Talk:2002 Gujarat riots

Request for comment

The following content was recently removed from this article, should it be restored? Darkness Shines (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

These attacks have been described by Gyanendra Pandey as pogroms and a new form of state terrorism, and that these pogroms are not riots but "organized political massacres". According to Paul Brass the only conclusion from the evidence which is available points to a methodical Anti-Muslim pogrom which was carried out with exceptional brutality and was highly coordinated.

References

• Comment: Just to be clear, the content was removed from the lead of the article not from the body and the content was not present in the body, Lead is the summary of body and if few editors want to overlook this simple logic then nothing can be done.-sarvajna (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If it is covered in multiple highly reliable sources, it can be included. I don't think the 2 authors you mentioned have enough credibility for such exceptional claim. neo (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There are no shortage of sources which call this incident a pogrom, help yourself to a few Darkness Shines (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have do agree with DS. We have multiple gold standard academic sources giving a similar picture. See e.g.Barbara D. Metcalf; Thomas R. Metcalf (28 September 2006). A Concise History of Modern India. Cambridge University Press. pp. 299–. ISBN 978-1-139-45887-0. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help): "In the first years of the new century, as in the decade before, communal violence accompanied the growing liberalized economy. By far the most serious was the 2002 railway carriage fire at Godhra and the subsequent weeks-long concerted ‘pogrom’ directed against Gujarat’s Muslims..... The Gujarat state government, far from seeking to contain Hindu ‘reprisals’, tacitly connived at the ensuing violence. For three days the police stood idly by as Hindu mobs, led by VHP and BJP activists, using computer printouts from the records of the Ahmedabad municipal corporation, identified Muslim shops and residences, pulled their owners outside, killed the man and raped and killed the women, and then set the buildings afire. From Ahmedabad the violence spread to other Gujarat cities and even into the countryside. Order was restored only when the army was deployed throughout the state. At least 1,000people died and some 150,000 had to take shelter in relief camps.Few Muslims ever returned to the neighbourhoods in which they had originally lived." Dlv999 (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

First, the applicability of the word "pogrom" was discussed in detail here as well as on the AFD here. Harping on the same thing again and again is disruptive. I don't wish to repeat my claims again and again. This was not a pogrom, period.

Second, Author's contentious claims are nothing but personal opinions. We must look to balance the weight. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not the same discussion. Moving the article to a name containing pogrom, is not the same as including significant published views in the article (per our WP:NPOV policy) that characterise the events as a pogrom.
• "This was not a pogrom, period." - I believe this comment is characteristic of major POV issues you have with this article. To wit, you believe you know the truth of the events and that your own beliefs about the topic trump what has been published in high quality academic RS. This is not how we write wikipedia articles. We should be putting aside our own beliefs. Identifying high quality sources and dispassionately representing what they say. If high quality RS (e.g. books published by distinguished University presses, written by professors in relevant fields) disagree on particular points, then we include the different viewpoints. That is what our WP:NPOV policy says.
• Your final comment is incoherent. Academics published by scholarly presses are the best sources for articles such as this. Please see WP:SOURCES: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history..."'; WP:HISTRS:"Historical articles on wikipedia should use scholarly works where possible....Historical scholarship is: Books published by academic and scholarly presses by historians"

Currently the article relies to much on primary source journalism from the time of the events. This type of source is not preferred for historical articles (again see WP:HISTRS) and should be phased out and replaced with the kind of scholarship DS is proposing. If there are alternate views in high quality academic sources, of course they should all be included per WP:NPOV. But as it stands trying to keep scholarly sources out of the article that is largely based on lower quality sources is simply not tenable. Dlv999 (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• It is not what MrT believes or some other author believes, this cannot be called a Pogrom unless it is proven. Did any court in India or International held the Gujarat or Indian government responsible for the violence?. There was an investigation against the Chief Minister for his alleged involvement in the violence, the Investigation team did not find any evidence. You provided a 2006 source above which is outdated because it has not taken into consideration the SIT report(2010) which did not find any fault with the state government.-sarvajna (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, it doesn't matter what I believe or anyone believes unless the allegation is proven in a court of law. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Dlv: I really don't know what to say, if your mind is already made-up. This IS about the same issue. It may not be identical but the refutations are going to be the same.

If I had a bucket and showed you the bucket would you still ask for a newspaper article to prove that I had a bucket? That was not a pogrom because if it were majority of the sources wouldn't call it by any other name. They would clearly mention that POLICE connived at all this. The fact of the matter is, they didn't connive (look it up) even though some would have liked to see that. I reiterate, I doubt anything is more credible than the Verdict, presented by a Judiciary committee in a Court of Law, basing on the findings of a Supreme court appointed investigative body which were supported by years of investigation and literally thousands of testimonies. No charge could be brought against Narendra Modi. He was in a way exonerated by the report presented by the Supreme court Investigative Team.^[1] As Dharma wrote here, ″academic research of any superior quality cannot replace a judicial decision″. I don't believe that the article currently depends very much on primary sources. Authorities imposed a curfew in Gujarat they didn't sit back and watch idly. A good many people (mostly Hindus) were punished (sentenced to life in prison). If this was a ′pogrom′ then I dare say every random act of communal vengeance is a pogrom.

About Barbara Metcalf and her book:

1. In the same book Barbara Metcalf calls the violence following Babri Masjid demolition an anti-muslim ′pogrom′, that is a far cry from violence, let alone a real pogrom. Plurality of Hindus died too. Don't forget Indian Mujahideen a banned outfit carried out terrorist attacks on Hindus citing demolition of Babri Mosque as a justification.^[2] How is it a pogrom then?
2. About the cause of Godhra Train Fire, she very brashly proclaims, "it was almost certainly not deliberately set by Muslims on the station platform, as Hindus frequently alleged". There is not a shred of doubt in her mind. She had already independently precluded the possibility of veracity in the allegations of Hindu witnesses before the investigations themselves were over. That reeks of an utterly inauspicious prejudice and a doctrinaire attitude.

It seems as though she, in 2006, had more access to the info and evidences than the authorities of India did. She has clearly done it on purpose and I am not sure if that purpose is neutral or penchant-free. This one-sided focus on Anti-muslim violence while ignoring the plights of other faiths really strikes me as conspicuous to say the least. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let us leave aside the intentions of the author. In 2006, the author might have made some assumptions, many of the important verdicts like the verdict in Naroda Patiya massacre case the Godhra train burning case came after 2010, so we cannot use this outdated source.-sarvajna (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"this cannot be called a Pogrom unless it is proven." We have high quality academic sources that describe the event as a pogrom. WP:NPOV, a core policy of our encyclopaedia sates that we should represent " all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." These academics in appropriate fields that have been published by distinguished University presses are significant views published in RS on the topic. If this article is to comply with core policies and principles of the encyclopaedia this viewpoint must be included. You can't really get around that. We can't say that it is a fact unless there is agreement in RS on the point, but the text under discussion is for the material to be correctly attributed to the academic. Your point about the date of the publication of the source has some validity. But here we must be consistant. If you want to prohibit all sources prior to 2006 or 2010 do it consistently. As I have already pointed out a lot of the sources currently in the article are primary source journalism from the time of the events. Mr T's arguments critiquing academic sources based on his own beliefs on the topic are not arguments that carry any weight at all in Wikipedia. The two sources he does cite are journalism. We do not write historical articles based on journalist sources. You cannot cite a piece of journalism to refute what has been written by academics published under scholarly imprints (gold standard sources). Dlv999 (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: In addition to what Neo said, I say the following. Politically organized?? Who was convicted? In India, like other nations, people are presumed innocent unless proven guilty, if no politician is guilty of conspiring then how is it a politically organized massacre? Precisely these sort of unfounded innuendos we are required to bar from inclusion. Darkness Shines is pushing a very specific agenda on multiple articles and discussion boards. From Anti-Muslim pogroms in India‎ to 2002 Gujarat violence to Religious violence in India and so on. This is turning into an unacceptable pattern of persistent POV-pushing. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Both citations are high quality academic sources: professors in relevant fields published under notable academic imprints. I think the article is suffering from major POV issues and the way to get it back on track is to shift towards these kind of high quality sources and away from the lower quality sources. Dlv999 (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Question: Some have argued the viewpoints expressed in these academic sources should not be included in the article because of WP:WEIGHT. What sources are there of equal quality or better (i.e. at least professor of relevant field published by notable academic press) that dispute the viewpoint in the sources under discussion? Dlv999 (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I was directed here by the RFC bot. After reading the article and discussion I have to say that that the Stanford University Press and University of Washington Press are top notch academic sources. In the absence of compelling academic or other RS saying this was explicitly not a pogrom, they should be used in the article and lead. Further, the lack of criminal convictions of authorities is not dispositive. Pogroms, as I understand them, are violent attacks by a majority against a minority often with official inaction or support. Hence official inaction (lack of criminal convictions) doesn't rule out pogrom. I agree with Dlv999. Something has gone wrong at an article when solid academic reliable sources are dumped. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thats a sensible comment Capitalismojo. I have been asking this question of mine at various forums wherever this issue has been dragged by editors but everyone has refrained from answer me. Probably you wont. My question is; what is a pogrom? Your understanding is that the attacks are often with official inaction or support. Is this a universal definition of pogrom or are other definitions also available? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

RS saying this was explicitly not a pogrom - We don't include radical claims into articles based on absence of word-for-word negation. Majority of RSes don't call it as ′pogrom′ that is intrinsically saying something. You cannot demand that reliable sources specifically claim it was not a "pogrom". They won't do that. What they would do is call it by the right name and that's what majority of RSes are doing.
official inaction (lack of criminal convictions) doesn't rule out pogrom - official inaction? But my point is, that the administration, the police were not inactive.
lack of criminal convictions of authorities is not dispositive - but the verdict from the court of law is, I think. That this was a pogrom is an unsubstantiated fringe opinion and that is why measuring DUE weight is relevant. Something has gone wrong at an article when personal opinions of authors and syntheses of sources are callously included. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are two more very recent academic sources describing the events as "pogrom".

1. "The Political Logic of Ethnic Violence: The Anti-Muslim Pogrom in Gujarat, 2002" (PDF). Politics & Society. 40: 483–516. December 2012. doi:10.1177/0032329212461125. Retrieved 19/06/2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
2. Parvis Ghassem-Fachandi (8 April 2012). Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-4259-9. Retrieved 19 June 2013.

It is simply not credible for editors to keep making unsupported claims that this view of the topic is a "fringe opinion" in light of the source evidence that has been presented. Standford University Press, University of Washington Press, Cambridge University Press, Princeton University Press. These are among the most prestigious academic publishing imprints you will find anywhere. They are not in the business of publishing "unsubstantiated fringe opinion". Dlv999 (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Here some more news reports(my emphases):

1. [3]:

   The Supreme-Court-appointed Special Investigation Team, which submitted a closure report on the probe into the Zakia Jafri petition levelling serious charges against Narendra Modi and 62 others in connection with the 2002 communal riots, has not found any evidence of the Chief Minister having promoted enmity among various communities on religious grounds.

   In the section dealing with Mr. Modi in its 541-page report, the SIT on the contrary claimed that the Chief Minister had repeatedly appealed to the people for peace and had also taken due care for the rehabilitation and medical facilities for the riot victims in the relief camps.

2. [4]

   ″SIT, which recently submitted a status report to the Supreme Court, has found no substantial evidence to show that Modi allowed the riots to rage on.
   Sources said the SIT found no substance in petitioner Zakia Jafri's allegations that there was dereliction of duty on Modi's part.

   Zakia is the widow of Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, who was killed along with others during a mob attack on Gulbarg housing society in Ahmedabad in 2002.
   Zakia had alleged the state administration failed to discharge its constitutional duties during the riots. Her complaint had identical charges against others, including cabinet ministers and MLAs.

