Bakasuprman (talk | contribs) |
→undid reversion: reply |
||
Line 129: | Line 129: | ||
:The commission headed by G.T. Nanavati is [http://www.hindu.com/2004/09/16/stories/2004091607341100.htm official] (note set up by the State of Gujarat). Balbir Punj is more than just another BJP MP, he is a quite notable journalist, ''a la'' [[Arun Shourie]]. He worked for the [[Financial Express]] for ''22 years'' and is quite competent in commenting on these issues.<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<font color="black">Baka</font>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<font color="green">man</font>]]</b> 18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC) |
:The commission headed by G.T. Nanavati is [http://www.hindu.com/2004/09/16/stories/2004091607341100.htm official] (note set up by the State of Gujarat). Balbir Punj is more than just another BJP MP, he is a quite notable journalist, ''a la'' [[Arun Shourie]]. He worked for the [[Financial Express]] for ''22 years'' and is quite competent in commenting on these issues.<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<font color="black">Baka</font>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<font color="green">man</font>]]</b> 18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
::The commission is yet[http://www.hindu.com/2007/03/29/stories/2007032918821300.htm] to submit an ''interim'' report in 2007, let alone ''conclude'' anything in 2003, as your edit[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_Gujarat_violence&diff=prev&oldid=147736214] suggests. all the source supports is that Nanavati ''said in an interview'', which is precisely[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_Gujarat_violence&diff=148037854&oldid=147736214] how i've worded it. |
|||
::you can take up ur debate over whether Punj should be named or not with [[User:Zamkudi]], who is the one who removed it[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_Gujarat_violence&diff=146087691&oldid=146052680]. i couldn't care less. |
|||
::and instead of continuing to do wholesale reverts of proper edits, consider that you've failed to justify the one issue you addressed among all the problems with your edit. [[User:Doldrums|Doldrums]] 18:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:22, 1 August 2007
![]() | India: Gujarat / History / Politics B‑class High‑importance ![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please sign all your posts on Wikipedia talk pages by typing ~~~~ to be accountable and to help others understand the conversation.
Mediation
There was a contrast of day and night in the versions of the riots as projected by the 'national' English media and the local Gujarati media. Not only that, there was a huge difference in the versions of the riots as projected by this same media in March-April 2002 and in the later months. The Hindu reports in its issue dated 2nd March 2002 that-"Unlike Thursday (Feb 28) when one community was entirely at the receiving end, today (1st March) the minority backlash has furtehr worsened the situation". The Times of India dated 18 March 2002 reports-"Riots hti all clases, people of all faith" that 10,000 Hindus were homeless in Ahmedabad alone driven out of their homes by Muslims. The Indian Express dated 7 May 2002 and 10 May 2002 also reports the Hindu refugees of Gujarat. Muslims are on record starting 157 riots in Gujarat after 3rd March 2002. Hindus were brutally murdered by Muslims in Gujarat even after Godhra. There have been convictions of Muslims for rioting many times. On 28 March 2006 the Ahmedabad sessions court sentenced 9 Muslims for attacking and murdering Hindus in Ahmedabad's Danilimda area on 12 April 2002. On 16 October 2003, a Vadodara fast track court sentenced 4 Muslims to life imprisonment for killing a Hindu in Ahmedabad in March 2002. There have been two more convictions of Muslims when 7 and 2 Muslims were sentenced by various courts in Gujarat. 10 Muslims more were sentenced by POTA court for carrying bomb blasts in Ahmedbad buses in May 2002 by a special POTA court dated 13 May 2006. India Today weekly also has reported many times on Hindus suffering in Gujarat. These primary sources should be enough to blast the myths carried out by the Leftist media on the Gujarat riots.
