Talk:2002 Gujarat riots/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello all

I took this article off my watchlist some time ago and have returned to discover its a real mess. Rather than discuss the riots themselves, half of the time is spent discussing what caused the Godhra incident, which clearly should have its own page; and the other half is mystifyingly discussing a movie, with a list of awards. The only parts that were actually about the riots were unwieldy. I have not removed anything major. The Godhra discussion is still there, just all in one place. I have also tried to categorise the various criticisms and defences of the Gujarat govt. I dont know what to do about the movie. Ive left it in, but it should surely be just a reference? We dont need to debate the merits of the movie, surely?

OK, finally, if you want to add anything, change anything, introduce a crazy POV, or whatever, at least please try to do so in the right subheading. And discuss it on the talk page and sign your edits! Its easy! Hornplease 07:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Worse than Bosnia?

Dudes, are you people from this planet or what? Look at Bosnian War and compare please. No hyperbolic crap.Netaji 23:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not my hyperbole but that of an international women's enquiry committe reported by Press Trust of India.You can click on the link

Lkadvani 00:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC) This is just one of the international and humanitarian agency's report.I dont know what will be your reaction if all of them are included.Abstain from hindering serious research and putting Fact templates on what you personally dont agree. and get some sleep are working too hard for improving the image of some organisations..Better not become Silas of DVC

Fine, then I'm putting detailed figures of death tolls in Bosnia and slamming those worthless claims into the ground.Netaji 00:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Subhash ,Whatever your own personal thinking is..perhaps the organisation or enquiry committee is rt or wrong..but it is something that happened.If they think the events are worse than Bosnia..perhaps they are they would be experts in their field.Now dont say Ad Hominem that they are westerners so they have misconception.Their point of view is mentionable but what you will add to this will put in your own personal ideas - Weisel wordings to add your own POV.I am reporting this to BNguyen.

Lkadvani 00:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

By mentioning the term 'Bosnian War', you opened the door. Now any comparison between the War & Godhra Riots is valid in this article as long as you keep the statement. Remove the statement 'worse than Bosnia', and I'll remove the rest. You may keep the overall section and the link if you wantNetaji 00:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry ,but your grievance should be against those who said may ask the international committee why did they call it worse than Bosnia.As an author I am citing what happened and not adding my POV.
What you're doing is engaging in selective quoting and introducing bias as part of a systematic attack on Hindus. What I have done is added facts to place your POV in the right context, is all. The fact remains that Gujarat is like Bosnia only in the dream world of Osama bin-laden's abortion clinic and pot-smoking jizzporium, not on planet Earth, which is where Wikipedia is located.Netaji 01:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
"Teesta Setalvad is a convert to Islam. Though,it is , surprisingly, known by a few people only."

Good - She told you only and where are the sources you need to back up this argument.Is this not your own POV,monseigneur. Lkadvani 00:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nein mein freund. Read Koenraad Elsts article AS I HAVE REFERENCED IT. His exhaustive research confirms Setalvad's lies.
monseigneur????? I'm not a priest dude! You're the anti-Hindu crusader here, not I

Netaji 00:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Riots Section

The riots section makes statements that are not backed up by the cited source.Netaji 23:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please could you mention what sources do you personally admit as valid to be cited on these pages and I will try citing them.

I am a citizen of this world and not of an utopian world based on supremacy of Hindus and Hinduism with India as the greatest power and I haved cited sources that are accpetable to most people of the world and not to a fringe section.

I challenge you to cite sources in your arguments favour apart from the three groups that you have a fancy of putting everywhere on Wikipedia:Articles written by Hindutva supporters including the famous Mr.Elst and Pipes,BJP politicians and adminsitration sources and articles on sites with signicant Hindutva content.I am sure you will exhaust your tiny spectrum of resources.

Lots of people gate Hindus because they want to eradicate us as part of a campaign of race war against us. So what if you have sources? Hndus generally aren't so net savvy, and anti-Hindus like you have jumped on the weakness and are using the net to spread hate against them...Netaji 20:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

...Most Supremacist movements start with the same phrase "We are victims", infact this is the same phrase the Sangh Parivar is building up its army.Nazis too suspected Jews to be responsible for their defeat and all their misery..Sangh Parivar is following the same course...

Lkadvani 20:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Knowing your habit of attacking the news sources like the BBC,CNN and well known Indian and International Newspapers of the world - I have used the basic sources Indian Supreme Court statements and the parliament questions.But even then your desire to protect the image of these supremacist organisations before the world - you already admit somewhere - these are the best referenced articles on Google - leads you to criticising sources, taking out bits and peices of information very flagrantly and entering them in the articles to deflect the reality.

Take for instance your editing of this section:[1].You removed the sentence in Italics:

But a senior police official says it is still unclear whether the remains belong to riot victims or whether an older graveyard has been dug up.The Gujarat Police dismissed the unearthing of the mass grave as an unnecessary publicity campaign.[2][3].This explanation was considered as Gujarat Police's distorting the facts.

when within the cited source [4] there is evidence that this was a reality:

Everything is legal and on record. We haven't received any application for the dead bodies," said Dinesh Brahmbhatt, District Collector and Magistrate of Panchmahal. Yet, he was not able to provide any documentation of the bodies exhumed. Nor was he able to explain why clothes were found with the skeletons. If post-mortems are conducted, the clothes are removed and kept by the police, and a white shroud is supposed to be placed over the body. "This shows that the post-mortem may not have been done properly," says Setalvad. Moreover, victims claim that the First Information Report (FIR) does not account for the 20 bodies that were missing. But neither they nor their lawyer could state how many people were registered as dead in the two FIRs filed in the Pandharvada case...and that "It is not only the Pandharvada case, but in several others too, the police have tried to bury and conceal evidence. In Kalol, the CBI arrested six policemen and two doctors on the charge of deliberately destroying evidence relating to the Randhikpur massacre and conspiring to shield the accused. They allegedly conducted a post-mortem at the site of the burial and added 60 kg of salt so that the bodies would disintegrate quickly."

Yeah, Setalvad is a well established radical Islamist and so is unreliable.Netaji 20:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Read this court judgement again Supreme court expunged all negative remarks placed by Gujarat Judges and she was discharged of all the charges levelled in Zaheera Shah affair.[5][6]If the Supreme court has nothing against her..why should you level such charges and bad mouth her..

Lkadvani 20:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

More news sources speak of the same:[7][8]Read this article properly[9]So far I have refrained from putting any Muslim sources lest it be non NPOV but it seems my restraint is only allowing you to become more aggressive.[Here is just one of the many Muslim sources][10]

My dear hindu hater. I have tried to balance the article and make it neutral. You have soiled it with distorted, deluded propaganda. The facts are correct, it's your presentation of them, through pejoration and redundancy, that make it anti-Hindu propaganda.Netaji 20:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not a Hindu hater unlike you who has time and again used foul language against your country as well as the Islamic religion.I have only used facts in the sense, majority of sane observers in academicia, press and Human Rights arena have expressed and have avoided more direct statements in the Muslim or Christian media.


Many people have worked for a long time in editing this article. Please discuss changes before adding them from now on.Netaji 19:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Koenraad elst

Until people show links to accusations of bias on the part of Elst, you cannot accuse him of pro-Hindutva. Plus, do not delete legit quotes from time magazine.

In the reference Subhas provided Elst attempts to defend himself from charges of being biased, and an apologist for Hindutva. That is all that the article has been edited to reflect.
No, you wrote "Hindutva sympathizer Koenraad Elst". That is a proclamation, not an acucsation (Bah! He's not even a Hindu!). Fi you want to engage in defamation of Elst then THAT BELONGS IN THE SEPARATE KOENRAAD ELST ARTICLE. Get it?Netaji 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, please, note that if you wish to introduce criticism, then it should be noted that Elst is not considered a mainstream source and has been accused, and denies, being an apologist for Hindutva. That is all that the edits say. Note that it is not NPOV to introduce a quote supposedly from an unbiased 'scholar' without noting that he is in a minority in his field, and that he is considered to hold unbalanced views. If that is a problem, please note that the best alternative is to find another, more reliable source, and one whose motivations can be understood by the reader. Hornplease 22:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The quotes from Time magazine that were deleted properly belong, if at all, in the separate Godhra article, where they still exist. Hornplease 20:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry old boy. The 'divide and rule' trick was already tried by your British masters, won't work anymore. THIS article is supposed to be about 2002 Gujarat Vilence, NOT 2002 Hindu violence ONLY. since the train burning incident was the START of the violence, it must be chronicled here, including accredited quotes by TIME magazine.Netaji 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I added an excerpt from Elst's interview in the 'defense of Gujrat Administration' section. No deletions of other people's edits.Netaji
Subhash, this is the last time I will remid you about WP:NPA against me. I have taken the time to read your past interactions with people, and I see no improvement. This article is too long; the Godhra incident is difficult enough to chronicle. If you include the Time article, then someone will wish to include subsequent revisions to the theory of what happened. Very soon it will again expand to dominate half the article, and this article cannot afford that. Please understand that a simple link to the Godhra article is sufficient, along with a bare-bones statement of what happened, and what the disagreement is.
Also, please consider that you are introducing far too many lengthy quotes that are statements of opinion and not of fact. Further, they are from individuals, and not organisations; and not individuals close to the playing out of affaris, like Advani or Modi, or even individuals considered mainstream opinionmakers like Stephen Cohen. Unless you have a good defence of your edits, they will be removed.
Finally, please refrain from being aggressive on the talk page. Your attempts at rudeness will not work with experienced editors, as they merely make you appear immature, and they certainly arent amusing, which is how you have defended them in the past. Hornplease 22:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't patronize me bub.Your friend LKadvani added a lot of the same kinds of crap. Quotes, opinions, etc. No problem with that eh? Anything to defame Hindus right? Sheesh, Hindus attack each other so much that the muslims just have to sit back and watch. If you vandalize my edits as you are threatening, then I will also remove his on the same grounds. Don't think I am not watching carefully. If necessary, I will dedicate my time to policing this article alone. You can't stop me with childish threats.Netaji 23:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, please do not accuse me of attempting to defame either Hindus or Muslims. These rhetorical tricks add nothing to your argument, and only take away from it. Also, please note that editing an article to remove quotes of doubtful POV should not be called vandalism. Please read WP:AGF, and extend the same courtesy of assumption to other editors as I am doing to you. Please feel free to remove any quotes inserted by anyone else that meet the criteria above: as being from a non-mainstream individual, from someone not close to the events or with special information.
I note that you have not responded to my actual questions. Aggression on the talk page is not a substitute for a careful defence of your edits. Hornplease 00:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Elst is very much a mainstream individual. On what basis are you claiming otherwise? His degrees and qualifications are legitimate. Plus, he has extensive experience with Indian Culture and has collaborated with WELL known scholars such as Sita Ram Goel. Please look him up and read his many published works before making disguised ad-hominem attacks. Just because he is not an anti-Hindu hater and bigot does not make him 'fringe'. If you have any valid questions please itemize them logically below, as I can't tell your questions apart from your temper tantrums.Netaji 00:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
PLease see my response on LKadvanis talk page, linked below. Also, please note that my questions were put as part of the edit summaries, so you can tell them apart from what you call my temper tantrums. Hornplease 05:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is my defense of Elst:

  • He is not a Hindu. He has repeatedly professed his devotion to Christianity (see his article).