   In March, Modi was questioned by the SIT after the Supreme Court asked for an investigation into Jafri's complaint.″

3. The allegations are biased and baseless.

   ″Putting up a strong defence of the Gujarat Chief Minister, Mr Advani said in his 60 years of political life he has not known any of his colleague “so consistently, so viciously maligned by opponents as Narendra Modi”.″[5]

4. SIT-representative R. S. Jamuar said in response to the much-touted "appeal":[6]

"In comparison to the complaint as defined in Criminal Procedure Code(CrPC), this (the FIR) is not at all a complaint, it's a piece of waste paper to be thrown away, [..]It's a fiction or novel written by 4-5 persons and complainant Zakia has no knowledge about anything written in it."

This sort of mudslinging and allegations are a part and parcel of a POLITICAL game. Wikipedia, fortunately, is not part of that political circle. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

As previously discussed journalism is not a good source for articles on contentious historical events, especially in this case where academic sources cite the "inflammatory" press reports as a significant factor in the events themselves (see e.g. citation 1. pg 486 in my comment above). Myself and DS have cited only academic scholarship and I would ask you to try to keep to a similar standard of sourcing. Dlv999 (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

If these were op-eds or personal opinion then your comment would have had some merit. But these are essentially analysis of SIT reports and quotes from the representatives. What's wrong with that? In fact what you think is "academic" is not neutral, I would argue. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

My comments are based on Wikipedia policy and guidance, which I have cited to you, which tells us to base historical articles on academic scholarship, and that journalism is not academic scholarship. Dlv999 (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

We are straying away from the main issue

It is the allegation of State terrorism. These sort of outdated, prejudicial personal commentaries became even more irrelevant after the Supreme Court appointed investigative team's report was put forward. That accusation was a personal perspective of the "author" and what he thought was going on. He thinks India is a sponsor of "state terrorism". To frame India as a sponsor of State terrorism based on people's personal opinion is intolerable. As User:Dharmadhyaksha wrote at an AFD: "A historian doesn’t decide on whether a act is terrorism or not. He might opine on whether it is terrorism or not. A judicial system decides on whether it is terrorism or not."(emphasis in original) This is exactly the sort of scandalmongering Wikipedia tends to actively avoid. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Writings of a professor of a relevant field published by a prestigious University press in an area of his competence is not regarded by Wikipedia as "prejudicial personal commentaries". In fact this is just the kind of source that we can and should be including in our article according to our WP:NPOV policy, which tells us to include "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources".

There is a substantial body of high quality academic scholarship discussing state government involvement in the violence. We have seen that published academics refer to the violence as a "pogrom". Gyanendra Pandey uses the term "State-sponsored terrorism" (text amended per DS comment below). I think the different ways the events have been characterized should be discussed as an aspect of the topic in our article, according to the high quality RS that have been cited in this discussion. I would say that what is more important than the semantic debate is the actual substance of what these sources are saying about the violence and the state involvement in the violence. Dlv999 (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It is state terrorism, not state sponsored terrorism. And it is not the only source which says this. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Even worse than State-sponsored terrorism. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Here is another up to date academic source to add to the list:

"Unless later research disproves the proposition, the existing reports give us every reason to believe the riots in Gujarat were actually full-blooded pogroms. Two common reference sources define pogrom as follows:

An organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group, especially one conducted against Jews. (www.dictionary.com)

A mob attack, either approved or condoned by authorities, against the persons and property of a religious, racial, or national minority. (www.britanica.com)

After the train was torched, the state made no attemot to preven, or stop, revenge killings. State police looked the other way, as gangs murdered scores of Muslims with remarkable ease. 7 The statements of NGOs most closely associated with Gujarat state government, run by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), openly supported anti-Muslim violence. According to the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), the BJP government did what was absolutely necessary: namely, allow Hindu retaliation against the Muslims, including those who had nothing to do with the mob that had originally torched the train in Ghodhra.8"(Atul Kohli; Prerna Singh (2013). Routledge Handbook of Indian Politics. Routledge. p. 157. ISBN 978-0-415-77685-1. Retrieved 20 June 2013.) Dlv999 (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Multiple reliable sources characterize this as a pogrom. To deny this because the Indian government did not prosecute the pogromists is absurd: the essence of a pogrom is that authorities look the other way and often covertly assist or collude with the attackers, as seems to be clearly established happened in 2002. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• It would seem to be that the consensus would be to include the content. Any objections? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding me

here How is that not undue weight? The opinion of one person which lays the blame for the carnage directly at the doors of the victims. The article is just getting worse with every edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

who were the victins in godhra train burning? -sarvajna (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this article about the train burning or the violence in Gujarat? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The last time I read, Godhra was in Gujurat and train burning was part of Gujarat violence.The first section is about Godhra and rest are post Godhra.-sarvajna (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, is this article about the train burning or about the violence? The article already has as much an the train burning a it does about the violence. When a minority community is attacked and we have an article on it the focus of the article is meant to be on the people who got attacked. The violence against muslims section is shorter than that against Hindus, yet the vast majority of the violence was against muslims. Like I said, a fair few times now in fact, this article has massive NPOV issues, of course my tagging it is a waste of time as it is alwasy removed in violation of policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I did answer that, cannot help if you do not want to hear it. I will repeat it again, train burning is part of the 2002 violence. This article is a general one about the violence, we need to mention about the attacks on all the communities. Have you read the article? The section on violence against Muslims is bigger. Cannot help if you see NPOV issues when they are not present. -sarvajna (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

And there was me thinking this article was about the violence after the train burning, NPOV issues, RS say this was a preplanned attack, article does not say that. Other issues I pointed out above. And as for this "An interesting observation with regard to media handling of Gujarat riots is that at the time of riots, the media reports had been pointing out the steps taken by Modi administration to curb riots and how even the combined strength of Indian Army which Modi had requested with few hours of riots having broken, and State Police could not control the situation. However, later, the media editorials became critical of Modi, sidelining the facts they'd already published" sourced to a blog piece. The article is a joke. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Darkness Shines, did you say obviously to my question about 1946 Bihar Riots? Shifting goal posts? Shovon (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

What exactly has that to do with this article? Darkness Shines (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course, you can't comprehend! Wearing colored glasses do not help in creating or editing wiki articles. Shovon (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No seriously, what does the violence in 1946 in Bihar have to do with this article? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't notice the talk page discussion. Blogs and opinion editorials don't count as reliable sources as we all should know. Plus, if you're going to argue that the media is confused (which it always is!) or duplicitous, you're going to need something solid to back that up. Like an academic source that analyzes media coverage of the incident rather than an opinion. --regentspark (comment) 14:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

So I removed the OR sourced to an Op-Ed which I pointed out here days ago, and it was of course reverted? Explanations please. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Here where? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Read the section, the entire thing is quoted about 6 response up. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll on moving the article

I am thinking of doing a RM to 2002 Anti-Muslim violence due to my recent research on this incident. "There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law" Before I do I would like to discuss the issue with those involved in editing the page. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like attacks on Hindus, the Godhra Train Burning, and the Akshardham Temple Attack (all of which figure in 2002 Gujarat violence) and clearly factually disprove your research arent being considered? Obvious oppose.Pectore^talk 16:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Again? After you failed with "pogrom", now this? What about the Hindus, who accounted for 25% of those who were killed during the rioting? Shovon (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the events after Godhra, all sources say this violence was an attack on the Muslim community, so how is my research factually disproved? Please note the academic source which says there is a consensus that these attacks were premeditated. If you do not come with sources of comparable academic quality to refute this then I will initiate an RM. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Q: As I have asked above, how do you account for the Anti-Hindu violence unleashed by the Muslims post Godhra? You are always free to go ahead with your requested move at any point of time, but there also, will have to justify this. Shovon (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

There was no "Anti-Hindu violence unleashed by the Muslims" some were killed in self defense during their attacks on Muslims, some were killed by the police, the simple fact is that this was an orchestrated, sustained attack on a minority community. The article title needs to reflect the consensus of sources and what the academic sources say about the matter. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ohh! So you deny the authenticity of the news reports published in reliable sources? Shovon (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Please provide an academic source which says there was an "Anti-Hindu violence unleashed by the Muslims" Darkness Shines (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If you think that Indian Express and India Today are not reliable, please move to the concerned noticeboard. Shovon (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Compared to academic sources, no. But feel free to provide the links. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - The anti-Muslim violence/pogrom in Gujarat in 2002 is treated as a separate topic in its own right in academic sources already discussed at length on this talk page. It is also true that there were incidents that could not be characterised as "Anti-Muslim violence" that occurred in 2002 in Gujarat. E.g. the Godhra train incident and retaliatory acts by Muslims during and after the anti-Muslim pogrom. If the Godhra train burning warrants its own article and is also summarised here, the anti-Muslim Pogrom/violence certainly does, based on widespread academic coverage per the sources discussed in various threads on this talk page. One possible solution could be to create an article covering the Anti-Muslim violence/pogrom in Gujurat, 2002, which could be linked and summarised here in the same way the Gujarat train burning article is linked and summarised here. This article would remain a collection of all the incidents in Gujarat in 2002, with the topics whose coverage in RS (e.g. Godhra train incident, anti-Muslim violence) warrants separate articles being linked and summarised, as per Godhra train burning is currently treated in this article. Dlv999 (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So by your way we also have to create article on 2002 Anti-Hindu violence/pogrom in Gujarat. The Legend of Zorro 17:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, I will retitle this draft and move it to mainspace. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

rSolomon7968 My impression of the sources is that it would not be warranted, but I am open to persuasion if editors are able to produce a similar quality, quantity and depth of academic coverage that has been shown on this talk page for the topic of anti-Mulsim violence. Dlv999 (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"I focus on the coverage of the political violence in the western Indian state of Gujarat in the spring of 2002 - which was widely seen as a pogrom against Muslims" Conflict, Terrorism And the Media in Asia p82 Darkness Shines (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Do any of your *academic sources give examples of violence before Godhra? The Legend of Zorro 23:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Any discussion of violence before Godhra would belong on the talk pages of articles on those subjects, not here. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So since all of your *academic sources only give examples of violence after Godhra I propose the naming of your *future article be 2002 Gujarat post Godhra Anti Muslim violence. The Legend of Zorro 23:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I come with the best sources per Wikipedia policy, you come with? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't understand the controversy. I just proposed the name of your *future article and you agreed to what I asked. The Legend of Zorro 23:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting on the sources which describe the "Anti-Hindu violence unleashed by the Muslims". Darkness Shines (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Is that so Darkness Shines? Doesn't that mean that you haven't read the very article which you would like to move? Huh? Shovon (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually I have, other than HRW, who BTW say the attacks on Hindus were retaliatory the section has nothing. In fact what I have written in userspace has more information. So, you got the sources which describe the "Anti-Hindu violence unleashed by the Muslims", or not? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that "10,000" Hindus walked out of their homes to prove something to people like you? Shovon (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And, what does "retaliatory" mean? By many a persons' logic, the entire Gujarat episode was a "retaliatory" measure of Godhra. Don't come up with circular arguments! Shovon (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Call me old fashioned but if a mob were to burn my home to the ground, rape my wife and children and then burn them to death, I figure I would seek retribution. That is what "retaliatory" means. Muslims were being systematically targeted and murdered, so they took retaliatory action. And 10000 displaced Hindus were a result not of "Anti-Hindu violence unleashed by the Muslims" as you claim, but as a result of either retaliatory attacks (which according to the sources were few) or fires which had gotten out of control, fires started by the Hindu attackers. Still waiting on your sources for your claim of "Anti-Hindu violence unleashed by the Muslims" BTW Darkness Shines (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That argument, I guess, puts an end to all the claims to pogroms and all. The entire "Anti-Muslim violence" was unleashed as the Hindus saw their brethren being roasted. Per your argument only! Ohh, and for the sources, refer to the violence against the Hindus section in the article, if you have chosen to overlook it. Shovon (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I already told you that the only source in that section is from HRW, the attacks by Muslims on Hindus are minimal. You have yet to provide a single source which refutes the sources I have given here, do you have the sources to support your contention of an "Anti-Hindu violence unleashed by the Muslims" or not? If you do not have the sources just say so. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And, as I already pointed out, if you chose to push only your own POV and overlook others, just say so! Btw, that section also has references from Indian Today and Indian Express. Shovon (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Erm, not a single source then for your claim of "Anti-Hindu violence unleashed by the Muslims" then. As I thought it would be. As for the other sources, pure junk. TOI an interview, should not even be used as a source. Indian Express, the same, neither of these sources should have any weight and are probably PRIMARY sources as they are interviews. And as for India Today it is already quoted in the HRW report, so circular citations there. So in total that section has one decent source, HRW. Now where are your academic sources which refute the ones presented here. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

