MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 1 thread from Talk:2002 Gujarat violence. |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 discussion(s) from Talk:2002 Gujarat violence) (bot |
||
Line 363: | Line 363: | ||
The source used in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_Gujarat_violence&diff=prev&oldid=569057281 this] edit has obviously copy and pasted large chunks of the HRW report and has not attributed it that I see in their article, is this a linkvio? [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 09:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
The source used in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_Gujarat_violence&diff=prev&oldid=569057281 this] edit has obviously copy and pasted large chunks of the HRW report and has not attributed it that I see in their article, is this a linkvio? [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 09:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
: Rather, it looks like the reverse. I went through the HRW PDF [http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/india/gujarat.pdf] and was unable to find such lines (I searched with Combing,power lines, chain). Then, I went to the HRW site and found out that this PDF was posted on April 30[http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/04/30/we-have-no-orders-save-you]. But India Today had published it at April 15[http://www.indiatoday.com/itoday/20020415/states.shtml]. - [[User:Vatsan34|Vatsan34]] ([[User talk:Vatsan34|talk]]) 11:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
: Rather, it looks like the reverse. I went through the HRW PDF [http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/india/gujarat.pdf] and was unable to find such lines (I searched with Combing,power lines, chain). Then, I went to the HRW site and found out that this PDF was posted on April 30[http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/04/30/we-have-no-orders-save-you]. But India Today had published it at April 15[http://www.indiatoday.com/itoday/20020415/states.shtml]. - [[User:Vatsan34|Vatsan34]] ([[User talk:Vatsan34|talk]]) 11:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
== Not thought to be! == |
|||
This article has this line in the first paragraph: ''The attack on 27 February 2002 on a train, '''thought by most to have been carried out by Muslims''', .... with some commentators calling the violence an act of retaliation''. When I tried to change the sentence in '''bold''' to '''carried out by Muslims''', the edit was reverted stating that books are the major source and is treated better than newspapers, when I tried to quote [http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/11-get-death-in-godhra-train-burning-case/article1500325.ece this]. So, I tried to go through the source [book] mentioned next to the line and searched for the Gujarat riots. In ''Hakeem, Farrukh B.; Maria R. Haberfeld, Arvind Verma (2012). Policing Muslim Communities: Comparative and International Context. Springer. p. 81'', all I could find is this ''An attack by Muslims on Hindu pilgrims travelling in a train and burning of coach in Godhra that killed 50 Hindus set off...''. The source had mentioned that it was '''An attack by Muslims on Hindu pilgrims''' and the newspaper that I had linked above says the same. Can we change the sentence to '''carried out by Muslims''' now? - [[User:Vatsan34|Vatsan34]] ([[User talk:Vatsan34|talk]]) 16:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:err, no? Because there are many other sources that cast doubt on that claim.[[User talk:Maunus|User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·]] 17:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Like this one [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12605659]? Maybe, BBC is not a valid source? - [[User:Vatsan34|Vatsan34]] ([[User talk:Vatsan34|talk]]) 18:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Any updated claims to support that? [[User:Shovon76|Shovon]] ([[User talk:Shovon76|talk]]) 17:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::So you mean to say Newspapers, Court judgements and Commission findings are not credible compared to books written? - [[User:Vatsan34|Vatsan34]] ([[User talk:Vatsan34|talk]]) 17:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Even the particular academic source clearly says that, ''"An attack by Muslims on Hindu pilgrims traveling in a train and burning of a coach at Godhra that killed 50 Hindus set off a major retaliation inwhich almost 2,000 Muslims were killed (Sinha 2010)."'' Clearly it was misrepresented in the article earlier. [[User:Shovon76|Shovon]] ([[User talk:Shovon76|talk]]) 17:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::If people move shit around do not blame me, there are more that enough sources which say this, I will go through the history, again, and restore the correct source. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 19:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Do you mean to say that the particular source wasn't introduced by you? [[User:Shovon76|Shovon]] ([[User talk:Shovon76|talk]]) 15:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Please restore the sources or put it up here for discussion. There are a lot of differences between '''alleged''' and '''did'''. When it was obvious from the court judgement to photos and enquiries, why depend on a book authored by an author as an authentic source? If the commission or media is biased towards Muslims, then those authors also can be! So, how much GigaByte of proof is needed to say that the train that burnt and the lives that were lost was not just an accident? - [[User:Vatsan34|Vatsan34]] ([[User talk:Vatsan34|talk]]) 17:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The court judgment does not matter at all per our policies, this has been discussed to death and beyond. Shovan I have no idea, all I know is when I introduce content it is A in the source, and B the source is usually an academic one. Like I said, I will check to see were the error occurred. