Talk:Godhra train burning/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Early comments

This is an important incident in the Indian recent history.Will work on it to enlarge.

I removed the db tag. Travelbird 12:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Article is unblanced and incomlete as it does not discuss causes and only cites an anti-Hindu article to promote propaganda. Until I (or someone else) modifies this article to include a full perspective on the situation this article is not neutral.Netaji 09:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Title and 1st paragraph dispute with Sturunner ==

To Sturunner:- Motion to change title is passed unopposed long time back. Why a problem now?

Original title "Godhra Train Incident" is vague and is POV. Anything from birth, marriage, graduation can be described as incident. There is no other attack-event on wikipedia or any where else which is titled as "incident". There is not a single media report which denies the "attack". More then 72 eyewitness testimony are found in nanavati commission report detailing "attack". The title should be "Godhra Train Attack" or "Godhra Train Massacre". Sturunner make your choice.

What is exact nature of problem you have with following 1st paragraph ? The Godhra Train Attack occurred in Godhra, which is a city located in the Indian state of Gujarat in 2002. The train massacre triggered widespread rioting in some parts of Gujarat.

The train, the Sabarmati Express, left Godhra Station at 07:47 hours (7:47 AM) on 27 February 2002. It was forcibly stopped and attacked soon after leaving the railway station by a Muslim mob of 500. During the attack, the Woman's reserved Coach no. S6 was burned [1]. A total of 58 Hindu pilgrims (23 men, 15 women and 20 children) were burnt alive. This pilgrims were returning from the holy city of Ayodhya after offering prayer at disputed Shri Ram Birthplace temple Babri Mosque site. This attack led to the 2002 Gujarat violence, which resulted in 254 Hindus and 790 Muslims being killed.[2] [3][4]

Do you have problem with size of mob? Most estimates put it between 500 and 1000. 500 is at the lower side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedpov (talk • contribs) 17:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


removal

Sabrang is not at all a credible source of opinion. They are a very left organization, and very very prejudiced towards Hindus. So I am against quoting Sabrang. R. Patel 16:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is total rubbish and looks like a Sangh Parivar propaganda. Neither the commission set up by BJP itself nor by the government of India has concluded that there was an attack from outside. When will these fanatics stop spreading non-sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.5.178 (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

One columnists opinion is irrelevant to the article. Also Sabrang is a partisan site, and can be disqualified under WP:RS. I am removing the columnist quotes and commenting out the Sabrang until a reliable and objective source is found.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the Sabrang stuff, but why is a columnists opinion irrelevant to the article? All news articles are written by journalists, many of who are columnists as well. Columns are frequently cited on Wikipedia. BhaiSaab talk 22:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Per Talk:2006 Malegaon blasts discussion of columnists. There are millions out there, and there is no need to turn this into a soapbox for certain views.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
A discussion between 2 or 3 editors on the talk page of another article is not conclusive. BhaiSaab talk 22:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, the columnists are nn. Jyoti Puniyani sounds like anti-Hindu activist Ram Puniyani but has no credibility or notability, other than on this wiki article.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Sources don't need to be notable; the subjects of articles have to be notable. BhaiSaab talk 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Show me the exact wikipedia policy that says so.Hkelkar 01:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you show me the wikipedia policy that states sources have to be notable? You won't find anything like that in WP:RS. BhaiSaab talk 01:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
No. You made the assertion you back it up. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but you used "Anyway, the columnists are nn." as an argument first, after you tried using "Per Talk:2006 Malegaon blasts." BhaiSaab talk 02:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah looks like someone is using a smokescreen. Find a poicy yet? Columnists can be selectively quoted, I might as well add Togadia, Modi, rajnath Singh and the like while I'm at it.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
What does a smokescreen have to do with this? You can use those columnists as long as they publish in sources that are generally regarded as reliable. BhaiSaab talk 02:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, show me the specific wikipedia policy that says so.Hkelkar 02:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and btw. How will you verify reliability in the absence of notability????Hkelkar 02:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to. You'll find that the concept of the journalist having to be notable in order for a newspaper article to be used is nonsense if you look at, e.g., articles that cover recent news events. A journalist need not be notable if the source he is using to publish his material, i.e. The Hindu, is generally regarded as reliable. BhaiSaab talk 02:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Where is the policy backing this assertion up? I find hinduunity reliable as well then.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Read WP:RS - I can't do the reading for you. Hinduunity.org is a bunch of nonsense. BhaiSaab talk 02:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree with user:BhaiSaab on this. Please try to understand both the letter and the spirit of the policies before editing controversial articles because that will save everybody lot of time. Andries 09:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Instead of giving us a nonsense you know nobody will listen to, why dont you actually read the article. You might notice I kept the Puniyani link anyways.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Opinions

I Removed columnist opinions from the article. These opinions should not be the article but only on that columnist's page. An article is not a collection of opinions. Even comments or opinions of Bill O'Reilly whose The O'Reilly Factor, is routinely the highest-rated show of the three major U.S. 24-hour cable news channels (CNN, FOX News and MSNBC), are not in Wikipedia articles. They are only on His page. See Abortion Same-sex marriage and 2003 invasion of Iraq Preetikapoor0 00:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

category - clarification required

Why is the article being covered under "Terrorism in India"? This is not a terrorist activity, it is a communal violence event. Thus, shouldn't the template be updated and the template tag removed from this page. Kalyan 14:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Banerjee commission was declared as unconstitutional ,it's findings were not described as faulty. Thus the conclusion that the burning was due to a planned massacre or a spontaneous carnage by Muslims is not a logical deduction.

Proved as preplanned now. Any findings of Banerjee Comission does not stand valid.Thisthat2011 (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Documentary

Perhaps I should create a little section about the film Final Solution (Gujarat Riots) instead of adding it to external links.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.94.236 (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"In this Godhra Train Burning incident it got burnt either from outside or inside the train."

I removed this sentence because it provides no information. There *is* only an inside and an outside of a train. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.64.68 (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

The "Allegations of Planned Conspiracy" section is contradictory. The first sentence states that: "[..] often reported as a huge mob of Muslims burnt the train (Sabarmati Express), knowing it contained pilgrims, monks and kar sevaks *leaving for Ayodhya*". While a few paragraphs later, "[..]the strategy was to launch an attack at the slightest provocation from the Kar Sevaks who were *returning from Ayodhya*."

The first sentence should be removed/edited to reflect the fact that the attack happened when the pilgrims were returning from Ayodhya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.64.68 (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


Surely it was carriages that were targeted, not bogies!124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Article title

What are the policy based arguments for a move from 'Godhra train burning' to 'Godhra train massacre' ? The policies that spring to mind are WP:NAME and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). Sean.hoyland - talk 09:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the article title is fine at status quo (burning). I think massacre could be accurate as well, but burning is the most accurate wording.Pectoretalk 14:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

In case people do try to look up the article as "Godhra train attack" (or "incident" or "massacre"), with or without capitalized words, I've made REDIRECTs there so they see the article at Godhra train burning. This should remove any need to rename the article, and I hope it will end the dispute. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Deobandi "sect"

Since the Deobandis are not regarded as a separate "sect" but a movement within the Sunni sect I've changed the article. The wikipedia article on Deobandis states as much. 86.137.103.121 (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Motion for changing the title

I think that Godhra Train Burning should be changed to "Godhra Train Massacre". Does anyone know the process of initiating such an action of title change? R. Patel 16:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, since the request has been made, I will move it.Bakaman 18:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes this shows a real face of HINDUTA they will do anything for the political power

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3829364588351777769&q=%22Gujrat%22+%22Rakesh%22&hl=en ^^ the above link is a dead one , does not work .The statement reeks of bias .RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


"Godhra Train Incident" is a vague title. Anything from birth, marriage, graduation can be described as incident. There is no other attack-event on wikipedia or any where else which is titled as incident. There is not a single media report which denies the "attack". More then 72 eyewitness testimony are found in nanavati commission report detailing "attack". The title should be "Godhra Train Attack".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimesmonster (talk • contribs) 07:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Requests to change the title of an article need to be based on policy. What are the policy based arguments for the name change ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Credibility of Tehelka "investigation"

How credible is Tehelka as an NPOV source? How credible are its investigative methods and personnel? Nshuks7 (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not credible at all. I personally feel it is bankrolled to go after certain political parties and not touch others like Congress(Indira), and therefore its views are not balanced, and sometimes its reports are blatantly incorrect.Thisthat2011 (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Couldn't one also argue that the Gujurat Inquiry of 2008, that exonerated Modi, was also biased? Because a BJP government inquiry exonerating a popular BJP leader raises eyebrows as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.68.229 (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sabotage?

Should the attack type not be better considered to be arson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackattack1991 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No it was a preplanned massacre established in court.Thisthat2011 (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion for correcting broken links - a bug perhaps

Hi,

I have noticed a rather annoying occurrence of absence of links, when some section is removed when the link is mentioned in the removed section and the same link is referenced at other place in the article. Correcting such links becomes cumbersome and that is why I will not correct the last change I could have done easily.

Therefore I would like to suggest if this can be taken by developers of the content system, and as a first step I would suggest that when such a change is done, the entire link can be either placed at bottom of the article with references in the link or moved to the next occurrence of the link.

Thanks. 180.188.234.147 (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Does this article need "accident theory" content now that conspiracy is established?

Hi, Considering that High Court has upheld conspiracy part, does this article need any content repeatedly mentioning "accident theory" part? I am sure the investigation has enough stuff on them to convince the courts so (http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-exclusive-godhra-case-investigator-speaks/20110228.htm). 210.89.52.52 (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, it should probably be removed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Should this article be called "Godhra train Burning" now that Massacre is established?

Considering that Massacre has been established beyond reasonable doubt in High Court, Current title is no longer appropriate. No other Massacres in Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia in the world has this kind of vague and biased title. It's time to call massacre a massacre. I will change the title to "Godhra Train Massacre" unless anybody objects in next 2 weeks. (http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-exclusive-godhra-case-investigator-speaks/20110228.htm). unbiasedpov1 —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC).