"I am still part of the Catholic community, meaning that my children go to a Catholic school, I am a member of the Christian-Democratic trade-union, cultural foundation and so on. I have also retained my sympathy for the causes of Catholic nations, like Quebec’s sovereignty and the Irish cause, and I can still argue the Catholic point against Protestantism or refute the allegation that the Inquisition killed millions of people or that Pope Pius XII was a Nazi collaborator. I still think highly of the Catholic social teachings and occasionally reread passages from Saint Thomas Aquinas. And I would still feel at home in the company of a Lievens or a Rasschaert, or their successors. Nevertheless, I am no longer a Roman Catholic. I am a secular humanist with an active interest in religions, particularly Taoism and Hinduism, and keeping a close watch on the variegated Pagan revival in Europe"

Therefore, he is not biased in favor of any Hindu ideology. His sholarship and degrees are beyond reproach. Plus, he has devoted much time to communalism studies in India , has actually spent a considerable amount of tim ein the country and experiencing the society, and consequently has a firm and thorough understanding of the culture. He is presently a running contender for the prestigious Kluge Chair. Please sign this petition for him,Subhash has already signed at Number 426 ,Pussyamitra Sunga 23:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Many secular fundamentalists oppose him, but his analyses are logical and scholarly, whereas his critics engage in shouting matches and ad-Hominem attacks without providing any scholarly backing and are politically motivated against him.

In addition, he has collaborated with esteemed colleague Prof. Ramesh Rao on various research papers related to Indian history and Indian politics. His scholarly input is as undeniable as any other scholar's on the relevant areas of study.

Also, Elst has written many books praising people who have been consistent critics of mainstream Hinduism, such as "Dr. Ambedkar - A True Aryan (1993)". Ambedkar was a partisan critic of Hinduism and the treatment of Dalits by Hindus, and Elst has written a treatise in his defense.

He has also published about multiculturalism, language policy issues, ancient Chinese history and philosophy, comparative religion, and the Aryan invasion debate. Dr. Elst became a well-known author on Indian politics in the 1990s. He also met the Hindu writer Sita Ram Goel in India, and was influenced by his writings.

While he does speak consistently in favor of Hindus, he has done so with a level of scholarly objectivity (though consistently) and has often criticised the Sangh Parivar when he felt they needed criticism. The only way by which he can be refuted is if any established bias can be proven, either through financial or ideological links to Hindus in India, and no such link has been established, for none exist.

If there are any questions or doubts, I will contact Dr Elst himself and he can (if he wishes) defend his position here. Until YOU can refute his legitimacy with a scholarly source from academia his quotes are highly relevant as they present a scholarly perspective rather than a journalistic one (which has been the case with LKadvani and your edits).Netaji 00:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost certain Mr. Elst is a Christian. He just looks at India in an NPOV manner, unlike a good amount of people here.

Survey:Koenraad Elst as a creditable NPOV source?

Please help in a dispute on this article by participating in the survey on my user page Lkadvani 23:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Would we all like to calm down a bit please? The content of some of the edit summaries used recently is unnacceptable. When you've all calmed down, and when you've all dicussed changes (if necessary), instead of edit warring (which has been going on for the past few days), only then will the article will be unprotected. Thanks, — FireFox (talk) 12:21, 28 July '06

Agreed. I am calm.Lkadvani's edit was completely irrelevant to the subject matter of the article. The boycott did not happen in 2002, it did not happen in Gujarat, it was not violent. It does not belong in an article titled "2002 Gujarat Violence". Plus, Lkadvani has been loading the article against Hindus without allowing me to present facts that present the entire situation in a dispassionate way. He has also been known to make pejorative remarks against Hindus in earlier talk pages of articles like Babri Mosque which has also been protected.Netaji 12:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsupported statement

"This explanation was considered as Gujarat Police's distorting the facts" is an unsupported POV statement. Nobody has accused the police of distorting the facts yet. More veiled propaganda coming from the likes of Lkadvani I think. It must be removedNetaji 13:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at his user page, Netaji, its all POv'd upBakaman%% 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thing to edit out

"The United Nations International Human Rights Commission has not yet recognized the Gujarat riots as a human rights issue"


"The United Nations International Human Rights Commission has not recognized the Gujarat riots as a human rights issue"

"yet" is POV. It takes a position on the subject. More vandalism from Lkadvani Netaji 02:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This is somewhat addressed in a previous complaint against you by User:Rushdie as one can see from User:Blgnuyen's talk page [11]

Lkadvani 03:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Until the UN recognises this as a human rights issue (which they won't, they're too busy with somebody's, ah friends, in Darfur), the word "yet" is POV. It takes a position on the subject, which is a violation of NPOV regardless of how many smear campaigns you can think up. And our friend of the "Religion of Peace" should perhaps see this article before trying to vault a certain Sheiks propaganda here. Netaji 05:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
This whole sentence was as far as I remember, written by you and as you can see the various stages it has gone through were you wrote initially - "UN has not recoginsed..."- Rushdie wrote - "UN has recognised... "- and he cited the links to UN discussions after which you yourself wrote - "UN has not yet recognised...", at which state it was for a long time till a few days back - you have reverted it back to "UN has not recoginsed...", What points changed in this period that you had this sudden change of thought..I am not aware of what the specifics are of declaring a subject as Human Rights Issue but as far as I know UNHRC Chairman has reminded India of its duties in protecting rights of displaced in Gujarat after Narendra Modi ordered closures of refugee camps.[12].[13]and the rest of the links on the page refer to what the discussions have been going on in the UN.You re again diverting the issues and mixing them up when you present the newer issues.By the way, those responsible for the blasts in Bombay say it is a revenge for Gujarat riots..and they specifically wanted to target the culprit Gujarat policemen..

Lkadvani 02:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A large bulk of UN members are muslims. Enough said. Also, UN Human rights has been criticized for being partisan before (by Israel prime minister Yitzhak Rabin). Anyways, I didn't edit the "not yet recognized" part because I also have other work besides watching your trolls on wikipedia.Netaji 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again for reminding that UN is a trustless organisation because some of its members are Muslims..I see you have dozens of changes made on this same article since you wrote that "UN has not yet recognised Gujarat riots as a Human Rights issue but campaigns to recognise it have been undertaken by Islamic organisations".Lying blatantly..have some shame - the whole world is watching!

Lkadvani 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch has been criticized as a fraud

See here: HRW is pro muslim and anti-semitic! I will add this wikilink to all references to hrw here.Netaji 01:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Proving Wikipedia by Wikipedia good..tells great of your the way there are a few lines below in this same article

Forgot to mention : Now that you supsect HRW being fraud, should we remove this part from the article where you have proved something based on Human Rights Watch [14] I have again and again asked you which sources to use for this article.You dont agree on Indian government,judiciary,Human Rights Organisations,News Sources..Tell us what sources are NPOV and what are non NPOV in a list. Cheers Lkadvani 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Human rights watch has a 15 page report on Human rights violations by USA. It has a 3 page report on HR violations by Pakistan. So, according to them, a democracy like USA violates more Human Rights than an islamist dictatorship like Pakistan. Lol! What a joke.
Ha,Nice joke Netaji,I thought Pakistan did not send forces to Iraq,Abu Ghraib,Guantanamo,Afghanistan,stubborn support to merit 15 page report.

Lkadvani 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Support for Israel is a must, otherwise anti-semites will commit genocide on them. Afghanistan was a legitimate retaliation to 9/11. Only US has the courage to do this.Netaji 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No wonder they are such laughingstocks in the US. Plus, it is a fact that hrw has been accused of bias towards muslims and of anti-semitism. I did not say that the refs should be removed. However, given the extent to which our anti-Hindu friend has quoted a biased site, the citations (both his and mine) should be qualified with the statement that hrw has been accused of bias by reknown world leaders.Netaji 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a world outside the US,where they dont laugh ...and I still await the list of acceptable references..

Lkadvani 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No there isn't.--D-Boy 22:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Here: All taken from the wikipedia article on hrw. More on UN human rights fraud: []

The world outside the US is less relevant than the most democratic and most powerful country in the world, so there.Netaji 22:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Netaji Please dont remove contents from Discussion Page.These are for discussion and they also refer to instances where you have misused Wikipedia for promoting your hate propaganda.If you have any problems with this approach the mediators and refrain from adding blatant vandal tags on everyone's user pages.

Saprem..Satyameva Jayate!!!

Deleted irrelevant garbage quoted from off wikipedia.Netaji 22:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Lkadvani is a vandal here because he has been quoting statements that I have not made and saying that I did. The statements are irrelevant to wikipedia or this article.Netaji 23:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved an irrelevant piece of prose to User talk:Lkadvani abakharev 00:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for informal mediation from Bcorr

Almost three years ago I was able to help a number of different editors with very different opinions and understandings of the violence in Gujarat in 2002. based on that experience, I am offering to help and making a proposal about a way forward. In the interim I have served as a member of and the chair of the Mediation Committee. I am making this proposal as an informal, unofficial mediation — not as part of the standard Wikipedia dispute resolution process.

Here is my proposal for moving forward over the next week:

First, I'm proposing a five-day period for working on a new version of the article that will be based on common agreement —– it won't be comprehensive or final, but the goal is that it will serve as the core around which future editing and writing can take place. I will place that article on a temporary page. During that period, I will ask that people continue to refrain from editing the 2002 Gujarat violence article and instead work on the new article on the temporary page.

Assuming feedback on this proposal is generally positive over the next 48 hours, the five days will begin two days from now at this time (4 p.m. EST on 9 Aug 2006/21:00 UTC on 9 Aug 2006/2:30 in New Delhi on 10 Aug 2006). At the end of the five days, I will move the new article to 2002 Gujarat violence and begin with that.

