better than "Commission stated"; but it would be important to mention that Navarti leads the commission since his official capacity is why the statement stirred controversy in the first place. A more barebones sketch would probably be best, if only because it's less likely to be contentious. — Coren ^(talk) 16:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how about... Doldrums 20:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 2003, A comment by G.T. Nanavati, who leads the official commission investigating the riots, that part of the evidence collected and reviewed till then did not indicate any serious lapse on the part of the government or police in Gujarat was criticised as inappropriate by aid and reconciliation activists and other jurists.

That looks like perfection made text! :-) Add cites to this and you're in business. — Coren ^(talk) 22:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here goes. appreciate your help and look forward to more such input in the future. Doldrums 11:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. — Coren ^(talk) 03:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

recent reverts

in this edit, sourced text has been deleted and the re-organisation of sections to get rid of a large "Controversy" section (for reasons mentioned here) has been undone. the edit summary says this is a reversion of the "deletion of sourced edits".

the "sourced edits" that have been deleted earlier, material such as media criticism by Bhogle, etc has been deleted for reasons discussed before. if you contest this, pls state reasons and pls do not continue to revert other uncontested changes to the article. Doldrums 10:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title

I think that the word "violence" is a tad too vague. I suggest that we change it to something more specific. Perhaps the word "riot" could be better?--A 02:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riots would entail that it was set in only one location. Violence is broad, to encompass all the bombings, fights, and large group conflict that occurred.Baka man 22:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"unreliable" CCT

CCT is reliable enough to be cited by upon by several, for instance, (isbns) 1841136808 and 0761934081. Doldrums (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is meaningless. Teesta Setalvad publishes the paper, which is a partisan source. It is not usable per WP:RS, otherwise we may as well use Panchajnya and other RSS papers to write this page.Baka man 23:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They refer to themselves as an advocacy group.Baka man 23:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of RS says an advocacy group publication cannot be linked to. period. especially when the publication itself is notable enough to be mentioned in the article and plenty of reliable source cite it as reliable? Doldrums (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

now on WP:RS/N. Doldrums (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(taken from the noticeboard).Just because a source was used in a book (along with hundreds of others) really does not give any rubber stamp of approval. Sabrang, is an unreloable source, since it is funded and published by Teesta Setalvad, who was accused by a victim of the violence, Zaheera Sheikh of coercion to falsely implicate 21 people. The organization is controversial in the media, and some allege is has been used for embezzling foreign funds. Also of note is that it is an Advocacy Group. There is really no logical way that Sabrang can possibly fit under WP:RS, noting all this obvious controversy that surrounds it. When writing an article as contentious as 2002 Gujarat violence, it is obvious that only reliable, non-controversial sources should be used. Using a political ideologue in an NPOV article is nonsensical.Baka man 01:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

Both of the sources comment on stability in Gujarat, and how this has benefited Muslims in the educational and financial spheres.

“

If pockets are empty, there will be violence. If people are jobless, there will be violence. Now that everyone is getting jobs, why should there be riots^[1]

”

. I'm certain a certain user would leave the note untouched if it talked about "modi=hitler" and "final solution for muslims", but since it vindicated Modi, it has to go on the chopping block.Baka man 18:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

attacks on Hindus

Both the sources in question note large loss in property.

“

they looted our property, torched houses, desecrated our temples and later tried to kill us but we escaped somehow

”

[[30]]

“

The Dalits have put up at a nearby temple for when they returned home about a week back, they found dead animals in their houses.

”