So, sources do not carry any weight when they describe anything which is not to your liking? How else, do you justify your above comment on the Indian Express piece? Btw, where did I say that "Anti-Muslim violence" did not take place? I have said, and still do say, that anti-Hindu violence also took place, which you refute! Shovon (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No, here is what you said "Anti-Hindu violence unleashed by the Muslims". I have asked you numerous times for sources to support this, you have failed to deliver. And I just checked WP:PRIMARY, those sources which are interviews, fail it, as such I will be removing them. Now, supply the sources, academic ones, which refute the entire purpose of this section, which was to discuss a page move. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Nopes. Those are NOT primary sources. You may read those again. I will, although, wait for another uninvolved editor to revert your edits. And, talking about your proposal to move the article, it seems that only you think/believe the whole unfortunate episode to be a one sided affair. Why don't you provide a reliable source which says that there were no attacks on Hindus during the period? Shovon (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

From WP:PRIMARY "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." So yes, interviews are primary sources. Regarding your other point, I have already stated there were attacks on Hindus, however they were few and far between and were in retaliation for the systematic slaughter being visited upon them. All the sources, and I mean all of them, say these events were an attack on the Muslim community, you have failed to provide a single source to refute that. Unless you do I see no point in further debate, as all you have provided is empty rhetoric. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing by User:Darkness Shines

I have noticed that User:Darkness Shines is replacing whole article with his POV article created in his user space. He is giving WP:UNDUE weight to some sources and trying to project that it is significant view of all sources. User should stop pushing his POV in article and self-revert all his today's edits. neo (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have spent six days gathering sources and reading up on this subject, I am removing newspaper sources from 2002. thats right we have sources in this article from 2002, and am replacing them with academic sources. Per the obvious consensus in the RFC above, and policy, we ought to be using these sources. I have merged unnecessary sections, formatted references, and worked damn hard on the content. I will not revert all that work just because you think I am pushing a POV, I am following policy, NPOV. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

One other thing, I cannot, and nor can anyone else wholesale revert all my edits, I removed not only PRIMARY sources, I removed some per WP:BLPPRIMARY So if you want to revert you will have to do it a bit at a time and ensure you do not reinsert those BLP violations. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The article was totally inconsistent with the academic scholarship on the topic on which it should be based. Unfortunately I don't have the time to go through all the edits and read all the sources, but from what I have looked at and what has been discussed on talk DS is moving the article in the direction of the academic scholarship on the topic. In all this long list of discussions on this talk page I haven't seen a single editor cite a serious academic source to support their criticism of DS work.

As I have said previously to make an WP:UNDUE claim you need to cite a body of academic scholarship that would contradict or dispute the sources that DS is citing. Just claiming undue with no evidence is not even worthy of a response. Dlv999 (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

@Dlv999 Don't response then. Nobody is asking your response. No where in wikipedia there is any guidelines which states that we have to only use academic sources. The Legend of Zorro 08:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." Darkness Shines (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not article on Quantum Mechanics to give importance to academic sources. Professors do not roam on streets during voilence. Courts, journalists and witnesses know better about such situation. Common people switch on TV or read newspapers for info about such situation. They don't buy such academic crap which make up stories long after the incident. Also it is well-known fact that conspiracy theorists tends to screw straight forward cases and publish books to earn money. Anybody can see that September 11 attacks article is using media sources. Wikipedia community is not using biased academic crap to support contents. Again, this is not article about Special theory of relativity. So pls do not try to impress with 'academic sources' words. Pls self-revert yourself. Thank you. neo (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that the best sources per Wikipedia policy are "academic crap" and that newspaper reports from the period are in fact better sources? Do me a favour and go say that on the reliable sources noticeboard. And I am quite sure I already told you why a blanket revert cannot be done. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, Parvis Ghassem-Fachand, who wrote Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India Princeton University Press, he was there. Read his book, it is very good. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

We need scientists or professors to explain complicated science theories. We don't need them to explain why two persons on the corner of streets were fighting. Almost all the time some author publish book to tell something which is not covered by media significantly. If book covers what is already in media, then nobody will buy it. Their aim is always to create sensation to sell their books. Not every news source is reliable, likewise not every professor is reliable. Which media sources are reliable that is known, but which professors/book authors are reliable that's not known. That's the reason articles like September 11 attacks do not use so called 'academic sources'. Your attempt to screw facts by discarding reputed media sources and picking up biased 'academic' crap will not succeed. Thank you. neo (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Read BLPPRIMARY before you revert again. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

In your userspace you have evidence presented by one side of a court case, even though most of the court cases have already been completed. Wikipedia should not be standing with the prosecution or defense in a trial. Also statements like "Prasun Sonwalkar believes the media can play an important role in highlighting acts of action, or inaction and abuses of power" are obviously irrelevant to the article. Shii (tock) 16:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

What I have been working on is far from complete, I have requested some journal sources and am waiting on them, both the trial and aftermath sections are very very far from completion. And media reactions to the events obviously have a bearing on the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but I object to any attempt at "trial by Wikipedia". Adding pre-2012 accusations that the riots were orchestrated, despite the 2012 ruling that they weren't, is worse than using 2002 newspaper sources if they haven't been contradicted by later sources. That is not to say that there is no possibility of corruption in a self-appointed Indian government investigation. But it means a bigger claim is being made and an extra burden should be placed on books such as Internally Displaced People: A Global Survey or The Geography of Genocide which clearly are not about the violence in particular. Shii (tock) 16:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The court judgement is irrelevant per our policies. Sources from 2013 still say it was deliberate, policy dictates so do we per NPOV, you will note I hope that in the lede I had written that Modi was blamed for the violence, and directly after added that he was cleared, no doubt that source is fine for the second bit </sarc>. How do you conclude that books which deal in violence The Geography of Genocide for instance is not about violence? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

As for the possibility of corruption, ‘KG Shah Is Our Man. Nanavati Is Only After Money’ Darkness Shines (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Template

Template:pp-protected should be added on the page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 July 2013

Quote from WP:FULL:

Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists.

User:Darkness Shines started inserting his POV contents from this edit on 3 July. During 29 June to 3 July there is only 1 edit and that too non-controversial as you can see it here. So "clear point predating the edit war" exists. Hence I request Admins to restore this version. Thank you. neo (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I strongly object to restoration of a version you edit warred to keep. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I have not made even a single edit on this article before today. I am requesting Admins to restore fairly stable version written by community over 10 years. You pushed your massive POV contents and then article is protected. This protection is rewarding your POV version and that's unfair. neo (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Except it was not my revert which put it in this version was it, you reverted another editor twice and he reverted you. And I can tell you right now that, that mess is not "my version" it is now a mish mash of the old stuff and my fixes. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That's why fairly stable version should be restored. That User:The Rahul Jain edits only Jainism articles. I think he jumped in here only to oppose me because of our disputes elsewhere and he mindlessly gathered your stuff and inserted in the article. neo (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

By stable version you mean the one you edit warred to keep right? The one which violates WP:PRIMARY, which I told you about above, and violates WP:BLPPRIMARY, which I also told you about above, yet you still edit warred to your preferred version because, in your words the academic sources used are "biased 'academic' crap" because they "make up stories long after the incident" as it is a "well-known fact that conspiracy theorists tends to screw straight forward cases and publish books to earn money". Of course I am the POV pusher, not you at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You are using diversion tactits to divert attention of Admins. Citing some possible minor problem in the article to keep your massive POV contents. neo (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You have yet to explain anywhere, let alone on this talkpage what is not neutral about the edits I did, and there are far more than minor problems in an article where the articles owners point blank refuse to discuss, call the best sources crap, and insist that any editor who disagrees with them is a POV pusher. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

(1) Some hindus harassed muslims on platform. (2) At the same time fire accidently started in train compartment. Magic happens! (3) Then hindus went on doing pogrom, genocide, ethnic cleansing blah blah blah of muslims. (4) Hindus were so murderous that they even went on killing hindus and during this hindu-hindu riot police fired bullets and some more hindus were killed. (5) 31 muslims were convicted for burning train and killing hindus but court judgements are irrelevant and POV as per wikipedia policy so they might be innocent.
Thank you and good night. neo (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, so you casually dismiss all the academic sources which backed every line I wrote? Try reading our NPOV policy sometime will you. And you have the audacity to call me a POV pusher, sheesh. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The new version is not rewarding any particular person, due to the nature of the sequence of edits. More importantly, the WP:BLPPRIMARY concerns mean that we cannot switch to the old version until it is clearly established that said problems are removed. What I mean is, we must always be conservative when dealing with potential BLP issues. Everyone should participate in the WP:DRN proceedings. You should also all focus on policies--it doesn't matter how long the old version was up--if, as Darkness Shines claims, it was violating numerous policies, then it should be changed. Focus on finding good sources, on verifying claims, and on neutralizing language. Do not worry about who was first or second on the edit warring, do not try to guess what personal opinions someone has, do not tell your narrative of what happened, do not rely on primary sources to make claims. Find out what the secondary sources say, and report those. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian: To be honest I wished you could have reverted it back, I dread to think anyone looking at this article may think I wrote what is now there. I do have a question however, when I spend six days finding the secondary sources, and then write what they say, I get call a POV pusher, and am told the sources are "crap", see above section. What does one do then? In user space where I have been working on sources and content I currently have 86 sources, am I expected to discuss every single one of them? Am I expected to discuss every single line I change? If so I may as well give it up, I had to do an RFC just to get two lines added, see RFC at the top of the page. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: You are experienced editor. You know article subject is highly controversial. You know every single sentence added in the article is being reviewed. Still somehow you think that editors will allow you to replace whole article with your version. neo (talk)

If they had any interest in following policy, then yes. You have yet to point out a single thing wrong with the content I rewrote and added, all you keep saying is the sources are "academic crap", and I can tell you right now, unless you come with sources to refute what I have written, I will restore that content. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Tomorrow some other editors may come up with whole new version of the article and may expect other editors to point out mistakes in their version. Articles are written with consensus. Wikipedians do not review or discuss whole new version of articles. You are supposed to point out what is wrong in current article and submit your changes one by one. Don't expect at least me to discuss your version of article. If you try to insert your version of article, well... you know what will happen. neo (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite any references from Wikipedia policy or guidelines to back what you are saying? Rahul Jain (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to actually point out a single part of the content I had written which was not backed by RS. Or what is wrong with any of the content I had added, reverting for no reason other than you do not like it is not really a policy. Pick any one section I had improved and tell me what was wrong with it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment This version is definitely better than what is currently there. I have no problem if the article is reverted to this.