Second, in the new article, I am asking that contributors only add content that they believe that all contributors will agree with. If there is disagreement, I am asking that contributors discuss that on the talk page for the temporary article -- not on this page -- Talk:2002 Gujarat violence. I am also asking that contributors refrain from removing content that they disagree with, but instead allow me to make suggestions about how to handle disagreements -- remembering that my goal is to create something that we can all agree on as a basis for making progress on this article. I will note that this will involve some judgment calls on may part when it comes to deciding how much of the article is devoted to the "some people say X, while others say Y" content -- I ask that people go along with me for the time being. I will add any disputed facts, sources, or links to a section of the talk page for the temporary article.

Third, I am proposing the following guidelines for editing and for the talk pages:

1. Sign all posts to the talk page.
2. Avoid characterizing the politics, motives, POV, or objectivity of material added to the article. Simple explain what you disagree with and why you disagree based on accuracy or that it disagrees with your point of view and then explain briefly what yours is.
3. Avoid extrapolation of the above, e.g., "X supports Y, so if X says ___, it must be…"
4. Work from the assumption for the five-day period that no one has a monopoly on the truth, even if one is certain that facts or evidence is 100 percent clear.
Talk pages
1. Refrain from personal attacks.
2. Refrain from characterizing the politics, motives, POV, or objectivity of other contributors.

Obviously this is all voluntary, but I believe this is a way that we can all move forward and create an article that is NPOV, factual, informative, and still reflects the differences in opinions and the interpretations of the facts.

Please respond below this line. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • IMHO, quite sensible proposals. Let me know if you need an administrative enforcement of them abakharev 21:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wholehearted agreementTerryJ-Ho 21:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds very reasonable, I agree. Haphar 15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Perfectly reasonable. I intend to follow the suggestions, and urge other editors active on the page to do so as well. Hornplease 07:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I will work under these gudelines Bakaman Bakatalk 17:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing can begin at 2002 Gujarat violence/2006 revision

I have created the page for creating a new version of the article (as proposed aboove) at 2002 Gujarat violence/2006 revision. It has three sentences to seed editing -- not to claim that they are the undisputed truth.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


why are the BJP numbers "official"? they had motive to mitigate any complicity. what you have here are many human rights groups saying essentially the same thing. same deal here as in the occupied territories. you could never describe IDF numbers as official.

human rights watch:

The Godhra massacre was immediately followed by a four-day retaliatory killing spree, in which over two thousand people, mostly Muslim, fell victim to mobs that looted and burned their homes, destroyed places of worship and Muslim-owned businesses, and gang-raped and sexually mutilated Muslim women and girls. In some cases, pregnant women's bellies were cut open and fetuses were pulled out before the women were killed. In addition to the children who were direct victims of the mobs, children were witnesses to horrifying violations and deaths of family members.

Human Rights Watch's investigations, and those of Indian human rights groups, revealed that much of the violence was planned well in advance of the Godhra attack and was carried out with state approval and orchestration. Gujarat is headed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a Hindu nationalist party that also heads a coalition government at the center. State officials and the police were directly involved in the violence: In many cases, the police led the charge, using gunfire to kill Muslims who got in the mobs' way. The groups most directly responsible for this violence against Muslims included the VHP, the Bajrang Dal (the militant youth wing of the VHP), and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteer Corps, RSS), collectively forming the sangh parivar (or "family" of Hindu nationalist groups).

See discussion on the bias of hrw.Netaji 08:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

When will this be unlocked?

So, when will the mediation be finished, these other miscellaneous issues resolved, and the article unlocked? --Cyde Weys 02:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Presently, the 2006 revision is being edited. Follow the link on the page.Shiva's Trident 17:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Netaji, you're everything but neutral. So please stop trying to pretent hindous are clean from what happened in A'bad. I was there. I have talked to raped women. Some of them have been raped by 5o men, and saw their children murdered to their eyes. When looked at your profile, it's pretty clear you're a muslim hater. Do good to wiki and stop spreading your hate. Thanks.

And I have seen this. Thanks very much.Shiva's Trident 17:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Anecdotal evidence is original research and not allowed on wikipedia. All my edits are sourced. My motivations are immaterial if I follow the rules, which I fully intend to. In the spirit of following the rules, I am warning you for your edit as a personal attack and a violation of WP:NPA and WP:Civil. Thank you and have a nice day.Shiva's Trident 17:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Status of rewrite

What is the status of this re-write? This article is not going to be protected forever. If people are edit warring, they will just be blocked. —Centrxtalk • 22:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There hasn't been anything new in a while in the rewrite.Hkelkar 23:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

So does these mean the re-write is finished and should replace the current article? —Centrxtalk • 18:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections.Hkelkar 18:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I would hope that the article could be cleaned up a bit first, as it certainly does have grammar/spelling/etc. errors. Mar de Sin Speak up! 20:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Latest Development

The "findings" of Banerjee Committe constituted by Railways Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav were struck down by Gujarat High Court on 13th October 2006. The Committe alleged that the bruning of Sabarmathi Express at Godhra was an accidednt. The High Court in its judgement said that the Committe's allegation does not square with the facts on record, which show that the train was deliberately set on fire. The High Court also declared the Committe as illegal, and prohibited its report from being tabled in the Parlaiment. This is an important development and needs to find a mention in this wiki.


Since the dispute appears to have settled, I've merged the two page histories and unprotected. Recent discussions can be found at Talk:2002 Gujarat violence/2006 revision. Hiding Talk 20:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

removal of summary of material by a retired Supreme Court judge

User:Bakasuprman made this edit and User:Hkelkar made this edit in which they removed the following material from an external, verifiable report made by a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India, V. R. Krishna Iyer and other notable people such as Aruna Roy. i can understand that Bakasuprman and Hkelkar, based on their POVs, may believe this material to be biased.

Hkelkar commented: (sabrang is not reliable enough to be used as a secondary source), but it seems to me that what this means is that Sabrang, which claims to be "PROTECTING & PROMOTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN INDIA", has a different POV to Hkelkar. i don't see this as a serious reason to ignore the research that a retired Supreme Court judge claims to have made. He may be biased, but he's surely a notable person independent of the wikipedia.

You don't get to be a judge on the Supreme Court of the world's largest democracy unless many, many, many people are thoroughly convinced that you are someone extremely neutral and reliable. That doesn't prove that such a person is infallible, but such a person's opinion is surely notable enough for an encyclopedia entry.

i suggest that rather than removing this material, you add comments by other present-day or ex- Supreme Court judges. Here is the material:

  • In the report "Crime Against Humanity"[1], made by an ad hoc, unofficial court led by retired Supreme Court judge Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and calling itself the "Concerned Citizens Tribunal", the authors claimed that the Gujarat state government was criminally responsible in the violence that occurred and that the central government was responsible for supporting this. It stated, "The post-Godhra carnage in Gujarat was an organised crime perpetrated by the state’s chief minister and his government. The state’s complicity is evident from the various acts of commission and omission of the government and its officials." and listed 23 paragraphs itemising accusations.[2] The report stated about the central government's role, "...the support of the central government to the state government in all that it did is also by now a matter of common knowledge. ... Far from invoking the provisions of the Constitution and performing their constitutional obligations and duties, neither did the Prime Minister nor the home minister even issue a stern order to the chief minister to crackdown on the lawless elements." [3]
  1. ^ Iyer, VR Krishna (October 24, 2002). "Crime against Humanity". Sabrang. Retrieved 2006-11-05.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Iyer, VR Krishna (October 24, 2002). "State Complicity - Government of Gujarat". Sabrang. Retrieved 2006-11-05.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Iyer, VR Krishna (October 24, 2002). "Role of the Central Government". Sabrang. Retrieved 2006-11-05.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

If someone has some reasonable arguments why material by an ex-Supreme Court judge and other notable personalities should be excluded from the wikipedia as unreliable, please state them here. Otherwise, i think that this material should return to the page.

If someone has evidence that the Sabrang copy of the report is a false copy of the original report, then please provide that evidence. Boud 21:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

We dont have to prove sabrang is true/false. Please see Sabrang is an advocacy group. Anyways, I can cite G.T. Nanavati (the man behind the 'official report, not the terrorist front nonsesne) so I will add a section where VR Krishna Iyer and GT Nanavati are compared, because Iyer is nowhere as notable or respected as nanavati. Sabrang does not meet WP:RS. Anyway good luck finding a real web-archive of info (shouldnt be too hard, most Indian newspapers are more leftist anyways) . Bakaman Bakatalk 21:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are also advocacy groups and they have been accused by governments around the world of supporting terrorism. Nevertheless, they are considered reliable sources in terms of WP:RS. An organisation advocating for human rights which publishes a report by a retired Supreme Court judge is surely reliable enough, at least for the accuracy of the copy of the report. It should be expected to be biased in favour of human rights, as should any human rights organisation. Boud 23:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
If Iyer really said those things you should be able to find a more reliable source than sabrang. lots of terrorist fronts claim to be "Human Rights Groups".Nonetheless, their partisanship is well-known. The mere fact that you haven;t been able to find a better ref than sabrang should tell you something. If such statements were made then surely mainstream news media would report it, right?Hkelkar 22:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, while i think that searching for a different source than Sabrang is unnecessary, i've done this and i think that should satisfy your primary concern. i agree with the idea of adding a response by G.T. Nanavati at the appropriate place in the article. He too has been a judge in the Supreme Court, so his point of view is also notable. i put <nowik>[citation needed]</nowiki>, so maybe you could help NPOV by provided the source. Boud 23:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh my dear fellow, CAG is even WORSE a source. It is a polemical hate site. Please find MAINSTREAM news sources that corroborate this.Hkelkar 23:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
If you can find a mainstream source that corroborates these allegations, then you may cite BOTH sabrang AND CAG in addition to that as backup.That is fine.Until you can find a more reliable source that supports these allegations, it is invalid. Good mainstream sources are Rediff, Times of India, Indian Express, Frontline, The Hindu, any international newspaper like The New York Times, The Guardian etc. Most of them are biased but are mainstream enough to qualify as reliable sources. CAG and sabrang do not.Hkelkar 23:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit-conflict)Coalition Against Genocide isnt reliable either. Their name says they're "against" something instead of giving us the news. You may want [

Tribune India - A reliable source]. set up the inquiry, that article in the tribune solves our mysteries. Here's one more reliable source (albeit without the juicy anti-Hindu nonsense sabrang and CAG give) [15] . Bakaman Bakatalk 23:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Coalition Against Genocide is a coalition of 40 organisations. You cannot just claim that their information is unreliable. Please find a quote by G.T. Nanavati where he claims the opposite. Wikipedia is about documenting information not hiding it. Boud 23:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see WP:RS#Partisan_and_extremist_websites:

The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source.Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is to say they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources.