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 18:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::If so, please show me the policy page, which underlines that court judgment does not matter. If court judgement does not matter, what about this section [[2002_Gujarat_violence#Criminal_prosecutions]], which talks only about Court judgment. - [[User:Vatsan34|Vatsan34]] ([[User talk:Vatsan34|talk]]) 05:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::That would be NPOV. We do not discount sources because a court has an opinion. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 07:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Here goes another source: In ''A Time of Coalitions: Divided We Stand By Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Shankar Raghuraman Pg.32'', it is mentioned ''The orgy of violence began in the early hours of February 27,2002 when kar sevaks...travelling on the Sabarmati Express were torched to death by a Muslim mob near an obscure railway station called Godhra''. Not thought to be! - [[User:Vatsan34|Vatsan34]] ([[User talk:Vatsan34|talk]]) 17:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::All you are doing is proving that "widely believed to be" is accurate. Question, how is the way it is currently written not neutral? [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 19:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Actually, the article presents "widely believed to be" data instead of accurate data. A simple read can say it lacks NPOV. I bet even the people who were in Gujarat(non-Hindus) during the riots might find this article provocative rather than informative. A read on the pages of the books mentioned in the sources reveal that those authors depend on hear-say and rumors to describe incident. Many of the authors do not know much thing about past of Gujarat and rely on other authors, who in turn had believed accounts of two or more people in Gujarat. Those authors had their POV mixed with person representing it. A Hindu Nationalist will downplay the riots, while a hardcore Muslim might magnify it, but Wikipedia needs to provide NPOV. Upon reading the [[WP:IRS]], it did not mentioned the order in which a source should be used. It had mentioned that a newspaper article written by an expert or a newspaper article written as describing news instead of mixing the writer's view can be considered as reliable source. Newspapers generally carry the events as it happened, while books written by foreigners can be easily spinned, as those authors can be easily given false info! That is what Tourist Guides usually do to earn a lot!''(winks)'' - [[User:Vatsan34|Vatsan34]] ([[User talk:Vatsan34|talk]]) 04:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
{{outdent}} Sources written by respectable academics and hsitorians significantly after the fact are ''always'' better references than newspaper articles written in the heat of the moment. The former are the product of extensive research and a significant vetting process by the editorial teams. The latter are written extremely quickly, based on any available information (which may be later contradicted or retracted or found to be incomplete). In every case on Wikipedia, we should always always always strive to use sources written by experts significantly after the fact. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 04:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Agreed! I wish someone had told me such a precise reply. I agree to this. But what I want is people to show me a valid source which says ''thought to be''. Lets weigh the number of sources that say ''they did'' and number of sources that say ''many thought they did''. If the majority of sources claim latter, then let the article stay as it is. Or else, I would request a change in it! - [[User:Vatsan34|Vatsan34]] ([[User talk:Vatsan34|talk]]) 06:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::We do not need a source which says exactly that, the lede is an overview of the article, there are sources in the article which dispute the official narrative, such as ''A Concise History of Modern India'' ''A Companion to the Anthropology of India'' So the lede is accurate. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 07:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::: Oh, Wow. So, a fiction novel has now become a reliable source. ''Sinha, Tuhin A (2010). "Chaitali". Of Love and Politics. Hachette. ''[http://books.google.co.in/books?id=3GUYEf86KoEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Sinha,+Tuhin+A+%282010%29.+%22Chaitali%22.+Of+Love+and+Politics.+Hachette&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AfIQUuSDKYfMrQe2soGYDw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=godhra&f=false]. I think I might get more surprises here in this article. The book does not have single word called Gujarat or Godhra. - [[User:Vatsan34|Vatsan34]] ([[User talk:Vatsan34|talk]]) 16:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::There are several sources in the book that consider the claim that the violence was incited by a Muslim attack to be specious, considering it instead to be the general consensus that the attacks were preplanned and that the Godhra incident was likely staged to frame Muslims: such sources include Paul Brass, Martha Nussbaum, Christophe Jaffrelot, the citizens for justice and peace report, and several others. We can not present the "Muslim mob" theory as fact while such prominent scholars contradict it. We can of course note that a number of muslims were convicted for it.[[User talk:Maunus|User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·]] 16:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Logically explain why sources by Jaffrelot, et al that predate the findings of the court case are legitimate criticism of the findings of the court case in question. By the way, DS, looks there is no such consensus to accept using Brass 2002 to argue against a 2011 case. There are numerous academic sources (which unsurprisingly were deleted in your reverts) that accept the court findings, and are from after the case. As has been noted ''ad nauseam'', the CJP report is unreliable (and from Teesta, an accused perjurer).[[User:Pectore|Pectore]]<sup>[[User talk:Pectore|talk]]</sup> 00:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I would highly recommend you stop accusing Teesta of perjury, it is a BLP violation. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 11:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Being discussed at NPOVN == |