Mediation
An Admin suggested mediation as a means of addressing problems here. I'm not entirely familiar with the processes, but if that is what is necessary, I'll go for it. Are others here willing to participate in mediation? Is there anything about mediation that participants would be obliged to follow once its concluded? The situation here is a joke, and one would think mediation wouldn't be necessary to persuade people to abide by existing WP policies. MinaretDk 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- "In turn, some have accused these news media agencies, non-governmental organizations and human rights advocacy groups of media bias and bias against Hindus[14][15][16][17]." - these "some" could always be in any story - say if you write that Zarqawi killed x number of people. There will always be "some" people who will find themselves on the wrong side and they will criticise the media bias or bias against Al-Qaeda.What use is this sentence, other than as a weasel Neptunion 17:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's a weasel, no doubt. RumpleStiltSkin and Bakasuprman don't care though. They've deleted content with reliable sources, opting to retain 'original research'. The article emphasizes unreliable sources such as blogs and articles on community portal websites written by nobodies. They don't care. Unfortunately since my correcting these problems means me being accused of 'edit warring', I have to sit and just look at this bullshit. MinaretDk 17:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- "In turn, some have accused these news media agencies, non-governmental organizations and human rights advocacy groups of media bias and bias against Hindus[14][15][16][17]." - these "some" could always be in any story - say if you write that Zarqawi killed x number of people. There will always be "some" people who will find themselves on the wrong side and they will criticise the media bias or bias against Al-Qaeda.What use is this sentence, other than as a weasel Neptunion 17:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- BhaiSaab and TerryJ-Ho isnt there a better place to argue this?Bakaman 18:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Terrorism
This was an act of terrorism and should be listed as such under "Terrorism in India". Almost all, if not all, of the terrorist acts listed under it were perpetrated by Muslims, and we all know Hindus have committed terrorist acts as well. This needs to be listed. JBull12 13:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
There are some bias against Muslims in this articles and it represent in some datas for example, when they say 254 hindus killed, most of them in the police firing. At the same time they should tell them those "254 hindus killed most of them police firing" are just amount to 20% where Muslims were killed in police firing were 80% from the total killed by police firing. So, its obvious that when they were carrying out attacks on muslims, how could 80% of muslims die in Police firing being as a victim of this tragedy. There are many views in this article are placed in such a way that the cold blooded killings of muslims can be shown as a common phenomina. There is no hint in this article that if the train is not burned from outside according to all the reports. Why they did not touch a possibility of preplanned strategy from Gujarat Government to get down so dirty to play politics on the dead bodies human beings. They are confusing the role of the gujarat governments by just posting the stupid excuses of Modi group while on the other hand all the human right organisations talking with the real datas.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence/Comments"
- JBull, By most accounts this was a state sponsored act of terrorism against people of Muslim faith in Gujarat [Most of the good links, journalistic ones tend to get disappear, you can imagine why] .This article - the way it is being maintained serves to wash away the crimes of the perpetrators at the same time showing the incidents as fairly normal and two sided.Even the title of the article suffers from the same - instead of Gujarat Killings or Anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat [Some sources even call it Gujarat Genocide], it says Gujarat Violence..and you can still see why the end paras are all like ..[Bias of Media (against Hindus),Bias of X (against Hindus) ..and so on.I am wondering if there is a way we can make someone neutral actually own this page.The democratic aspect of WP is actually becoming a bane on this article , for there is an overwhelming presence of the like minded persons of a particular community who would rather think this page never existed.Mcleodganj 03:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the titles of the sections such as "Bias of the X" seem POV. I think they should be edited to be more neutral. Buddhipriya 03:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've only heard spurious allegations from Muslim extremists (BhaiSaab (talk · contribs)) and sockpuppeteers (like Jbull). Terrorism is like blowing up a train, not larghe swaths of people beating each other up. Did you forget 200+ Hindus died, and tribals were killed in cold blood by Muslims? Its not terrorism, its a string of riots and killings, accurately summed up as violence.Bakaman 18:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Buddhipriya, to respond to you, the biases of left-leaning pappers and correpsondents are often mentioned. Since this conflict was the only thing that happened in 2002, there are many conflicting views, accurately detailed by their prejudices and predilections.Bakaman 18:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Lets not forget
Lets not forget Hindu boy (you above)that 2000+ Muslims had died, and no justice has been given.--Yu5uF 17:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
explain reversion
[1]on the contrary, it is not NPOV to word an allegation of a criminal act as "believed to have done", after the allegation has been dismissed by court-appointed enquiry, without reporting either Setalvad's denial[2] or the court's findings[3] and without reporting the many other allegations[4] thrown around both by Zaheera Sheikh and others. Doldrums 11:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- ...that Teesta Setalvad was accused of bribing witnesses is not a disputed fact at all and it is backed up by sources. Wikipedia's policy on neutrality does not deny entry of facts that are backed up by relevant and reliable citations. You can easily fix the lacunae by adding relevant information alongside with the assertions of allegations instead of reverting. Go Dhokla! -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 11:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- "believed to have been" is not an accusation, it is a weasal-worded statement of fact. it is also a contentious statement about a living person reported in a non-neutral manner. so i did what i can do to fix it. Doldrums 11:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with you there, we should take utmost care that we do not violate WP:LIVING in any manner. I hope you do agree with the change I have made now. But if you don't, please feel free to revert! :) Go Dhokla! -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 12:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- "believed to have been" is not an accusation, it is a weasal-worded statement of fact. it is also a contentious statement about a living person reported in a non-neutral manner. so i did what i can do to fix it. Doldrums 11:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