We must treat CAG and sabrang refs with extreme care, which you have not done.Hkelkar 23:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit-con)Good I'll quote Hindu Unity, Hvk, and the RSS website when I'm at it. CAG is a coalition of 40 orgs is correct. You know which orgs? No org that actually represents Hindus, Indian Muslim Council, Indian Christian Council, and my favorite, Forum of Inquilabi Leftists. You know what "inquilabi" means? It meeans revolution. Its a communist party front org. If you look at the page, you might see they protested Modi's visit to the US. They have a completely obvious bias.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not Bakaman's problem.The name of the judge VR Krishna Iyer already appears in Hindu Unity's Hit list..They write - "VR Krishna Iyer - Former Judge, Supreme Court of India. Anti-Hindu, P-Sec. Pro Islamic. Iyer writes "...Therefore, hidebound Hindutva, red in tooth and claw, is an invasion of the basics of our Constitution". Quoted by Communalism Combat another anti-Hindu paper. See Photo.." No doubt both Hkelkar,Baka and Nobleeagle are bent on removing the report.TerryJ-Ho 10:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hinduunity isnt something people care about. Who cares what iyer thinks? (I'm an Iyer myself, just not the P-sec kind). Girish Nanavati is much more respected than Iyer and is cited in actual news sources as opposed to secularist terrorist fronts.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

i've reverted the vandalism that User:Hkelkar carried out by removing material by a retired Supreme Court judge (Krishnar Iyer) and published as a more than 300 page enquiry available online, fully referenced, and accompanied by a citation by another retired Supreme Court judge Nanavati for NPOV. As TerryJ-Ho pointed out Krishna Iyer is on Hindu Unity's Hit List and that's no reason to "kill" him off wikipedia as a reliable source. Rather than moving the material, please add a source for Nanavati's quote.

Please note that your use of the {{Dubious}} tag was quite ridiculous. It doesn't matter if quoted material is dubious, if the person stating that believes it to be so and it is relevant to the article. Please check up WP:NPOV. It's also quite POV to claim that information is dubious without providing a counter-reference.

However, i've kept in the "Dubious" tags so that you can remove them. At least for the moment until some rational, referenced discussion takes place. Boud 12:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see admins statement below concerning the unreliability of sabrang or CAG per irc discussion.Hkelkar 12:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Seperation of incidents

Singling out incidents, however tragic, doesn't really happen on Wikipedia, otherwise we really can't go anywhere. So many families were destroyed and so many tragedies occurred. But for the sake of this article, I am merging all those incidents together. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you doing a PR for Gujarat government,Narendra Modi and Hindutva organisations?The article goes on length on discrediting the news reports, Human rights organisations..All those incidents are very well known and infact deserve articles on them separately.Disgusting...TerryJ-Ho
BAd faith assumption.Hmmmmm... something to take note of.Hkelkar 10:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
What are you suggesting TerryJ-Ho, just to make it crystal clear. Are you suggesting that I am somehow supporting the cold-blooded killing of innocent people. Because if that is what the disgusting at the end meant then it is I who am disgusted and insulted. Please clarify what you meant. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Citecheck template

The citecheck template may have been misused in this article. Citecheck applies only to misuse of reliable sources, such as quotes taken out of context. Please discuss specific misuse of reliable sources on talk or replace citecheck with a more appropriate template. DurovaCharge! 04:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Moved from User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

Are you able to decide? TerryJ-Ho 10:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Please do not write in between lines - the links below are in their chronological order TerryJ-Ho

I believe this edit was genuine and should not be reverted. I have had a look at the source and its contents can be deemed to be NPOV as it does not highlight or potray any kind of fundamentalism. Bakaman, please keep in mind that contentious edits are not to be reverted using pop-ups but by leaving edit summaries. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 09:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:RS , I have a better supreme court report, from an actual reliable source; the esteemed judge G.T. Nanavati quoted by The Hindu, and maybe the Tribune as well. What's more reliable:The Hindu or some nn hate site?Bakaman Bakatalk 17:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Sabrang is not reliable at all and references to it should be removed. As their own page says "its an advocacy site". But cease using popups to revert contentious edits. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 08:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, this was a very valid entry, sourced reliably. I suggest that it be restored, but as it proclaims the opinion of an author, it should be done in an NPOV manner while avoiding WP:WEASEL terms. Contact me, if there is a dispute on this bit. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 09:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Blog entry, should not be used in the article. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Same as #2?. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, this blog entry should be got rid of. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I have had a discussion regarding this link over IRC, and people seem to agree that this is not an NPOV site, and as they have stated by themselves, it is used for advocacy. Please avoid using links to this site. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing the following - where a family as well as their children “were surrounded in their car and drenched in petrol and set alight” and of another

Generally, when an article is disputed, it is always advisable to use sources from the Internet. If you are able to provide the source for this particular phrase, it can remain in the article, otherwise get rid of it. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Kausar Bano and Bilkis Bano

- Kausar Bano was nine months into pregnancy when on February 28th 2002, 500 strong armed mob stormed into their house at Naroda Patia. Her womb was allegedly cut open with swords and the fetus was burnt along with herself and 7 other members of her family of 12.

- Bilkis Yakoob Rasool was six month pregnant when, on March 3rd 2002, a mob attacked their house in Randhikpur village located in Dahod district and gang-raped her while killing 14 of her closest relatives.

- She was left for dead but she survived. During the trial for these crimes , she subsequently identified 20 of the accused including 6 policemen in an ongoing trial[1].

Reply - See WP:RS, I removed links from Sabrang, an extremist website. Also I am totally unrealated to 66.xx . If the best users critical of the BJP can come up with is Sabrang, their efforts are futile. If you go to sabrang, look at the bottom of the page where you will see the "Fascist Heritage" header. You may notice its only attacking the RSS, and totally quiet on Genocide in Kashmir, NLFT terrorism, Naga terrorism, and Communist terrorists. They even state they are an advocacy group, meaning they are an partisan website. While people sympathetic to the BJP have quoted reliable sources like the Hindu, Refiff, The Pioneer, the other sidew of the debate has nothing to show but "human rights" groups and "secular/combatting communalism" nonsense.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I basically support Baka's view on this matter.Sabrang and CAG are extremist hate sites disguised as "advocacy groups". The polemic and rhetoric that fills their rubbish is ample evidence to any objective observer.However, if non-partisan sources confirm their basic contention regarding this matter then they can be cited as support.At present, this is not the case. Non-partisan means accredited news sources, academic publications from scholars whose discipline is connected to the issues at hand (so a reputable scholar on mathematics, for instance, cannot be used here even if he has advanced an opinion concerning the subject of the article).Hkelkar 13:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Please prove through reliable sources why Sabrang and CAG are extremist hate sites.From above it seems your personal opinion..TerryJ-Ho 10:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that sabrang and CAG are Hate-sites. There is no debate as their polemic is obvious. By Terry's argument, websites like and are not hate sites. Point of fact, the maintainer of insists that his site is not a hate site. Nonetheless, the site is uncitable on wikipedia. Since sabrang is clearly a terrorist propaganda mouthpiece and CAG is full of virulently anti-Hindu polemic and uses the term "genocide" to depict the Gujarat riots (which has been contested as you can see), it follows that neither is reliable enough to be citable on wikipedia. My point is that if the Iyer report is geniune, there will be SEVERAL reliable sources for it. There are NONE!! NONE!!!Hkelkar 10:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As for Ramesh Rao, I have said that he is a notable enough personality (founder of infinity foundation, a collaborative scholar etc.) that his statements can be used as a primary source which, in this case, I have.Hkelkar 10:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
besides, the Ramesh Rao post appeared on Hamarashehar magazine (Hyderabad based). Also, there is precedent on wikipedia for citing posts by notable persons (not non-notable people, obviously) provided it is qualified as such, which I have done.Hkelkar 10:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I quote from WP:RS

In certain rare cases, specific blogs may be exceptions.

Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously.

Now, Ramesh Rao is an expert on Hindu-Media relations, he is the founder of the infinity foundation, a member of the Hindu American Foundation, and his entry that I cited appeared on Hamarashehar, a hyderabad based periodical. Thus, I posit that it qualifies as the exception so can be cited.Hkelkar 10:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The provisions on Wikipedia do not permit you to cite this article and use it as a source. The articles are supposed to be biased as they are the opinions of a single man. Please see WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:V and decide for yourself. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see my edits. I have repeatedly qualified that it is his opinion so am stating it as a primary source . Plus, I have cited the wikipedia policy I'm using to justify the inclusion, which I did after reading it very carefully. I have cited the provision on wikipedia that explicitly allows me to cite it the way that I have.If you disagree, may I request a third party mediation?Hkelkar 11:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I recommend that you involve an established and un-related mediator into this dispute, and they can put their opinions here, and we can go by consensus. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. :)Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Good. Then I shall initiate a third party discussion on irc in a few hours. All parties please exercise restraint until then. Thanks.Hkelkar 11:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
You will have to invite other users to comment here. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 08:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of medcab actually.Hkelkar 08:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I have filed medcab:

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-11-13_2002_Gujarat_violence Hkelkar 10:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reasons to believe that MedCab is dead. You would need to wake up some people. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 09:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Then shall I file rfC?Hkelkar 09:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

I am not the official mediator but I will try to help.

Mediation Cabal cannot decide who is right in a dispute, we can only facilitate calm discussion between willing parties and remind them of Wikipedia customs when necessary.

It appears that the discussion is already civil and all you need is input from a wider community. You can ask at the Village pump, post a Wikiquette alert, or file a Request for Comment. --Ideogram 02:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll post in RfC.Hkelkar 02:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Can I close the Mediation Cabal case? --Ideogram 02:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure.Hkelkar 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Summary of debate

A debate is raging over the inclusion of this entry as a source for the following section 2002_Gujarat_violence#Bias_of_the_New_York_Times, current version is [16].Now, Sir Nick objects that the entry is a blog and so cannot be quoted per the wikipedia policy of WP:RS in the clause

Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment.

However, my argument for including the entry is based on the following lines of reasoning

WP:RS has a clause that says:

Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously

In this case, the writer is Professor Ramesh Rao,professor and chair of the Department of Communication Studies and Theatre at Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia,He has written numerous articles for regional newspapers like the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and The Columbia Daily Tribune in Missouri. His essays have appeared in "India Abroad", and he writes regularly for the United Press International's Religion and Spirituality Forum, and for News Insight. He is an executive council member of the Hindu American Foundation, which makes him a notable personality with regards to communal relations between Hindus and Muslims. He has written a number of books on Hinduism in modern culture and is a notable person in this area and his field of expertise entails Hindu advocacy. The blog is an essay that appeared on a credible, third party publication titles "Hamarashehar", a Hyderabad - based periodical. He is writing under his own name and not using a nom-de-plume or anything. There is a possibility of partisanship on his part, which is why the edit, as it stands now, is written where the statements made by Rao are not presented as fact, but as his opinion as a notable person in this area[17] and so his statements may be used as a primary source in this case.