The sources corroborate with a fair description of attacks on Hindus. Also the quote about HRW is unsourced.Baka man 17:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that both sides of the debate and all the facts must be covered. From what I understand of WP:Neutral point of view/Examples, I don't think we can make the conclusion that the Gujarat riots were "just" anti-Muslim, even if media and other sources do. Shiva_eVolved 18:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The media does ralk about ~250 Hindus dying in relation to ~700 Muslims, so the barbs went both ways. What perturbs me is the sensationalization of the article, and the obvious fact that its almost solely based on HRW reports. Very little content is not from HRW, and this violates WP:UNDUE, since people may as well get the same picture from reading HRW. Also what isnt, is often removed or undermined by nitpicking and semantics. I agree that we cannot, and should not make this look like a one way fight, when it was a cesspool of anger.Baka man 18:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article lacks some key information, which may possibly help overcome the sensationalism you suggest. I remember reading stories about (1) a Hindu-Muslim effort in villages to keep out the rioters and political groups to preserve peace, which shows that it wasn't all total hate and mayhem (2) about police arresting a top Muslim cleric in Godhra for conspiring the train attacks, (3) about riot victims and military families being evacuated to Army bases and (4) more details of what measures K.P.S. Gill took to restore order. (5) There were often cases of pure looting of Hindu and Muslim shops by non-rioting civilians, (6) of roads/highways and supplies being shut off for over a month. (7) Many Muslim shop-keepers put up pictures of Hindu Gods to escape the rioters. (7) Finally, I feel there should be a clear distinction made about the figures detailing those killed in riots and those killed in police/Army firings. Shiva_eVolved 07:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was also an article back then in the Times of India that described how VHP/BJP activists had compiled lists of Muslims living in neighborhoods, of schools and colleges with Muslim students, so as to guide the rioters where to attack. While it seems that such information may actually aggravate neutrality issues and sensationalism, it actually helps by providing specific details that are factual - a generalized, basic article is susceptible to vague theories, speculation and the broader Muslim-Hindu blame game. It gives the wrong impression by reducing everything to "Hindu vs. Muslim; victim vs. rioters." Most significant is that example of village Hindus and Muslims taking joint action to keep out the rioters. These facts give the readers more insight, reducing the chances that they will simply think in terms of a "Hindu retaliation for Godhra," "Muslim victimization and genocide," "Government complacency and conspiracy," "right-wing political groups vs. biased media and secular political groups." Shiva_eVolved 07:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think those generalized debates are over-emphasized here, leading to sensationalism - of whom the HRW blamed, of what the foreign govts thought of this, of how the Hindu right-wing responded, of the image of Modi, etc.. I would want to know as much as possible about what exactly happened, rather than reading a "whodunit." Shiva_eVolved 07:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to add that to the article, can you provide the sources describing 1-7? Or add the relevant sections to the article? That would speed up the rewriting process.Baka man 21:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A website on this subject

A website has been devoted to the truth of the Gujarat riots- titled www.gujaratriots.com

This website gives comprehensive details of the Gujarat riots- and deals with facts and figures based on primary sources of the Indian media-who are biased against Hindus- such as The Times of India, The Indian Express, The Hindu, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.217.84 (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brief intro to the political scenario:

A suggestion I might make to improve the article is that there can be a brief explanation of politics in India. Global users might find it hard to comprehend statements regarding the role of political parties in instigating riots. A few sentences about the role and ideology of the Sangh Parivar, as well as on the fact that crimes by political parties and open violations of the constitution by constitutional authorities is not uncommon in India, would help users understand the violence better and lend more objectivity to the article 59.92.134.130 (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this part "The actual fact is, Ghodra train attack was also a drama of Sang Parivar to make a riot." Can anyone give a link to prove this? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Balbir Punj

What are Balbir Punj's news articles doing as references in the article? He is a BJP man and not a reliable source. Can anyone explain what is going on here? --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to his resume, he also has a tad bit of journalism expertise, a few (26) years under his belt working for some of India's most respected newspapers. His citation has already been qualified in this article as "BJP MP", but he is qualified outside of politics as a successful journalist.Pectore^talk 22:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Godhra commission

While I agree with RP that a detailed description of the commission does not belong in the intro, the article cannot only display the "findings" of the Bannerjee commission and not discuss the more notable more recent findings of the Godhra commission. The Godhra train burning was the cause of these riots/pogroms/etc. and therefore a small summarization does have a place in this article.Pectore^talk 22:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I guess the place you inserted it at was correct. Also many of the references are broken - I mean the links are broken or don't lead to the right articles. How to fix them? --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasifwasif edits

My edits on this page (which added reliable sources, removed partisan rags, and added criticism of an author, who has been given undue weight on this article) were reverted under the blanket banner by the above user as "reverting vandalism". Below is a diff of all the edits I made with listed justification. Diffs

Cited a previously uncited quote/argument about the Banerjee commission.
Removed a link to Milligazette, an Islamist "newspaper" (using the term lightly) and certainly not a reliable source
Added important criticism about an author who has been given undue weight on this page.

