Talk:2002 Gujarat riots/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Books as reference

I just want to know that if someone mentions or quotes some books or any other sources as reference which are not available for free reading in the internet , ( unable to verify the authenticity) . How much can we trust the source. I can check websites , but i can't purchase those fat costly books to verify that whether it is rightly quoted. At least there must be some internet reference where the book is reviewed by some respectable book reviewers. Because if i write a book and publish it with my own printing press and mention lots of fake events which didn't took place . If i want to write any article about Crusades I have to trust academic books only but if i write about July 2009 Ürümqi riots then I think news channels and newspapers are more than enough . I am not saying that this article is biased --CosmicEmperor (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

As WP:RS explains, Wikipedia reports the scholarly consensus. So, ideally, one should have read a number of scholarly works and formed an opinion about the scholarly consensus to write a Wikipedia article. That is of course difficult. Barring that, several editors might bring their scholarly input to the article, and we figure out a consensus through discussion. For an established contentious article like this, you can assume that this has been done a long time ago. I think this article is quite trustworthy. If we don't trust it, it is probably due to our own biases. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be better if two or three books mention the same thing . One writer is getting too much attention here . I have seen lots of TV shows related to Gujarat riots in English and Hindi news channels and never he was consulted by the news anchor . Indian and International news channels are not so unreliable that one writer become so much important . If anyone quotes Asghar Ali Engineer 's works or People's Union for Civil Liberties , i would trust them . But This Vardharajan alone can't be trusted. At least someone should back Vardarajan's claim with some other scholarly work. Two editors ZORDANLIGHTER and Darkness Shines (who have discussed above) turned out to be sock masters . Darkness Shines even has support from so many people. Even respectable editors like Darkness Shines can't be trusted. After some times other skeletons might come out of closet CosmicEmperor (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Varadarajan has been quoted only once, as far as I can see, and that for an article co-authored with Rajdeep Sardesai, on the role of media. Being a senior editor at the Times of India, he is certainly well-qualified to write about the role of media. What is the issue you find with it? Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 April 2015

42.113.165.17 (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done No request has been made. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Attack on Hindus

The related template.. I am okay if it is removed(pending discussion), it isn't adding to the article (just like the other stupid template). I am against the bullying and new new edit summaries to revert eagerly without any discussion. I know I am part of the issue, I should have brought my concern on talk page at first revert itself. For the sake of argument it simply cannot be denied that Hindus were attacked and it is violence against Hindus. It would be utterly pointless to argue that is not the case. Of course I agree there were more deaths in Muslim brethren but that doesn't annihilate the other narration. I have reverted now to my pov but am speaking in a way which expresses my thoughts to the possibility of omitting it too. There is a clear trend of brute forcing edits without making attempt at discussion any time, so I choose to return in kind. It is hurting everyone, we can do better. Kautilya3, for example, doesn't announce but does make amends in his way when informed that he is being too personal and aggressive. We all can remain-mutually-respectful/keep-our-pride and be sensitive towards others. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the train burning as a rational for including the template. Partly because it is not reasonably established that the burning was because of an attack and partly because, even if that is the case, the riots themselves were mainly targeting muslims. They aren't really an example of violence against Hindus. --regentspark (comment) 16:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The train burning is not a rationale for including the template here, because these riots have been thoroughly documented as targeting Muslim people. In fact, the template itself should be deleted, because it is a highly incoherent selection of articles. There is a space for helpful infoboxes about violence directed at Hindus, but this is not it. And because that statement won't be taken seriously without support, here is my conception of how that should be broken up; there are several sources documenting violence directed at Hindus in countries where they are a minority. These would make sense to club together. Violence again Hindus in India, on the other hand, has frequently been of either the retaliotory or the terrorist kind; it makes sense to group these together, but not with the Bangladesh genocide, and things like that. The sources also divide in this way. If people are actually interested, this is a discussion that can be had on the talk page of the template. What is certain is that the current template is unhelpful (even the person who put it there agrees); so it should be removed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with RegentsPark and Vanamonde93 that the train burning cannot be used as the reason, because that is not the focus of this article, it is here for completeness and the relevant article is different from this. But when I read the 2002_Gujarat_riots#Attacks_on_Hindus section, it has sufficient and credible sources that makes me think it isn't unreasonable to say there was violence against Hindus too. I also agree that the template needs cleanup/nuking. We haven't set a clear marker of how much violence is a lot of violence and I assumed that violence against Muslims in the same time period does not inherently reduce the intensity of the Violence against Hindus, it remains as acute as if there were no such accompanying incident to reckon, is this understanding flawed? Violence is violence after all, and the retaliation angle is incomplete without again bringing in the train burning incident. Which various judiciary systems, over several years, established beyond doubt that it was preplanned. Forensic saying there were marks of stone pelting and the evident conviction of 30 Muslim for the incident is also a sad reality. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Violence of any kind is deplorable, yes, but relative number unfortunately matters, not in a moral sense, but a logistical one; when we write the article, we give relative weight. The riots are described as anti-Muslim violence in a vast number of sources; the attacks on Hindus are, by comparison, mentioned by very few, and never in the sense that the riots were "attacks on Hindus." The mention is enough for some coverage, not for a template about violence against Hindus. The template is currently a royal pain, but appropriately split and pruned, it might actually be useful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Paul Brass describes that the majority of Hindu casualties were caused by police, not by retaliating Muslims. The Godra train burning was ofcourse violence against Hindus, but that was a separate event and was not part of the riots.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I undid you. You are only exemplifying brute forcing. Commenting here and reverting immediately is not "discussion". Violence Agains hindus is not about murders done by Muslims, even if it is by police it is violence. I already replied for train incident. I also mentioned another section and my concern. There is no "obfuscation" as you point, the article content has remained same. If you can participate in discussion and then revert after others get some time to respond it still makes sense but appearing on the scene with zero talk page participation and when pointed to talk page reverting yet again immediately is not discussion. And I see you exhibit same thing on Talk:Nellie_massacre, there you want 'inclusion' of new content without waiting for consensus and here you want 'removal'. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

[1] You have reverted 3rd time in less than 24h. I am not at 3RR but I will not revert. I see you misconstruing 3RR rule in your favor regularly. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course you are at 3rr. I see you lying and misconstruing just about everything regularly, which is why I am not going back down for you. [edit: to be fair you are only at 2rr today, your first revert was yesterday, then your firned Sarvajna intervened on your behalf, but the tag team game is easy to play as you now see. Btw. usually when these things end up at the notice boards it is obvious POV pushing SPA editors that end up on the short end of a sanction.]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is evidence to back my statement that you misconstrue 3RR rule in your favor: You are advocating reverts in your favour and edit-warr`ing and said this: diff But this was the first revert [2]. You misrepresented WP:BRD to suit your POV. WP:AGF, on whose 'behalf' then you participated? Mindless personal attacks. This is the second time you allege SPA. Why not open an SPI case? --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

SPA means "Single Purpose Account" (i.e. an account dedicated to advancing a single POV) SPI means "sock puppet investigation". I don't think you are a sock puppet. But you clearly are an account dedicated to advocating a hindutva POV, and you act in consort with a group of similar accounts to skew wikipedias coverage of India and Hinduism in favor of the hindutva POV. I have no reason to assume good faith from you, you have amply demonstrated that such good faith would be unwarranted. I am also under no obligation to be consistent in my argumentation, and the two cases you compare are different. You yourself is advocating deleting the "antimuslim violence" template while inserting the "anti-hindu violence" template across a slew of articles. Hypocrite much? Also I resent your claim that my personal attacks are mindless, they are not, they are fully conscious and deliberate descriptions of what I consider to be the reality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

With 5k edits I am SPA? And you are under no obligation to be consistent? Hence you distort the intent of BRD? No one can help if you are intent on finding a hidden motive for every edit. See it from the other side, basically anyone who doesn't align with your POV is advocating hindutva POV according to you. And do you, then, consider yourself a Muslim POV pusher? No, right? --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The only page in your list of top edited pages that is not directly related to pro hindutva pov pushing is your edits to Starscream. The rest of your mainspace edits are either adding positive content or censoring criticism to RSS related pages or adding critiques to pages about RSS/BJPs political opponents and to write negative things about Muslims in India. I also consider your edits to Sanskrit trying to boost its importance (Sanskrit is of course considered a divine language in the Hindutva philosophy) are also closely related to the POV. So yes, SPA is the right word. I have certainly been called a Muslim POV pusher by your Hindutva friends before, is that an an avenue you would like to explore further?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with improving Sanskrit, can you find even one misleading edit out of ~90 I have made there? Have you seen Heartbleed that I got to GA? And the several articles I reviewed for GA? --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

None of those articles are among your most edited, meaning that you have less than 30 edits to each of those "many articles". How you can get an article to GA with less than 30 edits certainly puzzles me, but your main pattern of editing is clear even if you occasionally stray into more hobby related articles. For the record, your edits to Sanskrit do not seem problematic but do constitute a clear improvement of the article - the interest is however well in line with a general hindutva political POV. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

As has become frequent in my interactions with him and with the others who are involved in this kerfuffle, there is a complete misunderstanding of NPOV. A "neutral" point of view does not mean giving equal weight to the BJP view and its opponents. The BJP view counts for nothing, and the views of the other political parties counts for nothing. We reflect scholarly sources, and that is it. If the BJP sees all mainstream scholars as Marxists, that is their problem, not ours (and the BJP is hardly the only one to say such things; the INC is pretty damn terrible, too). If people understood that, then this sort of crap would never happen. In the present instance, the predominant view, by far, is that this was violence against Muslims. Arguing any other way is thoroughly disingenuous. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

BJP view -- who said that except you? No response to actual discussion and responding to self-propped straw man. If Maunus sees all views differing with his as Hindutva POV that is his problem, and same goes for you. The discussion went ashtray and we are back at hammering our view instead of discussion/response. Isn't Political/Ethnic the mainstream reason in Nellie episode then? 3RR to keep new addition of template there and 3RR to remove addition of template here? --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Maunus:SPA or no SPA, if you have issues take it to the notice board. Vanamonde, I understand you are upset about your GA nomination issue and you are painting a lot of comments with a link to the GA page/AE page. One. If we want to have a template on Anti-Muslim Violence then why not on Anti-Hindu violence? Train Burning alone cannot be the rational may be but Train burning and the the attacks on the Hindus(documented in the article) were part of the riots. Also in that revert by Maunus which he termed as "content removed in attempt to try to obfuscate the anti-muslim element in the riot" I removed some content from the section "Attack on Hindus" I am not sure about the placement and also the importance of that content, that is the reason why I had made the edit. Can someone explain me how it is a attempt to obfuscate the anti-muslim element in the riot? -sarvajna (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: Vanamonde didn't say "BJP view," Calypsomusic did. Throughout the BJP GA nomination fiasco, you participated in the debates and cheered for Calypso. Never once did you point out to him that he was being wrong policy-wise. Since you didn't, we assume that it is your position as well. While I don't recall you asking specifically for BJP views, you have fought for S. Gurumurthy, a Sangh Parivar leader who was driving both the RSS and BJP agenda in the Centre. And, you have repeatedly fought for Koenraad Elst, a disciple of Sita Ram Goel, who in turn was too right wing even for the RSS to get published in the Organiser. On pages like Vidya Bharati and ABISY, you have fought both Vanamonde and me to include the organisations' own views instead of third party views. In short, you have been trying to put Hindutva views on Wikipedia all along, and Maunus's charge stands. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This is hardly a venue to discuss behaviour however just a small point, nothing wrong in including the organisations view points but there is something wrong in including "only" organisations view point. -sarvajna (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