What's wrong in this version of article? neo (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It violates WP:PRIMARY, BLPPRIMARY, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and a host of others. This has already been pointed out, are you going to discuss the content I added or not? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Which contents violate what? neo (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Please focus on the discussion at hand, you have objected to content I added, so I ask again, pick a section of the content I rewrote and sourced and tell me what is wrong with it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, refer this. Why you removed sourced contents supported by reputed media sources like CNN, BBC, TOI ? neo (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Please explain your objections to the content I had added, previous versions of the article are not the locus of dispute. Again, choose a section I had rewritten and sourced to the best sources per policy and tell me what is wrong with it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, why you removed sourced contents contributed by community? You could have added your sourced contents below it. neo (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines challenged the status quo sO I will expect that he can explain what is wrong with the previous version of the article with pointing out faults in each single source. The Legend of Zorro 18:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)For the fourth and final time, explain what you found objectionable with the content I rewrote, sourced to academic publishers, the best sources per policy. You are objecting to content I added, you need to explain yourself as to how the content is not in accordance with our policies. Your refusal to discuss only leads me to the conclusion that you have removed the content for no reason other than, you do not like it. That is not a policy that I am aware of for removing improvements to either sourcing or content. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

And your refusal to discuss why you removed sourced contents only leads me the conclusion that you removed it for no reason other than you don't like it. BTW, this is also against wikipedia policy. See WP:NPOV. neo (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He is not objecting to your adding of academic sources but why are you removing sources without explanation like this. The Legend of Zorro 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

We are going in circles. I can think of two possible solutions; one we can use RFC to gain consensus that which (this or this) is a better version of the article or two, User:Darkness Shines can create a final draft in his user-space and then use RFC to move it here. Of relevance might be WP:CAUTIOUS Rahul Jain (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody in wikipedia owns any article and I do not know of any instance where any editor is allowed to replace a 10 year community written version with a user space drafts. The Legend of Zorro 18:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)The locus of dispute is the content I added and rewrote in accordance with our policies. As you have now point blank refused to discuss the content I had added I will restore my changes once protection has expired, further removal of academically sourced content in violation of our policies will be reported to the appropriate notice boards. Should you wish to discuss the content I will respond, until such a time as you do this conversation is over. I would recommend you start with the first section I had expanded and rewritten in accordance with NPOV. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Solomon7968: This is like some user removing sourced content "Earth orbits around the Sun" from Solar System article and then adding sourced content "(15760) 1992 QB1 orbits around the Sun" and arguing with users to show mistake in his addition, not removal. Weird. neo (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Faulty analogy and completely irrelevant to the discussion. Rahul Jain (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

TRJ, I know you are here only to oppose me. If I say that Earth is round, you will try to prove that Earth is flat and you will keep eating my head. But still let me explain what DS is doing. DS removed sourced contents which state or imply that muslims were involved in train attack. Then he inserted contradictory sourced text which repeatedly state that fire was accidental and muslims were just accused. As per WP:V:

When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view.

DS should have kept both sides of story as per NPOV. Why present only one side? Somehow he is thinking that he can force community to focus only on his version and forget the 10 year old sourced contents in the article. I am unable to grasp why he resorted to such attitude. neo (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Finally, we are discussing my edits, your assertion that I removed content which says the train incident was not an attack is easily disproved, as can be seen in this diff "This investigation known as the "Shah-Nanavati commission" concluded that the attacks on the train had been pre-planned and was the result of a conspiracy by locals." Darkness Shines (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Also from the lede which I had rewritten, this diff "The attack on 27 February 2002 on a train, assumed by most to have been carried out by Muslims" Darkness Shines (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

What? That diff clearly shows that you have removed sourced contents. Why are you reading out your version? neo (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Please indent and format your posts correctly. You stated above that "DS removed sourced contents which state or imply that muslims were involved in train attack." This statement is obviously incorrect. I am reading from the content I had written as that is the content you took issue with. Please move on to the next part of my content you believe is problematic. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The lede is decided by contents. Let's talk about it later. You have not answered why you removed sourced contents from 'background' section. You have just read out Nanavati commission sentence which is your version. neo (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:INDENT, I intend to discuss only the content you reverted as that is the locus of the dispute. Please move onto the next issue you have with the content I rewrote, improved and expanded upon. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me try again. While adding your content, you removed existing sourced contents. Removing sourced, verified contents from articles is not allowed. If some editor do it, we editors in anti-vandal, patrolling unit simply revert his/her edit. Then editors are supposed to explain why they removed sourced contents. Got that? So again, why you removed sourced contents? neo (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, content was rewritten, improved and expanded upon. I will only discuss your revert of the improvements made to the article, I will not respond again unless you discuss your issues with my improvements. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me jump in here and correct a number of errors in policy in the above posts. First of all, "removing sourced, verified contents from articles" is certainly allowed, so long as there is a specific reason for do so. Meeting WP:V is not a guarantee of inclusion, it's merely the bare minimum requirement. Other policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:PRIMARY, etc. also come into play. Solomon7968, it is actually absolutely acceptable to replace an article, even one with a long history, with an entirely new version--I've done so myself, and gotten the new version promoted to good article status. A complete replacement is, in fact, sometimes the best approach, if the previous version is fundamentally flawed (note that I'm not saying that applies here, merely that there is no special deference given to an article based on age).

Having said all of that, Darkness Shines, I do have to say that I think you're reversing the burden here a bit. You're the one who made the major changes, so it really is up to you to show what was wrong with the previous version. You don't need to explain every change in detail, but you need to explain something more than you've already done in edit summaries. I can see 2 basic ways to proceed. The first is to go through the article section by section and explain the problems. Again, this doesn't need to be line by line, but tackling each section can be easier--and DS needs to be the one to start with the specifics. Alternatively, DS can propose an RfC asking the community to compare to versions of the article, and just attempt to make the changes wholesale; that's fine if it works, but keep in mind that if there's no consensus for the whole change, it may make changing individual parts more difficult for you. Finally, though, until such time as someone can answer the WP:BLPPRIMARY issues, the old version cannot be reinstated. BLP always trumps other rules, and the concerns raised by DS are sufficient (though unproven) as to require that we defer to the changes until consensus can be established. If necessary, involved WP:BLPN on this point. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I disagree, two reasons were given two sections up for removal of the improvements made, one was NPOV, it has yet to be explained how my edits violated NPOV, whereas what I rewrote did. Here is an example, from the first section I rewrote. diff Compare the two, old version, no mention of BJP & VHP incitement to violence, no mention of the fact the attacks were coordinated, or preplanned, or that local newspapers printed false stories. This is obviously not neutral. As can be seen from a later diff I had begun to add that curfews gad been imposed, I was then reverted for the reasons already mentioned before I had finished. The editor who reverted my edit needs to explain what was not neutral about the edits. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Qwyrxian. It is POV of DS that what he has added is 'improvment'. But I am seeing that while adding contents he has removed sourced contents which severely affect neutrality of the article. On wikipedia articles are written by consensus. Wiki articles are not facebook status where people can post what they want and expect others to 'LIKE' or comment but not to remove their status. Good night. neo (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Neo, you did not listen to me, or not understand me. You keep saying "his version was POV" and "affected the neutrality of the article"...but you have never once even begun to explain why. If I were arbitrating, which I'm not, I'd reinstate DS's version purely on the basis of the fact that his opponents are just making crap up. You can't just say "POV POV POV POV POV" and then not give even one example, not provide one piece of policy to support your position. Yes, some of the burden falls on DS, but every time he's raised a specific, you've simply ignored him. If you and others continue to do so, it will be clear that consensus (which, by definition, cannot include positions which are unsupported by policies) will be in favor of his version. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian: I have asked DS above. In this edit he removed sourced content which state that muslims attacked train in conspiracy and court has convicted 31 muslims and then he inserted entirely different version which essential state that fire was accidental and muslims were not involved in it. He is refusing to answer it. Removing sourced contents is acceptable only if there is reason and consensus. neo (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Erm, did too. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You removed contents and sources which describe the train attack and conviction. Then you inserted "locals" word for "muslims" citing 'Shah-Nanavati report'. And you went on to add in next sentence that Shah was BJP's man and Nanavati can be bribed. This tone is used to make readers believe that Shah-Nanavati report was fake. You also removed info that muslims are convicted for train attack. You could have added your contents below the existing contents. But you are still refusing to explain why you removed it. Your contents do not cover what was previously in that section. neo (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Per NPOV the Tehelka report has to be added, and it has to be added there for the same reason. I removed that Muslims had been convicted as that information was already present in the Prosectutions section where it belonged. Duplication of content is quite simply bad editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

And as for NPOV, anyone who thinks this is neutral has no concept of what neutrality is and should not be allowed within a mile of contentious articles. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You have replaced entire section. If the text is relevant, duplication is allowed. Placing the text somewhere else to affect the tone of article is POV. Also the 'prosecution' section is changed as per your tone in your version lateron. If you think this version is not neutral then you could have included your contents below it. What makes you think that NPOV of entire community is concentrated only in you? Until you agree to include existing contents, this discussion is useless. neo (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No, Neo, information should not be duplicated in an article, except one duplication between lead and body, and sometimes duplication between templates/charts and body text. I'm growing more and more concerned that you are simply making up policy as you go along, because every time you make claims, they seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with our rules. Oh, and just to be clear, I'm no longer acting as an admin on this page; I think I've made enough comments to be WP:INVOLVED. And DS's link to the old version shows both POV and BLP violations. There clearly was a need for a major overhaul of the article. Now, perhaps DS's method was extreme, and could have been done differently, but there is no doubt in my mind that the old version violated several of our policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Why are you magnifying that 2 line of BLP thing to support replacing whole article? That is removed and done and is over. And I am saying he removed entire section about attack by muslims, not just conviction thing. And as a admin you have declined edit request, made edit to the article, now you can't pretend to be normal user.

Community's consensus is necessary to consider. I can't talk on behalf of entire community about replacement of the article. I may ignore some points during discussion. Hence I am going for Rfc. neo (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I find the Rfc highly inappropriate. The opening statement should have been brief and neutral. Something like "Should this article be reverted to version 563017140 or version 563072333" would have served the purpose. Rahul Jain (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not remove an entire section, stop with the obviously false statments diff I expanded the section and brought it in line with NPOV. Nothing was removed, it was rewritten to comply with policy. Question, Neo. is this source suitable for the edit it supports, which is this "in a conspiracy" and has that source been used in a neutral way? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment As stated on ANI, I have walked out of this discussion as I can't discuss the issue freely under threat by Admin Qwyrxian. But that doesn't mean that I have endorsed version of DS. If I see POV contents in the article, I will edit the article as per WP:BRD, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Thank you. neo (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You are not under any threats at all, if you refuse to discuss then you have no right to revert any improvements made to the article. You are basically saying you will edit war to your preferred version and not discuss, that is not on. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

ah? Due to some recent happenings my head is screwed and I walked out in protest. I will discuss lateron, not now. BTW, I have replied to your question on ANI. neo (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Rfc

Article was created on 19 October 2003. Until this 2 July 2013 version, over 1050 users have improved the article through more than 3600 edits as you can see from history statistics. Now User:Darkness Shines has created his own version of article in his userspace here. Some part of his version is inserted in the article before page protection. He wants to replace whole article with his version of the article. He believe that his version covers WP:NPOV of all wikipedia community. You are requested to comment whether community version should be allowed to replace with his own version. neo (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Neo, I have commented out the RfC tag. RfC messages must be neutral. You're practically beating uninvolved users over the head with your opinion. If you want to work together on a neutral phasing, I will do so. However, your actions throughout this page are very rapidly beginning to cross the bounds of acceptable behavior, especially since this article is under WP:Discretionary sanctions, meaning that standards are held extra high. If you are unable to politely and civilly work with others, including dealing with the possibility that the version you like may not actually be the final consensus version, then you need to find a new topic to edit under. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

He has also posted to the Noticeboard for India-related topics [7], second time he has posted there about this article in fact. What happens when people come to vote in a now non existent RFC? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Reference request

Got here through some ANI discussion - and reading through the text I wanted to Request addition of reference/citation to this text.

Times of India claimed that 93 Muslims were killed by police fire and only 77 Hindus, however Gujarat Police and BJP claimed that majority of 198 Hindus (excluding the 59 killed in Godhra) killed were due to police fire and not in riots.