I would say put it as a conspiracy and massacre which is correct.Thisthat2011 (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Tehelka Investigation

Hi, I would like to point out that Gujarat High Court has given its verdict stating that the burning was a preplanned conspiracy. In view of this open lengthy trial in courts and case investigated by competent officers, the self proclaimed investigation and judgment by Tehelka does not stand. Mentioning the same in the page is nothing but an attempt to confuse and in effect goes against judgment of High Court of India. Please remove the section. I removed it once but the edit was reversed.Thisthat2011 (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, a Hindutva ruling by a court appointed by the Genocidaire Modi is your source? LOL!Sturunner (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Sturunner

How is this a Hindutva appointed courts? Stop throwing wild allegations..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 04:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The findings of the court case and the convictions deserve a prominent place in this article, despite Sturunner's articulate and unbiased claims to the contrary.Pectoretalk 20:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Gujarat HC and special court verdicts and judgments

Editors (such as User:Aurorion) had introduced a neutrality issue tag to the above article (especially concerning the lead and intro section) saying there are "controversies" about the incident which must be honored before the matter is fully resolved by law. I would like to bring to notice that the same (court verdicts) has already happened, most notably the Feb-March 2011 Gujarat HC rulings on the matter last year. The courts have decisively ruled that:

1. The incident was a preplanned conspiracy hatched a few days in advance by local radical Muslims of the Signal Fadia area near Godhra railway station, and specifically a conspiracy to target karsevaks. The court has mentioned in its case closure judgment statements that the train burning incident was NOT either (1) an accident or (2) provoked by any act of the passengers in that train when passing through Godhra. See:

2. Furthermore, the court convicted 31 persons 11 of whom were given capital punishment. See:

3. The Gujarat HC had earlier already termed the Banerjee one-man committee (started by Lalu Prasad Yadav as railway minister just after UPA came to power in 2004 and just before elections in his home state Bihar) as illegal, unconstitutional and politically motivated and also ruled that the findings of the Banerjee committee (which said it could have been accident instead of conspiracy) were null and void.

This is pretty decisive by all respects. BTW, the article does give lots of space to the alternative controversies and Banerjee committee and its findings etc in the article content and text anyway ... the lead and intro section, obviously, must be short and stick to facts. In light of this, it makes sense to remove the POV tag. 202.3.77.183 (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  • The POV tag was not just because of the controversies on the nature of the fire; it was also because of the wording. The wording had a clear bias against a particular religious community. I have reworded the intro to make it more WP:NPOV. Aurorion (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • It was reworded to make it appear as the fire just occurred. "A particular religious community" unfortunately took it upon themselves to burn the train, and the IP user has provided reliable sources from mainstream newspapers to back up that assertion. Unfortunately, Verifiability trumps the idea of a neutral point of view. We can verify the court cases, and the legal proceedings that established Muslim guilt in this attack.Pectoretalk 18:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Pectore - the older version of the intro to this article is heavily POV. The intro needs to be encyclopaedic with clear facts, with very little judgement especially considering the court cases and appeals on this are still going on. Plus, it is also not worded accurately. For example, the burning was not the conspiracy - it was the result of the conspiracy. The rewording has all the facts of the previous version, and additionally mentions that 31 people were convicted of the crime, but presents it in a much more WP:NPOV style. Aurorion (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Coordinates

Why are the coordinates in this article commented-out? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

My edits on the Godhra train burning page

Hi! Aurorian - I see that you have removed edit I made to the page. Can you please explain why, when I had provided several high-quality sources to support that edit? Please discuss on the Talk page of the article. As per wikipedia policy, You are free to add more facts and enhance the article. I am adding them back. Please discuss before removing it. Thanks. Unbiasedpov (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.1.8 (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Hello - I reverted your edit because I felt the content changes were poorly formatted and altered the lead in a manner that is not suitable for an encyclopedia entry. Your new edit is better structured, but I have made some wording/formatting changes to improve the content. Thanks. Aurorion (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Federal Inquiry

A 2005 federal inquiry concluded the fire resulted from a cooking accident within the train. Although the 2008 and 2011 inquiries state otherwise, the federal inquiry should also be mentioned since it was conducted by the government. I've included a proper source for this, and conditioned it by the findings of the 2008 Gujurat inquiry. But simply because the Gujurat inquiry is more recent does not mean the federal 2005 inquiry deserves no mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.68.229 (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted sentence

I deleted the following sentence from the main page: Investigations and court rulings on the case later established that the fire was caused by arson by radical Islamist mobs and 31 people were convicted for the crime.[1][2]

I have several problems with this sentence: The reference materials do not mention 'radical Islamist mobs' nor have i ever heard this term used before for the mob which set fire to the train although it is certainly believed to have consisted of muslims. Secondly, it has been suggested that the burning of the train could have been accidental: http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2013/05/5921 The lower courts in Gujarat have convicted some people for the Godhra train killing, but then the lower courts had also convicted some people for the killing of Narendra Modi's former colleague Haren Pandya. All the people who were alleged to have been involved in the killing of Pandya were subsequently released on appeal. So the judicial process is not yet complete on the guilt of the Godhra accused and the WP article cannot make a definite conclusion about guilt. Soham321 (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

To the point raised that it was an accident I must clarify that now it is an established fact that it was a well-planned attack and not a mere accident. Raising this point now is certainly devoid of any merit:
  1. Supreme Court appointed SIT headed by an ex-CBI director has found out so.
  2. The trial court has found so and several people have been convicted for this.
  3. Nanavati-Mehta Commission had found out so.
  4. The conflicting opinion was given by Banerjee Commission which was quashed by the Gujarat High Court. I must point out that Court ruled that the panel was "unconstitutional, illegal and null and void", and declared its formation as a "colourable exercise of power with mala fide intentions", and its argument of accidental fire "opposed to the prima facie accepted facts on record."
5. These kinds of observations were also made by Teesta Setalavad and now its upto an individual to give credentials to her observation taken the fact that she was not present there and that her story also relies on the point that there were inflammable substance found out inside the train. I do not know if she has still been talking of the same. Also because her own role in the subsequent events and economic motives in the same are under question now.--Mohit Singh (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
If I may also clarify the other two points raised by User:Soham321. Though these remarks are devoid of any merit for the present discussion but it should be necessary to clarify the legal position:
  • Haren Pandya Murder Case: People were convicted and later released on Appeal. I presume you meant, they had appealed an subsequent released on bail application by them. But then what? Its a legal process. India is a common law country. We have a system of precedents. One is not guilty untill proven so. If a person has been released on bail on appeal after conviction, he is treated as a convicted person for that period. But even then this point does not serve the current discussion as any reference to Pandya murder case is irrelevant. It would have been relevant if the legal system was referred to and I have clarified the position. It is the trial court which deals with the fact. High Court and Supreme Court are the Courts of law. They are not treated as a court of fact.--Mohit Singh (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Name of the article

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Valid concerns that the proposed name is sensationalist and WP:NPOV. Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Godhra train burning → Godhra train massacre
or,
Godhra train burning → Godhra train violence [Proposed by Mr. T @ 08:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC) ]
– Common usage and other reasons stated below. Note: The renaming discussion has already started before this procedural formalities took place. Hence including the move template in the same discussion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Should the name of the article be, Godhra train burning or Godhra train Massacre. The whole conspiracy by the Islamist Mob has been proven in the court. I think we should move this.--sarvajna (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Rationale

I think any other suitable name would be more accurate than this "train burning". Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Strongly disagree. It was still a burning. WP is not a tabloid, it does not need sensationalist headlines. Plus, there was an official government inquiry which, even though probably overruled by other judicial authorities, declared the whole thing to be an accident. The article mentions this, but still the overall tone of the article says that the burning was due to arson by radical Islamist mobs. The current title is in my opinion NPOV, and should remain so. Aurorion (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
A comparison using Google searches: "godhra train burning": 530,000 hits; "godhra train massacre": 57,700 hits; "godhra train carnage": 299,000 hits. The web overwhelmingly favor "godhra train burning".
Google Trends shows that "Godhra Train Burning" has always been a more popular search phrase than the other two. Academic sources on Google Scholar and JSTOR also heavily favor the current title "Godhra train burning". All these show that "Godhra train burning" is the WP:COMMONNAME and hence should be retained.
However, Google book searches throw a different trend (the only exception): 492 results for "godhra train burning", only 89 results for "godhra train massacre", and 1010 results for "godhra train carnage". But in recent times (2010 and after) "Godhra train burning" is much more common here too: 120 results, against just 1 for "Godhra train carnage". So it looks like "Godhra train carnage" may have been a common name in books earlier, but now is outdated and "Godhra train burning" is much more favored now. Aurorion (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Things that have been overruled by judicial authority has no value, look at the naming of other articles, Gulberg Society Massacre, Naroda Patiya Massacre. -sarvajna (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Although usage of different terms in the media to refer to this massacre of Hindu pilgrims matters not a damn after it was established in a court of law that it was a communal mob that was responsible for the carnage, I have provided multiple sources (I doubt majority of Indian sources fall into this category) to prove that even the so-called words like "massacre", or "killings", or "carnage" are not even the least bit uncommon when referring to this dreadful incident. I think any other name would be more accurate than this "train burning".
The name used for referring to the 2002 riot does allude to violence as in 2002 Gujarat violence. There is no ambiguity that violence was the main highlight of that incident. Wikipedia doesn't refer to the incident in Gulberg as "2002 Gulberg house burning" or "2002 Gulberg destruction of property" even though houses were burnt; properties were destroyed, it refers to it as "Gulbarg Society massacre", hence it's only fair that we refer to this incident (the Godhra train carnage) as ″Godhra train violence″ not ″Godhra train burning″. Besides, it was a Massacre, Murder, Killing inside a train, not merely incineration of a train compartment. Violence is the main identifier of this incident also. To say it was Godhra Train Burning is very misleading and deceptive. Per WP:COMMONNAME "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources."
(my emphasis)
  • BBC : Godhra train massacre
  • Asianews: Godhra train massacre
  • DAWN: Godhra Train carnage
  • Zee news: Godhra train carnage
  • The Hindu Godhra Train carnage
  • Business-standard: Godhra train carnage
  • Oneindia news: Godhra train carnage
  • Rediff: Godhra Train carnage
  • Times of India : Godhra Train carnage
  • DNAINDIA: Godhra Train carnage
  • Hindu business line : Godhra Train carnage
  • Indiatvnews: Godhra Train carnage
  • deccan herald : Godhra train carnage
  • Dailypioneer: Godhra train carnage / Godhra train inferno
  • Indianexpress: Godhra train carnage
  • India Today: Godhra train carnage
    • I hope it makes it clear that the act of referring to it as "Train Burning" is a mockery of the real deadliness of this violent incident. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    Post script
    Google Book hits:
  • "godhra train burning": 492,
  • "godhra train massacre": 89
  • "godhra train carnage": 1010.
    • Clarification: I would just like to add, prior to the conviction of Muslim conspirators and criminals, this incident was referred to as train Burning. That's why there may be some outdated or partisan sources which still refer to it as train burning but it has been proved that it was a conspiracy to massacre Hindus by Muslims and multiple people were given death penalties for it.