AmritasyaPutra started the discussion on behaviour. He needs to deal with the responses. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no comments on your analysis of me. The discussion concerning the article edits can be discussed. --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The bulk of the sources we have call this violence against Muslims. It is not an example of anti-Hindu violence. What matters is the general pattern, and the general pattern in this case is very clear. It would be equally silly to plaster the violence against Muslims template in the "Amarnath Massacre" article, for instance. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This is repeating what you said earlier. I had specifically mentioned Attacks_on_Hindus and Sarvajna also asked a question, which has not been touched at all. Discussion is not equal to comment&revert. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

And you, of course, have been discussing before you revert every time, I suppose? My argument is not different, because it is a common sense argument, it is backed by the sources that take an overarching view of the riots, and because you have not refuted it. Some Muslims were killed in the train burning; you want to put the violence against Muslims template there, too? Some Hindus were killed in World War II; how about there as well? The conflict needs to have been predominantly directed at one community for the template to make sense. Here, it does not. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Everyone, including me, has responded to the train incident. You can drop it, respond to what has been asked. Evading actual question and resurrecting your own strawman repeatedly is unhelpful. I don't know what you mean by "muslims where killed in the train burning" or your "world war II". No one here is discussing those, you can discuss on those article talk pages if you wish. --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I did. The basic point is that Hindu deaths were relatively few, and were not a part of the broad pattern of violence (this is not the train burning I am referring to, but everything else, as well). This point has been made by RP, by Maunus, and by myself, and it has not been answered. To look at it another way, there are a number of sources calling this anti-Muslim violence; not one referring to the whole phenomenon as anti-Hindu violence. You have not responded to this point, not above, and not here. Since you persist in not hearing this argument, and in not providing the source, I've removed the template again. You may edit-war it in once more if you wish. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Quoting you: You may edit-war it in once more if you wish. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Forget about world war every earth quake, bus accident, rape, theft results in the deaths of Hindus/Muslims and other. It would be a joke if someone calls it an Anti-Hindu/Anti-Muslim violence. However if you look at the section "Attack on Hindus" it would be very much clear that there was Anti-Hindu violence i.e violence directed towards people only because they were Hindus. -sarvajna (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the riots are perceived as being directed against Muslims. We can't label something as violence against hindus solely because hindus were targeted because that would be WP:OR. If scholarly sources label the riots as anti-Hindu riots, then that is fine. If they don't, then no. --regentspark (comment) 01:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

What he said. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Opening paragraph is confusing

The first line says

Gujarat pogrom,[1][2] was a three-day period of inter-communal violence in

The very next line says

further outbreaks of violence in Ahmedabad for three weeks; ... against the minority Muslim population for three months

Which was it? Was it a three day, three week, or three month riot? Is the "post-bellum" (so to speak) a part of the riot? A fallout of the riot? Is the body count taken from all of these periods, some of these periods, or only one? Nshuks7 (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Not fit to be in opening paragraph

Martha Nussbaum has said, "There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law." (Nussbaum 2008, p. 50-51)

-- Its her (Martha Nussbaum) personal view. What is meant by broad view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.16.71.14 (talk • contribs)

Nussbaum is summarizing academic views, and as such is exactly what is required for the lead. It is not her "opinion," it is scholarly research, and needs to be treated as such. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Censoring violence against Hindus:Should this article be added to series "Violence against Hindus"?

Vanamonde93 constantly removed my attempt to add "2002 Gujarat riots" to above mentioned series by stating that "there is no consensus that violence was committed against Hindus" but "254 Hindus died in this riots" is a fact proven beyond reasonable doubt. Facts do not need consensus. On the contrary, opinion like pogrom need to be based on facts and need consensus. Seems like this article is dominated and censored by folks who do not believe in facts. Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Find a reliable source supporting the view you wish to add. Until then, your arguments are liable to be ignored. I'm not really interested in your opinions of "indology scholars;" Wikipedia has policies on verifiability and reliable sources, which we have to follow, whether you like them or not. If you dislike them, feel free to try and change them, but this is not the place for that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

As i stated earlier, Verifiable and reliable sources, meeting wikipedia sources, are already present in article. Go to article read citation #4,8,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83. Also see the external link to Justice G T Nanavati Commission at bottom of article. There is a clear cut case violence against Hindus. On what basis is this article added to series "Violence against Muslims in India"? Please provide reliable source supporting the view. Until then this article should be removed from both series. Unbiasedpov (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Those sources are not labelling the riots "anti-Hindu violence." They are saying Hindus died. There is a difference. On the other hand, there are sources explicitly saying not just that Muslims died, but that the riots were directed at them. Read sources 16-24. Also, for goodness sakes confine the discussion to one section. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Article itself has an entire subsection for Attack on Hindus. That's a dictionary definition of "Violence against Hindus". It all started with 'Godhra Massacre' which is a textbook case of 'Violence against Hindus'. You need to read the articles, nanavati commission report, and wikipedia policy. Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Godhra train burning is clearly categorised as "Violence against Hindus." So that is not an issue. As for this article, while a few attacks have taken place on Hindus, all the reliable sources are clear that the riots as a whole constituted a systematic attack on Muslims of extreme brutality. If you have read the sources you know the facts. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Censoring right to question neutrality: Should this article carry label "The neutrality of this article is disputed"?

Vanamonde93 constantly removed my attempt to add label "The neutrality of this article is disputed" to this article. Seems like right to edit or even right to question neutrality is censored. Title description Gujarat pogrom and much of the article is filled with baseless allegations which are proven wrong beyond reasonable doubt by several investigations & court judgements. Article should be rewritten to provide facts.Unbiasedpov (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Ironic to make an OR argument and call it NPOV. OR and NPOV are opposite concepts! - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Additionally, court judgements are very little use in determining {[WP:DUE|due weight]]. In controversial topics such as this, scholarly sources are the best bet. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. Scholars cannot be relied to provide NPOV in all situations. For example, In 1930s, European scholars cannot be relied to provide NPOV on anti-Semitism. It's a well known facts that Indology scholars are anti-Hindu. See Rajiv Malhotra for details. So-called Indology Scholars mostly peddle ideology based partisan opinion and fictional account; Thus, So-called Indology Scholars cannot be primary source of opinion at Wikipedia. Wikipedia should just provide facts and allow readers to form their own opinion. In contrast, Court judgements, & investigative agencies, provide all the relevant facts. Read them. Opinion like pogrom need to be based on facts but facts draw a completely different picture. Looking at this talk page. There is complete disagreement with one-side emphasizing facts and other-side emphasizing opinion of so-called Indology Scholars. Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Which part of the WP:NPOV policy are you referring to? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Check explanation of WP:NPOV. Even Microsoft Encarta understood that Indologist are biased and changed it's policy of relying on so-called Indology Scholars. Encarta rewrote it's entire article. See Invading the Sacred. Wikipedia should go a step above and put facts ahead of opinion. Unfortunately, Few editors at wikipedia have gone backward and re-wrote this entire article base biased opinions of so-called, & self-proclaimed, indology scholars.Unbiasedpov (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll repeat Kautilya3's question for you. Which part of the WP:NPOV policy are you referring to? --regentspark (comment) 17:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I am referring to WP:NPOV#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" & "Prefer nonjudgmental language". The term "Gujarat Pogrom" is both judgmental and contested assertion.It is based on conspiracy theory which has been proven wrong beyond reasonable doubt in various investigations and court judgements. Just because bunch of biased indologist assert it does not make it an unbiased and factual title term. I can go on with other parts of WP:NPOV but i will give you an opportunity. Now your turn, Which part of the WP:NPOV policy this title term "gujarat pogrom" is complying with?Unbiasedpov (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Unbiasedpov (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't call it a pogrom. It states that scholars have called it a pogrom in the third person, and gives the full citations and context. You are welcome to go and read the scholars, and complain to them if you wish to. There is no violation of NPOV here. As for your claims of having proof of conspiracy etc., so far you haven't produced any evidence or sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Article gives exclusive weight to dubious scholarship. This violates [WP:DUE|due weight]]. In controversial topics such as this, facts,& judiciary inquiry commission should be the primary source. For example, Mumbai Riots, which is extensively edited by you Vanamonde93, relies on Justice B.N. Srikrishna Judicial Inquiry Commission report.This double standard violates wikipedia policy. Let's bring in equality and make Judicial Inquiry commission report, & facts, primary source of this article. Facts clearly show that there was no pogrom. The pogrom conspiracy theory should go in an ancillary article. It cannot be title terminology. Unbiasedpov (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Public commission reports, court judgements etc. are primary sources. We go to them selectively for additional support when they are already covered in secondary sources. So if you are interested in covering the Nanavati Report, please find secondary sources that cover it. If Mumbai Riots is not following the policy, please object on its talk page, not here. Issues of due weightage can only be discussed after you have produced the souces, not earlier. Whether you think the scholars are biased or not makes no difference. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we have an agreement. Public commission reports, court judgements etc. are primary sources;Therefore,Sources derived from it should have primacy. Reliable Sources providing facts,from Judiciary Report, Investigation team report, court judgements etc are already present in the article; Thus,All that is needed is to rejig the article. Give primacy to facts and accommodate dubious theories, like pogrom, in an ancillary subsection. Many encyclopaedia, like Microsoft Encarta, has made similar corrections. This is in tune with Wikipedia philosophy Unbiasedpov (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Tendency to revert edit without using the talk-page

For example, RegentsPark is reversing the edit without using the talk-page. Cited source "The Gujarat pogrom: compilation of various reports" has no known publisher or author.The content of book cannot be viewed or verified. This Citation violates Wikipedia:Verifiablity policy. A primary source compiling other report do need to be verifiable. Unbiasedpov (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Unbiasedpov, I left a clear explanation as an edit summary. Since the source is being used to support the statement that the riots are also called pogroms, the fact that the source is primary is not a problem. --regentspark (comment) 02:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Unbiasedpov - if you think the revert was not merited, please use WP:BRD and make a constructive edit. Edit warring should be avoided is what i see from WP:BRD while making constructive edits. regentspark - I am not sure what issues you have with the last 2 edits/reference removal from unbiasedpov - they do appear to be either self work compilation and other as a book on women in India totally not assessing the 2002 incident. The sources referred to in the compilation do and should remain as they meet the standards --Sdmarathe (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with RegentsPark. We are merely establishing the commonality of terminology in the reliable sources. If you search for "Gujarat pogrom" on Google books, you can see the wide range of sources that exist. So this is a pointless debate. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 has made good suggestion but I cannot follow it because my edits are constantly being reverted.Editing has become a torturous journey. I have also received warning of possible ban from wikipedia editing. So Kautilya should follow his own suggestion. Please replace dubious citations,respect WP:ENEMY policy and restore WP:Balance of this article. Searching only for "Gujarat pogrom" in google-books violates WP:ENEMY policy.