duplicated content
why does the Roy piece in particular need to be duplicated (in full) as "context"[5] out of more than half the article (sections on the role of the government, hindutva organisations, press) that is also context for the violence? Doldrums 07:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Blogs
Too much of the material has been sourced to blogs of dubious notability. All of that has been removed. Also, the SAAG 'guest columnist' is described as an undergraduate. I hardly think that this is an encyclopaedic reference. Hornplease 08:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good job. All references to advocacy groups and sites with dubious repute should also be removed from the article. Best of luck! -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm with that in principle, but do you think HRW counts as a common or garden 'advocacy group'? I don't think so. Hornplease 19:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- HRW is not unbiased in the matter, so there should be no undue weight given to their views. SAAG on the other hand, is a think-tank, used by many universities as a legitimate avenue for research.Bakaman 01:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- That statement has little or no credibility. HRW, whether or not it is biased, was the most widely read source on Gujarat. Statements can be sourced to the report even if HRW is not linked directly, as the report, in the public domain, was quoted widely in reliable sources. As for SAAG, I have no opinion at this time; the paper their website hosts, however, is known to be written by an undergraduate, with a clear denial of editorial review, and is thus not WP:RS.Hornplease 05:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- HRW is not unbiased in the matter, so there should be no undue weight given to their views. SAAG on the other hand, is a think-tank, used by many universities as a legitimate avenue for research.Bakaman 01:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm with that in principle, but do you think HRW counts as a common or garden 'advocacy group'? I don't think so. Hornplease 19:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Whether HRW is biased or unbiased is not the locus of dispute, it is a reputable source which should be included but not overused in a manner that compromises neutrality of the article. In the same manner SAAG cannot be considered a source failing WP:RS, as this website has a number of renowned authors/journalists contributing with editorial oversight. Undue weightage on a single source should be avoided so that the article does not skew in favour of a particular point of view. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 09:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, there is no indication that there is editorial oversight. The comparison is to working papers in academic fields, which are frequently hosted on university websites but are not peer-reviewed and are thus not RS. In this case, I certainly see no way that an article by an undergraduate without peer-review could possibly be considered RS. Naturally, this does not extend automatically to articles by B.Raman.
- About HRW, we do not want to skew the reporting, and are forbidden to under WP:NPOV. We have to report in rough proportion to the number of reliable sources that actually relied on HRW's fact-finding. Naturally they will be heavily represented here, because they were heavily represented in the mainstream media at the time. Hornplease 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
"Bias of Human Rights Watch"
text removed from article.
Justice G.T. Nanavati of the Nanavati Commission has rejected the HRW claims of exclusive Hindu involvement, stating that On the evidence that they have recorded so far, it would not be fair to say that only Muslims were targeted. And there was a contrast of day and night in the versions of the riots as projected by the national English media and the sharply contrasting versions appearing in the local Gujarati papers of all hues. Every Gujarati newspaper reported the riots in the same way, that after the first three days of rioting from 28 February to March 2, from 3 March 2002 to the last riot, every riot was started by Muslims. Initially though Hindus may have been the perpetrators of violence because they were angry, later members of both communities were engaged in the violence[1].
- ^ Ltd evidence against VHP, Bajrang Dal in Guj riots,Outlookindia.com
The only thing supported in the cited article is that Justice Nanavai says that on the evidence the commission recorded they have recorded so far, it would not be fair to say that only Muslims were targeted. HRW does not make claims of "exclusive Hindu involvement", in fact the WP article describes earlier, HRW's characterization of attacks on Hindus by muslims.Doldrums 09:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Include the sourced part(s) and seclude the misrepresented part(s). -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 09:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
'bias of' this and that
this article is not the place to state general criticism of people and organisations mentioned in it. criticism that addresses their actions related to the riots are appropriate. such criticism needs to be proportionate to its importance to the riots and the coverage it received in the real world. Doldrums 04:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Those relevant organizations have been criticized for anti-Hindu bias by a mainstream journalist in India. Bakaman 22:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- irrelevant. this is not the place for general criticism, only criticism relating to the riots. any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. (WP:NOR) Doldrums 05:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well then Celia dugger's hinduphobic rants do not belong in the article per WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight.Bakaman 18:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Celia Dugger's reporting is on-topic, Varsha Bhosle's is not. one stays, the other goes.