    Google Hits for Godhra Train Carnage: 205,000.Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

    User:Syed Wamiq Ahmed Hashmi wrote, "Muslims would like to refer to it as an ‘accident’ or a ‘tragedy’, whereas Hindus would like to call it a ‘massacre’ or a ‘holocaust’. Why not keep the third neutral alternative ‘burning’?" - seems very close to a negotiation in the market. The "votes" should be counted on there own merits basing on policy. I would have thought that the current title was honestly indefensible but some portions of wiki-community always manage to startle me. The arbitrary "votes" in this type of discussions are what render the whole process of building consensus properly dysfunctional. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Support - This is by far the more common name is journalistic usage.Pectoretalk 00:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Support "Godhra Train Massacre" or "Godhra Train Carnage". They are more "to the point" and descriptive. The present title is misleading.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Support Godhra Train Carnage. That is how the incident is referred. Their main target was the pilgrims and not the train. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose The incident itself was a train burning or train carnage. To call it a massacre would be, as Aurorion points out, heading into sensationalist territory. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. To call this a "massacre" while a similiar article, 2002 Gujarat violence, is not called anything more than that, shows bias and moreover the fact that a spade is not being called a spade. Mar4d (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    I know you don't live in India, and that you may not be cognizant of all the info. But I am happy to see you at least acknowledge that it was a carnage. You ought to know that it was provably a conspiracy by some people to massacre and target Hindu Pilgrims that day. It has been proven in court. There are scores of reliable sources that have reported it, people have been given even death penalties for it. In light of all these do you really believe that to call it "train" burning would be objectively accurate and neutral? Yes, "massacre" may not sound like the right word, it is possible. But that's why we are here. You may propose another alternative to the current title and then the closing admin will hopefully choose the name which has the best argument behind it. But you can't possibly support the current name, or do you? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    The article you quoted says that at that time it was suggested (past tense). Even I concede at one point it was suggested that it was an accident but new developments show that it was not an accident, it was a case of arson to murder Hindu Pilgrims, did you not read anything I wrote above? How can you deny that "train Burning" is deceptive when referring to this incident of mass-murder? WOW! Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    MrT, you seem to have read that article backwards. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    Wow what an apt rebuttal, it's hard to claim that I didn't expect something like this from you. You sometimes are exceptionally neutral, so neutral that others think you ought to be banned (no kidding!) and sometimes you seem so far from being neutral that it's hard to assume that you're the same person. I am not making any sense to you maybe, but your attempts puzzle me. They really do. I thought of you as a reasonable person, what happened to that person? Chicanery after chicanery, what is this?
    Do you really doubt that it was a mass-murder? Do you really doubt that it was far more than just "train burning" after everything has been proven in court and the verdict is out? Is this a joke? 58 helpless Hindu pilgrims, including women and children, were locked up and burned to death and we call it "train burning", we don't even have the decency to refer to it as "train violence"? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    Please keep comments in a chronological order, it is why we have indents. My response was entirely apt as it is entirely correct, you have that article ass backwards. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    Mr. T, please avoid getting too worked up over Wikipedia discussions. Please see WP:Article titles. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. "Godhra train violence" does not seem to be a frequently used name for this incident - if you disagree, please provide sufficient justification. As I mentioned in my comment above, I believe "Godhra train burning" is the most commonly used name. Perhaps there can be a case made for "Godhra train carnage", but definitely not "Godhra train massacre" as in the RM proposal or "Godhra train violence" as you suggest. Please assume that other editors' comments are made in good faith, avoid getting emotional over issues that you may passionately identify with. Aurorion (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    Please keep comments in an order, when you reply to me you're expected to comment below my proposal/comment/remarks, not Aurorion's comment (which has been separated by an asterisk '*'). Aurorion, please avoid guessing, focus on the content, not the editor. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment: Google Scholar results favor "Godhra train burning": 58 results against 6 results for "Godhra train massacre" and 21 results for "Godhra train carnage".
    So, the general Google search as well as Google Scholar search favor (overwhelmingly) "Godhra train burning". Google Books search favors "Godhra train carnage". "Godhra train massacre" is very infrequently used. I think the current title, "Godhra train burning", satisfies WP:COMMONNAME.
    "Godhra train massacre" in the proposal is overly sensationalist and is rarely used to describe the incident. - Aurorion (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Strong Oppose: It was not a genocide, or a planned massacre. It was just a part of a terrorist procedure. Why are not all terrorist activities termed as "Massacre"? Faizan 13:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose: The article title is not intended to be a sensational newspaper headline. It is to be a nuetral title describing the main thing in the event. No doubt, the Muslims who actually committed the crime of burning people alive (the worst form of punishment in Islam: Muslims are forbidden to kill anyone by burning; being described as the form of punishment used by God for sinners in Hell) were totally out of their minds, but being too sentimental is no good. Muslims would like to refer to it as an ‘accident’ or a ‘tragedy’, whereas Hindus would like to call it a ‘massacre’ or a ‘holocaust’. Why not keep the third neutral alternative ‘burning’? —Шαмıq ☪ тαʟκ✍ 14:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    "It is to be a nuetral title describing the main thing in the event. " - and you think calling it "train burning" is neutral? What's wrong with you? Is it the highlight of the event? Nope. The "main thing", as you call it, is that there were 58-60 helpless Hindu Pilgrims who were burned to death. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment: As I mentioned above, both general Google search and Google Scholar/JSTOR searches heavily favor the usage of "Godhra train burning" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) to describe this incident. Additionally, Google Trends shows that this term has been used by most people all through its history, including recently, after the court judgements some editors mentioned above. Hence, I think it satisfies WP:COMMONNAME.
    The alternative suggested in the original proposal, "Godhra train massacre" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), is not used widely at all. "Godhra train violence" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), another suggestion, is very rarely used: just 400-odd Google results.
    Another suggestion given, "Godhra train carnage" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) gives more results only on Google Books, but I don't think that alone is enough to warrant a renaming over the current title.
    In addition to being WP:COMMONNAME, the current title also is more neutral. Hence I think it should be retained, until it is proved that another name is more widely used to refer to this incident. - Aurorion (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • "the current title also is more neutral." - neutral? The title is clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME which actually says, "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Clearly, clarity takes precedence over common usage. Besides, it was proved in a court of law that this was a massacre carried out of by fanatic Muslims, and still you say this vague name is neutral, wow! This makes me wonder, do you even know what "neutrality" means? Taking the liberty to speak forthrightly, subjective comments like these are what render the whole process of building consensus futile. This is all I can say. Thank you. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • "Godhra train burning" is neither "ambiguous" nor "inaccurate". Fire definitely was involved in the incident, wasn't it? "Burning" is perfectly clear, there is no lack of clarity in it. It is not "vague". Burning has one single dominant meaning in English, and this incident definitely was a burning. Did the court of law rule that "massacre" is the official, technical term for the incident? "Godhra train burning" is the most widely used name to refer to the incident, including in scholarly sources, which are not known for ambiguity or inaccuracies or vagueness. "Godhra train massacre" is *much* less used. - Aurorion (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Utter baloney! "Godhra train burning" is absolutely "ambiguous" and "inaccurate". Murder of Hindu pilgrims was definitely the highlight of the incident, wasn't it? 'Train burning' is not even close to the most accurate descriptor, the "train" was only a collateral damage in that incident, the main target was Hindu pilgrims (Kar sevaks). Hence, "Train burning" is not at all clear, there is not a vestige of clarity in it. This needless focus on the "train" in the article title and not the helpless Victims who were ruthlessly murdered in that incident is unfair. It is indeed "vague". If Wikipedia were to refer to the incident in Gulberg as "2002 Gulberg house burning" or "2002 Gulberg destruction of property" instead of "Gulbarg Society massacre", basing on the fact that houses were burnt; properties were destroyed, would it be fair? Nope. Hence it's only fair that we refer to this incident (the Godhra train carnage) as ″Godhra train violence″ not ″Godhra train burning″.
      Prior to the conviction of the murderers and arsonists, this incident was referred to as train Burning. That's why there may be some outdated or partisan sources which still refer to it as "Godhra train burning" as opposed to more apt descriptions as "Godhra Train violence" or "Godhra Train Carnage". Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 16:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The train was burned, and the incident took place in Godhra, so the name looks very accurate to me. And since there are no other famous train burnings (arson or other) that have taken place in Godhra, it is unambiguous too. "Murder of Hindu pilgrims" may have been the result of the incident, but it took place as a result of the burning of the train, which definitely took place. So again, I think it is perfectly unambiguous, accurate, and clear. And apparently, most secondary sources (including news media and academic sources) seem to agree.
    "Prior to the conviction of the murderers and arsonists, this incident was referred to as train Burning. That's why there may be some outdated or partisan sources which still refer to it as "Godhra train burning" as opposed to more apt descriptions as "Godhra Train violence" or "Godhra Train Carnage".": This is an interesting claim, but it seems to be utterly false. Most sources still continue to refer to this incident as "Godhra train burning" even after the court ruling in 2011. For example, searching for the period starting 2012, Google Scholar gives 6 results for "Godhra train burning". ZERO for any of the other three alternatives proposed here. Even on Google Search, the results for "Godhra train burning" after March 2011 is greater than the results for the three proposed alternatives - COMBINED. A search on Google Trends will show that this is the same for Google searches too. And guess what - this is the case for Google Books as well! So your argument is without any evidence.
    About Gulbarg Society massacre: if you think some other name is the WP:COMMONNAME for this incident, please initiate an RM for that article. I think that phrase is the most commonly used name for that incident, so I think that name is fine. We don't invent technically correct names here on Wikipedia, in most cases, we just adopt the most commonly used, correct names. "Godhra train burning" definitely satisfies this, and "Gulbarg Society massacre" probably does too: you can investigate if you wish. - Aurorion (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    This amount of banal sophistry worries me.
    "And since there are no other famous train burnings (arson or other) that have taken place in Godhra, it is unambiguous too. " - nope. It doesn't work that way. It has to be clear in its own merit, not the possibility of the presence of other tragic incident. The title indicates what the article is about. No amount of needless vociferation would be enough to obfuscate this.
    The subject of the article is far more than mere destruction of the train. Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking clarity and neutrality in an event where a more accurate and equally common alternative exists. I know you'll leave a lengthy comment right this one but it won't make a any difference to my stance. If you say it's okay to label a deadly incident like a massacre on a train as merely "train burning" and then try to frame it as "accurate", well, then I do not know what neutrality means to you nor do I care. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 19:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    Mr T, plenty of academic papers (including those published after court judgements confirming arson as cause) using the current title to describe the incident (compared to few, if any, using the other alternatives under discussion) shows that a lot of intelligent people think it is clear enough, not to mention accurate and unambiguous. The current title shows exactly what the incident is about. Next someone else might argue (like regentspark says below) that "Godhra train massacre" sounds like a train got massacred in Godhra, hence the article should be renamed as "Kar Sevak murder" or some other random name - but Wikipedia articles are not named according to everyone's whims and fancies. Burning on a train, which is what it was, can well be called "train burning". I know this comment will not make any difference to your stance - this is well clear from your highly passionate comments above. But the fact of the matter is, most sources (academic as well as others) refer to the incident as "Godhra train burning" - and this includes recent sources, published after court judgements on the related cases. There is no case to be made that any other name is the common name for this incident. - Aurorion (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    Do you have a comprehension problem? Arson means "crime of deliberately setting fire to property" (oxford 1994).
    1. The title isn't "Godhra train arson",
    2. the train was not the target the court has also established that pretty clearly,
    3. Hindu pilgrims were the only target, they were locked from outside then fuel (over 60 litres of petrol along with acid bombs) was poured over to the coaches which were carrying the pilgrims and they were burned to death, some beyond recognition. That's more of a people burning than train burning. Since when is a train more valuable than numerous passengers it was carrying?
    4. A good many people were given death penalties for conspiring to kill those pilgrims, why would they do that if it had been an accident? huh? Why?
    5. The phrase 'train burning' is narrowly focusing on the train, while shunning the real identifier of the incident that is murder of Hindu pilgrims out of communal vengeance.
    If the closing admin doesn't see these then shame on the whole enterprise. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    Do you have a comprehension problem? The fire took place in a train. Just because people were harmed doesn't mean it was not arson. And calling it a train burning does NOT imply that people were not harmed. As I mentioned above, does "train massacre" mean that the train was massacred, and people were not? So then even "Godhra train massacre" would be incorrect according to that logic, and it should be called "Godhra people massacre" or something like that! How silly is that?! How does "burning" imply that it was an accident? Before accusing others of having a comprehension problems, please examine your own faulty logic.
    — Aurorion (07:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)
    Calling it a "train burning" is vague, at best, because it does NOT imply that people were murdered. That's the problem it doesn't describe the actual reality of the situation. BTW, although it shouldn't matter but if you think "Godhra train massacre" is grammatically incorrect then I suggest you go consult with the writers/editors of hundreds of those news reports that use the exact same phrase. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    I think you do not understand the meaning of "vague". The title need not imply that there were casualties. There are several other WP articles of similar incidents (arson fires with casualties) with similar names: Happy Land fire, Pionirska Street fire, El Encanto fire, Primavalle Fire, Cinema Rex fire, 2000 Dharmapuri bus burning, 1979 U.S. embassy burning in Islamabad, Savoy Hotel fire. And I don't think "Godhra train massacre" is incorrect, but by the kind of logic you are saying, it definitely seems to me that it is just as incorrect as "Godhra train burning". And since you have a problem with the "vagueness" or "ambiguity", or "accuracy" of "Godhra train burning", you can consult with the writers/editors of thousands of news reports (far more than those using "Godhra train massacre"), plus the academics and researchers who authored the large number of academic papers. - Aurorion (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    Putting your comments in bold will not automatically improve the sense of your argument. You have absolutely no valid argument to support a rename to "Godhra train massacre", when that name is not a commonly used name for the incident in the real world. As I mentioned above, Wikipedia does not invent technical or legal names for incidents, we just use the most commonly used correct names in the real world. And in this instance, I have demonstrated above that "Godhra train burning" is by far the most commonly used name for this incident, including in peer-reviewed academic sources, which are not likely to use incorrect or biased or misleading information, and including recent sources. A vast majority of these sources find "Godhra train burning" an accurate, clear and neutral enough name to describe this incident. Just because you think it is not clear or accurate or whatever, doesn't mean that the title should be changed.
    — Aurorion (07:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)
    You blindly keep on harping on your usual patter. Read WP:COMMONNAME for a change, it favours a clear phrase over an inaccurate, garbled title. If Google book hits are to be trusted as any indicator of popularity of the titles, "Godhra train burning" is neither accurate nor the most commonly used name for this incident; "Godhra train carnage" is.