Hello regentspark - Did you get a chance to look above regarding the WP:RS ability of the compilation and the book on women in India? thanks --Sdmarathe (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: -Add series "Violence against Hindus" or Remove series "Violence against Muslims in India"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Updated Rfc:- This RfC is now updated to find middle ground. See updated Proposal below.

Change#1 Agree with Pre-existing Consensus:- Godhra train burning is already categorized as Violence against Hindus. So let's add navigation side-bar in "Godhra train burning" sub-section of this article.

Change#2:- Do not add entire article to "Violence against Hindus" series;Instead, Just add "Attack on Hindus" subsection to it.

Change#3:- Keep multiple-issue tag on article until discussion is complete and consensus is reached.See Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Multiple-Issues

Change#4:- Lead-Section has several labels for this article. Add 'Hindu-Muslim Violence' to lead-section.

Unbiasedpov (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I support change#1, #2, #3 & #4. Unbiasedpov (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I vote for Equality. I vote to add both series "Violence against Hindus" and "Violence against Muslims in India" to article. Unbiasedpov (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Update:

Following reliable secondary sources describe "2002 Gujarat Riots" as "Hindu-Muslim Violence":-

-Riot Politics, By Ward Berenschot

-A Micro-Sociology of Violence: Deciphering Patterns and Dynamics of edited by Jutta Bakonyi, Berit Bliesemann de Guevara

-Comparative Politics: Interests, Identities, and Institutions in a Changing edited by Jeffrey Kopstein, Mark Lichbach, Stephen E. Hanson

-The Democratic Predicament: Cultural Diversity in Europe and India By Jyotirmaya Tripathy, Sudarsan Padmanabhan

-Coalition Politics and Hindu Nationalism edited by Katharine Adeney, Lawrence Saez

There are many other reliable secondary source which describe "attack on Hindus" as "Violence against Hindus"(e.g. India Today, Edited By Arnold Kaminsky & Roger Long).

Thus,as per NPOV, Both series should be added:Unbiasedpov (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Unbiasedpov (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There is an identical RfC about Equality. To view and/or participate, follow the link at: Talk:Bombay_Riots#RfC:_Equality:-Add_series_.22Violence_against_Hindus.22_or_Remove_series_.22Violence_against_Muslims_in_India.22.3F. Note: This RfC link fully complies with Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Placing_an_RfC_in_a_page_other_than_a_talk_page. Do not delete without consensus. Unbiasedpov (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Reliable sources describe the series of incidents as violence targeted at Muslims. Reliable secondary sources describing this as "violence against Hindus" do not exist, and the proposer has failed to provide any, despite repeated requests. Therefore, the status quo should be maintained; "Violence against Muslims" is the only appropriate sidebar. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I will ask one more time. Provide citation links of reliable source describing entire 2002 gujarat riot,& godhra hindu massacre, as violence targeted at Muslims; This status quo is not based on facts. Also explain how 254 hindus died,& 10,000 hindus became refuge, in so-called violence against Muslims. Read the article. Read the sub-section. Unbiasedpov (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You are being tendentious at this point. The sources were provided; sources 16-24 of the article. Others are easily found; Dibyesh Anand, "The violence of security: Hindu nationalism and the politics of representing ‘the Muslim’as a danger." The Round Table 94.379 (2005): 203-215. Quote "the Anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2002 illustrate...." for example. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

None of this sources describe godhra or mahajannovado attack on hindus as 'violance against muslims'. You should read guidelines at WP:Article series. It is broadly defined and used for navigation for broad subjects.Based on wikipedia policy, This article can be part of more than 1 series.

• Comment Vanamonde93 please refer to [[3]] for the references for attacks on Hindus. It is true that evidences of Violence against Muslims in 2002 riots certainly outnumber violence against Hindus by a margin - but that does not mean the latter did not exist. --Sdmarathe (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. That is a self-evident fact.Unbiasedpov (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hindus died. The riots were not directed at Hindus. There is a difference here which I am tired of point out. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 I am not referring whether the riots were labelled as Anti Muslim. I am in complete agreement that the majority of the violence was indeed targeted at Muslims, if you of course exclude the flash point incident of Godhra train massacre. I do not have objection to categorization of this as a poster for Violence against Muslims. My only point is these riots also included Violence against Hindus since there is enough evidence that did occur. You keep denying Violence against Hindus did not occur which is simply untrue. --Sdmarathe (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:VNT. Your assertions that it is untrue carry no weight. I have no personal views here; but I have read the source material very thoroughly. Sources label the entire incident "anti-Muslim violence." No source labels it "anti-Hindu violence." (In contrast, the incidents listed in that sidebar are so labeled by scholars). Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You stated that Violence against Hindus did not occur. you are given sources say that do say Violence against Hindus did occur. Whether or not it belongs to sidebar - that is a valid debate. But your statement that Violence against Hindus did not occur is veritably incorrect. --Sdmarathe (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not interested in carrying this debate forward, because you have not provided the necessary sources. Go ahead and try to get consensus for these changes; it is highly unlikely that such consensus will ever be formed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The guidelines at WP:CATDEF state, A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. Without such sources adding a new category based on editors' judgements constitutes WP:OR. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

We are discussing series not category.Kautilya3 should check guidelines at WP:Article series. It is broadly defined and used for navigation for broad subjects.Based on wikipedia policy, This article can be part of more than 1 series.Just look at other series, like Israeli-Palestine Conflict, to understand the difference between category and series.Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The point I made applies even more forcefully for putting it in the template, because the most important articles of the category would be put into the template. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - --Sdmarathe (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose clearly based on a misunderstanding of the neutrality policy. Reliable sources describe this as one of the main instances of antimuslim violence in India, no reliable sources describe it as a significant instance of "anti-hindu violence". This is what determines what templates and categories to include.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed about category but this about series not category Unbiasedpov (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

·maunus - this is a discussion about the series/ sidebar, not just the category. The argument for RfC is to support that both violence against Hindus and Violence against Muslims in India are applicable as categories and either both or none as sidebar --Sdmarathe (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I know what the RfC is about. Read my comment. What you call a "series" is in reality called a "template". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• I also Oppose option 4 which does not seem necessary at all since the exact numbers of dead Hindus and Muslims are given, and the incident is labeled "inter-communal violence". The implications that Hindu deaths are being downplayed or hidden, or that the article is biased towards the muslim pov, are simply incorrect.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi! User:Maunus, What about option#1,#2 and #3? Do you support or oppose? I agree RfC is messy.Please help fix it. I am thinking of removing some of my own duplicate material and moving some of the other opinions,within subsection, to improve readability but I am afraid that might become another excuse to kick me out. Unbiasedpov (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I already opposed those, I think.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Reliable sources (see vanamonde93's post above) describe this as 'violence against muslims' while no sources label the 2002 gujarat riots as violence against hindus. --regentspark (comment) 18:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Per NPOV.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a misunderstanding of what NPOV means.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal:- Those who oppose have acknowledged violence against Hindus. For example, On 24 August 2015, Kautilya3 stated that "Godhra train burning is clearly categorised as Violence against Hindus." On 19 May 2014, Vanamonde93 stated that "There was a much lower lever of violence against Hindus" & Maunus agreed.

Change#1 Agree with Pre-existing Consensus:- Godhra train burning is already categorized as Violence against Hindus. So let's add navigation side-bar in "Godhra train burning" sub-section of this article.

Change#2:- Do not add entire article to "Violence against Hindus" series;Instead, Just add "Attack on Hindus" subsection to it. Unbiasedpov (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Update (note: this is a copy of RfC update):

Following reliable secondary sources describe "2002 Gujarat Riots" as "Hindu-Muslim Violence":-

-Riot Politics, By Ward Berenschot

-A Micro-Sociology of Violence: Deciphering Patterns and Dynamics of edited by Jutta Bakonyi, Berit Bliesemann de Guevara

-Comparative Politics: Interests, Identities, and Institutions in a Changing edited by Jeffrey Kopstein, Mark Lichbach, Stephen E. Hanson

-The Democratic Predicament: Cultural Diversity in Europe and India By Jyotirmaya Tripathy, Sudarsan Padmanabhan

-Coalition Politics and Hindu Nationalism edited by Katharine Adeney, Lawrence Saez

There are many other reliable secondary source which describe "attack on Hindus" as "Violence against Hindus"(e.g. India Today, Edited By Arnold Kaminsky & Roger Long). Unbiasedpov (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your updated consensus bullet points. Also please go ahead and add the RS you listed above to substantiate Violence against Hindus before making updates. thanks --Sdmarathe (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• That is not a consensus but a misrepresentation of other editors views (which is against policy), and your "compromise" is not a compromise. I advise you very much to let the RfC run it course and let an uninvolved editor decide what the consensus is when it is over.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Based on Maunus input, Changing this to proposal Unbiasedpov (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Unbiasedpov: Please provide page numbers or quotations from the sources that support your position. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please check the updated RfC & list of 34 sources.Check your own comment dated 24 August 2015. Unbiasedpov (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Kautilya3, Maunus, Sdmarathe, Vanamonde93, Regentspark, and VictoriaGrayson:This RfC is now updated to find middle ground.See updated Proposal at top of this sub-section. Unbiasedpov (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This is an extremey messy rfc and it will be hard for the closer to make sense of it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose all for the reasons given above; none of the changes are based in policy. In particular, the sources 18-26 in the article give an excellent basis for due weight, which newspaper articles cannot really change. Furthermore, these suggestions are based on a complete misunderstanding of WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Sources examine the gujarat riots almost exclusively as violence against muslims so there is no place for a violence against hindus template. A reminder that consensus is not about compromise between editors but rather is based on a proper examination of sources. --regentspark (comment) 02:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support all Atleast a third of the casualties were Hindus.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support all For reasons indicated above - there is substantial evidence and source to indicate support for all options. --Sdmarathe (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple-Issues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Outdated

In 2009, Supreme Court of India constituted the Special Investigation Team SIT of top ranking Investigators like former Central Buereau Investigation director RK Raghavan, former Director General of Uttar Pradesh Police C D Satpaty etc. SIT’s investigation was monitored by Supreme Court of India. SIT interrogated many top officials of Gujarat government including Narendra Modi. In a 541 page report, SIT stated "Law and order review meetings were held by Modi and all the things was done to control the situation... the Army was called on time to contain the communal violence"; Thus, SIT, and many other secondary sources, reject pogrom, genocide, 'army was not called on time', and ‘state terrorism’ allegations.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)

On April 11 2014, Supreme Court of India accepted Special Investigation Team’s finding(6). Finally, Scholars got a comprehensive reliable primary source to work with.