Also unless this is a quote can this be edited to say 93 muslims compared to 77 hindus... (using the word "only" makes it look like a competition, even if the death was 1 in count).  A m i t  ❤  15:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you give me the link for that please, I have one source which says 95% of Hindus killed was due to police shootings, this will corroborate it nicely. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I dont have one, thats why requesting some one to add it. This just seemed like a vague comparison of numbers. Also I am sorry to add (nothing related to content) but the flow and cohesion of the article as a whole is needing a lot of attention, also the lead section needs to be reduced a little bit too. what can be done for that? 15:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC) A m i t  ❤ 

I was fixing it but an edit war ensued between two other users, the current mess is the result. If the page ever gets unprotected I will be reverting back to the pre edit war version, which w about halfway through my fixes. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, back to something else then... not worth the wait on these articles with the edit war ensuing almost every time.  A m i t  ❤  15:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 July 2013

Please change the article to [revision 563017140]. The current state of article is a mess and it should be better if it is changed to this revision. The consensus is in favor of his version. (User:Neo's position is not included in this consensus since it was not supported by the policies of Wikipedia, and he will not be justifying his position anymore. See Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence#Edit_request_on_6_July_2013)

Rahul Jain (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Article is no longer protected. --regentspark (comment) 22:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected the article assuming that everyone is going to edit in good faith from now on. No edit warring and, per the ANI discussion, no mass reversion please. Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 22:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo. (talk • contribs)

Chronology

I think there are some chronological problems because the section called "background" is almost entirely about the aftermath and ensuing investigations. But it is impossible to understand the investigations and their significance without first having the event and the violence described. I think the correct think is to have a background section that explains what communalism is, the history of communal violence in Gujarat and then describes the Godhra train fire while noting that it is not known what caused it but that Hindus reacted to the belief, whether justified or not, that Muslims acting under Pakistani orderes had caused the fire. Then describe the violence, and then describe the subsequent investigations into the events and the train fire, and the further repercussions untill this day.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I wonder if the "background" section should be removed. In my experience, "background" is usually just a holding space for info that should go into a better named/organized part of the article. Is that info duplicated? Should it be moved, or removed? I'm hoping that DS will jump in here, either with editing or with comments. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Background sections are useful for historical articles about events that are preceded by a complex set of circumstances such as this one. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The background to the 02 violence is the train burning, and there are now two sections covering it. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually I don't think the Train burning is the background but the triggering event. The background is the general setting of communalist antagonism in Gujarat and India.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well that is true enough, I can knock up a historical perspective of the issues since partition, that would then be the background and the train incident renamed to "Godra train incident"? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's what I would recommend. I think the Godhra events should be considered part of the events themselves.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Maunus' revert

Maunus, could you please explain why you returned the article to a state where it was based on newspaper articles written at the time (i.e., WP:PRIMARY sources), as opposed to Darkness Shines' version, which was primarily written based on secondary sources written by academics with historical perspective? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding this much material to an article on a controversial topic, which has itself been the subject of edit warring, is a bit too forward (as I have learned from experience by making that mistake more than once). I think Manus should self revert and discuss the issue with the sources first, not revert and discuss later. That way, if proposed reverts/changes pass here on talk, consensus can be gained and if anyone does try to remove good material, a stronger case could be made against them. If consensus can't be gained then the involved editors ought to go from there (without reverting). MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, Maunus wasn't adding material--he was reverting to an older version of the article after DS removed very large chunks for being simply bad writing. Here's a clear way of thinking about it: should an encyclopedia article (Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia) be written mainly based on the accounts provided of an event while that event happened? Or should an encyclopedia, which is by definition a tertiary source, instead summarize what secondary sources, who have themselves analyzed the primary sources, have said? I know that I've written this as a leading question, but I'm trying to make this very very obvious: where possible, we should always rely on secondary, high quality, academic sources to describe things. Sure, in some cases, those don't exist (or don't exist yet). But we should always strive for that. Darkness Shines did all of that hard work to find the secondary sources and remove the primary ones. Neo and Maunas have been using specious arguments to keep the earlier, poorly sourced version. The length of time the article was bad (which it was--there is no doubt that a massive article like this based on newspaper clippings, including BLP violations, is bad) should be irrelevant to efforts to fix it. The mere fact that something is sourced is not, inherently, a reason to keep it. I am simply unable to understand the reverts to the earlier version, unless, of course, those reverting want to preserve a certain POV that's inherent in the on-the-spot reporting that's not there in later, more sober analyses. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. We had a consensus to keep this version. Why should the article be reverted without consensus or discussion now, especially when it has just been unprotected. Rahul Jain (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I reverted to my version, the only reason it looked like information had been removed is that the edit war had duplicated half the article, I have rewritten and added the bits Neo. had complained about above as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

@User:The Rahul Jain, are you sure there was actual consensus on the pre-revert version? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I am quite sure, only User:Neo. disagreed. Me, User:Darkness Shines and most probably User:Qwyrxian too were in support of that version. Also, given the fact that User:Neo. failed to explain his position, it should not be counted for consensus. Rahul Jain (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Rahul Jain, neither I nor Darkness Shines preferred that version. I had been confused about where the article had sat prior to DS's edits; the version you are suggesting actually contains both the original and the changed version, with a lot of duplicated and sometimes even contradictory info (without explanation). The one DS reverted to is the one that I would agree with, for now, based upon the explanations originally given in the edit summaries and my quick (though not in-depth) look at the changes made. I would, of course, be happy to discuss any specific individual changes, or even the change as a concept, but, as I explained above, I believe that the fundamental idea of moving to retrospective, secondary sources is obviously the way every Wikipedia article should move. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, I am supporting the same version which you and User:Darkness Shines prefer (and which is currently there in the article). See my edit request and the comment above in which I mentioned it. Rahul Jain (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Rahul Jain and Qwyrxian jumped in on this article only to oppose me because of prior disputes related to Jainism articles. They had no idea what this article is about and what DS is trying to do. Their only point is to oppose whatever I am doing and support whatever opposite party, DS, is doing. That's why they got confused while reverting my edits. I am damn sure DS is laughing because of this mindless unexpected support from both of them. Even if they have realized their mistakes, it will be very embarassing for them to question or oppose DS. So their support to DS will continue. neo (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Actually I think I was mistaken in my revert, I didn't realize there was also a lot of less well sourced material that I was reinserting. I looked at the first couple of sources that were all academic secondary sources and then I didn't take as close a look at the rest as I should. My apologies. It has been reverted now right, so I don't need to self-revert?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

@User talk:Maunus, I guess there is no need to self-revert as it seems like a misunderstanding. Though it's good that most of the involved users seem to agree.

@User:Neo., uh...your comment just seems to be criticizing other editors personally. Is there a problem with the article in its current state or are you alright with its current status? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Neo...I've actually argued against Darkness Shines a number of times before. I think I may have even argued in favor of blocking him before, though it's possible I'm confusing him with another India-Pakistan-topic editor. In this case, I am completely clear with what you are doing: you are attempting to return the article to it's state where it was based mainly on newspaper accounts written during the events themselves (or shortly afterward), while DS has (correctly) changed the article to being based on reliable secondary sources--sources which you've rejected for completely fallacious reasons (some sort of ridiculousness implying that academic sources are more likely to be biased and POV pushing than newspaper sources). You'll find that I am very consistent about one thing on Wikipedia: on making sure our articles and editors follow policies and guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

What NPOV means

As I just reverted Neo, I realized that maybe some of the problem maybe simply be a misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV means. If there are, for example, two major theories about what happened, NPOV does 'not say that we are required to give equal standing to each. Rather, WP:NPOV says that we have to weight the theories approximately equally to how they exist in the real world. Note, too, that this does not mean "approximately equal to the number of people who believe the theory"--it means the weighting as determined by experts in the field. For example, even though something like 40% of people in the US don't believe that the Earth is warming, or, if it is, it isn't the cause of human beings, our articles on Climate change state it as an undeniable fact that the Earth is warming due to human behavior; we do this because this is the overwhelming consensus among scientists, especially among national science organizations. So, we need to be careful that we weight the theories appropriately here; if all major research, especially research done later with more detailed evidence, supports one theory, we must give prominence to that theory.

Also, as a side note, due to the contentious nature of these claims, we probably should err on the side of too much citation rather than too little--we probably shouldn't use only a single citation for a full paragraph with lots of claims (though individual circumstances may vary). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you self-revert. I have given two investigation, by Human Rights watch and Nanavati report. Having said that, we go by reliable sources and not by investigations. If you want to clutter that section with sources, I will do it. But first self-revert and explain what is unsourced. neo (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You had a whole paragraph verified only by HRW, and as far as I saw from reading the page you linked to, many of the details were not in that report (unless they were on a different page). And, no, we don't go by "reliable sources", at least not the way you're saying. When we decide which theories to include, and in what weight, we look at the overall picture of what reliable sources say, paying particular attention to the most authoritative. Based on the sources you yourself included, along with those already in the article, the "Accidental fire" appears to be, by far, the more widely accepted theory. Thus, we must give precedence to that theory in our article, and make it clear that said theory is the primary one. Now, perhaps I'm misunderstanding your info and the sources you gave; if so, please explain. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have given Human Rights Watch and existing Shah-Nanavati commission sources. Here are another two sources, United Nations Human Rights Council and Time (magazine) sources which talk about muslim angle in Godhra train attack. Do you want more? Please explain by quoting sentences what is unsourced. neo (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Here is United States Department of State 2002 report which state that muslim mobs had attacked train. Do you want more? Please explain what is unsourced or self-revert. neo (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)A few things wrong with the edit ,one no single investigation needs a full overview here, that belongs on the other messed up article on the train burning itself. That is why when I rewrote I only gave a few lines per investigation, so all got the same weight. Second, "Attack by Muslim mob" violates POVTITLE in my opinion. Third and most important, absolutely nowhere in the HRW source you used are any of this "poured petrol in S-6 compartment of the train and set it on fire. The doors of the carriages were locked from outside, preventing the passengers from escaping thereby killing 58 passengers in S6 compartment." that I can see. Misrepresenting a source is not a good thing, so do not do it again. The section is fine as it currently stands. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• There are two different stories both of which should be mentioned and described and attributed. Taking one of those as fact in the title is a clear POV violation. Both stories start with the cadres causing an altercation with the Muslim shop keeper, then continue to the train stopping, but the cause of the fire itself and the existence of the Muslim mob is not determined. Sources from 2003/2005 typically give the story of the mob causing the fire and more recent stories generally describe the cause of the fire as uncertain. We should not rely on the primary sources here, but on how they are interpreted and weighted in secondary scholarly sources. The ohchr report is not a particularly good source here, since it is not specifially about this event, but simply summarizes other sources and it doesn't state which. Neo's misrepresentation of the HRW source is problematic, and also Neo's description of the Ayodhya events is highly partial. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)BTW, you will notice I hope that the newer source your cite (Time) says "a train full of Hindu pilgrims and activists was set on fire by an allegedly Muslim mob in the town of Godhra, killing 59" The USDoS report is from 2002, so how is that any good? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have changed title as 'attack by a mob'. Removed ayodhya vhp and petrol thing, i would have included source if my edit had been a minute earlier. But sorry anyway for missing it. Anyway, point of contention is "mob", so I will concentrate on it for the moment. Please take a look at this draft in my userspace. If you object about sources, I will go to RSN. Anyway, there are many sources. You will be flooded with sources if you reject reality. neo (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This version was much better than your previous one, but I agree with Qwyrxian's reversion based on the relative weight of the two theories. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The sources for the most part are junk, as I pointed out about Re two of them, the NYT sources is an Op-Ed, which is next to useless for a historical article. And is there any particular reason you do not like the current version? As it covers the same stuff you have written but has better sources, and of course the current version does not say "Muslim mobs" every few lines. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@Maunus By weight if you and Qwyrxian mean placing of sub sections, then I have no problem if 'accidental fire' is first subsection. @DS: The tone and info in the section is such that it makes reader believe that the fire was accident. I just want to give due weight to other side of the story. I have more sources but I don't want to clutter RS noticeboard. neo (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not care how many sources you have, as the section now stands all investigations are given equal weight, it is quite simply not possible to be more neutral than that. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