There is ample precedent for citing such blogs in exceptional cases on wikipedia, such as this article (Bnei Menashe) check the current version [18] where the following blogs are cited [19][20].

Hkelkar 02:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This blog is one of the very, very, very few acceptable exceptions to the no-blogs rule in RS. It is written by an expert, in his field of expertise, under his own name, and with a history of reliability and a reputation to protect. JBKramer 19:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Yay. Hkelkar 19:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Change of section name in article

This section, instead of giving the opinions of admitted rioters (which is what the title seems to suggest) only gives the response of the Gujarat Govt. and Birbal Punj's rebuttal of Arundhati Roy.

Worse, the title is misleading and seems to suggest the culpability of the Gujarat govt. in these riots (which are not proven).

IMO, a change of title to "Response of Gujarat Government" would be more appropriate. I leave it to the regular contributers to this page to take a decision in this regard, which i feel would be better.

prasad88 21:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree.Hkelkar 21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Number of Victims

I think we need a sub-section discussing the number of persons affected by these riots. Also, the number of deaths has been varied from 800-2500+. A discussion of this, as well as those injured, raped and left homeless by this has not been specifically discussed in the article, and warrants, IMO, a separate sub-section.

prasad88 21:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That's going to take a lot of work. Please help.Hkelkar 21:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Also, I don't like terry-ho's edits. they are very bias and he does not discuss them. something should be done about it.--D-Boy 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


I just took a quick look through this source. Could anyone verify whether it mentions attacks on Hindus or mentions Hindus doing anything else but killing Muslims, destroying Mosques and replacing them with Hindu idols etc. etc. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much all about how those pesky cruel, uncivilized and inhuman "Hindoos" did little else but kill Muslims, destroyed Mosques, lied in newspapers that the Muslims were attacking them, and replaced Muslim shrines with deities etc.etc.How the cops were complicit, even when they arrested Hindus (apparently they were "too lenient on them"). Plus, apparently arresting Muslim rioters was a "misuse of POTO" (though arresting Hindus was hunky-dory).They use nice words to. The most hilarious is the "biological warfare" bit. Wow, I didn't know that the riots were an extract from a Tom Clancy novel.Sheesh!
The standard Desi moonbat politburo propaganda really. There is a blurb or two down at the end about some Hindus helping the Muslims avoid rioters, sheltering Muslims, and holding off some rioters but naturally, in very small print and stated obliquely and flippantly. Of course, nothing about Muslim violence, or the Pakistan flag thingie reported by Rediff.Apparently all Muslim riots were either "false rumours" or "scaremongering". Sheehs, even Human rights watch is less bigoted, they DID report on Muslim riots. Who need al-Qaeda, we've got PUCL! Yay!Hkelkar 05:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
What if that is the truth.That the carnage in Gujarat has been compared to genocide of Muslims, could also imply that Muslim places of worship were destroyed.In fact,there are links on the page that show images of destroyed mosques and those converted to Temples.. MerryJ-Ho 08:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "links" to destroyed "mosques" (i.e mud huts). I know that in Islam even a small hut can be a mosque, but this is pushing it. A few huts were converted from "mosques" to "temples". Hardly as bad as when the Muslims razed the Hagia Sophia to the ground and built a HUGE mosque in it's place.Hkelkar 08:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Reading the above justification of violence and destruction of Muslim places of worship in Gujarat,Hkelkar,I am constrained to believe that you are a Chauvinist.We live in a modern world and India is a secular democracy at least constitutionally - we should not live in a world of past, what others did in Turkish Caliphate period in the 10th century or before in their territorial spaces (when even the rules of war were different - that included demolishing each other's important places..Jerusalem knows how Saladin treated Christians and how the Christians treated the Muslims after the crusades..The present day Hagia Sophia is a Museum in secular Turkey ...the status that Hindutvavadis did not allow the historic Babri Mosque have the least....they destroyed it) - Indian Muslims of present time are not responsible for their deeds,If you are so keen on going back to historic times you should not forget what Hindu King Pusyamitra Sunga did to the Buddhists.There is no justification of killing of thousands of innocent civilians or say even a single civilian in a state that calls itself a democracy.MerryJ-Ho 00:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You're accusing ME of being a chauvinist Mr. "Hindu Killers" and "Culture of Hate"? I find your Turkish caliphate analogy amusing since Indian/Pakistani Muslims ran behind the Ottoman Empire during the Khilafat Movement even after it collapsed after WW1, yelling "Khilafat Osmania" on the streets like a band of crazed Sturmabteilung lunatics, dragging the liberal nincompoops of the Indian National Congress right behind them.Even today, the Jamaat-e-Islami and Lashkar-e-Toiba pine for the great Khilafat, where they could merrily string MerryJ-Ho upside down and flog you with a stick for even mentioning the word "secular". Violence against civilians during the Muslim perpetrated 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings, Wandhama Massacre,Kaluchak Massacre and dozens of others naturally escapes your attention. But then again, "to kill a Kaffir is not a crime", right?
As for Babri Mosque, Hindus tried to reolve the issue with Muslims and wanted to create a syncretic holy site where both Hindus and Muslims could pray. But that didn't suit the Muslims, since they would rather die than share a site with "idolatrous infidel kaffirs" (whose tax money they don't have any problems with during their pilgrimages to Mecca). Since we are throwing around demolitions, let's talk about the 2006 Lahore temple demolition in your country mate. Muslims destroyed a whole temple (the last Hindu temple in Lahore, as it happens).Then what? You people denied it, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. Also, the temple mount in Israel was never preserved as a "museum" of anything. They built a mosque over the holiest of Jewish sites, and not during any damn war. Hkelkar 00:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You better redress these issues that you have outside of Wikipedia.This is not a forum for your lamentations but an encycolpedia based on reliable sources and not your rhetoric.Should I thank you for calling my country India as Pakistan? MerryJ-Ho 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Likewise to you. Check my wikilinks above for reliable sources therein, and stop with the Hinduhate please.Hkelkar 01:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
In any of my above edits.Do you find any confrontational language.You need to do some introspection on your own Dude MerryJ-Ho 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wait, I've been told Direct Action Day and the Noakhali Massacres in which around 100 thousand Hindus were killed were not genocide, and now the Gujarat carnage is being labelled as genocide against Muslims? Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I am not an expert on the Political developments during Indian Partition in 1947 whose details are often sketchy on the web.The fact that partition was accpeted by the British could also mean that the things were not all black and white in colonial India.Partition of India was not only devastating for Hindus but was devastating for Muslims alike.While Gujarat pogroms took place in peacetime India when it boasts of a secular democracy under the watchful eyes of media and the entire world MerryJ-Ho 13:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Steaming pile of BS. Direct Action Day occurred BEFORE partition, not during. It was completely unprovoked, the British weren't even peripherally involved. Partition was far more traumatic for Hindus and smaller minorities like Zoroastrians and Jews because they were ethnically cleansed from Pakistan. No ethnic cleansing of Muslims took place in India (there are 130+ million of them there).Gujarat riots happened in retaliation to Godhra Train Burning. The National government's ideas of "secularism" (which, in India means denial of history, appeasement of terrorism and unequal pandering to religious votebanks) is a non-sequitur here as the state government of Gujarat never claimed to be secular, any more than the United Kingdom, Argentina (Christian states) or Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of that lot (Islamic States). Secularism, even by it's original definition, has failed in most multi-religious places anyways. Hkelkar 13:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
All the above is rhetoric - the fact is that during India's partition The inevitable happened. Religious fury. All of it hurriedly left by the British. Probably, some two million Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs died. Between twelve and fifteen million people were forcibly transferred between the two countries..Hkelkar, you seem still entangled in the legacy of partition.MerryJ-Ho 13:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
All of the above is Islamist propaganda. Direct Action Day and the ensuing massacres in Noakhali and other areas of Bengal was a full scale state-sponsored genocide perpetrated by the Muslim League(Muslim league controlled most of the areas, hence they were the de-facto state). Read Bourke-White, Margaret (1949). Halfway to Freedom: A Report on the New India. Simon and Schuster, New York, and New York Times, favourite newspaper of Osama bin laden, and this article showing what they did, as well as this and more. The accepted death toll of Partition riots is around 700,000. BBC's "probably 2 million" is a load of BS that can only be expected from BBC in India-related matters, where they have little to say other than how bad India is. Scholarly sources, such as Richard Symonds, 1950, The Making of Pakistan, London, ASIN B0000CHMB1, p 74, put the death toll at around 500,000. So I call horsesh*t on BBC's typical Indophobic rubbish. Terry, looks like you're still entangled in the legacy of the Ummayid Khilafat, spreading your prejudices against 'infidels' with questionable data and false propaganda. And, of course, you drag the Eurotrash media along for the ride.Hkelkar 14:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The actual violence set aside, the ideology behind the Partition was Islamic intolerance of infidels, very few Hindus supported partition and wanted to coexist with Muslims. But D.A.D. happened and it was clear that that ship had sailed. Even then, many less whacky Muslims stayed in India. The total whack job Muslims, on the other hand, got whackier and whackier, which Jinnah exploited for his own personal gain so that he may call himself "Qaid-e-Azam" and get buried in a fancy tomb instead of the village toilet where his corpse belongs.Hkelkar 14:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Please take your pangs with Indian partition to the relevant Talk page MerryJ-Ho 15:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

VHP Pamphlet on Economic Boycott of Muslims

I Wish to discuss the inclusion of this item on the article.Hkelkar has been removing this from the talk space ..Is Hkelkar wary of inclusion of this into the article so much...Why?Is he an involved party ..Why does he consider this as hate content and more so remove this from Talk page when this is a published item on OUTLOOK magazine and discussed in Indian parliament I think we should add this to the article, Here it is from Outlook Magazine.However, other copies are available on UN sites,this was discussed in Indian parliament VHP leaflet, Jai Shri Ram]

  • Wake up! Arise! Think! Enforce!
  • Save the country! Save the religion!
  • Economic boycott is the only solution! The anti-national elements use the money earned from the Hindus to destroy us!
  • They buy arms! They molest our sisters and daughters! The way to break the backbone of these elements is: An economic non-cooperation movement.
  • Let us resolve:

1. From now on I will not buy anything from a Muslim shopkeeper!

2. I will not sell anything from my shop to such elements!

3. Neither shall I use the hotels of these anti-nationals, nor their garages!

4. I shall give my vehicles only to Hindu garages! From a needle to gold, I shall not buy anything made by Muslims, neither shall we sell them things made by us!