This outdated article was created on October 2003. Nearly all secondary reliable sources about ‘pogrom’, ‘genocide’ and ‘state terrorism’ pre-date April 11 2014 and are outdated.Many outdated secondary reliable sources are based on primary sources like “Coalition Against Genocide -2003” & “Teetsa Setalvad lead CJPs Gujarat Genocide -2002”; However, at present, Both primary sources are tainted (14)(15)(16)(17). ‘Pogrom’, ‘Genocide’, ‘state terrorism’ etc. are exceptional claim. As per Wikipedia policy, They need WP:EXCEPTIONAL, & updated, reliable sources. In sharp contrast, this article makes claims like "legal definition of genocide" and "state terrorism" based on a book about "South Asia Cultural Performance in USA" and "Urban India" resp. This books don't even devote 1 chapter to 2002 Gujarat riots. This sources do not meet WP:RS standard. Unbiasedpov (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

'Proposal': Outdated secondary reliable sources are no longer accurate or reliable. They should be removed or moved to ancillary section dealing with past view on event. Identify and include secondary reliable sources dated 07/11/2014 or later. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by unbiasedpov (talk • contribs)

Systematic Bias, Globalize, Unbalanced

Double Standard in Naming and descriptive terms:- Article dealing with “Godhra Train Attack” carries a neutral name “Godhra Train Burning”. In sharp contrast, This Article’s alternate name is ‘Gujarat Pogrom’. This label violates Wikipedia’s titling policy WP:POVNAMING. ‘Gujarat Pogrom’ is extremely prejudiced, descriptive, judgemental, and out-dated. Wikipedia policy allows descriptive terms provided it is widely-used but 'Gujarat Pogrom' is not most-widely used term in India or anywhere else.(18)(19)(20)(21) In fact, term ‘Gujarat Pogrom’, or its equivalent, is rarely used in Indian language.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia meaning ‘book of facts’ but this articles creates a vicious cycle where terms like ‘Pogrom’,which is an allegation, gains wider-acceptance because wikipedia article repeats it six times. Conversely, Godhra train ‘attack’, which is a fact,loses acceptance because sub-section of this article,and sister wikipedia article, doubt it in every other paragraph.

Several sources have described systematic bias in writing of Eurocentric scholars, like Martha Nussbaum, and western media coverage. Microsoft corrected Eurocentric bias by rewriting Hindu religion section of MSN Encarta Encyclopaedia.(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)

This article is unbalanced because it gives WP:UNDUE weight to opinions of Eurocentric scholars. Article’s lead section features Martha Nussbaum’s opinion on broad-consensus but that is actually an outdated consensus among narrow set of Eurocentric scholars. As per Wikipedia policy, it should be treated as WP:RSOPINION and not as WP:RS/AC. See wikipedia policy WP:Assert for additional information. Featuring Teetsa Setalvad in lead section is another cause of unbalance.(17) Many sources have described events of 2002 as “Hindu-Muslim Violence” (30)(31)(32)(33) but rejecting it in lead section of article is yet another source of Unbalance. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by unbiasedpov (talk • contribs) On SIT report,Teetsa Setalvad is not a reliable source because she does not meet WP:THIRDPARTY policy.(35)(4) Unbiasedpov (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

References

(1)http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Layout/Includes/TOINEW/ArtWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOIBG%2F2010%2F08%2F20&ViewMode=HTML&PageLabel=21&EntityId=Ar02100&AppName=1

(2) http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2009-04-28/news/28480956_1_post-godhra-gulbarga-society-riots

(3) http://ibnlive.in.com/news/how-sit-report-on-gujarat-riots-exonerates-modi-the-highlights/256848-3.html

(4) Gujarat Riots: The True Story: The Truth of the 2002 Riots, By M D Deshpande

(5) Inside the Narendra Modi model of governance, By Uday Mahurkar

(6) http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/supreme-court-turns-down-plea-questioning-clean-chit-to-modi/1/355105.html

(7) Gujarat after Godhra: real violence, selective outrage, By Ramesh N. Rao, Koenraad Elst

(8) Return of the Swastika: Hate and Hysteria versus Hindu Sanity, By Koenraad Elst

(9) How India's Intellectuals Spread Lie, By Ravi Shanker Kapoor

(10) Narendra Modi - Yes He Can...: By D P Singh

(11) GODHRA: THE TRUE STORY By Nicole Elfi

(12) I sell death, By Raj

(13) Lies, Lies and More Lies: The Campaign to Defame Hindu/Indian Nationalism By Vivek

(14) http://newsbharati.com/Encyc/2013/12/18/HAF-report-exposes-controversial-links-of-radical-anti-India-coalition

(15) http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/omsweetom/2014/01/coalition-against-reality-deconstructing-an-attack-on-the-hindu-american-foundation.html

(16) http://www.scribd.com/doc/191868816/The-Coalition-Against-Genocide-CAG-A-Nexus-of-HinduphobiaUnveiled

(17) https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Teesta_Setalvad#Controversies

(18) https://www.google.com/search?q=%22gujarat+riots%22+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

(19) https://www.google.com/search?q=%22gujarat+riots%22+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=%222002+gujarat+riots%22

(20) https://www.google.com/search?q=%22gujarat+riots%22+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=%22Post-Godhra+riots%E2%80%9D

(21) https://www.google.com/search?q=%22gujarat+riots%22+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=%22gujarat+pogrom%22

(22) Pakistan Our Difficult Neighbour and India's Islamic Dimensions, By Darshan Khullar

(23) Recasting India: How Entrepreneurship is Revolutionizing the World's Largest By Hindol Sengupta

(24) Modi, Muslims, and Media: Voices from Narendra Modi's Gujarat By Madhu Kishwar

(25) Godhra: The Missing Rage Hardcover – by S K Modi

(26) The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction - Nicole Elfi

(27) Invading the Sacred: An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America, by Krishnan Ramaswamy and Antonio de Nicolas

(28) Being Different, By Rajiv Malhotra

(29) Breaking India, By Rajiv Malhotra

(30) Riot Politics, By Ward Berenschot

(31) A Micro-Sociology of Violence: Deciphering Patterns and Dynamics of edited by Jutta Bakonyi, Berit Bliesemann de Guevara

(32) Comparative Politics: Interests, Identities, and Institutions in a Changing edited by Jeffrey Kopstein, Mark Lichbach, Stephen E. Hanson

(33) The Democratic Predicament: Cultural Diversity in Europe and India By Jyotirmaya Tripathy, Sudarsan Padmanabhan

(34) Coalition Politics and Hindu Nationalism edited by Katharine Adeney, Lawrence Saez Unbiasedpov (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

(35) http://deshgujarat.com/2012/05/09/sit-report-uncovers-the-murky-world-of-anti-modi-cottage-industry-where-cops-journalists-ngos-politicians-are-in-attempt-to-misuse-the-court-read-it-to-believe-it/

Comments about Multiple-Issues

'Support': I support most of the points raised by Unbiasedpov. WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims should have higher standards than outdated sources. Alternate names and versions have used sources that are now no longer relevant should be updated. --Sdmarathe (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Support: Per the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

'Comment: (on outdatedness claim)

The Gujarat riots happened in 2002. Major investigations by multiple groups have been carried out immediately afterwards and they formed the material for a number of scholarly articles. The article mentions some of the prominent reports and gives citations for others. I don't understand calling the article "outdated" as if something new has happened since then, which isn't covered in the article. We are still talking about what happened in 2002, are we not?

The so-called SIT was appointed by the Supreme Court to investigate the crimes and prosecute the perpetrators, which it has done, albeit half-heartedly. (Let us note that the SIT was created because nobody had any confidence in the Gujarat Government's law and order machinery. The investigations were still carried out by the same unreliable machinery. Only that they were overseen by a former CBI director.) The so-called "report" of SIT you mention is the closure report, which the SIT submitted to the Supreme Court to document that it has done its job. Reliable sources do not agree that it did its job. Manoj Mitta's Fiction of Fact-Finding documents everything that was broken about the SIT and tells us what it did not do. We could cover that in the article. But none of this changes what happened in 2002. We presume that the reliable scholarly sources base their judgements on facts. These facts did not change between 2002 and now. So the idea that the article is "outdated" is baseless. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Kautilya3's opposition is based on quotes from Manoj Mitta's book & rest is OR opinion. In the same book, Manoj Mitta confesses that SIT has accused him of colluding with controversial police officer Sanjiv Bhatt. SIT concluded that Sanjiv Bhatt is lying. See wikipedia policy on conflict-of-interest. Manoj Mitta is not a reliable source. Read SIT report, Most of the team consist of non-gujarati police officers. This are high ranking officials drawn from central, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra states. Readthis article, The lead section clearly shows that SIT report turned all the assumptions upside down with activist left in shock and disbelief. In April 2014, Finally a reliable primary source on govt role became available. Wikipedia policy on outdated exceptional claim is pretty clear. Unbiasedpov (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS that have WP:COI including sale of books and otherwise - are not fit for exceptional sources. I support Unbiasedpov that WP:VER has clear direction on exceptional claims need exceptional sources - that have certainly not been met regards to claims laid out in this article. --Sdmarathe (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You guys are barking up the wrong tree. WP:COI is a policy for editors, not for sources. WP:RS is clear that the sources don't have to be neutral. They only have to be reliable. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

On SIT report,Teetsa Setalvad & Manoj Mitta, are not a reliable because they doe not meet WP:THIRDPARTY policy. See (35)(4) in reference list above. Unbiasedpov (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Martha Nussbaum is a distinguished academic and her statements are reliable sources. There can be no question about that. 'Pogrom' is listed as an alternate name and therefore WP:POVNAMING does not apply to it (that's only for article titles). That alternate name is well supported by citations, whatever the date of those citations. If any claims are outdated then please provide reliable sources that explicitly (please note the emphasis) state that those claims are no longer valid. These sources should be academic ones. I strongly suggest that you pick single issues, propose alternate wording and provide reliable sources to back up the alternating wording. You might also want to be brief in your comments. Rightly or wrongly, you're giving the impression of trying to push a pov by using lots of words, multiple blue links, and tag bombing. You should also remove the tags you've added to the article. All this assuming you (I refer to unbiasedpov) want to survive on Wikipedia. --regentspark (comment) 18:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Many of unbiasedpov statements have been given substantiations. Please read the references cited - alongwith the rebuttal of a source using WP:COI that Kautilya3 gave. If you have issues with their rebuttal, please be specific. I agree with their reference to WP:VER that Exceptional claims need exceptional sources. if you mean to call a lot of rebuttals with references (references are their majority of "words") as lot of words, Not to mention, your threat that they do something to want to survive on Wiki - is not helping! --Sdmarathe (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Take the advice for what you will, I mean it well. But do note that a lot of verbiage with a list of references is unhelpful in the extreme. You need to be specific. For example, the claim that the word 'pogrom' is outdated needs a specific reference, a reliable and independent one, that explicitly says that the term is outdated and no longer acceptable as an alternate name. All the other stuff that unbiasedpov has written is mere verbiage. I suggest a good faith removal of the tags before I - or someone else - removes them. --regentspark (comment) 19:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