- feel free to identify any particular bit that you think is being given undue weight, and we'll see if the weight it is given reflects its real world prominence. if you're comparing Dugger and Bhosle, keep in mind that Dugger is reporting, Bhosle is writing an opinion column. Dugger is reporting local's views, not her own, unlike Bhosle. Dugger writes for the NYT. Bhosle, a Rediff
blogcolumn.Doldrums 05:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)- A notable journalist on a reliable source? Should be included. (specific reference to Varsha) -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 09:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- a "notable journalist" talking about the riots or media coverage of the riots is appropriate. but this article is not the place for the same journalist's opinion of media sources unless they're expressed directly relating to the riots. that's why we don't, for example, report the ten thousand other things various people have said over the years about the NYT, or the Guardian.Doldrums 03:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Biased reporting" and "criticism of media and sources" is regularly added in articles across Wikipedia. Please refer me to the guideline stating otherwise. Go Dhokla! -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Um, oh, what...? Pleading original research? Varsha was published by a reputed online source, and this is in relation to the topic of the article. The media criticised the government and the media criticised other media for biases in reporting. You can have a look here for example. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 09:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- this is in relation to the topic of the article. ummm... Bhosle criticises the NYT in 1999. She finds her favourite bias in the Guardian in its coverage of a Supreme Court verdict regarding education standards. and to respond to any forthcoming posts about the same bias that Bhosle talked about being present in coverage of the Gujarat riots; source it. Doldrums 10:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- a "notable journalist" talking about the riots or media coverage of the riots is appropriate. but this article is not the place for the same journalist's opinion of media sources unless they're expressed directly relating to the riots. that's why we don't, for example, report the ten thousand other things various people have said over the years about the NYT, or the Guardian.Doldrums 03:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- These two sources specifically make references to the 2002 Gujarat violence. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 11:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- do These?Doldrums 17:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you insist in keeping every tablighi lament in the article, then its quite prudent to keep those that have criticized Hinduphobic journalists in a liberal biased newspaper. If the allegations were published in the Wall Street Journal, a criticism might not be so relevant, however its no secret the NYT despises conservatives, and the BJP is not a liberal party.Bakaman 22:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- attempts to lend "balance" to an article by adding unsourced material are a non-starter. after discussing this for close to a week now, do i still need to point out that Bhosle has not in fact criticised Dugger's or the Guardian's reporting of the 2002 Gujarat violence, "specially for misusing the term 'Genocide'" in the sources provided? Doldrums 06:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you insist in keeping every tablighi lament in the article, then its quite prudent to keep those that have criticized Hinduphobic journalists in a liberal biased newspaper. If the allegations were published in the Wall Street Journal, a criticism might not be so relevant, however its no secret the NYT despises conservatives, and the BJP is not a liberal party.Bakaman 22:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- do These?Doldrums 17:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Any misrepresentation should be removed from the article. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 09:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- A notable journalist on a reliable source? Should be included. (specific reference to Varsha) -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 09:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well then Celia dugger's hinduphobic rants do not belong in the article per WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight.Bakaman 18:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Balbir Punj is a very notable journalist and a notable politician as well.Bakaman 22:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am very sorry. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 09:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
fact check
have tagged the article after finding several instances where source material has been incorrectly or misleadingly reported [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Doldrums 09:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
undid reversion
- adds unsourced material ("Celia Dugger's [...] reporting of the 2002 Gujarat violence [...] criticized", "The Guardian [...] criticized for [...] misusing the term "Genocide"")
- removes sourced text ("Supreme Court [...] critical of [...] state government's investigation and prosecution") and
- misrepresents sources (removal of "unsubstantiated rumours", "official commission led by G.T. Nanavati concluded").
these changes have certainly not been "aptly discussed", as claimed in the edit summary, let alone resolved in favour the changes actually made. i've reverted the changes so as to remove the unsourced text and restore sourced text. pls do not revert this change without addressing the issues raised. Doldrums 12:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- The commission headed by G.T. Nanavati is official (note set up by the State of Gujarat). Balbir Punj is more than just another BJP MP, he is a quite notable journalist, a la Arun Shourie. He worked for the Financial Express for 22 years and is quite competent in commenting on these issues.Bakaman 18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- The commission is yet[11] to submit an interim report in 2007, let alone conclude anything in 2003, as your edit[12] suggests. all the source supports is that Nanavati said in an interview, which is precisely[13] how i've worded it.
- you can take up ur debate over whether Punj should be named or not with User:Zamkudi, who is the one who removed it[14]. i couldn't care less.
- and instead of continuing to do wholesale reverts of proper edits, consider that you've failed to justify the one issue you addressed among all the problems with your edit. Doldrums 18:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)