5. Boycott whole-heartedly films in which Muslim hero-heroines act! Throw out films produced by these anti-nationals!

6. Never work in offices of Muslims! Do not hire them!

7. Do not let them buy offices in our business premises, nor sell or rent out houses to them in our housing societies, colonies or communities.

8. I shall certainly vote, but only for him who will protect the Hindu nation.

9. I shall be alert to ensure that our sisters-daughters do not fall into the ‘love-trap’ of Muslim boys at school-college-workplace.

10. I shall not receive any education or training from a Muslim teacher.

Such strict economic boycott will throttle these elements! It will break their backbone! Then it will be difficult for them to live in any corner of this country. Friends, begin this economic boycott from today! Then no Muslim will raise his head before us! Did you read this leaflet? Then make ten photocopies of it, and distribute it to our brothers. The curse of Hanumanji [be] on him who does not implement this, and distribute it to others! The curse of Ramchandraji also be on him! Jai Shriram! A true Hindu patriot! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TerryJ-Ho (talkcontribs) 01:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Stop Hinduhate please. This is not relevant to the "2002 Gujarat violence" since the incident was peaceful, and didn;t occur in 2002 anyways. Typical of terry to use wikipedia as an anti-Hindu soapbox.Hkelkar 01:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
See WP:AGF MerryJ-Ho 02:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
That is irrelevant lol. Note "violence" (like the Ghanchi and the train) and "peaceful" (like a piece of paper).Bakaman 23:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is a disgrace

This article has been constructed and edited to make it seem that the only atrocity that resulted from the Gujarat riots was the hard time the Indian Govt got from newspapers and human rights organizations. The Indian government has been repeatedly accused of collaborating in the massacre. The local police directly participated. The article would have those very people who committed the atrocity held as the sole source of reliable information as to what happened. That the article describes the massacre as 'retaliatory' is also disgraceful. You can only retaliate against someone who did something to you first. Of the women raped and killed, how many were directly guilty of something worthy of 'retaliating' against? This article justifies mass-murder and rape as it is. I hope people have the sense to correct it. Falcon2020 16:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We did. Before it described the women and children being burnt on a train as "Hindutva activists" and "Sangh fascists". If you talk about rape do you mean Zaheera? Last time I checked she was in jail for perjury. Accused and found are two different things, as G.T. Nanavati would point out.Bakaman 23:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
And the word 'found' takes a totally different meaning with fellow Hindutva fascists, supporters/collaborators of mass-murder and ethnic cleansing, get to decide what's truth and what isn't. Nanavati's committee was a sham. Foreign human rights organizations tell a different story. The only reliable record will be the one assembled by third parties, not fellow partisan Indians. Clearly supporters of the incident here outnumber me, so I'll have to give it up. Falcon2020 02:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Please Assume good faith and Be civil. Your comments are extremely racist and disruptive and show a clear bias.Rumpelstiltskin223 18:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
No.... His comments are not racist, check the dictionary Rumpelstiltskin223. You should Assume Good Faith and Be civil. He was just stating his opinion that objectivity is essential, and expressed his disgust at the cherry picking of the historical record being perpetrated here. The general idea here is to deny the truth from the objective sources by claiming that the NY Times and Reuters and the Indian Supreme Court and Arundhati Roy and the Pope, etc., etc., etc., are mindlessly biased. I suppose that the contents of the following reputable source will be excluded from the wikipedia entry.


The dispute revolves on the very description of the events leading to the killings of hundreds/thousands of Muslims during a 2002 riot. Conflict on the article revolves around the inclusion of reports by human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International as reliable sources. The majority of the editors have decided that Human Rights Watch and other human rights organizations are 'biased' against the Indians, and therefore the inclusion of their description of the events and its consequences are excluded. The article now reflects the government-issued account of the event. Additionally, the question of whether or not the Indian government's account of the events should be considered the sole accepted account in the introductory paragraphs, particularly considering Amnesty International and The Guardian newspaper both consider the government directly and indirectly complicit in the massacre. Falcon2020 18:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Here's the difference between my version of the article, and the one supported by the several other editors working together here:

1) My version starts the article by describing the event itself, and the toll it's taken on the involved parties. The version supported by Rumple/Bakasurman/Noble has the opening paragraph excluding figures and facts regarding the actual event, and instead presents the Indian government's perspective and justifies the massacre by describing it as 'retaliatory'. The only facts included in their version are accounts of a previous incident involving a train (Godhra attacks)which was supposedly attacked by Muslims. Amnesty International disputes that pretext, and considers it an excuse by the local government to promote the Gujarat Massacre. The term used by other editors here to describe the event is 'retaliatory', much in line with the local government of Gujarat at the time, and those directly involved in instigating the massacre. Given none of the 2000+ Muslims killed during the event in question have ever been found complicit in that attack, certainly not the several hundred Muslim women raped and mutilated, the use of the term 'retaliatory' and the description of that Godhra train incident to the exclusion of the actual massacre in the opening paragraph serves no other purpose than to persuade the reader that the events later described in the article are all things that the victims 'had coming to them'. Do I have to point out that this violates WP:NPOV?

2) My version includes more depth into the allegations made by international organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. [21][22] I believe that as a neutral account, this Wikipedia article should give preference to third-party descriptions of the event, rather than simply presume that the very government accused of acquiescing to the massacre can give the sole description of what happened. I have no intention of excluding the govt's account, as you can see from my version- I place figures cited from Amnesty International next to those figures claimed as accurate by the government. If I could have felt that additional contributions would not be censored by the other participants here, I am sure I could more solidly back up the views on the incident presented by HRW and Amnesty by including accounts from major international newspapers, such as The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The New York Times. The other editors would rather restrict the article to relying on Indian sources, including personal blogs, of questionable repute which fail to meet the standards of WP:RS. Falcon2020 18:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I will say this again for the last time. The government of India that made these assessments is NOT THE SAME GOVERNMENT as the government that was accused for complicity in the riots. The latter was the Bharatiya Janata Party government, which was defeated in subsequent democratic elections and the assessment was made by the Manmohan Singh led United Progressive Alliance government which was NOT accused of complicity. Thus, their assessment is not partisan and can be quoted with reliability. In contrast, Human rights groups that made their assessments have been accused of partisanship. That does not mean that their assessment is unstateable. It just means that they need to be stated with the addition that they may be partisan, which is the case. I drew an analogy between Democrats and republicans before and I will draw it again. The actions of the Republican Party in the USA cannot be attributed to the Democrat Party in the USA, right?The same is true for India as well.You seem to indicate that all Indians are complicit in the riots so are to be censored, which is blatantly indophobic and is unacceptable on wikipedia.Your arrant inability to understand the democratic process and paint Indians with a broad brush indicates a disturbing bias and a level of intransigence that definitely smacks of racism and is beyond my ability to remedy. Let other users comment based on sources.Rumpelstiltskin223 18:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
In addition, all the claims made by all involved organizations are there in the lead paragraph. This is the standard method on wikipedia as if you look at 1993 Mumbai Bombings it is described there.Rumpelstiltskin223 18:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I will look at the aticle you mention when I have the time. Chances are that one is just as screwed up as this one is. I have reverted your blanking of well-sourced text, and edited to make it abundantly clear that criticism directed to the Indian govt was to the 'then' Indian government 'at the time lead by the Bharatiya Janata Party, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee as Prime Minister'. There is no justification for your blanking of any other text, particularly the numerical figures regarding casualties are provided by neutral bodies not directly invested in the massacre. Charges of bias from notable sources should be included in the article, I do not dispute that, but only those charges stemming from credible and notable publications, not personal blogs such as those included. Read WP:RS Falcon2020 18:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I have provided a basis to my assertion that UPA is neutral. The basis for neutrality of Human Rights Groups is untenable at best. Nonetheless, since they satisfy WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability their findings may be included but their non-partisanship cannot be established without question. See Human rights groups and the Middle East for a similar situation. Rumpelstiltskin223 18:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
And since when has India been a country of the Middle East? Your 'assertions' are not warranted here, see WP:OR. It is not for you to censor third party accounts because you feel the government perspective is perfect. This entire incident is notable BECAUSE of the alleged government acquiescence to the atrocity. For you to make a judgment that Amnesty and The Guardian and HRW, and the US State Department (I haven't had the chance to add their view in, they hold Modi as responsible for the atrocity) is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Falcon2020 19:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
What State dept. holds Modi responsible? Refernces would be helpful... As for Guardian, it is as neutral as Daily Mail. Amey Aryan DaBrood© 20:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Here[23],and here [24]. As far as Wikipedia goes, the threshold all content must pass is that of notability. You may think the Guardian is biased, I think the BJP government was engaged in a cover-up. Amnesty and HRW are highly regarded amongst human rights groups, and as far as I can see, the only people who criticize them are those who support, or are invested in hiding, the atrocities they report on. Both views are notable so both should be included. There is no justification for Rumple or other editors here censoring the information as was collected by international groups. Falcon2020 00:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
HRW is "reliable"? Puh-leeez! Might as well say that Pravda or Jamaat-e-Islami are reliable. Plus, allegations of "coverup" of BJP govt are beautiful original research. Modi was accused by US state govt for Gujarat riots, this is true. What is not true is that this "condemnation" was voluntary. In fact, it was coaxed by several Fundamentalist Christian lobby groups in the US, such the "Institute on Religion and Democracy" (a alliance of evangelicals campaigning against socialism, feminism, pacifism, multiculturalism and other liberal ideas)[25]. Nice, Christian fundies bashing Hindus AND liberals. Rumpelstiltskin223 01:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The subsequent post contained defamatory language against a living person and so was removed in accordance with WP:LIVING. The defamed was B.Raman, author of this article and the post was this one. Rumpelstiltskin223 05:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Although this has just come to my attention, based on the first few comments Falcon seems to be correct here. The second comment stated that Falcon's first paragraph presented the governments view. That's kind of the whole idea of Wikipedia's NPOV, obviously the other view is clearly represented in this article, so the government view should also be expressed. Represent each side.--Danielfolsom 07:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumpelstiltskin223, you saying that the Human Right's Watch is not trustworthy is an opinion. Obviously there fame/reputation allow the human right's watch to be seen as a credible source on Wikipedia, thus removing information just because you don't like the HRW would be violating Wikipedia's NPOV--Danielfolsom 07:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. See Criticism of Human Rights Watch. their reputability is highly suspect. Details follow:
totally agree about your earliest assessment. All sides are represented with due weightage. NPOV does not mean equal weightage to all perspectives but DUE weightage. Now, Falcon's claims against NEW India govt are wrong, biased, and definitely borders on racialism (based on his untenable claim that if one political party is alleged of perpetrating an act then all political parties in India are, which has the connotation that all Indians are alike in attitude and view, a racialist position). Thus, the present govt of India, which is a democratically elected government of the world's largest and most vibrant democracy, India, and is ideologically opposed to the previous party that was alleged to be complicit in the violence, can be cited with slightly more importance than the findings of partisan groups who have been accused of bias and misrepresentation by many parties (see Criticism of Human Rights Watch). Counterargument is that some of those parties may be biase also, which is possible (though unprovable by wikipedia norms). Nonetheless, the mere fact that the Human Rights Groups are tainted by accusations, and the present government is NOT tainted by formal accusations of a notable variety indicates that the latter receive slightly more notice in the article than the former. Even so, both views are stated. 07:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it is completely unethical to use a criticism of HRW page to make HRW unreliable. The New York Times has a criticism page, but it is certainly allowed in Wikipedia. You have argued that Falcon is being biased, but I don't see where ... if he has reliable sources then you must allow him to post the content. Maybe I've misread this though .. please correct me if I'm wrong as to the circumstances--Danielfolsom 07:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I cied the article to demonstrate that HRW is not squeaky clean as they project themselves and their accusations of "Inhuman Hindu Animals" killing "Innocent Muslims" are not all they are cracked up to be. Anyways, the argument is moot. I am not asking that HRW statements be removed, only that Indian govt estimates and HRW estimates be stated in the article, which is how it stands right now. Falcon2020's edit [26], which he fought against consensus to revert-war over, is clearly biased against Indians. Why don't you see the diff and my diff[27] and analyze for yourself? Rumpelstiltskin223 07:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, falcon2020 just got indefblocked for being a sockpuppet of somebody! Rumpelstiltskin223 07:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
In this case you have to consider equal and due as the same thing. If the former govt. claim's have been ridiculed, then post the former govt.'s claims, then in the criticism section post the critiscism. --Danielfolsom 07:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
See above post (there was an edit conflict).Rumpelstiltskin223 07:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
All of what you say has been done already in the article. BJP/NDA govt claims are stated, criticized (sections below), UPA govt estimates stated (who have not been criticized), Human Rights Watch estimates stated also, Notable allegations of bias against HRW in this connection has been stated. Article is totally neutral. Where's the bias (other than falcon2020's)? Rumpelstiltskin223 07:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Tehelka Sting