2014 Madhu Kishwar is "one" such current source - which is WP:RS. In order to remove pogrom naming you do not need a source that removes the reference of pogrom - but rather a WP:RS that indicates it is not a pogrom. So your burden of proof requirement is not accurate as long as the current WP:RS contra-indicates the characterization of this as a pogrom, which the WP:RS have provided. In the introspect, I do agree that there are way more references than that are needed - so unbiasedpov does need to clean it up to be effective. Tags still apply - since the original sources are indeed outdated way back before the investigation ran its course. --Sdmarathe (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. That doesn't make sense. The article says that the events are sometimes called a pogrom. Obviously that means that some people call it a pogrom while others don't. --regentspark (comment) 20:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

there are links to sources that unbiasedpov provided above reference 2002 riots as Hindu Muslim riots - vs labeling it a pogrom. Kishwar discusses several sources with variety of opinions, and provides arguments against calling it a pogrom. So it is relevant. --Sdmarathe (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously the majority of sources label it as riots (which is why the article is not titled 'pogrom'). Equally obviously some sources call it a pogrom. If Kishwar is arguing that it wasn't actually a pogrom then that supports the existence of pogrom as an alternative name. Presumably she isn't arguing against something that doesn't exist. You could argue that there should be a section in the article that discusses whether it was a pogrom or not but why would any of this exclude pogrom as an alternative name? --regentspark (comment) 20:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Because pogrom is an exceptional claim - and requires exceptional source. Even you accept that a majority of sources label it riots, and there is no consensus about calling it a pogrom. In fact, there are links to sources [Berenschot, Jutta Bakonyi, Berit Bliesemann de Guevara, Jeffrey Kopstein, Mark Lichbach, Stephen E. Hanson, Jyotirmaya Tripathy, Sudarsan Padmanabhan, Katharine Adeney, Lawrence Saez; India Today, Edited By Arnold Kaminsky & Roger Long] in addition to Kishwar analysis, that do not support this as a pogrom. Therefore exceptional source and consensus condition has not been satisfied to label it (even as an alternate name) as a pogrom. One can certainly mention that "some" sources indicate this as a pogrom - and that has been widely stated in the article - in fact 9 times. However this does not qualify to be in the lead section nor as an alternate name since that is indeed an exceptional claim for which exceptional source and consensus has not been met. It also does not preclude this article being labeled a riot or template of violence against Hindus as indicated by unbiasedpov because such references have been cited. --Sdmarathe (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources for 'pogrom' so the exceptional claim condition is well satisfied. Even recent ones (e.g. Howard Spodek "Ahmedabad: Shock City of Twentieth-Century India. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011) who has an entire chapter titled "Godhra, the Gujarat Pogrom, and the Consequences". Please address the template question separately. Mixing multiple issues in the same thread is not constructive editing (and reeks of obfuscation). --regentspark (comment) 11:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Madhu Kishwar's articles (Modi Nama) and book (Modi, Media and Muslims) are not reliable sources because they are self-published. See Paul Brass's comments here [4] to find out what the academics think of them, and what might have happened if she submitted them for independent review. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Unbiasedpov's statements are quite off the mark. RegentsPark has addressed most of them, but in brief, sources can't be considered outdated unless there is a later source explicitly discussing why earlier ones are outdated; and the accusations of eurocentrism are ridiculous, because there aren't Indian scholarly sources which have been ignored. The SIT report does not count for much of itself; and no secondary sources have bought into its narrative. The argument about "gujarat pogrom" is ridiculous. If you cannot tell the difference between saying "XYZ has been called a pogrom" and "XYZ is a pogrom," then we have serious competence issues here. Unbiasedpov, if you continue in this fashion much longer, somebody is going to haul you to ANI or AE. Please remove those tags yourself, or they will be removed by somebody else. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

On your statement about pogrom - it deserves to be mentioned in the article that XYZ have called it a pogrom - which the article already does - 9 times. It is not a consensus to be a pogrom (exceptional requirement for exceptional claim). As a result, the alternate title of Gujarat pogrom is invalid and should be removed from the lead as well. --Sdmarathe (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Nussbaum says "Hindus are no more indigenous than Muslims". The book she edited, Pluralism and Democracy in India, completely ignores the Congress party's Emergency dictatorship and genocide of Sikhs.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • VictoriaGrayson, that argument has no basis in policy. What you "know" about the incidents means nothing; we need reliable sources making the same criticism, as you well know. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Tags: Since there are plenty of editors who feel the tags are unnecessary, I'm removing them. Editors are welcome, of course, to continue to constructively discuss specific issues on this page. --regentspark (comment) 13:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

regentspark and Vanamonde93: You have completely ignored the arguments made above. There are WP:RS that do address the riots as Hindu Muslim riots and refer to violence against Hindus. Criticism about verbose can also be leveled when you are nitpicking the sources. Kautilya3 - Kishwar source is reputable and is indeed a WP:RS . There are 3 for and 3 against the tags - so I am not sure there is a consensus. --Sdmarathe (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Check wikipedia policy on Tags. Tags are start of a discussion. They should stay until discussion ends and consensus is reached;More-over,This is multiple-issue tag. So, tag for each issue can be removed as discussion on each is done and consensus is reached. Unbiasedpov (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Color me unsurprised. --regentspark (comment) 18:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

An editor does not get to hang a tag over an article because they dislike it. Their disagreement has to have basis in policy, which is markedly lacking here. If you want to have a reasonable discussion, then you could start by hatting that stuff about "alternate title." Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Unbiasedpov (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

See the multiple issue subsection. It is quite detailed and presents several wikipedia policy violations.This is not about likes and dislikes but following wikipedia policy on tagging. All articles in such circumstances have 'tag' present on article page. Unbiasedpov (talk)

Only if there is a consensus that the concerns are warranted. In this case there isnt. The arguments you make are all fundamental misunderstandings of policy. None of the tags are warranted. For outdated you have not shown that the view of scholars on the events have changed,or that significant new events have happened that are not covered. This would be what was needed to place the outdated tag. The SIT report is covered, but it does not mean that all othe previous views are suddenly invalid. It does not seem that you actually understand what Systemic bias is or what naming actually is. The article does not have an alternative name. Undue weight to opinions of eurocentric scholars, is a non-argument. How do you determine if a scholar is eurocentric? Secondly you would have to demonstrate that sources written by non-eurocentric scholars (whatever that means) are not receiving adequate coverage. Where are those sources? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Remove quotes from Lead

I am proposing to remove all quotes (Masjid, Seetalvad, Nussbaum) from the lead, because the lead should summarize the article, and only include quotes that are absolutely necessary to understand and summarize the topic. I think the quotes should be in the article body wherever they fit best, and then a short summary of the different existing views in the lead.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I am fine with the paragraph on the SIT moved into the body. However, I think Nussbaum view, which is actually a documentation of the scholarly consensus, should stay. It doesn't have to be a direct quote. (I generally think it is a bad idea to put direct quotes in the lead anyway.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kautilya3. Perhaps Nussbaum can be restated but it does reflect consensus and so should stay in some form. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs)

I, too, feel that Nussbaum's quote is there to represent and summarize scholarly consensus, and so we can paraphrase it, but we should not remove it. The other two quotes are merely illustrative, and are less important, IMO. We could remove those. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

If it is paraphrased then it is not a quote. I think it makes sense to state what the consensus among academics is.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. the lead is extremely messy with quotes from personalities that do not merit to be in the lead section (e.g. quotes from Setalvaad referring to future appeal which is really in the past. She herself was in jail for perjury by the way). I think the article lead should be precise and without flashpoint quotes that may no longer be accurate or reliable or even distract from the focus of the article. The same information can definitely move inside the body but the lead should only contain important summary of the article. --Sdmarathe (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree.All quotes need to go. SIT report makes negative comment about Seetalvad;So, Seetalvad's quote on SIT violates Wikipedia Third Party policy. Nussbaum's quote is from pre-SIT era; It is no longer a consensus view and even in pre-SIT era, it was a narrow consensus among western academia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedpov (talk • contribs) 21:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Also remove citations, like "Desi Deva:S. Asian American Culture Program" & "Women's right in Urban India" which do not meet WP:RS standard. This citations don't even devote a full page to topic. Remove all conspiracy theories about Godhra attack violates from lead because it violates WP:UNDUE & Wikipedia outdated policy. Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with above proposal by Unbiasedpov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdmarathe (talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Kautilya3|Vandamonde93|Unbiasedpov|maunus I believe the consensus was to remove the quotes from the lead regarding SIT, not the paragraph itself since it summarized the timeline of SIT investigation, appeal, allegation of biased investigation and subsequent decisions. I believe that it might be relevant in the lead, albeit without the quotes and verbosity. As noted above, Nussbaum's summary is kept in the lead. thanks --Sdmarathe (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

We can't say anything about SIT in there without also giving the reactions of the community. Either the whole thing stays or it goes. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not know why the quotes are needed in the SIT in the lead. SIT lead section can indeed be summarized without writing quotes. One can always note the timeline of the SIT investigation, appeal, allegation of biased investigation and subsequent decisions, further legal challenges and scholarly consensus--Sdmarathe (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead revisions

1. My edits were reverted by Vandamonde93 and Kautilya3 and a 3RR warning was posted since I have made 2 edits, the latter being technically considered a revert. Of course 3 changes in 24 hr will constitute 3RR and I do not want to be engage in 3RR and want to discuss via Talk :-) First of all, I have not "deleted" any sourced content in my latter version - merely combined and/or moved for the flow of the lead. The only true change that has been made is the individual instances that Nussbaum summarizes are moved into the body as they are not needed in the lead as I believe it is amply indicated in the lead section. Note there are three sentences that say the exact same thing about complicity of law enforcement. In my second edit, I had kept everything almost the same without the individual instances which I moved to body in what I thought were appropriate places. I did not "delete" any sourced content but I did move them for the flow of the lead.

2. I believe the consensus about the SIT paragraph before it was moved by Kautilya3 was to move all the quotes into the body without actually removing the paragraph. It was also indicated by 3 to 2 suggestions that Nussbaum summary should stay. thanks --Sdmarathe (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Sdmarathe and I have undid Kautilya3 move. There is no consensus in removing SIT. Consensus is to remove teetsa's comments. Please feel free to remove Teetsa's comments. Unbiasedpov (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The wording of the lead represents consensus of the editors and it has been there for a long time. To change it, you need much better arguments than opinions on style and flow. Naroda Patiya certainly needs mention in the lead, being the largest and most representative of the violence that happened.

As for the SIT, it is a primary source and there is no consensus on its veracity. So, we can't give a one-sided picture. Either the whole paragraph should be there or none of it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

SIT citations are backed by several reliable secondary sources and there is consensus on its veracity.Dissident from fringe or related party like Teetsa & Mitta does not pass WP:UNDUE and wikipedia:third-party test. Citing teetsa, on SIT, is a clear violation of wikipedia policy. Unbiasedpov (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Make Godhra train burning sub-section accurate

• Proposal1: Replace misleading sentence (see Current1) with accurate words (See New1).

Current1: "However, the Gujarat High Court ruled in 2006 that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the union government, and that the committee was therefore unconstitutional[37]". This is misleading and inaccurate because citation [37] does not state "outside the jurisdiction".

New1: "In October 2006, the court quashed the conclusions of Banerjee and ruled that the investigation was "unconstitutional, illegal and null and void", declared its formation to be a "colourable exercise of power with mala fide intentions", and its argument of accidental fire "opposed to the prima facie accepted facts on record." Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC) Unbiasedpov (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Proposal2: Replace misleading circumstances (see Current2) with accurate circumstances (See New2).

Current2: "Under controversial circumstances, four coaches of the train caught on fire, trapping many people inside. In the resulting conflagration, 59 people, including 25 women and 25 children, were burned to death[29]". Citation [29] does not support "Under controversial circumstances".

New2: "A mob of 1000 people attacked, In the midst of attack, four coaches of the train caught on fire trapping many people inside. In the resulting conflagration, 59 people, including 25 women and 25 children, were burned to death Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Proposal3: Fix WP:UNDUE and wikipedia outdated policy violations.

Current3: Subsection violates WP:UNDUE by emphasizing discredited and outdated conspiracy theories of Nussbaum and Teetsa.