|||
See [[WP:NPOVN#2002 Gujarat riots]]. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 12:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Nobody ready to discuss?? Seems, you guys look at people who challenge your POV as someone who needs to be eliminated from Wikipedia, like accusing them as Sockpuppets? ''(hehehe)'' - [[User:Vatsan34|Vatsan34]] ([[User talk:Vatsan34|talk]]) 15:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Validity of the Sources == |
|||
Let us discuss the validity of the sources, as there is a strong bias in the sources provided in this article. I will restrict myself in adding the validity of sources under this particular topic, instead of creating several new topics. To start with, this book ''Campbell, John (2012). Chris Seiple, Dennis Hoover, Dennis R. Hoover, Pauletta Otis, ed. The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Security. Routledge. p. 233.'' was credited in the second paragraph to vouch the line ''Other sources estimate that up to 2000 Muslims died''. Now, a peek into the book shows that the author had mentioned the happening of Sabarmati train burning as 1993 and not 2002. A printing mistake maybe, but the number 2000 is not such it seems. Here goes the line - ''On '''February 27,1993''', a train bringing supporters of RSS and VHP was on its way back to Gujarat from Ayodhya,where the travelers had attended a ceremony celebrating the destruction of Babri Masjid''. Again, it was not celebration of destruction. The destruction day was Dec 6 and they were returning on Feb 27. The nearest event on Ayodhya that time was the Purna Ahuti Yagya [http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/02ayo3.htm], which started on Feb 18, 2002. I think the validity of the source needs to be rechecked. Whether this book a direct ground report of the happenings or a copy-of-the-copy-of-the-copy of a publication, is yet to be found out! - [[User:Vatsan34|Vatsan34]] ([[User talk:Vatsan34|talk]]) 18:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Do you have issues with reading? The source say, "Two events in 1992 and 2002" you cannot discount a source over a typo. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 18:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::No, I do not. What if it was not a typo? If you could credit a source for ''2000 killed'', then I can use that very same source to claim in this article that the Godhra train burning took place on '''1993''' and not in 2002. Other sources might be wrong, but Routledge can never be.''(winks)'' - [[User:Vatsan34|Vatsan34]] ([[User talk:Vatsan34|talk]]) 05:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::What exactly does "validity of the source" mean? Is it's reliability being challenged per [[WP:IRS]]? It's a Routledge publication, and they're a very highly respected publisher. If the issue really is just a typo, then it actually seems like a non-issue. [[User:MezzoMezzo|MezzoMezzo]] ([[User talk:MezzoMezzo|talk]]) 20:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::If a source cites the event happening itself nine years back, will you still consider that source as credible? Imagine your history books placing US Independece to 1756 or First World War to 1905? Is this a [[Bible]] to take verses that suits and discard the rest? ''(chuckles)'' - [[User:Vatsan34|Vatsan34]] ([[User talk:Vatsan34|talk]]) 05:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::Nonsense wikilawyering as usual, trying to find whatever reason possible to discount academic sources because they don't tend to support the BJP narrative.[[User talk:Maunus|User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·]] 06:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Don't be a '''Racist'''. By stereotyping me as follower of BJP and as Hindu based on my name, you are in-fact making a racist comment! ''(playing victim)'' .. Jokes apart, this article does not have NPOV but MPOV(Muslim Point of View) and as a Wikipedian, I am committed to highlight the discrepancies and false stuffs in the article. I did not come here to prove that India is holy place or Modi is innocent or Muslims were not killed. - [[User:Vatsan34|Vatsan34]] ([[User talk:Vatsan34|talk]]) 06:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I am not stereotyping you, I am observing the actions of a group of editors who clearly are only here to intoduce as much of the BJP narrative as possible and do so in spite of wikipolicies about sourcing. You are doing the same, I don't care why, but you are. I have no knowledge of your race or religion, but your actions are visible to all.[[User talk:Maunus|User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·]] 14:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Everyone's action is visible to all in Wikipedia. I do not belong to any race or religion and I had mentioned ''playing victim'', so I felt you would had got the sarcasm. I find it funny that looking onto the sources here, you guys are still focused on approving one line from it which suits your POV, while not allowing another line from the same sources because it is against your POV! - [[User:Vatsan34|Vatsan34]] ([[User talk:Vatsan34|talk]]) 17:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I doubt it has a Muslim POV, given I wrote most of the existing content. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 07:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::[[File:Smiley lol.gif|30px]] §§[[User:Dharmadhyaksha|<font color = "red" >Dharmadhyaksha</font>]]§§ {[[User talk:Dharmadhyaksha|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Dharmadhyaksha|C]]} 08:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Is that meant to convey a point? [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 14:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I think it's approval, as even though what you said is true it also came off as kind of funny in its presentation. [[User:MezzoMezzo|MezzoMezzo]] ([[User talk:MezzoMezzo|talk]]) 03:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:13, 27 December 2013
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Rfc