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

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

yes. atleast links to tehelka's website shd be added Anything2 (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree strongly, as Tehelka's deep investigative journalism definitively addressed many of the allegations of bias to be found further down this talk page. The essential material is all linked from here: Clocke (talk) 08:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


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

"In turn, some have accused these news media agencies, non-governmental organizations and human rights advocacy groups of media bias and bias against Hindus[14][15][16][17]." - these "some" could always be in any story - say if you write that Zarqawi killed x number of people. There will always be "some" people who will find themselves on the wrong side and they will criticise the media bias or bias against Al-Qaeda.What use is this sentence, other than as a weasel Neptunion 17:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a weasel, no doubt. RumpleStiltSkin and Bakasuprman don't care though. They've deleted content with reliable sources, opting to retain 'original research'. The article emphasizes unreliable sources such as blogs and articles on community portal websites written by nobodies. They don't care. Unfortunately since my correcting these problems means me being accused of 'edit warring', I have to sit and just look at this bullshit. MinaretDk 17:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
BhaiSaab and TerryJ-Ho isnt there a better place to argue this?Bakaman 18:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


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

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

Retrieved from ""

JBull, By most accounts this was a state sponsored act of terrorism against people of Muslim faith in Gujarat [Most of the good links, journalistic ones tend to get disappear, you can imagine why] .This article - the way it is being maintained serves to wash away the crimes of the perpetrators at the same time showing the incidents as fairly normal and two sided.Even the title of the article suffers from the same - instead of Gujarat Killings or Anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat [Some sources even call it Gujarat Genocide], it says Gujarat Violence..and you can still see why the end paras are all like ..[Bias of Media (against Hindus),Bias of X (against Hindus) ..and so on.I am wondering if there is a way we can make someone neutral actually own this page.The democratic aspect of WP is actually becoming a bane on this article , for there is an overwhelming presence of the like minded persons of a particular community who would rather think this page never existed.Mcleodganj 03:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the titles of the sections such as "Bias of the X" seem POV. I think they should be edited to be more neutral. Buddhipriya 03:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I've only heard spurious allegations from Muslim extremists (BhaiSaab (talk · contribs)) and sockpuppeteers (like Jbull). Terrorism is like blowing up a train, not larghe swaths of people beating each other up. Did you forget 200+ Hindus died, and tribals were killed in cold blood by Muslims? Its not terrorism, its a string of riots and killings, accurately summed up as violence.Bakaman 18:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

explain reversion

[28]on the contrary, it is not NPOV to word an allegation of a criminal act as "believed to have done", after the allegation has been dismissed by court-appointed enquiry, without reporting either Setalvad's denial[29] or the court's findings[30] and without reporting the many other allegations[31] thrown around both by Zaheera Sheikh and others. Doldrums 11:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

...that Teesta Setalvad was accused of bribing witnesses is not a disputed fact at all and it is backed up by sources. Wikipedia's policy on neutrality does not deny entry of facts that are backed up by relevant and reliable citations. You can easily fix the lacunae by adding relevant information alongside with the assertions of allegations instead of reverting. Go Dhokla! -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 11:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
"believed to have been" is not an accusation, it is a weasal-worded statement of fact. it is also a contentious statement about a living person reported in a non-neutral manner. so i did what i can do to fix it. Doldrums 11:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree with you there, we should take utmost care that we do not violate WP:LIVING in any manner. I hope you do agree with the change I have made now. But if you don't, please feel free to revert! :) Go Dhokla! -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 12:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

duplicated content

why does the Roy piece in particular need to be duplicated (in full) as "context"[32] out of more than half the article (sections on the role of the government, hindutva organisations, press) that is also context for the violence? Doldrums 07:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


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

Good job. All references to advocacy groups and sites with dubious repute should also be removed from the article. Best of luck! -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm with that in principle, but do you think HRW counts as a common or garden 'advocacy group'? I don't think so. Hornplease 19:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
HRW is not unbiased in the matter, so there should be no undue weight given to their views. SAAG on the other hand, is a think-tank, used by many universities as a legitimate avenue for research.Bakaman 01:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That statement has little or no credibility. HRW, whether or not it is biased, was the most widely read source on Gujarat. Statements can be sourced to the report even if HRW is not linked directly, as the report, in the public domain, was quoted widely in reliable sources. As for SAAG, I have no opinion at this time; the paper their website hosts, however, is known to be written by an undergraduate, with a clear denial of editorial review, and is thus not WP:RS.Hornplease 05:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Whether HRW is biased or unbiased is not the locus of dispute, it is a reputable source which should be included but not overused in a manner that compromises neutrality of the article. In the same manner SAAG cannot be considered a source failing WP:RS, as this website has a number of renowned authors/journalists contributing with editorial oversight. Undue weightage on a single source should be avoided so that the article does not skew in favour of a particular point of view. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 09:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is no indication that there is editorial oversight. The comparison is to working papers in academic fields, which are frequently hosted on university websites but are not peer-reviewed and are thus not RS. In this case, I certainly see no way that an article by an undergraduate without peer-review could possibly be considered RS. Naturally, this does not extend automatically to articles by B.Raman.
About HRW, we do not want to skew the reporting, and are forbidden to under WP:NPOV. We have to report in rough proportion to the number of reliable sources that actually relied on HRW's fact-finding. Naturally they will be heavily represented here, because they were heavily represented in the mainstream media at the time. Hornplease 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

"Bias of Human Rights Watch"

text removed from article.

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

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

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

'bias of' this and that

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

Those relevant organizations have been criticized for anti-Hindu bias by a mainstream journalist in India. Bakaman 22:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
irrelevant. this is not the place for general criticism, only criticism relating to the riots. any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. (WP:NOR) Doldrums 05:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Well then Celia dugger's hinduphobic rants do not belong in the article per WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight.Bakaman 18:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Celia Dugger's reporting is on-topic, Varsha Bhosle's is not. one stays, the other goes.
feel free to identify any particular bit that you think is being given undue weight, and we'll see if the weight it is given reflects its real world prominence. if you're comparing Dugger and Bhosle, keep in mind that Dugger is reporting, Bhosle is writing an opinion column. Dugger is reporting local's views, not her own, unlike Bhosle. Dugger writes for the NYT. Bhosle, a Rediff blogcolumn.Doldrums 05:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
A notable journalist on a reliable source? Should be included. (specific reference to Varsha) -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 09:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
a "notable journalist" talking about the riots or media coverage of the riots is appropriate. but this article is not the place for the same journalist's opinion of media sources unless they're expressed directly relating to the riots. that's why we don't, for example, report the ten thousand other things various people have said over the years about the NYT, or the Guardian.Doldrums 03:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
"Biased reporting" and "criticism of media and sources" is regularly added in articles across Wikipedia. Please refer me to the guideline stating otherwise. Go Dhokla! -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. (WP:NOR). Doldrums 09:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Um, oh, what...? Pleading original research? Varsha was published by a reputed online source, and this is in relation to the topic of the article. The media criticised the government and the media criticised other media for biases in reporting. You can have a look here for example. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 09:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
this is in relation to the topic of the article. ummm... Bhosle criticises the NYT in 1999. She finds her favourite bias in the Guardian in its coverage of a Supreme Court verdict regarding education standards. and to respond to any forthcoming posts about the same bias that Bhosle talked about being present in coverage of the Gujarat riots; source it. Doldrums 10:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
These two sources specifically make references to the 2002 Gujarat violence. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 11:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
do These?Doldrums 17:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
If you insist in keeping every tablighi lament in the article, then its quite prudent to keep those that have criticized Hinduphobic journalists in a liberal biased newspaper. If the allegations were published in the Wall Street Journal, a criticism might not be so relevant, however its no secret the NYT despises conservatives, and the BJP is not a liberal party.Bakaman 22:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
attempts to lend "balance" to an article by adding unsourced material are a non-starter. after discussing this for close to a week now, do i still need to point out that Bhosle has not in fact criticised Dugger's or the Guardian's reporting of the 2002 Gujarat violence, "specially for misusing the term 'Genocide'" in the sources provided? Doldrums 06:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Any misrepresentation should be removed from the article. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 09:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Balbir Punj