New3: Conspiracy theories, & all other marginal opinions,need to be removed. Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC) Teetsa conspiracy theory relies on citation#44 and #45. Both are dubious primary sources; Thus, Violates WP:RS policy of secondary reliable sources. Unbiasedpov (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Support all - Nussbaum continually discredits herself.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 13:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose all For following reasons: 1. proposed wording is tendentious and editorializing. 2. Proposed source is not reliable. 3. Conspiracy theories that are published in reliable sources and by esteemed scholars are notable and relevant and need their due weight. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC) <Note> Moved the oppose all to make it at same level as VictoriaGrayson. please Feel free to update - i am not good at formatting :-)</Note>

[User:Maunus]] current1 is misleading and not supported by any citation including citation#37. Feel free to change the wording. Alternatively, we just remove it. On current 2 the citation#29 does not support 'controversial'. Please, Find another citation. Unbiasedpov (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that would be possible to take into consideration if you had not paired the concern with a proposed solution. I have to oppose all because even when you correctly identify a problem, your proposed solution is not an actual improvement.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus: current1 & current2 are misleading and not supported by any citations including citation#37&#29. More-over, current citations(#29,#37) are news-source. Proposed sources are also news-sources. Please click existing and proposed to see that that are all identical sources. Existing citations are brief and proposed citation are detailed. Proposed solution is to accurately use high court judge's words. Unbiasedpov (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Did the court judge use the wording "quash"? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Those words are often used to narrate what happened. However, if you prefer, one could use "dismissed" instead of "quashed" --Sdmarathe (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Support all - proposals accurately describe WP:RS and reflect updated information by removing WP:UNDUE information --Sdmarathe (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose all, because they do not reflect policy. For us to consider a source outdated, we need explicit evidence that it is. Court rulings do not constitute reliable sources. "Nussbaum continually discredits herself;" what evidence do you have for that? Until we have scholarly evidence that differs from that presented in the article, there is no need to change anything. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Nussbaum is an activist. She says "Hindus are no more indigenous than Muslims". I have read countless academic books on Hinduism, as many editors here can testify, so I know this is ridiculous. The book she edited, Pluralism and Democracy in India, completely ignores the Congress party's Emergency dictatorship and genocide of Sikhs.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Scholars are allowed to have opinions and voice them. It is of course true that Muslims are no less indigenous than Hindus. Claiming otherwise is nationalist ideology, with no basis in science or in understanding what the concept "indigenous" means.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

None of which is relevant. If you wish to discredit Nussbaum as a source, you either need to show that the publisher is not reliable, or find another equally weighty source contradicting Nussbaum. This you have failed to do. The 1984 riots are not relevant here, once again because no reliable source has drawn a connection. The number of books you have read is also not relevant, until you use that knowledge to produce sources supporting your statements. Since you fail to do this, your opinion carries little weight. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose the whole lot. The proposed wording is tendentious, appears to be pov pushing and is a grammatical mess. For example, proposal 1 wants to remove 'outside the jurisdiction' because it is not included in source 37. However, the sources provided for new1 use exactly that phrase (cf., [5]) leading one to suspect a pov agenda. Considering the number of confused 'proposals', RfC's, etc. we've seen from unbiasedpov, none of which have got anywhere, I think it is time for an uninvolved admin to step in and do something. Enough with the time wasting. --regentspark (comment) 19:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Proposal 2, Oppose the rest. Proposal 2 seems factual and sourced. The rest are opinionated, intended to tilt the balance of the article. The Gujarat High Court has been taken to task by the Supreme Court. Its views are not reliable. Nussbaum is a perfectly fine source. Setalvad is an involved party and her views should be minimized in the article. But no specific proposal has been made in this regard. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Your statement about Guj High Court taken to task on Godhra Train Attack is inaccuarate.Please provide secondary reliable source supporting it Unbiasedpov (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Seriously? New2 seems more appropriate for melodramatic novels rather than for an encyclopedia. --regentspark (comment) 02:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

What is melodramatic? The statement is amply sourced - Kautilya3 has also agreed. What is melodramatic? seriously! --Sdmarathe (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Alternate Wordings

Current statements are misstatements. Wikipedia should not be treated as fiction. Please provide accurate alternate NPOV wordings. Here is my attempt at 'alternate, accurate and neutral' wordings:-

New1a: "In October 2006, Gujarat High Court rejected accident theory, quashed the conclusions of Banerjee Commission, and declared it's formation a "colourable exercise of power with malafide intentions".

New1b: "Train was attacked and four coaches of the train caught fire trapping many people inside. In the resulting conflagration, 59 people, including 25 women and 25 children, were burned to death".

Current3: "The Concerned Citizens Tribunal (CCT), headed by Teesta Setalvad concluded that the fire had been an accident, stating that the attack by a mob was part of a government conspiracy to trigger riots across the state.[39][40] Several other independent commentators have also concluded that the fire itself was almost certainly an accident, saying that the initial cause of the conflagration has never been conclusively determined.[41][42] Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree stated that the official version of the attack on the train, that it was organized, carried out by people under orders from Pakistan, was entirely baseless.[43]"

Comment:

Teetsa is an involved party. Here quotes violate Wikipedia thirdparty policy;More-over, Teetsa conspiracy theory relies on citation#39 and #40. Both are dubious primary sources; This violates WP:RS policy of secondary reliable sources. So the first sentence need to go.

I have read both citations[41][42]. citation[42] does not support the statement "that the fire itself was almost certainly an accident" & citation [41] is outdated by Court judgement on godhra.

I have also read citation [43]. Current3 omitted half of Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree's statement. Here is complete sentence from citation [43] "A gang at Godhra station attacked the train and set carriages on fire. Fifty-eight people died. The official account declares, without proof, that the attack it was organized and carried out under orders from Pakistan".

New3b: "some commentators have stated that the initial cause of the fire has never been conclusively determined.[41][42] Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree stated that A gang at Godhra station attacked the train and set carriages on fire; However, the official version of the attack on the train, that it was carried out under orders from Pakistan, lacks proof.[43]" Unbiasedpov (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding citaion links to numbers here

[39] http://www.sabrang.com/tribunal/tribunal2.pdf

[40] http://www.humanrights.asia/resources/journals-magazines/article2/0201/genocide-in-gujarat-patterns-of-violence

[41](Metcalf, Barbara D. A Concise History of Modern India)

[42] (A Companion to the Anthropology of India. Wiley-Blackwell)

[43](The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Security) Unbiasedpov (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess this is a new round of proposals for revisions? I have to say it is fairly incoherent because you haven't said which of the article these reference numbers refer to. They don't match the current version or the version current at the time of your writing. (1) The CCT was headed by Justice Krishna Iyer, not Setalvad. I corrected it. I have also tagged the "government conspiracy" issue with failed verification. Perhaps others can determine where it came from. (2) Embree did not say that the mob set carriages on fire. He said that that was the official version of the events. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This is fairly coherent. Added the actual links to citation numbers. CCT is a dubious primary source and fringe theory. Does not meet wikipedia WP:RS standard and violates WP:UNDUE policy. Quoting 2nd half of what embree said is cherrypicking. In 1st half he clearly states "A gang at Godhra station attacked the train and set carriages on fire"; More-over, Embree never said "entirely baseless". He said there is "no proof" that pakistan carried out godhra attack. Switching from "no proof" to "entirely baseless" violates wikipedia policy. Unbiasedpov (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Unbiasedpov, you are repeating the same mistakes you made above; you are throwing out proposal after proposal, repeatedly removing sourced content. Moreover, you keep demanding that our scholarly sources be removed, without once providing a source to support your reasons for removal. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• Unbiasedpov, merely throwing out proposal after proposal that repeat more or less the same thing in different words is tendentious and disruptive. I strongly suggest you move away from this article before you end up sanctioned. --regentspark (comment) 15:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• Note I have topic-banned UnbiasedPOV from 2002 Gujarat riots related pages and discussions (before the last couple of comments above were posted/seen by me). I hope this will make it easier for involved editors to collaborate and reach consensus on any meritorious issues discussed here and in the section above. Abecedare (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Addition of recent developments

Sanjiv Bhatt, an IPS Officer from Gujarat, who said before SIT that he was there in 27 Feb 2002 meeting in Modi's residence meeting (where he is alleged to have told officers to give free run to Hindu rioters), has been told by Supreme Court, that he had used NGO-Congress-Media nexus to make false claims about his presence on that day. Please look into this and this. If you have time, you can go through the Supreme Court Judgment here (Importantly points 7-15). This judgment is an important development, because it negates the theory that 'Modi gave free-hand to rioters'. Shall I go ahead and add these developments? If so, under what subsection? - Vatsan34 (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. As far as I can see, it is off-topic. There are misconduct allegations against Bhatt filed by the Gujarat government. He requested that they be investigated by a reconstituted SIT. The Supreme Court rejected the plea. What in this has anything to do with the 2002 Gujarat riots? Even the allegations against Bhatt are pretty off-topic. They can all go in the Sanjiv Bhatt page. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It has. From Sanjiv Bhatt article, right here, look at this line - It used email evidence to rule that Bhatt had deliberately colluded with leaders of the opposition Congress Party, NGO activists and certain elements in the media to furnish false evidence about his attendance at the 27 February 2002 meeting chaired by Modi so that he could falsely allege that Modi had incited riots. And an apex court says this. So, does this not add to the evidences against Modi's hand in the riots? - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, the source is this Hindustan Times article. It says that, according to the Court, Bhatt gave a "tutored" statement to the SIT and gave false evidence against Modi. The former is in quote marks the latter is not. I will try to see what corroboration exists in other sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Supreme Court basically said that Sanjiv Bhatt was colluding with the Congress party and NGO's to attack Modi.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Does this article desire to have credibility among Indians, or only westerners?