Let me know, with links to Wikipolicy and reasoned argument how this is vandalism.Pectore^talk 02:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

were ALL of those sources neutral, un biased and reliable? Wasifwasif (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wasifwasif, I am not trying to vandalise the page at all. I am neither Hindu nor Muslim nor anywhere related to the whole situation on the Indian subcontinent for that matter and I only stumbled on to this page due someone who had vandalised a page that I was watching and who had also vandalised this page. I have since that time also reverted edits of people on this page whom I suspected of being Hindu nationalist so you can't accuse me of being partisan in this article. The reason why I revert your edits is because you constantly edit out the mentioning of the casualty numbers of the Godhra train burning. It seems to me that you yourself are trying to gloss over the Godhra train burning. The article, as well as the Godhra train burning article, seems NPOV enough as it is as it mentions the controversy surrounding the train burning where the views of both parties are presented. But to leave out the casualties altogether, as you do with your edits, is not appropriate for a balanced article. So stop calling me and everyone else who is looking to achieve a balanced article a vandal just because you do not agree with them, because if anyone, it would be you who in this matter could be considered a vandal. - Takeaway (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sources to be incorporated

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

Stop misguiding and vandalism

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

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

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

As you have posted the same in my talk page, I have replied there. Btw, all the above sources are very much there in the article. Shovon (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the above links are from the contents which are deleted by you saying as vandalism. Why a lie saying all the above links are there. Repeatedly i am asking, which part do you say as my POV? Reply with valid data points. or else i have to take this to admins. using words of "nonsense"'s kind won't help much in wikipedia. Wasifwasif (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasif, I'm getting tired of this whole thing. If you continue putting forward nonsensical arguments, how else can one call these then? I am telling you again to look in to the article and find for yourself if the sources have been removed or are still there. Also, one of your edits removed the link to the main article on Godhra Train burning. How do you justify that? The people killed in that incident were all Hindus. Why do you always try to deny that through your edits? Any answers? Oh, please feel free to post the matter to Admin Noticeboard/Incidents. Because if you don't and revert this again, I'll personally do that. Shovon (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

user:SpacemanSpiff

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

Wrong, in this particular case your actions are really vandalism -- changing the incident title to exclude one part of the events etc. —SpacemanSpiff 11:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanSpiff has actually been one of the reasons this page has not gone to the dogs. Its fairly evident whose edits are being guided by "personal thinking (sidenote: I would hope your edits are guided by "personal thinking") and biased POV".Pectore^talk 03:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mischief? [edits] by user:Wasifwasif

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

One reason might be that your edits appeared to remove a reliable source and insert an unreliable source in its place. This is based on a quick look and not extensive investigation. Perhaps Wasifwasif will reply. In the meantime, let's assume good faith, please, and not suggest "mischief". Rivertorch (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I mentioned are not unreliable. The sources mention only as much as judges, investigation officers and lawyers of courts say. user:Wasifwasif quoted older sources before judgment.Thisthat2011 (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected regarding the reliability of your source. My apologies. Unfortunately, I don't have the time just now to look into this in enough depth to develop an informed opinion on the content dispute. Rivertorch (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the edits are done again by the same user. What is the procedure to deal with this when he is not responding?Thisthat2011 (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The verdict is not final. Appeal is to be made based on Justice Banerjee committee report. Never come to a conclusion. Also, wikipedia is not the right place to show your anger through using words like Mischief. There is an etiquette followed here across the globe. Wasifwasif (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict is not final has no meaning till it comes. By your logic till the Supreme Court declares that 1+1 is indeed 2 one will not accept it. The judgment of courts are out. It is indeed mischief to change contents to hide anti hindu massacre and pass it off as an accident. In fact, there is a court case in India against this that says-

Other survivors and relatives of those killed reacted with outrage at the Banerjee committee conclusion saying this flies in the face of evidence that they were not allowed to leave the coach and [20] burning rags were thrown inside by a mob that had gathered at the station. A court case was filed by survivors of the carnage against the committee.[21]

On 13 October 2006, the Gujarat High Court ruled formation of UC Banerjee committee "illegal" and "unconstitutional". The court also said that the report terming the Godhra fire as ‘accidental’ deprived survivors of his right to a fair trial, and the finding as “contrary to the facts of the case”.[22][23][24].