    My stance is that any suitable title would be better than the current one. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    I just keep emphasising the rules and evidence; and you keep harping on your silly emotional arguments with no or faulty logic. You are right that Google Books is one of the trusted indicators of popularity of titles; and by most trusted indicators of popularity of titles (including Google search, Google Trends, Google Scholar, JSTOR, etc.), "Godhra train burning" is both the most accurate and the most commonly used name for this incident. Your stance of "any suitable title" is rubbish: you even suggested a name which has all of 400 hits on Google, to replace a name which has over a hundred times more. - Aurorion (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    The closing admin has to be concerned about Wikipedia rules, not about random people's comments about shame on the enterprise or whatever. The Wikipedia guidelines clearly favor the current name, "Godhra train burning". Getting emotionally worked up in discussions to push your own biased POV won't work. - Aurorion (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    "The closing admin has to be concerned about Wikipedia rules, not about random people's comments" - thank you for echoing my view this time. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    You are welcome. - Aurorion (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) clearly says "if there is an established, universally agreed-upon common name for an event, use that name." I think my comment above demonstrates that the current article title ("Godhra train burning" satisfies this. The current title also describes where the incident happened, and what happened (yes, it was a burning, and it was in a train). These descriptors are sufficient to identify the event unambiguously, since there are no other similar events that can be described using this name.
    The section on maintaining NPOV provides clear guidelines on when strong words such as "massacre" can be used: and IMO this incident does not satisfy them, since "Godhra train burning" is the common name. - Aurorion (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    But I guess, in your opinion, Gulbarg Society massacre, Dabgarwad Massacre (i.e. an event of burning down of a single mother Maniben’s home in Ahmedabad, India, on June 9, 1985.) and Naroda Patiya massacre do satisfy the criteria to use such a strong word as "massacre"? This is the bias.

    59 hindus are burned alive, that is not a strong reason for using ′massacre′ in the title, it should be downplayed with an utterly deceptive name "train burning", whereas one single mother’s home in Ahmedabad is burned down it's rightaway branded as a "massacre". WOW! When hindus do it, it's "Massacre", but when Muslims do heinous things however much fatal it may be, "massacre", or "carnage" they are just "strong" words that must be avoided at all cost. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    Like I mentioned earlier, if you have a problem with the titles of other articles, please initiate RMs for those, and I will be happy to provide my opinions there if you wish. If, for those articles, those phrases (with "massacre", etc.) are the common names, then those should be the article titles, as the WP guidelines clearly state. Here "Godhra train burning" is the common name, and there is not enough evidence to suggest otherwise.
    Wikipedia is not the place where zealots of any religion can push their POVs. Before you accuse others of bias, please tone down the religious rhetoric in your posts. - Aurorion (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose Per WP:UCN. Also, the proposed title is grammatically incorrect. The train was burned, not massacred. --regentspark (comment) 18:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    WOW! Grammar is incorrect, that is the reason you pick? Wow! Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 19:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    Please read my oppose. The reason is UCN. Grammar is a secondary issue and would not be a problem if that were the common name. --regentspark (comment) 19:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    Would you be in favour of a neutral and descriptive phrase as the title? (cf. WP:NDESC) If so, can you tell me what would that phrase look like? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 19:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you're asking. Per policy, we use the common name and don't search for some artificial and subjective construct like 'neutral name' unless there is no common name. As ample evidence above shows, "Godhra train burning" is the common name. --regentspark (comment) 19:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    I strongly disagree. WP:UCN asks us to avoid non-neutral vague names that don't describe the topic clearly. You're an experienced editor, at least you seem to be, you should know that. I am asking, would you be in favour of a neutral and descriptive phrase as the title? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    Mrt, Godhra train burning is (1) the common name (2) describes the topic clearly (3) is descriptive (4) is neutral. We deviate from UCN only if there is a good reason to do so and I don't see any here. --regentspark (comment) 09:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose The current title is commonly used and is neutral. Imc (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