Does this article desire to have credibility among Indians, or only westerners? For example, Teesta Setalvad has no credibility among Indians.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Which Indians? Not all Indians are hindutva partisans. The question of course is irrelevant - the aim is to represent the facts in accordance with the relevant wikipedia policies about sourcing and point of view - not to have "credibility" with any particular audience.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

What is the academic qualification of Teesta Setalvad? Apart from being on trial for embezzlement and money laundering? --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2002 Gujarat riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.indianexpress.com/archive/StoryO-87579-Gujarat-riot-probe-panel-moves-against-41-cops.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2002 Gujarat riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailypioneer.com/169490/Gujarat-riot-myths-busted.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tehelka.com/story_main10.asp?filename=ts010105press.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.indianexpress.com/story/232545.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071105061447/http://www.outlookindia.com:80/full.asp?fodname=20071112&fname=Cover+Story+%28F%29&sid=6 to http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20071112&fname=Cover+Story+(F)&sid=6
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Religion-communalism/2003/gujarat-tribunal-report.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.humanrights.asia/resources/journals-magazines/article2/0201/genocide-in-gujarat-patterns-of-violence

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2002 Gujarat riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5glwxafqF?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailypioneer.com%2F169490%2FGujarat-riot-myths-busted.html to http://www.dailypioneer.com/169490/Gujarat-riot-myths-busted.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140316170146/http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/001200710271941.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/001200710271941.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081226161716/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=9ba3c46a-72dd-4b2a-9a04-6fa9c299b32a&MatchID1=4604&TeamID1=6&TeamID2=7&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1157&MatchID2=4575&TeamID3=8&TeamID4=2&MatchType2=1&SeriesID2=1147&PrimaryID=4604&Headline=Everything%2C+but+the+news to http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=9ba3c46a-72dd-4b2a-9a04-6fa9c299b32a&MatchID1=4604&TeamID1=6&TeamID2=7&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1157&MatchID2=4575&TeamID3=8&TeamID4=2&MatchType2=1&SeriesID2=1147&PrimaryID=4604&Headline=Everything%2c+but+the+news
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030130171258/http://www.outlookindia.com:80/full.asp?sid=4&fodname=20020415&fname=Cover+Stories to http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20020415&fname=Cover+Stories&sid=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630044324/http://www.expressindia.com:80/fullstory.php?newsid=17823 to http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=17823

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

A balanced approach in 4th paragaraph

Hello friends,

The fourth paragraph of introduction sounds like this was a deliberate attempt of ethnic cleansing. However, some authors argue that there was a deliberate attempt from a section of media to picture it as a attack against Muslim rather than a communal riot. For example chapter 5 of this book https://books.google.ie/books?id=WxeLBgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Can this paragraph be modified to provide a balanced view? Irulason (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I think you'll need to show that the referenced source represents more than a fringe viewpoint. For example, is the author a well known academic? Does he or she collect diverse sources that the media deliberately attempted to frame it as an attack against muslims despite believing otherwise? That sort of thing. Just because one writer says something somewhere it doesn't mean we have to include that something. --regentspark (comment) 21:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I find an answer here how hard it is to bring a balanced view. https://www.quora.com/What-exactly-were-the-Godhra-Muslim-Hindu-riots — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irulason (talk • contribs) 01:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

::: "To control the reference sources that people use is to control the way people comprehend the world. Wikipedia may have a benign, even trivial face, but underneath may lie a more sinister and subtle threat to freedom of thought." This seems very relevant to me. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/encyclopaedia-idiotica/403327.article?storycode=403327 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irulason (talk • contribs) 12:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Death toll

The accurate death toll was accepted by UPA government in 2005 and there is no reason to believe someone's personal opinion as a fact. Christophe Jaffrelot's personal views can't be included in wikipedia page unless they could be independently verified. Hence, I remove death toll of 2000 and should not be included unless someone come up with other independent and verifiable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.160.120 (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing in Wikipedia policies that says that governments are reliable sources, much less the most reliable sources as you seem to claim. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Any one can churn out any number for the death toll using some logic and there is no reason to believe one estimate over other. At the same time the numbers given by UPA govt were also accepted by Supreme court (SC) of India. If wiki is not ready to accept a number accepted by SC then whose number would we trust then? If Christophe Jaffrelot has evidence to prove his claim of 2000 deaths, he should go to SC of India and prove that his numbers are correct and unless that happens it doesn't make sense to publish his personal opinions on wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.191.108 (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. You can believe in whichever figure you choose to, but Wikipedia has certain policies about which sources are acceptable, and this is not the place to argue about those. Vanamonde (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

off-topic

Vanamonde93 decides what are the sources are accepted and not accepted. He also decides the credibility of academicians. Man do yo think that these so called academicians have no politics?? I am surprised to see that he doesn't trust the supreme court of a democratic country!! NPOV dispute. Irulason (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC) This kind of personalisation is uncalled for. You have been given ample pointers to policies. If you don't like them, I am afraid you will need to go and create your own Wikipedia somewhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Oh really!!! I didn't know that you own THIS Wikipedia!!! (no intent to belittle you peoples contributions though) Irulason (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on 2002 Gujarat riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119002050/http://liveindia.tv/india/states/special-court-convicts-31-in-godhra-train-burning-case/ to http://liveindia.tv/india/states/special-court-convicts-31-in-godhra-train-burning-case/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailypioneer.com/169490/Gujarat-riot-myths-busted.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tehelka.com/story_main10.asp?filename=ts010105press.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tehelka.com/story_main35.asp?filename=Ne031107gujrat_sec.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.indianexpress.com/story/232545.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/001200710271941.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20071112&fname=Cover%20Story%20%28F%29&sid=6
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=9ba3c46a-72dd-4b2a-9a04-6fa9c299b32a&MatchID1=4604&TeamID1=6&TeamID2=7&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1157&MatchID2=4575&TeamID3=8&TeamID4=2&MatchType2=1&SeriesID2=1147&PrimaryID=4604&Headline=Everything%2C%20but%20the%20news
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Gujarat%3A%2BThe%2Bnoose%2Btightens/1/1716.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20020415&fname=Cover%20Stories&sid=4
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sabrang.com/tribunal/tribunal2.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.humanrights.asia/resources/journals-magazines/article2/0201/genocide-in-gujarat-patterns-of-violence
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=17823
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140326105457/http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main38.asp?filename=Ne260408compromised_commission.asp to http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main38.asp?filename=Ne260408compromised_commission.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

July 4 edits

@Notthebestusername: since you don't care enough to provide explanation for your edits I am starting this section. Your treatment of sabrang as mainstream and "official" organization is not needed here. And your repetition of already used references as external links is not needed either, the lead is already flawed enough like we have discussed on this talk page and the archives. Capitals00 (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00: You seem to have missed out the fact that the tribunal report has been compiled by eight eminent high court and supreme court judges. I have only made edits to give the article a more neutral tone (it currently reads liek a BJP advert!)

Do read the report and decide for yourself.

Else please provide a link to the official government report as that seems to be missing from the Gujarat government website.

PS: Sabrang is just the name of one of the websites where the report is currently hosted. It is the tribunal report which is the official source. -- Notthebestusername (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I think what we need to do then is, copyedit this a bit. For example, there is no need of "Narendra Modi" above the lead. There is no need of telling that Tribunal believes they were "well planned", and probably a few more points. Of course we can keep the estimates provided by Tribunal, but every time you mention them, they need to be mentioned along. Capitals00 (talk) 02:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, no need for "See also: Narendra Modi". The CCT is an independent tribunal, not an official one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Undue quote of Martha Nussbaum on lead

I am not getting why @Vanamonde93:[6] inserted a quote from 2008 from Martha Nussbaum on lead when there is no "broad consensus" anymore largely due to series of larger events associated with the incident such as removal of travel ban on Modi by EU, UK, US, clean chit from court to Modi confirming no government's complicity. It seems to be WP:RGW now. Capitals00 (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources don't seem to be mentioning such a "broad consensus" either, they instead mention that there was no evidence found.[7][8][9] And this Martha's interview from 2013 quotes her "circulated prior to the 2002 riots [whether with Modi's direct participation or not] that.." that means Nussbaum was unsure the government's complicity. So much for a "broad consensus". Capitals00 (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Present consensus is that government had no involvement as per sources provided. Content was added in 2013, before new consensus by Darkness Shines[10] when he was blocked on his main account and is still topic banned. Article title had been also changed from 2002 Gujarat violence to 2002 Gujarat riots[11] because government had no involvement. I would support entire removal or moving content to other section with the 2013 comments, because it still shows that she had updated her opinion. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, the sources you folks have provided have nothing to do with the content you are moving. The sources say that Modi was cleared of complicity by the courts. The article mentions this fact. Nussbaum in her interview also suggests that Modi may or may not be culpable. So what? Her statement is about government complicity, not Modi's complicity. The sentence is question does not even mention Modi. This statement is present because it is more or less a meta analysis of scholarly opinion, which does, by and large, consider the government to be complicit. You will have to do a lot better with your sources if you want to change this. Vanamonde (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Rest of the paragraph already explains it enough, why there is a need of a quote? Paragraph does support the "large", quote becomes undue when its meaning has been already described in the lead. Capitals00 (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It is quite common to use a single, representative quote to provide a depth that dry summaries cannot. And in any case, this is an argument entirely different from what you said above; you haven't even bothered to acknowledge your mistake. Vanamonde (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not common to use a quote unless you are establishing a established fact but here it seems to be WP:RGW and wikipedia is not for righting great wrong. What I said above is clearly not different to what I said last time since I am still saying that the quote is undue. Yes there is no evidence [12][13][14] that government had any complicity so using a 2008 quote for making conclusion of event that was finally resolved in 2014 is baseless. I am checking edit history that few other editors like @Redtigerxyz and VictoriaGrayson: had issues with this problematic quote. So why we still need this quote? Martha Nussbaum had entirely based her comment on US department's ban on Modi from entering USA[15], but since USA has removed the ban years ago, her own statement has no basis anymore. Capitals00 (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by evidence. We are not a court of law here the weighs evidence. Rather, we look at what reliable scholarly sources say and there is plenty of scholarly support for the culpability of the government in those riots (as the article demonstrates). The quote is useful because it summarizes and supports what scholarly sources are saying.--regentspark (comment) 20:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: But an outdated quote is being used for POV pushing basis here, since it was inserted by a deliberate POV pusher himself who was evading his block. Can you find any recent(since the court's decision) "scholarly source" that say anything similar to this 9 year old source? No scholars claim any complicity of government anymore and no "broad consensus" exists now, because scholars don't engage in WP:RGW. Capitals00 (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00, the sections titled "allegations of state complicity" and "Inquiries" make the case that there are significant views that the state was complicit in the riots. We can't just ignore all that. --regentspark (comment) 00:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Entire section includes sources from 2002 - 2009 at most, which is itself enough to describe that scholars have stopped calling it a progrom. Lead paragraph already says "the events of 2002 have been described as a pogrom by many scholars", and cites 2 sources from 2012, while Brass is from 2005. So if it has been already highlighted, why there is a need for quoting additional quote that was written 6 years before the final decision? Archives are also full of opposition to this particular source (along with Teesta), so I guess there should be no problem in moving the entire quote to section that you have mentioned. Capitals00 (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Nussbaum's book in question was criticized by scholar Jason A. Kirk, who wrote that "In some respects, the largest ego in this book is Nussbaum’s own", "parallels are interesting, but they are very casually drawn, and sometimes have the unfortunate quality of hearkening back to stale" and "What makes her stylistic choices here so disappointing is not just that they are beneath commonly held standards of professional scholarship, but that they fall short of the standards of conduct that Nussbaum herself (via Gandhi) sets for India and America."[16] Writings of Kirk has been also used by other scholars.[17] Thus his criticism needs to be cited as well, and this would be too big for lead, but we still have to say something like "Martha Nussbaum in 2008 said there is broad consensus that violence was carried out with the complicity of state, however John A. Kirk disputes findings of Nussbaum." Capitals00 (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00, I think you need to drop this issue, or go and actually find sources that support what you are saying. If a source from 2008 is outdated, then you need to show that recent scholarly sources say something different. You cannot keep linking to the findings of the NS commission, which are not directly relevant here. Kirk is only providing a very general critique of Nussbaum; not a specific refutation. Vanamonde (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the lead is full of statements about this being a pogrom, and other references from 2002-2009. There is ample verbiage in the lead that describes staged triggers, premeditated attacks, accusations on Modi and the state Govt in general. I do not understand why there is any additional need for a quote from Nussbaum when already there is plenty of summary information outlined to that effect. The specific quote probably does nothing to summarily describe other than one single quote that is basically restating whatever the lead was already stating. Just my thought that it is repetitive and serves no specific purpose. I do not object to its use elsewhere in the article to further describe the incident in the scholarly references. Sdmarathe (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00: I must here agree with what Capitals00 has said - Martha Nussbaum is not an expert on this subject. While she is an eminent scholar, her scholarship refers mostly to Greek philosophy (do see her works). Most of her books are also subjects alien to Godhra or India for that matter. Her only link to Godhra is one book, and I don't think she has spent more than two weeks in Gujarat. Hence using her as a source of information here seems to be misleading (if Indians who have researched this subject for years on length are used, it would be more credible). Notthebestusername (talk) 02:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not a productive discussion. Martha Nussbaum is very well qualified to describe the consensus of scholars. Please drop this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Still a quote from 2008 entirely basing its position on a long removed US ban on Modi is no more relevant. And also that it was inserted by a user who was evading block, there was no consensus to ad it. Capitals00 (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the ban was removed isn't evidence to discredit Nussbaum, especially since the ban was dropped because Modi was elected Prime Minister, not because the US exonerated him. This doesn't necessarily void the validity of her piece as Capitals00 has implied. I agree with Kautilya3.Willard84 (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:ILIKEIT cannot be the reason to keep. Capitals00 (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Restore cause of Riots