Which is exactly similar to this behavior i.e. "deprived survivors of his right to a fair trial, and the finding as “contrary to the facts of the case". I don't think that these kind of edits should be done without consensus and ignoring ruling of courts with outdated references.Thisthat2011 (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

So whatever is not favoring your bias is not to find a place here? Fact is always fact. let me post this in notice board and a wide range of audience decide this. Wasifwasif (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Let a wide range of audience decide for or against what is already proven in open courts in India after a long case trial. I would also like to see this. I just hope that no injustice is done to those Hindu pilgrims, their families and their human rights in the name of Human rights of those who burned the train and are convicted. They also deserve a fair trial. Thisthat2011 (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its very obvious that injusice was done and being done with all the arms to the families of 3000+ human beings who were murdered for no reason. Its unfortunate that still people, even in this open media place wordings of this kind. " that no injustice is done to those Hindu pilgrims, their families and their human rights " . Wasifwasif (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in riots innocent people were killed on both sides, and there could be no reason justifying that. But how does it make Godhra train burning look like an accident, or there are even 'reasons' mentioned blaming the Hindu pilgrims for their own massacre.Thisthat2011 (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be any discouragement of recognizing human rights of anyone, and in case of Godhra train burning especially Hindu pilgrims who were burnt alive. As mentioned above, it could mean to be misused in a fashion so as to "deprived survivors of his right to a fair trial, and the finding as “contrary to the facts of the case"Thisthat2011 (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion shouln't be about injustice or mischief. 31 people were convicted of the burning. It wasn't an accident, and its quite obvious that any promotion of the contrary view is tantamount to POV-pushing.Pectore^talk 15:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok. I must say though there is no need to make the massacre look like accident.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 16:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

It is disturbing that an incident which took lives of 59 people is given more importance than an incident which took lives of 3000+ communally targetted people. Both are to be condemned for sure (If former was not an accident). But balancing the latter incident saying innocent people were killed on both sides is nothing but addition of fuel to the flame. Wasifwasif (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This matter of edits in the Godhra massacreis only regards to Godhra incident. In no way it affects other portion of the article and no way diminishes the later part. This edits are not about the rest of the article at all.

Please don't confuse the matter and pass off the massacre as an accident for any other reason.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 16:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

Where's this figure of 3000 coming from? As per the reliable sources, around 750 Muslims and 250 Hindus were killed in the riots which took place after the Godhra incident. Wasif, you need to STOP pushing your POV. You have been told to do so numerous times earlier also, but haven't paid any heed till date. Shovon (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Shovon. I was just looking for your entry here. Thank God you did. Yes. OFFICIAL are not all the time ACTUAL. Just give a google. You'll come to know the ACTUAL numbers of PGV. Wasifwasif (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eitherway that does not change the facts that the edits about Godhra train massacre is correct. Lets get this thing done with because I don't want to discuss this any longer.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 20:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

Wasif, will you ever understand the very basic principles of Wikipedia? I guess not. Instead of Googling, why don't you refer to the following - what Wikipedia is not, what are considered as reliable sources, neutral point of view. And no, Popular Front of India's website does not constitute a reliable source. Enough said. Shovon (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Browse through the reliable sources and come out with teh actual figures. Where from PFI came into picture here? Looks like fanaticism. Come with a open mind to wikipediaWasifwasif (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is not about how many people died after Godhra massacre. Please avoid edits you have done as pointed above..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 12:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fanaticism? Oh! Well Wasif, your edits in this page and the article on Abdul Nazer Mahdani are enough to clearly understand the single point agenda behind your every edit. After having a first hand experience of dealing with your relentless POV pushing in multiple articles, I can no longer assume good faith. Even this section of this very talk page shows your lack of understanding of the policies. Shovon (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if i haven't well read the wikipedia policies, as claimed by you, that doesn't mean that you are not trying to push your POV. Me or you need not speak but most of your edits will as the above of dragging PFI does. Wasifwasif (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Wasifwasif: ROFLOL! Do you even know, what POV is? Shovon (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I BMHROFL. Do you know what POV means?? Wasifwasif (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]