    Factual accuracy

    During recent research I noted that the main cause of this incident was caused by the activists on the train kidnapping a Muslim women, why is this not mentioned in the lede? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    And, what is the source for that? Shovon (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
    I have a few, but will need to dig them back out, sorry about that but I would have thought this common knowledge by those who edit this "article" Darkness Shines (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
    This might help [6].-sarvajna (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
    Not really given "He described the whole incident as a 'pre-planned conspiracy'." & the killer punchline of course being "Mahapatra did not rule out the involvement of the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence in the incident." Grow up. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
    What??He is/was a Additional director general (law and order) of Gujarat police, he said that no women was kidnapped (it is a 2002 source),I am sure he would know about that incident better. Also what is the reason behind you adding those tags? The tags should be used as a last resort. You have just started the discussion and have not made more than two points. Also when there is no content in the body then why should someone add it in the lead. I have provided the source that shows that there were no kidnapping. Please remove the tag.-sarvajna (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
    I have always respected you, but if you actually believe that bollocks , well then that respect is gone forever, you can remove the tag if you want I will not complain, all it will do is prove one single thing. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
    DS, get the source, discuss it, even if you are right that only means that the article is incomplete. We do not need a POV tag for that.-sarvajna (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
    It is just another speculation among a cornucopia of unproven allegations. There is also a theory that suggests Hindus (RSS) actually carried out the burning. Some allege it was Modi himself who burned the train. And it goes on.
    I would also like to point to WP:UNDUE. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." That's all. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

    Excuse the delay, source is Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India Princeton University Press p32. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

    A few observation:
    1. Neutrality:
      1. The use of the label "pogrom" while describing the Hindu-Muslim riots of 2002 which was triggered by the slaughter of Hindu pilgrims and included murder of 250+ Hindus and ended with the criminals getting their due share of comeuppance from the court, gives away the neutrality and factual accuracy of the rest of the book. Just in case anyone is wondering, the author of the book is Parvis Ghassem-Fachandi, an assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology at Rutgers.
      2. The abstract of the book doesn't even mention the fact that more than a quarter of those who lost their lives in Godhra riots were Hindus.
    2. In that book itself the author says (page 68), "Some karsevaks, or other travelers, were, it seems, worried that women were abducted. [..] There were no firsthand witnesses to the abduction, and the newspaper cites no evidence other than chatter to support the claim."
    This seems that the karsevaks were the ones who were concerned about the abduction as opposed to being complicit in the crime. It also is apparent that there were no evidence basically to support the claim of kidnapping other than stories and conjectures. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    The source says that the activists tried to kidnap a woman, also why does the article not mention that forensic reports show the fire started inside the train? Everyday Nationalism: Women of the Hindu Right in India p26 Darkness Shines (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    If there is anything missing then make some concrete proposals and discuss it, your question "why does the article not mention.." makes no sense, you are a very experienced editor you know how to make additions to the article. Adding tag because some info which you think is important is not present is not correct, do not add the tag just because you don't like the way it is written.-sarvajna (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    The article is factually incorrect, nor does it maintain a NPOV. Hence the tag. I will fix it but knowing that any fixes will likely be reverted is why I am pointing out the current state of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    Ok, sure please go ahead and propose your fixes. -sarvajna (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    If you have nothing tangible to propose, then why add a tag DS? Propose what you think should be included and we can discuss and include it. BTW, do not paraphrase use the exact line you wish to include and add sources too. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    I could asl the same of you. And I am pointing out major issues here, which are the prelude to what I will do to the article Darkness Shines (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    Your perception of what I am doing at other venues is not really the topic here. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    DS, I have reverted your edit for two reasons, 1) You thought that Banerjee committee's verdict is more important than court's verdict, it might not be your intention but looked like that 2) Banerjee committee's report has been declared unconstitutional, illegal and null and void and its formation as a "colourable exercise of power with mala fide intentions" by the courts. -sarvajna (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    I cited the BBC, which is already used in the lede. The source used before (which you restored) Rediff. 27 February 2002, and does not even support the statements of fact being made. So you removed a source from 2011 for one from 02 which does not even support the sentence? I am reverting you. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    And unsurprisingly I was reverted, as it seems accuracy is now POV. The most recent academic sources say the fire started inside the train. "Subsequent forensic reports indicate that the fire began inside the train" Everyday Nationalism: Women of the Hindu Right in India p26 2011 The Making of India: A Political History "the Ahmadabad-based Forensic Science Laboratory reported that it was impossible for flammable liquid to have been thrown inside" 2012 Darkness Shines (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    To claim that the massacre was an accident after the court's verdict is out and people have been given death penalties, it is horrendous POV, read what Ratnakar wrote. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 16:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    To claim an accident was a massacre after suspect court proceedings is a horrendous POV, I do not care what Ratnakar has written, we are meant to use the most recent and high quality sources available for our articles, you seem to want to ignore them. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    DS, I do not want you to care what I say, the most important thing is that the courts on different occassion have said two things 1. The Banerjee committee is unconstitutional, illegal and null and void 2. The burning was a pre planned conspiracy, I will provide a better source in the lead and also I will be removing the POV tag, I initially thought that you had some genuine concern, now I have started to feel that you intention might be disruption.-sarvajna (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    So you intend to ignore the most recent academic sources? Choose to do so and the POV tag will be there forever. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    The "most recent academic sources" may be relying on outdated information. There may have been forensic reports (probably ordered by the Banerjee committee) that indicated that the fire began inside the train, but as far as I know, no report claims this after the court verdicts. Can you provide more sources to indicate the dates of these reports? Since the most recent and latest available court judgements indicate that the fire was due to Arson, and most mainstream sources say this, I think the lede should mention only this. Details of other inquiries and conflicting reports can be included in the body, however, also with information about any court judgements against them. - Aurorion (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    I have worked on this article's lede before - so I may be biased - but I think it is mostly factually correct, NPOV, and overall appropriate. (Two exceptions: the "2000" figure which may not be a widely accepted figure; and IMO the "31 Muslims" should be changed to "31 people" in the last sentence of paragraph 1.) But perhaps the body can be restructured a bit, to give details of all inquiries including the Banerjee Committee (and including court judgements against this committee). But I think the lede reflects the mainstream consensus on this incident. - Aurorion (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    I already did above, 2011 and 2012. This needs to be reflected in the lede per policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    You used a BBC source of 2011, I used a NDTV 2011. -sarvajna (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    I am sorry, but aren't those the years of publication of those books? Or do the sources explicitly mention that the reports were from 2011 and 2012? In any case, I think more high quality sources (not sure about the authors of these books) are needed to warrant including this in the lede, considering most mainstream sources seem to believe the version given in the court verdicts.
    On the other hand, this source gives some info on the alleged misbehaviour of train passengers which may have provoked the mob (similar to what you mentioned above): "Taking advantage of the alleged misbehaviour by kar sevaks with Muslim girls, the absconding accused Salim Panwala and accused Mehboob Ahmed alias Latiko raised shouts, called Muslim people from the nearby area of Signal Falia, misleading [them] that kar sevaks were abducting Muslim girl from inside the train, and also instructed [them] to stop the train by pulling the chain". However, even if this is to be included, I think it should be in the body only. (The arson and murder is the important issue, the provocation of that - especially something as flimsy as this - is not nearly as important.) Thanks. - Aurorion (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    DS, request you to please provide suggestions and try to arrive at consensus before making edits to the lede. Your recent "not proven conclusively" edit is not a suitable addition to the lede in my opinion. Moreover, I am not sure the source actually supports that statement. I think page 1988 of the book you provided talks about family planning and demographics in India, and not about the subject of this article. Thanks. - Aurorion (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    Failed verification

    Fifty-eight killed in attack on Sabarmati Express Source says:

    ″As the train started moving, someone pulled the emergency chain and it came to a halt near the signal point, where a mob attacked the coaches with petrol and acid bombs, setting them on fire, the official said. Some passengers were trapped inside the coaches and burned to death, he said.

    Mahant Devendradasji, the head priest of a temple in Ahmedabad, who was in the train, said: "A few people began stoning the train without any provocation. As a reaction, people inside the coaches downed shutters."

    The mahant said the attackers numbered over 2,000.″

    --That's an eyewitness's testimony.

    The Organiser reported:

    In an unprovoked and pre-planned attack over 2000 Muslim goons armed with swords, crude-revolvers, petrol bombs, acid bulbs, knives and hockey sticks, attacked the four bogies of the Sabarmati Express and burnt alive 58 Ramsevaks. --Organiser - Volume 53 - Page 104 (2002)

    Hindu Vivek Kendra wrote:

    A mob of 2000 Muslims swarmed on this coach with Petrol cans, stones and sticks. They first threw stones on it and as the doors and windows were closed, threw petrol and set the entire coach on fire. Dalits suffered heavily during Gujarat riots

    The Hindu reported:

    The Nanavati-Mehta judicial inquiry commission has based its conclusion that the Godhra train carnage was a “pre-planned conspiracy” on the recorded evidence of over 100 witnesses, who claimed to having heard a crowd of about a 1,000 Muslims shouting “set the train on fire and kill the Hindus.” The report said “instigating slogans” were also made over loudspeakers from a nearby mosque to attack Hindus. The evidence recorded by the commission also claimed that a mob of Muslims attacked the train and stoned the coaches so heavily that the passengers could not come out. This was to ensure maximum casualties when the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express was “set afire.” The commission, in its 168-page report, said the “conspiracy” was hatched by some local Muslims at the Aman guest house in Godhra the previous night. The conspirators immediately made arrangements for collecting about 140 litres of petrol from a nearby pump on the night of February 26, 2002, the next day when the train arrived in Godhra, Hasan Lala, after forcibly opening the vestibule between coaches S-6 and S-7, entered S-6 and threw burning rags setting it on fire. ——Muslim mob attacked train: Nanavati Commission

    ‘Sandesh’ daily the report was,

    “Today in the morning a monstrous mob of more than 500 having set on fire coaches overcrowded with passengers and more particularly by the Hindu devotees returning after attending Ram Yagna in Ayodhya more than sixty persons were burnt alive.” --Google it up I could not find the link online.