So you are not talking about reliability of sources anymore? neo (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A court verdict has proven that there was conspiracy, how man such theories were proposed after the court verdict? Any such theories which were proposed before the court verdicts should be given less weightage. -sarvajna (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That is not how our policies work, which has been explained to you ad nauseum on the anti-muslim violence in India page. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

and the policy says that conspiracy theories should be given more importance than the court verdicts ? -sarvajna (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A court verdict determines the legal consequences of an event, it does not determine what happened and didn't happen. Often times court verdicts are contested, or considered biased. If the viewpoint that a court verdict is biased is the mainstream viewpoint in the lityrature then that viewpoint should be given more weight. We report on what the relevant literature says, not on what judges say.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A court verdict is reached after taking into cognizance of what happened and what didn't, even a child would know that. Was the judgment of the judge that it was a conspiracy contested? -sarvajna (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Also, as I said to Neo. above, "Misrepresenting a source is not a good thing, so do not do it again." The same goes for you. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, DS, do you have any problem with reliability of sources? If not, I will include 'attack by a mob' as second subsection (after some more draft improvement). neo (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Neo, I think you should present your sources here on the talkpage before making further edits. Then we can discuss which claim their are reliable enough to support.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Revert, why

I asked the editor on his talk[8] page to correct his source misrepresentation, he instead choose to add a synthesis to try and get around it, this is a violation of two policies and as such I have reverted the changes. Please do not restore that content unless a single source is used to support it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with the BBC source? The source says The court has accepted the conspiracy theory. It was not an accident," public prosecutor JM Panchal is quoted by the AFP news agency as saying.. I just summarized it. The Hindu source [9] I provided did support what I wrote, it says Additional sessions judge P.R. Patel held 31 persons guilty of a “pre-planned conspiracy” and setting fire to coach S-6 so DS and Maunus you both being disruptive. There was absolutely no synt when I used two source. How was it a synt? I hope you revert yourself. -sarvajna (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Jesus mary and joseph and all the saints, tell me, does the Hindu source mention the court case? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you even read the source? This is what the source say The special fast track court, which tried the Godhra train carnage case, was in agreement with the prosecution that a large number of local Muslims did gather “within minutes” of stopping the Sabarmati Express on the outskirts of the railway station on February 27, 2002, and they had stocks of petrol with them. Additional sessions judge P.R. Patel held 31 persons guilty of a “pre-planned conspiracy” and setting fire to coach S-6..-sarvajna (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You are on 4RR, are you going to self revert or do I report you? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This is your edit right? Guardian source, no mention of a conspiracy. The Hindu spurce, no mention of a courtcase. That is a synth. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is the Hindu source that is added now, sorry for the wrong source in previous edit, it was a oversight. -sarvajna (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, DS and Maunus, both BBC and Hindu source mention conspiracy. I am worried that RegentsPark will jump in to support your disruptive behaviour and protect DS version of article which is one sided. So I am trying not to edit war. Pls stop this disruptive behaviour. Thanks. neo (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Or some other partial admin. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have nothing constructive to say then do not post. What's with the bullshit tags you planted all over the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The tags seems legitimate. Rahul Jain (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the tags are pointy, or do you not find it strange the only content he tagged is the stuff I improved? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I have better stuff to do than to hunt down your sentences and tag them. In fact you should see it in a way that only the sentence you added are questionable; which shouldn't be a shock to you as you have done POV pushing before too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not a shock to me at all, but then again I am the one fixing the article, I am the one researching and finding the best sources, I am the one following NPOV. You on the other hand have yet to make one single constructive comment on this talk page, or one single constructive edit to the article. Fell free to provide a diff to prove me wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You fixing the article is just your POV again. And how is anyone gonna prove anything to you when you are always in denial. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ya, I am such a wanker, using the best sources available, researching, following policy, it is a miracle I get away with it. Here I asked Neo. this question up above but he never did get around to responding, maybe you can, is this neutral?

Proposed edit

I think 'Godhra train burning' section is highly biased. Tone and info is such that it makes reader believe that the fire was an accident. Hence I am proposing two sections. Info of DS can go in 'accidental fire' section.

Attack by a mob

The Sabarmati Express train carrying Hindu activists to and from Ayodhya had scheduled daily halt at Godhra railway station. Godhra railway station is situated in pre-dominantly Muslim locality. In the morning of 27 February, Sabarmati express arrived at Godhra station at around 8 am local time. The exact sequence of events after this is unclear. Most of the sources report that Hindu activists alighted on platform for refreshment and a altercation started between Muslim vendors on platform and Hindu activists over paying of bill. The activist were shouting Hindu nationalist slogans and refused to pay refreshment bill until Muslim vendor say "Jai Shri Ram" or "Praise Lord Rama". Shortly after train left platform, someone pulled emergency chain to stop the train. A 2003 Human Rights Watch report states that "a Muslim mob soon gathered and surrounded the train compartment which was then set on fire". A 2002 United States Department of State report on International Religious Freedon state that "On February 27, 2002, Muslim mobs attacked a train in Godhra". In May 2002, European Parliament adopted a resolution which states that:

Condemns in the strongest possible way all the sectarian violence in India which followed the burning to death of 58 Hindu pilgrims on the train in Ghodra on 27 February 2002 by Muslim extremists and the ensuing violence in which Hindus indiscriminately targeted Muslims as reprisals

A 2003 Amnesty International report state that "On 27 February, a train in Godhra, Gujarat, was attacked and 59 passengers believed to be Hindus were killed". In a 2004 article for Social Science Research Council, Ashutosh Varshney writes that "according to credible press reports, the train was attacked by a Muslim mob". A 2007 United Nations Human Rights Council report writes that "the state's Muslim population was targeted in retaliation for an attack by a Muslim mob on a train carrying Hindu militants returning from Ayodhya." A 2012 TIME magazine article writes that "In February 2012, a train full of Hindu pilgrims and activists was set on fire by an allegedly Muslim mob in the town of Godhra, killing 59." A 2012 Wall Street Journal article writes that "the train was set on fire by a mob of Muslims". A 2012 Human Rights Watch report writes that, "The violence in Gujarat started when a train carrying Hindu pilgrims was attacked by a Muslim mob and caught fire."

Comments

No. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Negative. Rahul Jain (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You both are supposed to explain why 'no'. And TRJ, stop supporting someone only because of our prior disputes. If I don't get reason from anyone, I will include it in the article.neo (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not neutral, it is just a collection of quotes, it is giving undue weight to the train incident. If you had managed to write "muslim mobs" any more than you have then the article would need to be renamed "muslim mobs kill people". Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

(1) Not neutral? Are these sources biased to muslim community? (2) I am giving direct quotes to avoid dispute over wording. (3) The train incident triggered all this violence. Why it is undue to tell other side? (4) You have written 'attacks on muslims' in whole article in gory details. At least I am not adding gory details of train incident. The point is that the section is written in such a way that it tells only accident side. I want to give due weight to other side. neo (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the events post Godhra, the attack on the train is mentioned already FFS, all this article needs regarding that is a summary, which it now has. Stop with the "Muslim mobs" And in case you had not noticed, there are a great many sources which say the violence was preplanned. All views on the train incident have been given equal weight already, all you wish to do is beat our readers over the head with "Muslim mobs". So no. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You have cited Banerjee report, Hazard centre investigation, CCT investigation, independent observers report to tell reader that the fire was an accident (muslims got nothing to do with it). You have cited some Ainslie to deny muslim hand. Then you start Shah-Nanavati report with tone to make believe that it was appointed by 'hindu nationalist' party to investigate attacks against muslims, therefore making reader to believe its credibility. Shah-Nanavati report writes "locals" word, not muslims. But still you go ahead in next sentence quoting some Pandya that Shah was BJP's man and Nanavati could be bribed. Purpose of this sentence and tone is to make reader believe that it was fake. Where exactly you are telling other side? International bodies like UN, Human rights watch, amnesty international, US etc either directly use muslim mobs or allegedly muslim mobs. I just found latest April 2013 UN report which use words 'allegedly perpetrated by muslims'. They don't give importance to 'accident' theory. Direct or alleged involvement of muslim mob need to be stated in the article. Now if you do not come up with better reasoning, I will include 'attack by a mob' sub section. neo (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You have been given the reasons, add it without a consensus and it will be removed. Before making any further suggestions I strongly recommend you go read NPOV a few times till it sinks in. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Quote from WP:NPOV, "Editing from neutral point of view(NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately and, as far as possible, without bias all of the significant views that have been published reliable sources on a topic." Questions, (1) do you think my sources are not reliable? (2) do you think direct or alleged involvement of muslim mob is not significant view of all reliable sources? In that case do you want more sources? neo (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

But Neo, the view is already represented. And yes of course it is a significant view that must be in the article - but outside of Indian nationalist circles it is loosing ground.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Neo. Can you cite three secondary, high quality, academic sources which supports the attack by mob theory? Rahul Jain (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at the sources, two from 2002/2003. Three primary sources and one blog post. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@DS, which sources are primary or blog? @Maunus I don't know what do you mean by "loosing ground". But this side should be in article. . @TRJ I can't search 'academic sources' in google books due to browser problem. Are you questioning reliability of above sources? neo (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I mean that scholars don't tend to believe it anymore. I can find one scholarly source from 2004 that gives the mob explanation and this is Varshney's piece here[10]. I'll keep looking.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It is in the article, as I have said, all views have been given equal weight. What in your proposal is not in the article currently? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, what do you mean? If white house statement declare war and it is covered in world media but not in some 'scholarly' book, does that mean declaration of war is unreliable source? Scholarly books are good for science, medicine, history, literature. Don't expect some scholar to publish book on events like 9/11. Too much info, analysis is already in media. No one will buy book which simply repeats info in media. If you believe my sources are unreliable, please tell me. I will go to RSN. I will not get caught in your 'scholarly' argument. And, DS, I have already proposed edit. Stop trolling. neo (talk)

Scholars have written hundreds of books and thousands of articles about 9/11 and dozens of books and hundreds of articles about the Gujarat riots. Those are the sources we should use, and they are the sources that determine how we weigh different explanations. Recent scholarship clearly tend to believe the accident explanation and not the Muslim mob explanation, or they simply say that the cause is unknown.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I ask you a question and you accuse me of trolling? I shall ask again, what in your proposal is not already covered in the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Maunus September 11 attacks article is using media sources. I have posted in RSN to take opinion of others reg credibility of sources.
@DS, My opening thread and also this comment answer your question. neo (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Maunus September 11 attacks article is using media, government websites as sources, not "academic books". I have posted in RSN to take opinion of others reg credibility of sources.
@DS, My opening thread and also this comment answer your question. neo (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You are not responding to the question put to you, what in your proposal is not already covered in the article? Kindly give a direct response. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

DS, the 'godhra train burning' section is not covering the direct or alleged involvement of muslim mob in fire as given in reliable sources. And let me make it clear, 2012 Human rights watch report, 2012 US religious freedom report, 2013 UN report still talk about direct or alleged involvement of Muslim mob. neo (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your obsession with writing "Muslim mob" everywhere is depressing. Is this currently written in the section on the train burning "the attacks on the train had been pre-planned and was the result of a conspiracy by locals" A simple yes or no shall suffice. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the text exists but without meaning. If it is depressing for you to see 'muslim mob' so many times, here is the solution. You should write one line that "the Banerjee, hazard centre, CCT investigations and other independent observers have concluded that the fire on the train was an accident". I will write one sentence that, "UNHRC, EU, USCIRF, Amnesty, HRC, SSRC, TIME, etc writes in their reports that muslim mob was directly or allegedly responsible for fire on train". Agree? If not, you may continue to argue in DRN. Then I think issue will go on in RFC/U. RegentsPark and Qwyrxian will have to answer to community why they allowed highly biased material in the highly controversial article. As you have threatened above to revert my edit, I will not edit war. I will use EVERY option in wikipedia policy. Think with calm mind. Thank you and Good night. neo (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not agree as we do not duplicate content. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Just for reference, if you (Neo) want to seek outside opinions on the topic, you start an RfC. If you want to argue that a particular user has had long term poor behavior across Wikipedia (or, at least, on a series of articles), you raise an WP:RFC/U. You can't start an RFC/U about my (or anyone else's) conduct at only this one article, unless you could show that I've had months or years of poor behavior here. And since I didn't even know this article existed until a week or so ago, that won't work either. Just want to make sure you start the right process. Also, you can't start an RfC/U because you haven't done the necessary pre-cursor steps, nor do you (I assume) have a person to certify it (though I'm sure you could find someone with a grudge against myself or RegentsPark). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