Article was created on 19 October 2003. Until this 2 July 2013 version, over 1050 users have improved the article through more than 3600 edits as you can see from history statistics. Now User:Darkness Shines has created his own version of article in his userspace here. Some part of his version is inserted in the article before page protection. He wants to replace whole article with his version of the article. He believe that his version covers WP:NPOV of all wikipedia community. You are requested to comment whether community version should be allowed to replace with his own version. neo (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Neo, I have commented out the RfC tag. RfC messages must be neutral. You're practically beating uninvolved users over the head with your opinion. If you want to work together on a neutral phasing, I will do so. However, your actions throughout this page are very rapidly beginning to cross the bounds of acceptable behavior, especially since this article is under WP:Discretionary sanctions, meaning that standards are held extra high. If you are unable to politely and civilly work with others, including dealing with the possibility that the version you like may not actually be the final consensus version, then you need to find a new topic to edit under. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- He has also posted to the Noticeboard for India-related topics [1], second time he has posted there about this article in fact. What happens when people come to vote in a now non existent RFC? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Reference request
Got here through some ANI discussion - and reading through the text I wanted to Request addition of reference/citation to this text.
Times of India claimed that 93 Muslims were killed by police fire and only 77 Hindus, however Gujarat Police and BJP claimed that majority of 198 Hindus (excluding the 59 killed in Godhra) killed were due to police fire and not in riots.
Also unless this is a quote can this be edited to say 93 muslims compared to 77 hindus... (using the word "only" makes it look like a competition, even if the death was 1 in count). A m i t ❤ 15:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Can you give me the link for that please, I have one source which says 95% of Hindus killed was due to police shootings, this will corroborate it nicely. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- I dont have one, thats why requesting some one to add it. This just seemed like a vague comparison of numbers. Also I am sorry to add (nothing related to content) but the flow and cohesion of the article as a whole is needing a lot of attention, also the lead section needs to be reduced a little bit too. what can be done for that? 15:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC) A m i t ❤
- I was fixing it but an edit war ensued between two other users, the current mess is the result. If the page ever gets unprotected I will be reverting back to the pre edit war version, which w about halfway through my fixes. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 8 July 2013
Please change the article to [revision 563017140]. The current state of article is a mess and it should be better if it is changed to this revision. The consensus is in favor of his version. (User:Neo's position is not included in this consensus since it was not supported by the policies of Wikipedia, and he will not be justifying his position anymore. See Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence#Edit_request_on_6_July_2013)
Rahul Jain (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Article is no longer protected. --regentspark (comment) 22:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Unprotected
I've unprotected the article assuming that everyone is going to edit in good faith from now on. No edit warring and, per the ANI discussion, no mass reversion please. Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 22:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Chronology
I think there are some chronological problems because the section called "background" is almost entirely about the aftermath and ensuing investigations. But it is impossible to understand the investigations and their significance without first having the event and the violence described. I think the correct think is to have a background section that explains what communalism is, the history of communal violence in Gujarat and then describes the Godhra train fire while noting that it is not known what caused it but that Hindus reacted to the belief, whether justified or not, that Muslims acting under Pakistani orderes had caused the fire. Then describe the violence, and then describe the subsequent investigations into the events and the train fire, and the further repercussions untill this day.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- To be honest, I wonder if the "background" section should be removed. In my experience, "background" is usually just a holding space for info that should go into a better named/organized part of the article. Is that info duplicated? Should it be moved, or removed? I'm hoping that DS will jump in here, either with editing or with comments. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Background sections are useful for historical articles about events that are preceded by a complex set of circumstances such as this one. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The background to the 02 violence is the train burning, and there are now two sections covering it. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually I don't think the Train burning is the background but the triggering event. The background is the general setting of communalist antagonism in Gujarat and India.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well that is true enough, I can knock up a historical perspective of the issues since partition, that would then be the background and the train incident renamed to "Godra train incident"? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's what I would recommend. I think the Godhra events should be considered part of the events themselves.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well that is true enough, I can knock up a historical perspective of the issues since partition, that would then be the background and the train incident renamed to "Godra train incident"? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually I don't think the Train burning is the background but the triggering event. The background is the general setting of communalist antagonism in Gujarat and India.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Maunus' revert