copied from my talk page Capitals00 (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC) Why did you restore that? It doesn't belong in the infobox. It's like saying the cause of 9/11 was "Western involvement in the middle east" or something like that. Maybe it's connected, but it's not the CAUSE. And every source says it may have been a trigger, not that it WAS the trigger. It was a pogrom, not retaliation for any event. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 14:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@El cid, el campeador: Its a long standing infobox edit, and all sources describe the burning of train as a cause, here are a few reliable ones I found in 2 minutes[18][19][20][21] yes it was retaliation. Capitals00 (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

"long standing" has never been a legitimate rationale for keeping something on wikipedia. It was an excuse to kill people. Rape retaliated in what way? The people being raped were those who burned the bus? And there is a difference between discussing something in the body and having something in an info box AS A FACT. You are citing google books to me that I can't even open. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 14:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

First source says "The train burning incident which sparked off the Gujarat riots", 2nd says "a mob from godhra city burned a coach and burned the passengers alive after which riots broke out", 3rd one says "the communal frenzy that gripped gujarat, caused by burning alive of 52 kar sevaks inside two bogies of the sabarmati express at godhra", and the fourth one says "godhra train burning which led to the gujarat riots of 2002". Capitals00 (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I have now added these scholarly sources that make it clearer that the riots took place following the Godhra train burning. In fact the two previous sources nonetheless support this assertion as well, its just they hadn't been attributed well. Capitals00 (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

"Anti-Muslim sentiment triggered by the.." is WP:UNDUE and not supported by the sources. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

There does not appear to be consensus either among editors here or among scholarly sources as to the cause of these riots. "triggered" and "caused" do not mean the same thing. World War II was "triggered" by the German invasion of Poland, but saying that was the cause would be quite shortsighted. Vanamonde (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It was a long standing edition to infobox, standing for years, and scholars clearly state that Godhra train burning was the only cause behind 2002 Gujarat riots.[22][23][24][25][ Unless you can provide the reason for your personal opinion, let the edit stay per WP:BRD. Capitals00 (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

And both of the added sources to the sentence "is believed to have triggered the violence" are contradictory to this misrepresentation, one says "The violence occurred in the aftermath of fire that broke out in a carriage of the Sabarmati Express train"[26] and other one says "burning of a coach at godhra killed 50 hindus set off a major retaliation".[27] I see no reason to deny adding this fact that Godhra train burning resulted in the riots. Capitals00 (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The stated cause has been in the version control for a long time, and it is a consensus to have been a cause and trigger. I support Capitals00 version in infobox. I have yet to review other items which I will opine after that. Sdmarathe (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Something being "long-standing" is not a reason to keep it in when it violates core policies. Scholars most certainly do not say the train burning was the only cause. Even the sources you provide do not say that. "In the aftermath of", and "triggered by", do not imply "caused by". Nobody is denying anything here. To add something so concise, in Wikipedia's voice, to the infobox, you need to show not only that it is supported by reliable sources, but that it is agreed upon by a preponderance of reliable sources. You have done nothing of the sort. Vanamonde (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You are not even reading any of the sources that I have provided. And your refusal to abide by WP:BRD is concerning. [28] clearly says "the communal frenzy that gripped gujarat, caused by burning alive of 52 kar sevaks inside two bogies of the sabarmati express at godhra", and [29]"godhra train burning which led to the gujarat riots of 2002". Leaves no doubt. Capitals00 (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't assume anything about my knowledge of the sources. I know what these say. You, on the other hand, have not read my comment carefully enough, nor have you read any of the older discussions on why an infobox is not particularly appropriate in this article, which focus on the disputes between sources. Infoboxes and articles are different in many respects. There are scholarly sources, such as those you have provided, which argue that the train burning caused the riots. There are scholarly sources which argue otherwise. According to WP:DUE, both those viewpoints need to be covered in the body of the article; which they have been. However, while such a disagreement exists, we cannot provide only one of these views in the infobox. That would contravene WP:DUE. Which is why I said that providing a couple of sources, in this case, is not enough. You need to show that a preponderance of sources supports this particular statement. Which is precisely what I said above, and what you ignored. Vanamonde (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

That's something I have already provided with 6 sources clearly stating it. If you have problem with infobox then we will need discussion about removing the infobox, but as long as its proven and accepted that the riots were caused by Godhra train burning, the infobox should state it. Capitals00 (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It has been an accepted Infobox item and was stated under "Causes" and not "Cause". There was no consensus to remove it from there. If someone feels that there are other causes duly supported by high standard sources, please list them on the talk page for review. Similarly if anything needs removed, please discuss that as well for consensus. Until then we should restore it back what the infobox was in its previously accepted state. (version 789471363) [30] Cheers! thanks! Sdmarathe (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Something being in the article for a while does not imply consensus. Moreover, the disagreement between scholars is already in the article. References 24, 25, and 32, for instance, already say that the violence was planned, and not simply a response to the train burning. Vanamonde (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You mean Brass? He doesn't say that it was not in retaliation to train burning or reject it. Capitals00 (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and RegentsPark: You were both around for previous discussions about this infobox; what do you think? Vanamonde (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't have problem with removing entire infobox. Capitals00 (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick note because I am in a rush. But I can provide more sources and argumentation later. In my view, it is not fair to overemphasize the idea that the violence was planned, as opposed to being triggered by the Godhra train burning. Many VHP activists got killed, the VHP called a bandh, and eveybody knew what was likely to happen during the bandh. The chain of events is clear and apparent. Communal violence is almost always planned, but it waits for a trigger. The former is a theory and the trigger is immediate and apparent. We cannot brush the trigger aside. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Sure. But precisely because of what you said, the situation requires a detailed description of the cause (such as you just provided, or as is present in the article lead) rather than a brief statement that tars over this complexity. Vanamonde (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

No more description is actually required here, we have stated the mainstream fact. If it has been modified without strong and relevant sources then it is just POV pushing. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm uncomfortable with the term "caused by" since it is not the same as triggered and causes can be complex but, clearly, we shouldn't drop the trigger from the infobox either because it is important. There isn't a natural place to drop it in so all I can suggest is - in order of preference - that we add something to notes "The riots were triggered by the Godhra train burning, drop the infobox in entirety, or leave causes in place. --regentspark (comment) 20:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hathaway

The mention of Hathaways article is notable: it is sourced, triggered speech at the House of Rep., and reactions. No real reason to dismiss it. Matunga-mumbai (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Matunga-mumbai: How about your bring the scholarly sources that discuss about the events that are proven than just plain allegations, or bring some peer reviewed arguments? Just providing some unproven allegations that were never investigated is not enough. Capitals00 (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00: "plain allegations" ? What are you talking about ? This has been brought up to the House of Rep, and is anyway from an article in a notable source. Matunga-mumbai (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

So the "house of rep" has been frequently reporting on this matter and this report has led few or even one conviction.. if that is what you are telling then only there should be any inclusion into article. Your source is from 2002. I don't see any other reports after on this matter, so why you are giving it so much importance? Capitals00 (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

More than one conviction, which is enough + ban of money transfer through charities. That foreign money is putting mess in India is notable and sourced. Matunga-mumbai (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you point out the conviction or ban (if any implemented)? I am not finding any in the source. Capitals00 (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Relevance of final paragraph of state complicity section

The last paragraph of the section on state complicity is marked as possibly irrelevant and has been so for three years. I believe that seeing as no one but the original tagger seems to have doubted its relevance enough, the tags should probably be removed, now. More substantively, the note on Modi is about the aftermath of "Allegations of state complicity" and how those allegations have shaken the community. Similarly, the note on the US Commission's report is how those allegations have affected India internationally. That these statements are about effects of the allegations doesn't mean they're irrelevant to the allegations. Thoughts? Mehmuffin (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Copy editing needed

Hi - as the article is protected I am unable to edit. Therefore could someone with access undertake a copy edit ? For example:

• spelling mistakes (traveling, neighborhood)
• extraneous hyphen (twenty-five)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.180.181 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for pointing this out. I have corrected traveling and neighborhood to travelling and neighbourhood -- Indian English. I am not sure about "twenty-five". Please let us know if there are more problems. MPS1992 (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2002 Gujarat riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5h97FrUsa?url=http://www.indianexpress.com/story/232545.html to http://www.indianexpress.com/story/232545.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071101085909/http://www.indianexpress.com/story/233175.html to http://www.indianexpress.com/story/233175.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709090641/http://www.indianexpress.com/story/232757.html to http://www.indianexpress.com/story/232757.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2017

While this page mentions that many scholars view this as an anti-Muslim pogrom, this page is biased in not mentioning the scholarly articles which accept that the Gujrat riots were just that, riots. In doing this, that is, showing only one perspective of the scholarly take on this incident, Wikipedia is basically coming to a conclusion that the riots were anti-Muslim pogrom. Wikipedia is establishing this to be the truth for subsequent readers of this article. Whereas this is certainly just a highly debatable opinion, not absolute truth.

For that to happen, please include the rebuttals to these scholars as well. Agent raymond232 (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - You requested that a semi protected page be edited for you by someone else. However your request is not specific enough to be implemented. Please specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Primarily targeted against the Muslim community

So apparently there is an issue with the statement that these riots were primarily targeted against Gujarat's Muslim community. Various sources throughout the article support this statement. Almost all articles on the subject refer to the incident as "Anti-Muslim riots." The event is also referred to as a "pogrom," organized massacres of a SPECIFIC ethnic or religious group, not characteristic of a riot. Undoubtedly, there were many Hindus killed during the onslaught, but as stated in the article, most were killed in the process of attacking Muslim homes. Stating the obvious, with sources that are neutral is not biased. RahulRamchandani (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Francois Gautier

Francois Gautier is a known Indologist and promoter of Hindu nationalism. He is sourced in this article, yet his article is CLEARLY biased against the Muslim community, as well as Christians and other minorities. The article in question clearly mentions the superiority of the Hindu religion, and the "atrocities" of Islam in the subcontinent. The number he provides for riots started by Muslims is not sourced, and should not be cited as a reliable source. Source: http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/mar/11franc.htm RahulRamchandani (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)