31 convicted, we know already

[11] Now in the article three frigging times. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to reflect the material in the article. Prior to that edit, lead promoted a certain theory which contradicted facts that have been outlined in multiple court findings and investigations.Pectore^talk 19:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The lede does reflect the material in the article, the lede reflects the academic views of the incident, as well as all the investigations. Per NPOV. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Or, to put it a different way--court findings are not Reliable sources. I know that may sound odd, but a judge's opinion is a legal decision, it's not reviewed by an editorial board or fact-checked. Of course, we should talk about court findings, but what we should do is write about what secondary sources say about those findings and the results in them. For example, if Person A was convicted of murder, but later academic analysis conclusively showed the murder was committed by Person B, and that analysis were widely accepted, our article would state, as facts, that 1) Person B committed the murder, and 2) Person A was charged, tried, and wrongly convicted of the murder. I don't htink I can say this clearly enough: academic sources trump, by a very large margin, both of-the-moment news reporting and legal decisions. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I would phrase that differently: Court opinions are primary sources regarding the judge's legal opinion - they are reliable for that information. Otherwise of course you are entirely right.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there any official policy that court findings should not be considered as non reliable?judge's opinion is a legal decision, it's not reviewed by an editorial board or fact-checkedWrong, a judge arrives at judgments based on various evidence, facts presented in the courts and based on the testimony of the witnesses. Since when did Wikipedia started rejecting legal opinions? Also how many such theories do we see after the court gave its verdict?-sarvajna (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Court decisions in common law countries are not "opinions" or "legal opinions", they are rulings and judgements often given by judges who are legal scholars or experts in their field. Court judgements are fact-checked and they do not have to be reviewed by any editorial board. A court concludes its findings on the basis of a rigorous process of fact-checking through analysis of evidence and cross-examination of witnesses. So, yes, court decisions are far more reliable than academic sources that tend to contradict them simply in a matter of opinion. Court judgements are also primary sources, and hence it is always advisable to use reliable secondary sources that quote specific portions or provide an analysis of the judgement. A critique of a judgement (academic or otherwise) should not be given undue weight-age, because such critiques are not sufficient to establish a mainstream viewpoint. On many occasions, academic sources often reflect opinions of the scholars themselves (which may swing one way or the other), however these are simply opinions or assumptions that the scholar has been working with and should not be confused with concrete empirical research or findings. However, there may be an apparent consensus among certain scholars on a matter of opinion, and that may be included while being quoted as such with due regard. WP:RELY says: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field." — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Court findings are NOT reliable sources? On the other hand, an editorial board or an obscure academic scholar sitting within the air-conditioned confines of their rooms and writing about their opinions on some matters are reliable! Exactly how? Shovon (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Where the hell do you get the idea that a court judgement is fact checked? A judge hears from both prosecution & defence, and then makes his judgement based on what he has heard. There are no "fact checking" done by a court, ever. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, this is not a bar brawl where you can address your opponents in a manner of your choosing. This is a discussion on a Wikipedia article talk page, so please be civil while addressing other users. An adversarial court proceedings involves analysis of evidence presented by the prosecution and its refutation by the defense. The judge, in their official capacity, also ensures that due process is followed and the principles of natural justice and equity are applied in consonance with the Criminal Procedure Code or the Civil Procedure Code. The judge bases their ruling by weighing the evidence and arguments presented by both sides. On a side note, how do you think scholars/editorial board engage in the process of fact-checking? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not have "opponents" I will leave that for those with a battlefield mentality. And judges do not fact check, so were the hell you get that idea from is beyond me. Scholars on the other hand cross reference information and search for sources on a subject, they do field work. A judge sure as hell does not. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

While this philosophical discussion is quite interesting nonetheless, the most germane point of Nick's post was that certain sources may be outdated (such as ones from 2004 that are cited in the lead). Certain cited academics in 2004 or 2006 more likely had less information to go off of than a court in the year 2011.Pectore^talk 07:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Nick does not have a point, and the majority of academic sources in the lede are dated 2011/2012/2013. And these also agree, strangely enough with slightly older sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes. How could I have glossed over the informed academic perspective provided by Desi Divas: Political Activism in South Asian American Cultural Performances? Pectore^talk 07:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Any reason in particular you are removing reliably sourced and notable opinions form the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to back up a bit, I think Maunus put it better than I did, which is that a court decision is only reliable for the opinion of a judge, and for the actual, factual result ("Person A was convicted, Person B was found innocent, Person C paid a million dollar fine, etc."). Beyond that, secondary sources are king. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, if a person A is convicted by the court then it is considered to be a fact that he/she has commited that crime, beyond that if there are any other opinions they are just opinions of the author. -sarvajna (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No, if a Person A is convicted of a crime then it is considered a fact that the court was of the opinion that they had done something punishable. A person may for example have killed someone without any doubt, but still be acquitted because of a legal technicality. Court's don't define reality they define the legal consequences of a particular set of evidence. Research studies are not "just opinions" they are research results, no matter how hard you try to discredit them when they disagree with you. If Research into a court case of the past finds that a person has been wrongfully convicted and the majority of other mainstream scholars fight their evidence and argument convincing then that is the story we include. That is how science works, and that is how wikipedia works. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:CRIME A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. When courts says that someone has not committed crime then we should assume that he has not committed crime.WP:BLP also says the same thing A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. -sarvajna (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is a part of BLP used to protect living individuals. You cannot use it to draw the opposite conclusion namely that if a court convicts someone then we should assume that they have committed it. Your consistent misrepresentation of policy can only be considered wikilawyering and it is getting tiresome.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting any policy, I am just quoting it while you on the other hand wants to throw the policy into the dustbin by relying on what you believe to be correct.You cannot use it to draw the opposite conclusion namely that if a court convicts someone then we should assume that they have committed it that is what the courts are meant for, they inform us whether a person is guilty or not.-sarvajna (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes and the social sciences are just people writing and publishing their uninformed opinions. You've said that already... And it was wrong the first time too. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes they are just opinions and cannot override a court's decision in a civilised society.-sarvajna (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment In above thread and this thread, DS and Maunus are arguing about reliability of governments and courts. So basically we are arguing...
Whether democratically chosen governments, parliaments and courts appointed by them are more reliable than 'academic books'.
Whether governments, parliaments and court findings-decisions are "original research", irrelevant or less credible than 'academic book'.
Whether 'scholars' must write a book analysing every govt, parliament and court decision.
Whether in absence of 'academic book', one sided POV should be allowed in the article. Or whether lede should reflect only 'academic views' but not views of other sources.
WP:RS is not clear about this because I don't think such situation arised somewhere on wikipedia. I am seeing similar arguments of DS and Maunus on other articles also. These arguments will continue on other articles also by wikipedians like DS, Maunus, Qwyrxian until some specific lines in policy are cited. I think policy discussion at appropriate forum is necessary to solve this issue. Otherwise government, parliament and court decisions regarding crime on planet Earth are 'original research' or less credible until some 'scholar' write a book to certify that decision. Thanks. neo (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Policy, actually, is perfectly clear. Please re-read WP:RS, especially the WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY parts. Except for citing very specific facts that require absolutely no interpretation (i.e., "X was found guilty of crime Y"), we should not use primary documents. If any interpretation is needed--and I mean literally any--we may not use them. So, for example, we cannot use a court case to say "Person X committed a murder"--that's interpretation; all we may say is "Person X was convicted of murder". We cannot use a court case to say "Person X was at the scene of the crime", even if said fact was explicitly stated by a lawyer or police officer in the court transcripts; we could, maybe say, "According to police officer Y, X was at the scene of the crime." So, yes, people could "argue" about this at other locations, but that doesn't mean the arguments are valid when the policy is very very clear. Now, I do have to admit that the policy is a bit more complex if we are comparing, for example, a newspaper report to an academic article, since some newspaper articles bridge the gap between primary and secondary sources. And we also get, as people have come up with above, the fact that something published a week after an event, no matter who publishes it, will on average be less useful (though not necessarily less "reliable") for an encyclopedia article than something published years after. So those debates will, of course, continue, because many of them are discretionary issues...that's why we have these discussions--to try to form a consensus. Oh, one last thing, though, Neo--these kind of debates happen all the time--there is absolutely nothing new in this talk page. Just look, for example, at any article on an Indian caste where someone wants to use the British censuses from 1871 as a "fact"...or even just look at other articles about high-profile crimes. The Amanda Knox case, for example, has caused literally hundreds of pages of debate, and quite a large number of blocks and bans of people who wanted to push a POV rather than actually follow policy (or who simply were too invested in the topic to understand that they weren't being neutral). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian your comment is very helpful, especially So, for example, we cannot use a court case to say "Person X committed a murder"--that's interpretation; all we may say is "Person X was convicted of murder" but if I was writing about the vicitm can I say that Person X was killed by person Y when person Y is already convicted by the court? For example we write Gandhi was assassinated by Nathuram Godse.-sarvajna (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes you can write that if that is the consensus in reliable secondary sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, Human Rights Watch has prepared this report using dozens of sources. UN has prepared this report after consulting many bodies. Court prepares report or verdict after analysing many documents, witnesses, prosecutors etc. An academician may not do analysis to such magnitude. But still, why you treat academic book as statement of fact and treat other analysis as primary sources? When X accuse that Y is murderer, X is sheer primary source. But when other persons agree that X is right, when prosecutors check witnesses and documents and when judge come to the conclusion, then judge is like some scholar doing analysis. Why judge should be given less weight or his verdict should be treated primary or original research? neo (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Dude that HRW website is not a "report" but a basically a blog post that is arguing that anti-Muslim violence is a problem and that the state of Gujarat is biased against Muslims and refuse to carry out justice. It basically supports the opposite point of what you are trying to make it support. You are also misrepresenting the OHCHR source which states that "6. The Special Rapporteur’s attention was particularly drawn to the high level of communal violence in Gujarat. The most serious incident dates to 2002, as a consequence of the burning of a train which caused the death of 58 Hindu pilgrims in February 2002. It was alleged that Muslims perpetrated the incident, which resulted in retaliatory acts and, eventually, communal violence." Very clearly it does not say that a muslim mob burned the train, it says it was alleged. If you can misrepresent sources this much you give us very little reason to take you seriously at all.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

That 2012 HRW report or article is quoting this 2002 report. It talks about muslim involvement in train attack and I am quoting it. Should I mention attacks on muslims and gujarat govt involvement in 'Godhra train burning' section? That report is used by DS in 'attacks on hindus' section. Why can't I use it in other section? And where is misrepresentation when I am directly quoting from sources in this proposed edit? neo (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Neo, you need to read the sources you use. It seems you have siomply made a search for the phrase "Muslim mob", but not actually read the meaning of the source. The report cites News reports for the "Muslim mob" part and then in the following paragraph writes that "In July 2002, results of an official investigation by the Ahmedabad-based Forensic Science Laboratory stated that the fire could not have been set by the mob from the outside as had been alleged; the fire, it claimed, was set from inside the train." And it does not contradict this. The report then clearly goes on to suggest that the incident had been preplanned by Hindus and that VHP activists had been moving in and out of Ayodhya in the days prior to Godhra and that few if any of the Godhra victims were Kar Sevaks. The HRW source is clearly arguing against the viewpoint you want to use it to support. It is disruptive to do this kind of misrepresentation of sources, and puts either your good faith or competence to edit in line with the rules into serious question.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Maunus - HRW has attributed science lab investigation. If you have still doubt, this is summary of the report i.e own conclusion of HRW after analysis. Please tell me what are you seeing. neo (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not entirely clear to me what it is you are trying to say here, there seems to be some language problems. The source yuo mention was published before the Banerjee investigation concluded that there was no mob, and it is clearly arguing for the opposite case that you are. For example it writes "The report, based on investigations conducted in Ahmedabad in March 2002, revealed that the violence against Muslims was planned well in advance of the Godhra massacre and with extensive state participation and support." I think it is a fine source, and we should use it to source the article, but not specifically on this point which is not one of its central points. I do note though that it also mentins that Muslims retaliated against Hindus in the weeks following the riots. We should probably include that more prominently. It is just hardly mentioned in any of the reliable sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Please do me a favor and leave this section blank. I will use this section to post in upper thread because my edit box can't handle more than 5000 characters. I will blank this thread when disussion is over. Thanks. neo (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian

User:Qwyrxian, you reverted my edit within minutes but have not yet commented on my further improved proposed edit in above thread. Are the sources not reliable? Or what? neo (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have commented extensively, as has Darkness Shines and others. Your edits do not meet WP:NPOV, and, to a lesser degree, violate the need to focus on secondary sources rather than primary. You have continuously refused to discuss this point. You keep acting like all you have to meet is WP:RS/WP:V and then your info, however you phrase it, with whatever weight, should be in the article. WP:V is only one of our rules, and if you read WP:V, it does not say "If something can be verified, it should be in the article"; rather, it says that being verified is only the bare minimum criteria.