    I could not find the link online but ‘Asian Age’ published a report on 28 February 2002 Headline was : “1500-strong mob butchers 57 Ramsevaks on Sabarmati Express”. It read

    ″As soon as the train stopped a mob of more than 1,500 persons reportedly belonging to a minority community, attacked the passengers travelling in the S-6 coach.″

    (My emphases)

    I hope you really stepped away from your chicaneries. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    Page Protecting

    Some of you guys need to read WP:BRD and try for a bit for D and a lot less R. I have locked the article for 3 days to allow you time to sort out your differences. If you reach a consensus before then, feel free to nudge me or another admin to unlock the article. Spartaz Humbug! 19:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    The editors are blocked! This protection will be needed when they'll come back! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 19:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    Those two were not the only ones blind reverting. I'll be happy to consider lifting the prot if its shown that there will be no further revert warring. Spartaz Humbug! 20:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    A few days of protection won't hurt. Tito, if you think there is anything egregious in the article, just drop a note on this talk page. --regentspark (comment) 20:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    Request for comment

    The following line was recently removed from this article, should it be restored? The source is from an academic publisher and is one of the most recent ones I could find on this incident. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

    Although the actual causes of the fire have yet to be proven conclusively.[3]

    • Is there any online preview of the book? --Tito☸Dutta 22:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    Depends what part of the world you live in, try this link. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    From what I can see, the linked source doesn't say that the causes of the fire have yet to be conclusively proven. It merely says a fire broke out. Is there a specific sentence that categorically states that the origins of the fire have not been conclusively determined? --regentspark (comment) 01:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    "The fire was widely understood to have been started by Muslims, although this has never been conclusively proven" is what the source says. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    The court passed its judgment in Feb 2011, I do not know whether the author of that source has taken the court's judgment into consideration. -sarvajna (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The most up to date publsihed academic discussion I can find describe the events as follows:-
    1. "On February 27, the VHP resolved to begin construction of the Ram Temple. To celebrate the occasion, thousands of karsevaks—Hindu volunteers—converged at the site, including many from Gujarat. Returning back to Ahmedabad, around 2,000 boarded the Sabarmati Express train. As the train reached Godhra railway station in Gujarat, on the morning of February 27, a fierce fire engulfed one coach of the train. The fire claimed fifty-nine lives, mainly karsevaks. Without any investigation, the BJP government immediately issued a press release calling the fire a “pre-planned terrorist attack”; subsequently the government labeled it “inhuman genocide” or “inhuman carnage.”26 In a state where trivial incidents had previously triggered large-scale violence, this was a trigger of immense magnitude, its impact further heightened by inflammatory headlines in the vernacular press. Later investigation refuted the claim of terrorism. The central government’s Ministry of Railways concluded that the fire was accidental.27 Alternatively, and more plausibly, the incident began with an altercation between the karsevaks and Muslim tea vendors at the station, and then escalated when passengers attempted to abduct a Muslim girl; a Muslim crowd then attacked the train.28"[4]
    2. "there are competing versions as to how exactly the fire started in the train bogies. While the Nanavati commission of inquiry (NCI) instated soon after the Gujarat pogrom and completed in 2008 declared that the fire in the train bogies was a premeditated act by Muslim conspirators, the Banerjee commission instated in 2004 questioned the theory of premeditation and called the incident an accident. The latter commission had been ruled illegal by the Gujarat High court in 2006. Both commissions of inquiry are regularly derided as "politically motivated" by respective opposing political constituencies. Uncertainties surrounding the incident remain."[5] Dlv999 (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Dlv999, the conclusion of the Banerjee commission that the above sources are referring to was quashed by the Courts and the courts ruled that the panel was "unconstitutional, illegal and null and void", and declared its formation as a "colourable exercise of power with mala fide intentions". We cannot use the Banerjee commission's report to claim that the fire might be accidental, however the report is still mentioned in the article. -sarvajna (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • In addition to what Sarvajna wrote above, I would like to clarify, The Nanavati and Mehta Commission report states:

      "The Commission is inclined to take the view that such an incident had, in fact, not happened and probably what Sophiabanu has stated was at the insistence of Salim Panwala who had spread a false rumour. It appears to be an attempt to pass off the false rumour as true," - False alarm was raised to gather a mob near the train: Nanavati report

    Furthermore, the newsreport appends,

    "This conclusion is important in the context of the conspiracy theory, as it suggests that there was a plan to set the train on fire and a rumour regarding the abduction of a Muslim girl was spread to mobilise a mob near the train. The conspiracy theory would have suffered if the mob had spontaneously reacted to an attempt to abduct a Muslim girl — a version that had found official endorsement in police reports. While the first chargesheet of the case does not mention Panwala and Sophia, they figure in all the 16 supplementary chargesheets filed later."[7]

    (my emphases)
    There is NO EVIDENCE of any kidnapping. The book by Ghassim Fachandi you quote actually corroborated this (in page 68),

    "Some karsevaks, or other travelers, were, it seems, worried that women were abducted. [..] There were no firsthand witnesses to the abduction, and the newspaper cites no evidence other than chatter to support the claim."

    This seems that the karsevaks were the ones who were concerned about the abduction as opposed to being complicit in the crime. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    I haven't suggested we use the the Banerjee commission report to draw any conclusions. I think that would be interpretation of a primary source that, as editors of Wikipedia, we are prohibited from doing. What I have done is cite very recent high quality academic sources which take into account the Banerjee commission report (also acknowledging it "had been ruled illegal by the Gujarat High court in 2006") as well as other evidence and conclude that "Uncertainties surrounding the incident remain".
    As a Wikipedia editor, you shouldn't be drawing any conclusions from court cases or commissions either. The process is to identify high quality sources for the article and represent what they say accurately and without bias. The points on which they agree, we can describe as facts. Where they disagree we describe the points as "significant views". That is the process. Trying to refute what has been written in high quality RS based on your own personal beliefs about the topic is not part of the process. Dlv999 (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    I am not suggesting that we interpret a primary source, I am saying that the latest sources that you provided are dependant on the Banerjee commission report, I am not drawing any conclusions from the court case but I am considering the court rulings and commenting that the sources are using report which was ruled as illegal. So you want us to consider that source no matter what? Also like I said above the details of Banerjee commission is present in the article. One more point I see that you have removed User:Mrt3366 can I know why you did that. -sarvajna (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    The sources are not "dependant" on the Banerjee commission report. They take the report into account along with other evidence, including the High Court ruling which declared the Banergee commission to be illegal. This is what we rely on high quality sources to do: to sythesize the evidence and draw conclusions (because we as Wiki editors are not allowed to do it.)
    "I am considering the court rulings and commenting that the sources are using report which was ruled as illegal." - Sure and the RS acknowledge that it was ruled illegal and still find that it is relevant as a piece of evidence in the discussion. As published RS, that is their call to make. As Wikipedia editors I don't think it is within our remit to second guess what evidence high quality sources should or should not be considering. We should be identifying the high quality sources and then accurately representing what they say in the article, even if it conflicts with our own personal beliefs about the issues. I think your approach to source analysis is backwards: you are assessing the reliability of the source based on how it conforms with your own personal understanding of the topic and issues surrounding it. Of course there are countless legitimate reasons for questioning the reliability of sources. But I don't think original research/beliefs of individual editors about the topic is one of them.
    @Mr T, as I discussed with you at 2002 Gujarat violence, I don't think journalism is a good source for articles about historical events, especially contentious ones such as these. Our policies and guidance (see WP:HISTRS, WP:SOURCES) tell us to base these articles on academic scholarship. I don't think it is legitimate to cite journalism to try to refute better quality academic sources. Regarding Ghassim Fachandi's comment about the kidnapping. That is fine. High quality RS can disagree on points, and in a topic like this they most likely will disagree a lot. Our job is not to try to identify the one "true" narrative, it is to represent all of the significant views that have been published on the topic (even the ones we may personally find unconvincing). Dlv999 (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    it was ruled illegal and still find that it is relevant as a piece of evidence in the discussion - A source, IMHO, is not of high-quality if it bases its arguments on down-right illegal and spurious reports while ignoring otherwise relevant conflicts of interests of some of the complainants, witnesses[8] and accusers[9].

    ″I don't think journalism is a good source ″ - Would you care to explain why you think so? "Our job is not to try to identify the one "true" narrative" - stop attacking straw-men. I never argued that our job is to try to identify the one "true" narrative.
    "is to represent all of the significant views" - that is what I am telling you all along. Thanks for admitting it. WP:HISTRS is an essay and has not been formally adopted as a guideline or policy. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

    Unfortunately I believe your strongly held convictions on this topic and related topics are preventing you from editing in a neutral manner consistent with the policies and purposes of the encyclopedia. You are dismissing a source because it does not adopt your personal interpretation of the meaning of the report and the associated Court case.
    WP:SOURCES states that: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history..."
    WP:HISTRS: "Historical articles on wikipedia should use scholarly works where possible....Historical scholarship is: Books published by academic and scholarly presses by historians"
    Yes WP:HISTRS is an essay not policy. But it is an essay grounded in the core policies of the encyclopedia with a lot of community support. I have edited many historical articles on controversial topics. If you go to WP:RSN on a topic like this they will point you to this document, and the advice you will receive will be based on this document. I am not saying that journalism is not RS. I am saying it is not the preferred source for a historical article like this, the preferred sources are academic scholarship. I don't think it is legitimate to try to exclude significant published academic sources on the basis of arguments resting on journalist sources.
    If you are not trying to identify one true narrative, why do you keep trying to refute what has been written in academic sources I am citing with your own original research and citations of journalism? Why not simply say "Okay, this is a significant view published in RS that should be included in the article"?. Dlv999 (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    Again we are straying away from the subject here

    The subject is actual causes of the fire and the conclusiveness of theories. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

    Published RS have been produced offering different explanations for the causes of the fire and stating that "Uncertainties surrounding the incident remain". This should be reflected in our article according to our WP:NPOV policy. Dlv999 (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

    Dlv999 As Wikipedia editors I don't think it is within our remit to second guess what evidence high quality sources should or should not be considering : We just cannot use everything that is published, when these sources use illegal report I would not consider them high quality. I am not saying what the source should consider, it is upto the author of that source but when they use wrong reports they become wrong sources.Sure and the RS acknowledge that it was ruled illegal and still find that it is relevant as a piece of evidence in the discussion Like I said again and again we have mentioned about those reports in the article (This might be the third time I am telling this, please check the article).I think your approach to source analysis is backwards: you are assessing the reliability of the source based on how it conforms with your own personal understanding of the topic and issues surrounding it I am sure every editor needs to have some understanding about the subject he/she is editing, let us not question each other's personal beliefs here. Comment on the content if you want. Lastly I understand that you think that Banerjee commission report, it is very much included in the article. -sarvajna (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