Balbir Punj is a very notable journalist and a notable politician as well.Bakaman 22:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 09:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Balbirpunj is a Rajya Sabha MP from the BJP and is therefore not a credible and unbiased source. Rolledex (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

fact check

have tagged the article after finding several instances where source material has been incorrectly or misleadingly reported [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. Doldrums 09:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

undid reversion

this revert

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

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

The commission headed by G.T. Nanavati is official (note set up by the State of Gujarat). Balbir Punj is more than just another BJP MP, he is a quite notable journalist, a la Arun Shourie. He worked for the Financial Express for 22 years and is quite competent in commenting on these issues.Bakaman 18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The commission is yet[38] to submit an interim report in 2007, let alone conclude anything in 2003, as your edit[39] suggests. all the source supports is that Nanavati said in an interview, which is precisely[40] how i've worded it.
you can take up ur debate over whether Punj should be named or not with User:Zamkudi, who is the one who removed it[41]. i couldn't care less.
and instead of continuing to do wholesale reverts of proper edits, consider that you've failed to justify the one issue you addressed among all the problems with your edit. Doldrums 18:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
So you are begging for blocks on ANI and whining based on an issue of semantics ? The only "unjustified reverts" are the ones you and the wikistalking troll and sockpuppeter have been tag teaming to accomplish.Bakaman 18:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
is this your response to the substantive issues raised? Doldrums 18:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

misrepresentation of sources

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

Source User:Doldrums' edit[42] User:Bakasuprman's edit[43]
At the Gulbarg Society, the mob's anger was apparently fueled By a rumor -- encouraged By a senior leader OF the World Hindu Council Wednesday in an interview -- that Muslims had kidnapped Three Hindu girls from the train and raped them. Raju Bhargava, the superintendent OF police IN the district where the train attack occurred, said today that he had found no evidence to support the rumor.[44] The initial violence was instigated by unsubstantiated rumours, endorsed by a senior VHP leader, of Muslims having kidnapped three Hindu girls during the Godhra train attack. The initial violence was instigated by Muslims having kidnapped three girls from the trains
Evidence recorded so far does not indicate any serious lapse on part of the Gujarat Police or administration in handling the communal clashes that erupted followed the Godhra train incident, Justice G T Nanavati, heading the two-member commission to probe last year's riots, said on Sunday.[45]

(The Commission is yet to complete its work in 2007 [46], so Nanavati's statement to the media shouldn't be reported as "official commission ... concluded".

G.T. Nanavati, who leads the official commission investigating the riots said in 2003 that the evidence recorded till then did not indicate any serious lapse on the part of the government or police in Gujarat. The official commission led by G.T. Nanavati concluded there was no lapse on the part of the government or police in Gujarat. "The commission had given time to all the affected to file additional affidavits on incidents that had taken place in their respective localities during the February-March riots"

later modified[47] to "The official commission ... gave a statement"

Bhosle criticises the Guardian's reporting of a Supreme court (not "Gujarat courts") verdict concerning changes to school textbooks by the NCERT, does not criticise its reporting of the riots. [48] <removed the text> The reports of the Gujarat riots by the United Kingdom based newspaper The Guardian has been criticized for leftist bias, specially for misusing the term "Genocide" by former Rediff columnist Varsha Bhosle writing that their claims of "Hindu bias" in Gujarat courts are unfounded.

Third Opinion

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

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

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

reg. the second edit, no source[49][50] (reprinted [51][52]) reports Nanavati's comment as a "statement from the commission" (which makes it sound like its a formal or official word of the commission).
i suggest the following wording and expansion-
G.T. Nanavati, a member of the official commission investigating the riots said in 2003 that the evidence recorded till then (which did not include the most-affected districts of Ahmedabad and Vadodara) did not indicate any serious lapse on the part of the government or police in Gujarat.[53] He subsequently said he had been misquoted and clarified that the remark did not refer to the more than 3000 affidavits filed by riot victims or hearings on the Godhra incident, but only to evidence recorded in district-level hearings.[54]
Doldrums 08:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
That looks like it's beginning to stray from neutrality, although I expect the edging to be from the sources rather than you. Do you feel that strongly about this paragraph? I don't think it brings a lot to the article, and is a probable source of contention. Personally, I'd waid for the commission to make an official statement before going into that much detail; but YMMV. — Coren (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
but that i'm afraid is how it is. the significance of the statement is not so much that it gives a definitive verdict about what happened (it doesn't, but those who support the government would like to say it does) but it created a controversy[55] - reportedly prompting India's Human Rights Commission to respond[56]. the incident got a fair amount of media coverage, so i'm reluctant to omit it altogether. the sources, Times of India and Indian Express are prominent mainstream newspapers. would showing more sources help assuage neutrality concerns? would a more barebones sketch help? and would you agree that "Nanavati said" describes it better than "Commission stated"? Doldrums 05:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that "Nanavati said" is better than "Commission stated"; but it would be important to mention that Navarti leads the commission since his official capacity is why the statement stirred controversy in the first place. A more barebones sketch would probably be best, if only because it's less likely to be contentious. — Coren (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
how about... Doldrums 20:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

That looks like perfection made text!  :-) Add cites to this and you're in business. — Coren (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
here goes. appreciate your help and look forward to more such input in the future. Doldrums 11:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure. — Coren (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

recent reverts

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

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

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:2002 Gujarat riots/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 21:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 04:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The title

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

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

"unreliable" CCT

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

That is meaningless. Teesta Setalvad publishes the paper, which is a partisan source. It is not usable per WP:RS, otherwise we may as well use Panchajnya and other RSS papers to write this page.Bakaman 23:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
They refer to themselves as an advocacy group.Bakaman 23:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
What part of RS says an advocacy group publication cannot be linked to. period. especially when the publication itself is notable enough to be mentioned in the article and plenty of reliable source cite it as reliable? Doldrums (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
now on WP:RS/N. Doldrums (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
(taken from the noticeboard).Just because a source was used in a book (along with hundreds of others) really does not give any rubber stamp of approval. Sabrang, is an unreloable source, since it is funded and published by Teesta Setalvad, who was accused by a victim of the violence, Zaheera Sheikh of coercion to falsely implicate 21 people. The organization is controversial in the media, and some allege is has been used for embezzling foreign funds. Also of note is that it is an Advocacy Group. There is really no logical way that Sabrang can possibly fit under WP:RS, noting all this obvious controversy that surrounds it. When writing an article as contentious as 2002 Gujarat violence, it is obvious that only reliable, non-controversial sources should be used. Using a political ideologue in an NPOV article is nonsensical.Bakaman 01:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


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

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

attacks on Hindus

Both the sources in question note large loss in property.


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

I agree that both sides of the debate and all the facts must be covered. From what I understand of WP:Neutral point of view/Examples, I don't think we can make the conclusion that the Gujarat riots were "just" anti-Muslim, even if media and other sources do. ShivaeVolved 18:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The media does ralk about ~250 Hindus dying in relation to ~700 Muslims, so the barbs went both ways. What perturbs me is the sensationalization of the article, and the obvious fact that its almost solely based on HRW reports. Very little content is not from HRW, and this violates WP:UNDUE, since people may as well get the same picture from reading HRW. Also what isnt, is often removed or undermined by nitpicking and semantics. I agree that we cannot, and should not make this look like a one way fight, when it was a cesspool of anger.Bakaman 18:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this article lacks some key information, which may possibly help overcome the sensationalism you suggest. I remember reading stories about (1) a Hindu-Muslim effort in villages to keep out the rioters and political groups to preserve peace, which shows that it wasn't all total hate and mayhem (2) about police arresting a top Muslim cleric in Godhra for conspiring the train attacks, (3) about riot victims and military families being evacuated to Army bases and (4) more details of what measures K.P.S. Gill took to restore order. (5) There were often cases of pure looting of Hindu and Muslim shops by non-rioting civilians, (6) of roads/highways and supplies being shut off for over a month. (7) Many Muslim shop-keepers put up pictures of Hindu Gods to escape the rioters. (7) Finally, I feel there should be a clear distinction made about the figures detailing those killed in riots and those killed in police/Army firings. ShivaeVolved 07:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
There was also an article back then in the Times of India that described how VHP/BJP activists had compiled lists of Muslims living in neighborhoods, of schools and colleges with Muslim students, so as to guide the rioters where to attack. While it seems that such information may actually aggravate neutrality issues and sensationalism, it actually helps by providing specific details that are factual - a generalized, basic article is susceptible to vague theories, speculation and the broader Muslim-Hindu blame game. It gives the wrong impression by reducing everything to "Hindu vs. Muslim; victim vs. rioters." Most significant is that example of village Hindus and Muslims taking joint action to keep out the rioters. These facts give the readers more insight, reducing the chances that they will simply think in terms of a "Hindu retaliation for Godhra," "Muslim victimization and genocide," "Government complacency and conspiracy," "right-wing political groups vs. biased media and secular political groups." ShivaeVolved 07:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I think those generalized debates are over-emphasized here, leading to sensationalism - of whom the HRW blamed, of what the foreign govts thought of this, of how the Hindu right-wing responded, of the image of Modi, etc.. I would want to know as much as possible about what exactly happened, rather than reading a "whodunit." ShivaeVolved 07:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to add that to the article, can you provide the sources describing 1-7? Or add the relevant sections to the article? That would speed up the rewriting process.Bakaman 21:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A website on this subject

A website has been devoted to the truth of the Gujarat riots- titled

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

Brief intro to the political scenario:

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

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

Balbir Punj

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

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

Godhra commission

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

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

Wasifwasif edits

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

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

Let me know, with links to Wikipolicy and reasoned argument how this is vandalism.Pectoretalk 02:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

were ALL of those sources neutral, un biased and reliable? Wasifwasif (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Wasifwasif, I am not trying to vandalise the page at all. I am neither Hindu nor Muslim nor anywhere related to the whole situation on the Indian subcontinent for that matter and I only stumbled on to this page due someone who had vandalised a page that I was watching and who had also vandalised this page. I have since that time also reverted edits of people on this page whom I suspected of being Hindu nationalist so you can't accuse me of being partisan in this article. The reason why I revert your edits is because you constantly edit out the mentioning of the casualty numbers of the Godhra train burning. It seems to me that you yourself are trying to gloss over the Godhra train burning. The article, as well as the Godhra train burning article, seems NPOV enough as it is as it mentions the controversy surrounding the train burning where the views of both parties are presented. But to leave out the casualties altogether, as you do with your edits, is not appropriate for a balanced article. So stop calling me and everyone else who is looking to achieve a balanced article a vandal just because you do not agree with them, because if anyone, it would be you who in this matter could be considered a vandal. - Takeaway (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)