So, if you'd like to address the NPOV and primary vs. secondary sources issue, we can go further, but if you're unwilling or unable to follow all of our policies, then I'm simply not sure how to proceed. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Neo, please consider involving a mediator for dispute resolution or starting an RfC to seek wider input. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian: here you reverted my edit just after 6 minutes. Then in this discussion you insisted that 'accident theory' is primary theory. I have said that I have no problem if it is mentioned first in the article. Maunus pointed out my few unsourced sentences. I have said I could not include source because edit was reverted in 6 minutes and apologized for it. I started gathering more sources and as point of contention is "direct or alleged involvement of muslim mob", I concentrated on it and prepared new draft and posted it in above this 'proposed edit' section. In response,
(1) DS is insisting that I should not include my draft in the article because he has covered 'direct or alleged muslim mob involvement' theory. I have pointed out that he has not. He has stated only Shah-Nanavati report and in next sentence he has done WP:SYNTHESIS to destroy credibility of that report.
(2) He said out of my 6 sources, 3 sources are primary and 1 source is blog, but refused to tell which. Then here in RSN, first he said that sources are not dispute at all. Then again insisted that my 3 sources are primary and 1 blog but again clearly refused to tell which.
(3) Maunus said that scholars don't support old theory of muslim mob involvement, I pointed out that even 2011, 2012, 2013 sources are talking about direct or alleged involvement of Muslim mob. Maunus insisted to use only scholarly sources or books. I pointed out that almost all sources used in September 11 attacks are media, govt site sources.
(4) DS said that it is depressing to see 'muslim mob' word so many times in my proposed edit. I proposed that he should write his 'accident' theory in one line and I will write 'direct or alleged muslim mob' theory in one line. But he refused my proposal.
(5) The Rahul Jain asked me whether I can find 3 scholarly books. I answered him I can't search google books due to browser problem and asked him whether my sources are unreliable. He didn't reply.
(6) During this discussion you, Qwyrxian, commented only once and that too about RFC/U. You didn't comment a single word about my proposed edit.
NOW (1) I ask you, DS, Maunus and The Rahul Jain to type with absolute clarity and name which of mine sources are primary or unusable. I will ask other users and if necessary, I will bring secondary sources for them. Please type with absolute clarity whether you need more sources to establish notability of 'direct or alleged involvement of muslim mob' theory. (2) If you all four have made up your mind not to allow edit on this issue no matter what, then type it clearly. neo (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Nick - I have asked for mediation in WP:INB. Last time my Rfc was forcefully removed by Qwyrxian and has threatned to ban me. Should I go for DRN or Rfc this time? neo (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I see based on reading what you wrote from the sources you provided. Two of the sources, WSJ, and Time, assert that the train was set on fire by a Muslim mob. All of the other sources you provided state, instead, that there 1) was a Muslim mob, and 2) the train caught on fire, and very clearly do not assert a connection between them. However, the whole purpose of the section you've proposed is to assert the "Muslim Mob" as the cause of the fire. That's the problem. You've taken a bunch of sources that vaguely relate to your suggested point, but misrepresented most of them to imply a cause and effect relationship which is not there. That is the problem. Now, I don't know whether to call this an WP:NPOV problem, an WP:OR problem, or simply a reading comprehension problem on your part. But you've got a whole bunch of sources which do not support your main argument, and you're using them in a way to imply that they do support it. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

How about these lines: (1) "some sources like a, b, c states that the fire originated inside the train accidently" (2) "some sources like x, y, z generally states that allegedly a mob of muslims attacked the train and the train caught fire". neo (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

(please leave this section blank. I will have to use it to post to above thread due to edit box limit. I will remove this section when above discussion is over. Thanks.)

Academic sources used in this article

There have been academic sources used in this article. Are there other users verifying the content (and its context) that has been used to back assertions in this article? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You trying to say in a backhanded way that I misrepresent sources? Or does AGF only count when it suits a certain POV? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I am concerned about the context that these views have been used in this article – are these simply opinions of the authors or findings from their field work or simply the authors quoting certain news reports appearing in the media. Since I do not currently have access to an online library, I cannot comment on these issues with certainty. Therefore, I am seeking more input from other participants on this page. Please don't take any comment personally unless it is specifically directed at you. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Academic sources represent research findings not opinions. Academics are trained to study the field they are studying and the validity of their results are corroborated through the review process. Their choice of methodology shouldn't matter to you or to us as long as it has passed a peer review process. If you suspect sources are being misrepresented you should check it. If you have a specific suspicion of a particular source and you ask me nicely I might check it for you since I have access to a good library.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

As in the case of Narendra Modi article, I suspect some sources relying extensively/solely on investigative reports published by Tehelka and other tabloid news. In such cases, it is essential to investigate whether these are actual research findings based on empirical evidence or an expression of opinion or reliance on rumours that have been reported elsewhere. For this reason alone, it is essential for all editors to know and understand the purpose of the research and the methodology behind the analysis and interpretation of events. According to WP:RS: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field." Many of these works may actually make exceptional claims in direct contradiction to court rulings and judgements. Such sources are to be carefully used and only given the weight they deserve in relation to established mainstream views. And thank you for offering help. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• No Nick, i dont think anyone is checking that except the guys who are adding it. And of what use will it be? Why bang heads on walls? But you are right. For example Arvind Pandya bit comes from the video tapes of Tehelka which were inspired from fictional films and whose authenticity was questioned and found inadmissible. Previously it was stated in the article that the Banerjee Commission was first such to investigate. When asked for citation, it was removed. Am sure many such stuff will go if questioned. But then again the head and wall and the admin army's you-will-be-blocked doesn’t even allow others to add tags. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Erm, the Tehelka reports have all been proven 100% authentic. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah! Authentic to have been inspired from a Bollywood flick. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Also I don't have access. I am sure, all his more than 80 sources are discussing 'muslim mob' theory also. But he won't mention it. We need to find someone who has access to his sources. neo (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

There were several inquiries into the train burning incident

Obvious statement really, so why the CN tag? Pointy much? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not include personal commentary into an encyclopedia article. Quote specific sources making specific claims. Vague hand-waving doesn't make the article encyclopedic. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"There were several inquiries" is a statemennt of fact not a personal commentary or handwaving.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is not factual information. As far as I know there was only one official and constitutional inquiry - the Shah-Nanavati Commission. The Banerjee Commission was declared illegal and unconstitutional by the Gujarat High Court. Please provide proper sources for your assertions. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow. That is ridiculous reasoning. The multiple inquiries are supported by a slew of reliable sources, and the fact that it was declared illegal by the Gujarat high court (which has been highly criticized as partial and biased by dozens of neutral observers, including the sources provided by Neo himself) does not mean it doesn't exists. I will remove your pointy and disruptive tag immediately.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

There was only one legit inquiry. One was non-constitutional. And other all that you are counting under "several", which you aren’t mentioning by names, are just personal projects. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You are contradicting reliable sources. Talk about "opinion".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, the burden of proof to support the assertion falls on you. Please include a proper citation to the assertion or revert yourself. Please do not accuse others of disruption without cause. I could have very well removed the phrase from the article, but chose not to, giving you the opportunity to present reliable sources. Inquiries are governmental in nature, and if there are private projects which have their own specific findings, they should be explicitly noted as such. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I have lifted that burden already and added a source that lists the chronology of inquiries. There is no requirement that an "inquiry" be governmental in nature and usually independent inquiries by NGOs are considered reliable. The status of the banerjee commission is already mentioned in the article. My accusation of disruption was not without cause as the insertion of thag was clearly not done in good faith as even a two second google search could have found reliable sources for the existence of seveal inquiries. Apaert from the source I have added it is mentioned in sources by Ogden, Jaffrelot, and several others. Most of which are readily available online. Your failure to consult them is not my problem.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Done, minor copy edit and an academic source added. And yes Nick, it is pointy to tag a sentence which states the obvious. "There were several reports" which is then followed by discussion of three reports. So it is pointy and time wasting, much like your ANI try. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

BLP issues

Please use this section to list out potential BLP issues in this article. WP:BLP states: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page."

Nanavati

• "In a recording by Tehelka Arvind Pandya who is counsel to the Gujarat government, stated that the Shah-Nanavati commission would fall in favour of the BJP, as Shah was their man and Nanavati could be bribed." [Jaffrelot, Christophe (2011). Religion, Caste, and Politics in India. C Hurst & Co. p. 398. ISBN 978-1849041386.]

I do not have access to this publication, however the Tehelka tapes were investigative reports, including sting operations, which were conducted by certain individuals and they make some claims. These claims have not been proven in a court of law and hence are only assertions made by authors or opinion of authors and potentially defamatory. They should be immediately removed as WP:BLPCRIME applies.

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope, as nobody is accused of being guilty, nor having committed a crime. What we have is a reliable secondary source reporting on what a person said. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct, it is Pandya who is making an accusation on camera, wikipedia can report his statement because it has in turn been reported in other reliable sources. The constant nonsense about everything not proven in a court of law being "opinion" is becoming ludicrous.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

That Tehlka sentence is clearly WP:SYNTHESIS. It is combined to destroy credibility of Shah-Nanavati report. Example from WP:SYNTHESIS:

Template:Quote box4 Also see WP:NOREX for more examples. DS should remove that sentence without argument. neo (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not synthesis, because reliable sources use the Pandya interview as an example of the the dubious status of the Nanavati commision. IN fact Nanavati himself has responded publicly to the accusations, showing their notability.[12] In fact the HRW source you have yourself peddled here, criticizes the Nanavati commision along the same lines.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Please provide the portion of the paper that makes this assertion over here. Additionally, please review WP:BLPCRIME: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

These people are not "relatively unknown" And as has already been pointed out to you, twice now in fact, what we have is a reliable secondary source reporting on what a person said. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Maunus - It is like some editor trying to include following synthesis in Moon article: "Man landed on Moon on 20 July 1969(sourced). Some people say that NASA's Moon landing was hoax!(sourced)." And then, just like you did, that editor may give this link to say that as NASA has responded Moon landing hoax allegations, therefore it is notable and it should be written this way. Ah? neo (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Except that the moon landing is not contested in many reliable sources. The outcme of the Nanavati-Mehta commission is.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Train burning

This is the current consensus version, that last rewrite replaced academicly sourced content with newspaper articles at least one primary source, some had no sources at all. So I have reverted to the consensus version. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. It had consensus of Maunus and as I have pointed out few times, Qwyrxian and The Rahul Jain support you only because my prior dispute with them on jainism articles. Now you are supposed point out what is unsourced in Utcursch's contents. But having said that, you don't accept even sourced text. I am reverting your edit. neo (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Please respect the consensus version. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, Neo. is edit warring against consensus, he is reverting in unsourced content, content sourced to a primary source, statements of fact sourced to opinion pieces. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Please tell which are unsourced sentences, primary sources, opinion piece in Utcursch's contents. Your version never had consensus. Don't try to suppress other side taking advantage that most users don't have access to academic books. neo (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)