    You have stated your belief that because the source takes into account a report that was ruled illegal by the high court as one piece of evidence in drawing conclusions about the events it should not be considered reliable. This kind of editorial process is not consistent with WP:NPOV. We are supposed to include all significant views published in RS (even if we personally find them unconvincing or objectionable). Your approach of excluding RS that do not conform to your understanding of the issues means that the article will not include all significant views published in RS, but only the ones that conform to your understanding of the events. This is not a personal attack, I am simply commenting the approach you have taken in this discussion. Dlv999 (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    The courts quashed the conclusions of the Banerjee Committee, now what do you understand from this? The courts said that the conclusions were wrong or contrary to facts. All that you said about my understanding and my approach applies to you as well. I am using Judicial verdicts and you are using opinions of academicians. -sarvajna (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    As a Wikipedia editor I don't draw any conclusions from the Court Case. That would be a primary source and drawing conclusions from a primary source is prohibited. What we are supposed to do is look for secondary sources and let them synthesize and draw conclusions from primary sources. My approach is consistent with policy and practice, which regards academic experts, published by scholarly presses as the best sources for articles on historical events. What do the best secondary sources say about the Court case and its relevance to the topic of this article? That is important. What you or I think is not important, in fact discussing our own opinions is counterproductive. I am simply trying to identify what the best sources are for this topic based on agreed Wikipedia policies and guidance, and then reflect those sources in the article. Dlv999 (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    Stop it, nobody is citing the court documents or verdict itself, we are all using secondary sources. Don't obfuscate simple things. Nick once wrote while responding to an almost identical concern, "No one is quoting directly from the SIT report(s). The sources used are from several secondary and reliable news organizations which have reported on the findings of the Special Investigative Team (a Supreme Court appointed body). That is "110%" acceptable on Wikipedia." Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)″This kind of editorial process is not consistent with WP:NPOV.″ - It's very open to interpretations. Could you explain why you think so? Don't just assert personal opinion as facts, vindicate them please.

      "We are supposed to include all significant views published in RS" - who arguing that we shouldn't include all significant views published in RS? I am against giving them equal validity, that is all. Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted theory. Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. Now what don't you understand? BTW WP:IRS says, ""News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

    I already explained the point. Our WP:NPOV policy states that we represent all significant views published by RS. sarvajna is saying that a source is not reliable because it does not fit their personal understanding of the issues. If we are to accept this proposition it will lead to absurdity: we represent all viewpoints published in RS, but RS are only reliable if they fit the personal views of a specific editors. The outcome of this line of reasoning is that we only represent the viewpoints that are consistent with the views of the editor in question. This is why I say this kind of process is fundamentally inconsistent with the policies and purposes of our encyclopaedia.
    You need to present evidence for your unsupported claims regarding weight. Where is the evidence that the cited sources are a minority position, let alone a fringe minority position? Where is the alternate body of academic scholarship disputing the scholarship that has been cited in this thread? So far I haven't seen a scrap of evidence, and without evidence it is simply an unsupported assertion that can be dismissed without further comment. Dlv999 (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I will give you an example, a court has given a verdict that a person X has killed a person Y. Now do you even think about considering the court verdict? or to say will you consider the secondary sources which covers the court's verdict? When you write it in an article that X has killed someone, it is not your conclusion, you are just stating the fact or a conclusion reached by the courts and conclusions by courts have more weightage than opinions. I am not taking the direct Judgment from the courts, I am using secondary sources which tells us about those court verdict. This is one, have you read the article? There are many more secondary sources which say there.-sarvajna (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    Dlv999 I don't think you have anything else to say here apart from making accusations against editors.sarvajna is saying that a source is not reliable because it does not fit their personal understanding of the issues I never said that source is not reliable because it does not fit my personal understanding of the issues. Show a diff where I said that or strike it off. I said that I would not consider them high quality source because the sources are using a report which was proven to be wrong/contradicting the facts. Also like I said there are secondary sources which say that I am not using any court verdicts to draw conclusion. The Banerjee report has been given due weight in the article. If you do not have anything else to say apart from indulging in the commentary that only you are following the policies and others are airing their personal opionion then you can take it elsewhere may be on my or MrT's talk page.-sarvajna (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    If you have an alternative body of academic scholarship which calls into doubt the academic sources that have been cited so far in this discussion then I would be very interested to see it. Other than that I agree this conversation is going nowhere and I am going to spend my time collating more academic sources to support the disputed material. Dlv999 (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    No academic sources can be considered more worthy than a court verdict, as I said due weight has been given to that report and I do not know what your objections are.I had asked you to provide the diffs or strike your comment. I hope you will do that. -sarvajna (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    As already discussed, a court decision is a primary source and you would need secondary RS to interpret the decision and tells us the importance of the Court decision in relation to the topic of our article. If you have a good academic source that says the findings should be ignored and have no relevance to the topic because of the court ruling you can add that to the article. But it does not give you the right to censor another significant viewpoint in academic RS that takes the findings into account and concludes that "Uncertainties surrounding the incident remain". As it stands you have not cited one solitary scrap of scholarship. All I am getting is journalist reports. Journalism is not considered particularly reliable for articles on specialist topics such as medicine, science, law, or as in this case, history: for these topics we use academic experts published under academic imprint or in peer reviewed journals. I certainly will not strike the comment, which was based on your statements made in comments timestamped: 07:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC); 09:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC), 11:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC), none of which contained any citations of sources at all, your citation only came after I had made the point. Unfortunately I don't think your basis for excluding the RS under discussion is consistent with our WP:NPOV policy and I have explained why. Dlv999 (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)@Sarvajna: It seems Dlv999 has already made his mind up about us two. He says about me that my "strongly held convictions on this topic and related topics are preventing [me] from editing in a neutral manner" and you're not neutral either, according to him, "you are assessing the downgrading the reliability of the source to suit your own agenda. I don't think I can continue a discussion with this kind of bad faith accusations being thrown at me. As it seems, I am already indicted in his mind by virtue of the credence I attach to Indian penal system. (cf. WP:FOC) Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Nobody is directly citing the court verdict. We are all using secondary sources. And as I said above, that is fully acceptable. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Seems that Dlv999 is not interested in listening to anyone , he says that you would need secondary RS to interpret the decision while I have provided source and have also told that there are secondary sources in the article. I wonder whether he has really read the article or just interested in making some random comments. These are the diff that he is referring to [10] , [11] , [12] and if you read it you will know that I have never said that source is not reliable because it does not fit my personal understanding of the issues on the other hand I gave him good reasons why the sources cannot be called as high quality source. I would only consider that he is either not reading my comments correctly or worse he is lying. I do not see any merit in discussing with him as he shows complete lack of understanding of what we are saying. For the last time I will repeat what I said, Banarjee report is present in the article, it is also written that the conclusions were quashed by the court and they are supported by suitable RS. It is very common to evaluate sources before they are included, just because they were published doesn't mean we include them, it would show complete lack of competence. When a source say that "Uncertainties surrounding the incident remain" , I would like to know how the source reached such conclusions because the court verdict says something else(again the secondary sources informs us about the court verdict). -sarvajna (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    I think it would be interesting to put the source to WP:RSN and see what uninvolved editors experienced in evaluating source reliability think of your rationale for judging the source as unreliable (and my rationale for rejecting your position). Dlv999 (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    Who is saying that the source is not reliable? Who is doing that? We're against a certain way of framing the assertion, that's all. With this in mind, WP:NPOV/N would be more appropriate. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 19:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    If you are happy to acknowledge that the source is reliable for the two quoted statements: (1)"there are competing versions as to how exactly the fire started in the train bogies." (2) "Uncertainties surrounding the incident remain." I would be happy to agree there is no need to take the issue to WP:RSN. Dlv999 (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

    Sources

    1. ^ "Godhra verdict: 31 convicted in Sabarmati Express burning case". The Times Of India. 22 February 2011. Retrieved 24 February 2011.
    2. ^ Burke, Jason (22 February 2011). "Godhra train fire verdict prompts tight security measures". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 24 February 2011.
    3. ^ Jeffery, Craig (2011). Isabelle Clark-Decès (ed.). A Companion to the Anthropology of India. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 1988. ISBN 978-1405198929.
    4. ^ "The Political Logic of Ethnic Violence: The Anti-Muslim Pogrom in Gujarat, 2002" (PDF). Politics & Society. 40: 483–516. December 2012. doi:10.1177/0032329212461125. Retrieved 19/06/2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
    5. ^ Parvis Ghassem-Fachandi (8 April 2012). Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India. Princeton University Press. p. 32. ISBN 978-1-4008-4259-9. Retrieved 19 June 2013.

