Talk:2002 Gujarat riots

Largely one sided and biased article

The article seems to have been biased and extensively cites books and articles strongly favoring one side of the opinion while largely ignoring the other side. The editors of this article have chosen to ignore the facts upon which the courts have pronounced their judgements, a problem which the entire article suffers.

The section on the train burning incident is largely one sided and written like an advertisement for the defendants of the subsequent court case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclaren9 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I have fought a long battle here and I was cornered by the anti-Indian editors here that I am sock-puppet. Imagine, how a Neutral Wikipedia editor like me will feel. I nearly lost my energy in touching this article henceforth. - Vatsan34 (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

misinterpretation of facts

in this article, you have mistakenly written that some events occurred on 28th february, after which it has been said that two days later, on the 1st of march. I would like to inform you that there are only 28 days in february, and the 1st of march was the next day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.75.82 (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Distortion of Facts : The entire section "Godhra train burning" forgets to mention that initial attack on the train is a proven fact and 31 persons have been convicted for arson by the court, and this section tries to show that there was no arson on 27th Feb and the fire was an accident. The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhra_train_burning mentions these facts more clearly, but the current article mentions planned arson and attack on the train only briefly in the introduction, and later diverts the issue in a prejudiced manner.VJha (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

As perWP:NPOV, we cannot say that the attack is "proven fact," only that the court found it to be so. Saying it was proven would be giving the Nanavati-Shah commission undue weight with respect to the other investigations. That being said, the attack is not in dispute, but the arson is. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If a court of law does not prove a legal dispute, then who can ? Perhaps you are confusing "court" with "Nanavati-Shah commission". The latter was not a court but merely a commission constituted by Gujarat govt whose findings were refused by many. But I have cited three sources without any bias which is not undue : (1) Nanavati-Shah commission report, (2) Railway Minister's commission report, and then (3) court verdict in 2011. I do not support or oppose the court verdict, but to omit the court verdict from this article is against WP:NPOV. I cannot understand why some persons want a censorship on court verdict! Why a court verdict cannot be referenced here? Suppose the Supreme Court reverts the present court verdict, would you refuse that too ? VJha (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Oi, you need to cool it a little. I did not say the court verdict should not be present: that would be ridiculous. I am saying it should be presented as "The court found...." and not "It is proven fact that...." which is as per WP:NPOV. Is that clearer?

My sentence is : "in 2011, the court verdict convicted 31 persons for attacks, arson and stoning on the passengers". I gave the link through which details of verdict can be accessed. Hence WP:NPOV cannot be cited here. VJha (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be an appropriate version; the question is now of grammar, and of where it should be inserted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Lede

I just noticed that while the lede mentions that Modi was accused and then cleared of complicity, it does not mention the fact that members of his government, specifically Maya Kodnani, were later convicted. I plan to modify this; any suggestions are welcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Varadarajan

This unknown reporter named Varadarajan is given unnecessary importance in this page.Whatever his reports suggest is not supported by ndtv zee news timesofindia ibnlive . Lets write the sections , ATTACK ON HINDUS and ATTACK ON MUSLIMS without any reference from Varadarajan--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hardly unknown, the person has an article after all. And he is cited only twice, so how exactly is this giving him "unnecessary importance"? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

He may have been sited twice .but its very sensitive things and whatever mentioned is never supported by any other news channels. This Vardarajan's claims are neve supported by any other person.No media, no ngo,no human rights activists . Unless he is given importance by any other important person or agency it would be better to avoid his violent claims. Any body can write a book without proper investigation or for publicity stuntDarkness Shines (talk)112.79.37.152 (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

See also

Why is mentioning links to other Gujarat violence a wrong thing in this place? Why was my edit of 1985 riots removed? thevikas (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent removal

@Vikas; I noticed that you added a link to the 1985 riots (which is fine by me) but you also removed 4kb of sourced content from above. I am assuming this was an accident; if not, could you please explain why? Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Biased Article

Article is highly biased and tone is Anti BJP. e.g. "Chief Minister Narendra Modi has been accused of initiating and condoning the violence, as have police and government officials who allegedly directed the rioters and gave lists of Muslim-owned properties to them.[12] In 2012, Modi was cleared of complicity in the violence by a Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court of India." In July 2013 allegations were made that the SIT had suppressed evidence.[14] On 26 December 2013, an Indian court upheld the earlier SIT report and rejected a petition seeking prosecution of Mr. Modi.

This should be part of Inquiry and not main section, if required.

Again section

Modi and Rana had used inflammatory language which could worsen the situation.[49]

Mostly reference is given as some book specially from foreign author which is not solid evidence as newspaper. All such sentences should be removed/rephrased and article need to be wikified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepeshdeomurari (talk • contribs) 19:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The sources are fine, academic ones are better then newspapers. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

These people are clearly racist. They consider Indians as no-brainers and consider Hindu names as bigotry and need to be avoided. I say it, straight from my brain here. -Vatsan34 (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert, why

The reason are obvious. Massive removal of content, restoration of a version which has no consensus and which violates more policies than one can shake a stick at. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

useless administrator darknessshines

administrators are not supporting my views even though they come from reliable sources especially this darknessshines...as his name suggest he wants to keep everyone in dark. Lets hope other administrators will understand that darknesshines is an ISI agent. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL before you further edit Wikipedia. Thanks, 117.194.213.232 (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

So you do not deny that you are an ISI agent! ;) 216.96.233.118 (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Biased article

I request administrators to read the links of sources given below in order to come to a conclusion.The current version of this page is heavily biased in favour of a particular community.

[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] I have added few extra links.Rest are same as the previous ones. and darknessshines don't remove this section. --ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would I remove a section? I have however removed some linkvios and one BLPPRIMARY violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This link was part of the article in old version.there were others also which was removed.The attack on hindus section is biased as can be seen through my links.But some bad faith editor removed this http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/postgodhra-riots-dna-test-nails-4-killers/4719/0 ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no purpose in discussing anything with you, given you are about to be blocked for sockpuppetry. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)