    Neutrality

    The lede has no mention of the three other investigations which conclude the fire started inside the coach. There is no mention of how the usage of POTA has been criticised. There is no mention of how the Nanavati commision was compromised, expose by thekla should be here per NPOV. A lot of other stuff but this will do to begin with. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

    Since the final investigations and court rulings overrule the others, I don't think info about other investigations need to be given in the lede. (They are, rightly, given in the body.) I think the current version of the lede is appropriate, NPOV and gives as much information as is necessary for an intro section. However, I think the body could be improved. The different sections about all the investigations could be rewritten to present a more complete picture. Thanks. - Aurorion (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    You may wish to read NPOV again, nothing overrules anything on Wikipedia, all views need to be shown for NPOV. Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    The lede is not the place to show "all" views. The lede should just provide a concise overview, and the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic. "All views" can be given in the body. - Aurorion (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    I would recommend you read WP:LEDE as well. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Please note the part I have bolded. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    Sure, but I don't think there are any "prominent" controversies that are relevant here. WP:LEDE also says that "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". If you think any additions need to be made to this article's lede, please give your suggestions here, we can discuss them. Thanks. - Aurorion (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    You are of the opinion that four investigations said the fire started inside the train and only one says it started outside is not a tad controversial then? And that this fact ought to be omitted from the lede? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    I don't want to be the judge of what's controversial and what's not. Recent mainstream reliable sources seem to accept the court judgement that said the fire was caused due to arson. Mentioning other investigations in the lede is not necessary in my opinion. That said, if you feel other investigations should be included too, please provide suggestions as I mentioned above. But any additions should be made in such a way that arson still has the greatest emphasis. - Aurorion (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    The most recent scholarly sources would disagree with your assertion that it was arson. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

    Causes of incident

    Are disputed by two other investigations, policy dictates we do not state as fact in the info box the results of just one. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

    The cause of the fire have been proven but have been disputed in other sources, it is different to write Although the actual causes of the fire have yet to be proven conclusively(emphasis mine).It is proven in the courts, things are not proven in books. I have no interest in having an edit war with you which ofcourse you seem to have mastered, I do not have time to deal with you. You clearly do not want to hear someone else's argument.-sarvajna (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    How many times must you be told that the court result does not actually matter? We have a NPOV policy, this means that as the cause of the fire is disputed we cannot state as fact that arson was the cause. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    IMO, not proven is different from disputed by academicians. I do not have any issues when you say that it is proven in court and disputed by academicians.-sarvajna (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    It was disputed by two three other investigations, not just academics. Forgot the CCT also said it was an accident. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I think the mainstream consensus (media/courts at least) is that the cause was arson. Hence, I think the infobox should say that. However, maybe a section on this can be added to the article - maybe above the "Riot background" - which lists the various theories on the incident. Right now the "Riot background", "Attack" and "Conspiracy" sections which are at the top all seem to assert that there is no doubt or conflicting theory on this. - Aurorion (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry but I disagree, the mainstream academic sources all appear to say that the cause is unknown. 18:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

    3O

    I'm happy to try to offer a third opinion, but I am not quite sure the nature of the dispute and the arguments from different sides. If someone would please present the proposed options and the rationale for/against each (try to be concise), that could help quite a lot. Thanks.Keihatsu talk 20:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

    @Keihatsu: This was removed. I restored it as it is academically sourced and per NPOV it stays. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

    Thank you, Darkness Shines. I am not sure how to reconcile the statement in the text that "Investigations and court rulings [...] established that the fire was caused by arson by a mob of 1000-2000 people" with the assertion that "the actual causes of the fire have yet to be proven conclusively." Unless I have missed something, these appear to be fairly mutually exclusive. I don't know the subject well enough to determine which statement is correct. It appears from reading this article that there are some divergent views on the causes of the fire, and some (perhaps less credible) investigations produced different results. It might be better to rephrase both these sentences to reflect that fact that, while investigations found that the fire was an act of arson and that 31 Muslims were convicted for the crime, the causes of the fire continued to be disputed in some circles (or whatever—you know the facts better than me, but just make sure to give appropriate weight to different views). Does that make sense? Keihatsu talk 05:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

    3O/2

    Response to third opinion request:
    Much of this debate looks like its about the infobox. Well, the "civil conflict" infobox is just going to lead to continued dispute. In this case, the {{Infobox news event}} is the better solution. The parameters allow for more info (like the trial, commission, investigation), which is supported by the article text. Most importantly, it requires that you add info in a NPOV fashion. Finally, the article needs cleanup in grammar, punctuation, etc. – S. Rich (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC))

    Nanavati-Mehta Commission

    I've spent the last few days going over grammar and language for the Nanavati-Mehta Commission section, but it now seems to me that the entire section is somewhat confusing, and uneven in the weight it gives to specific aspects of the case. I will work on an alternative version. Does anybody have any objections/suggestions? Thanks! Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

    The changes I have made were as follows. I am not hung up on the precise nature of my edits, I am trying to address some larger issues, so please don't revert this without looking at what I'm trying to do.

    1) Moved the "Inquiries" section to before the "Trial" section. The inquiries preceded the trial, both chronologically as well as logically.

    2) Merged the two Nanavati commission sections. Having two sections about exactly the same thing makes little sense.

    3) Removed references to accused individuals other than the "main accused", who was the maulvi. What makes the ones mentioned more notable than the others? the reference given to support that is simply a paraphrasing of Nanavati himself, with no notability statement from TOI.

    4) Removed presentations of Nanavati's description of events in wikipedia's voice.

    5) Removed a couple of incorrect references; for example, the TOI article titled "Probe Panel inspects burnt coach of Sabarmati Express" actually linked to a different article (probably accidentally).

    6) Changed the title of the section to the "Nanavati-Shah Commission" since that is what it was for the majority of its term.

    7) Cleaned up language and grammar.

    8) Added references for the section describing the findings of the Banerjee commission, and modifying the text to reflect those sources.

    Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

    Problems with Lede/infobox

    Apologies for dragging up an old debate, but after digging through the archives it seems as though there was never consensus on this, so I thought it might be worth another shot. I feel the following issues need to be addressed: 1) The infobox states that the targets of the burning were hindu pilgrims. Given that there is still dispute over the causes of the fire, can we make such a statement? An accident has no targets, and prominent people still claim it was an accident (whatever the court may have "proved").

    2) We need to reconcile the fact that we are presenting only the Nanavati Commission findings in the lede, with the statement "causes of the fire have yet to be proven conclusively". As per WP:LEDE it seems as though we cannot include all the investigations in there. Could we do something like "While the causes of the fire are still widely disputed, the official commission has concluded....etc" followed by "the court convicted [] based on the investigation of the official commission" or something like that? Open to suggestions. Please discuss this; its pretty clear that nobody was really happy with the previous versions.

    Thanks! Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

    Tehelka magazine sting

    Appears to have vanished? "The findings of the commission were called into question by a video recording released by Tehelka magazine, in which Arvind Pandya, counsel for the Gujarat government, stated that the findings of the Shah-Nanavati commission would support the view presented by the BJP, as Shah was "their man" and Nanavati could be bribed" Will be putting this back. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

    Searched through the history (I was worried I might have accidentally deleted when I majorly revamped this article a few months back) and I could not find it in the history, even upto a couple of years ago. It's a glaring omission, be my guest and add it. I'd be happy to do it, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

    Nussbaum

    Nussbaum is not a neutral source, and it is wrong to say in the article that she is a historian when she is not.
    In my opinion, she can be quoted, but she she should not be used to support controversial facts.
    See the extract from a long review below, that shows that she is not a neutral source when it comes to Indian politics.--Calypsomusic (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    There is no requirement that sources be neutral, only that they be reliable. And that she is.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

    "As I continued reading, however, I found myself starting to pull back from the trajectory of Nussbaum’s analysis. I myself have researched much of the same material that Nussbaum has .... but my findings are rather dramatically different from Nussbaum’s. What began to bother me about Nussbaum’s trajectory is that she is really not interested in the general issue of “religious violence” and the manner in which religious violence links up with religious sensibilities of one kind or another, whether perpetrated by the left or the right in India. What she is really interested in is mounting a political assault on what she identifies as the “Hindu Right,” and in this regard Nussbaum takes no prisoners. As the book unfolds, the Hindu Right becomes responsible not only for the tragedy at Godhra, but for anti-secularism, communalism, misogyny, casteism, excessive male aggression, and the distortion of history. As the book proceeds, the prose grows livid. Says Nussbaum: “Domination over Hindu women and violence against Muslim women lie deep in the Hindu right’s political consciousness” (187). Or again, “Fucking a Muslim woman just means killing her. Instead of murder necessitated by and following sex, the murder just is the sex. Women are killed by having large metal objects inserted into their vaginas” (209). “The Hindu male does not even need to dirty his penis with the contaminating fluids of the Muslim woman. He can fuck her with the clean nonporous metal weapon that kills her, while he himself remains pure. Nothing is left to inspire fear” (209).

    To put the matter directly, Nussbaum’s analysis lacks balance, nuance, and civility. In short, it is not only unpersuasive; it is a disservice to her subject.

    ....but there is hardly a paragraph about A. B. Vajpayee, L. K. Advani, K. L. Malkani, Murli Manohar Joshi, or any number of other more moderate spokespersons for a conservative Hindu politics.

    ...Unfortunately, however, there is very little “public poetry” or “mutual respect” in Nussbaum’s own treatment of the “Hindu Right.”

    • The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future. By Martha C. Nussbaum
    • Review by Gerald James Larson

    in Journal of the American Academy of Religion Published on behalf of American Academy of Religion Volume 77, issue 4, pages 990-993 Published in print December 2009 | ISSN: 0002-7189 Published online October 2009 | e-ISSN: 1477-4585 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfp061 The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future. By Martha C. Nussbaum

    This said, she makes huge leaps of argument without substantiating them, provides zero context and stands accused of several factual inaccuracies. This makes me query her credentials as a lawyer-academic. Nussbaum lacks the rigor one would have expected of a senior academic.

    http://desicritics.org/2007/05/24/024708.php

    Nussbaum is a perfectly reliable source. And desicritics is not. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    Nussbaum is more reliable than any one-off book review. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    Desicritics is not reliable sources. But if the author had pointed out the inconsistencies and lies in the book of Nussbaum, then her reliability can be questioned. Please take it over to Reliable sources Noticeboard WP:RSN - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    One of the reviews is by Indologist GJ Larson. --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    On the contrary, Nussbaum fills every RS requirement as currently formulated. Specifically, a well-known and well-respected academic published by a reputed academic publisher. Moreover, the content has been in the article for months, and has only been brought up now, during the elections, I suspect as part campaign to sanitize sensitive pieces. Given the circumstances, the burden of proof lies on those questioning the source. Take it to the noticeboard by all means. Till any consensus is formed to the contrary, the source remains. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    Vanamonde93 All of our interest is to have a balanced WP article. Be open for discussion. Prodigyhk (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    Correct me, If I'm wrong. But, Calypsomusic (talk · contribs) has joined Wikipedia very recently (if you View history of his User page). So, he taking up this issue does not sound related to elections, but a geniune questioning of this source. - Vatsan34 (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Godhra_train_burning/Archive_1&oldid=1139195966"