Maunus, could you please explain why you returned the article to a state where it was based on newspaper articles written at the time (i.e., WP:PRIMARY sources), as opposed to Darkness Shines' version, which was primarily written based on secondary sources written by academics with historical perspective? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Adding this much material to an article on a controversial topic, which has itself been the subject of edit warring, is a bit too forward (as I have learned from experience by making that mistake more than once). I think Manus should self revert and discuss the issue with the sources first, not revert and discuss later. That way, if proposed reverts/changes pass here on talk, consensus can be gained and if anyone does try to remove good material, a stronger case could be made against them. If consensus can't be gained then the involved editors ought to go from there (without reverting). MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- To be fair, Maunus wasn't adding material--he was reverting to an older version of the article after DS removed very large chunks for being simply bad writing. Here's a clear way of thinking about it: should an encyclopedia article (Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia) be written mainly based on the accounts provided of an event while that event happened? Or should an encyclopedia, which is by definition a tertiary source, instead summarize what secondary sources, who have themselves analyzed the primary sources, have said? I know that I've written this as a leading question, but I'm trying to make this very very obvious: where possible, we should always rely on secondary, high quality, academic sources to describe things. Sure, in some cases, those don't exist (or don't exist yet). But we should always strive for that. Darkness Shines did all of that hard work to find the secondary sources and remove the primary ones. Neo and Maunas have been using specious arguments to keep the earlier, poorly sourced version. The length of time the article was bad (which it was--there is no doubt that a massive article like this based on newspaper clippings, including BLP violations, is bad) should be irrelevant to efforts to fix it. The mere fact that something is sourced is not, inherently, a reason to keep it. I am simply unable to understand the reverts to the earlier version, unless, of course, those reverting want to preserve a certain POV that's inherent in the on-the-spot reporting that's not there in later, more sober analyses. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. We had a consensus to keep this version. Why should the article be reverted without consensus or discussion now, especially when it has just been unprotected. Rahul Jain (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- To be fair, Maunus wasn't adding material--he was reverting to an older version of the article after DS removed very large chunks for being simply bad writing. Here's a clear way of thinking about it: should an encyclopedia article (Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia) be written mainly based on the accounts provided of an event while that event happened? Or should an encyclopedia, which is by definition a tertiary source, instead summarize what secondary sources, who have themselves analyzed the primary sources, have said? I know that I've written this as a leading question, but I'm trying to make this very very obvious: where possible, we should always rely on secondary, high quality, academic sources to describe things. Sure, in some cases, those don't exist (or don't exist yet). But we should always strive for that. Darkness Shines did all of that hard work to find the secondary sources and remove the primary ones. Neo and Maunas have been using specious arguments to keep the earlier, poorly sourced version. The length of time the article was bad (which it was--there is no doubt that a massive article like this based on newspaper clippings, including BLP violations, is bad) should be irrelevant to efforts to fix it. The mere fact that something is sourced is not, inherently, a reason to keep it. I am simply unable to understand the reverts to the earlier version, unless, of course, those reverting want to preserve a certain POV that's inherent in the on-the-spot reporting that's not there in later, more sober analyses. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I reverted to my version, the only reason it looked like information had been removed is that the edit war had duplicated half the article, I have rewritten and added the bits Neo. had complained about above as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- @User:The Rahul Jain, are you sure there was actual consensus on the pre-revert version? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am quite sure, only User:Neo. disagreed. Me, User:Darkness Shines and most probably User:Qwyrxian too were in support of that version. Also, given the fact that User:Neo. failed to explain his position, it should not be counted for consensus. Rahul Jain (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The Rahul Jain, neither I nor Darkness Shines preferred that version. I had been confused about where the article had sat prior to DS's edits; the version you are suggesting actually contains both the original and the changed version, with a lot of duplicated and sometimes even contradictory info (without explanation). The one DS reverted to is the one that I would agree with, for now, based upon the explanations originally given in the edit summaries and my quick (though not in-depth) look at the changes made. I would, of course, be happy to discuss any specific individual changes, or even the change as a concept, but, as I explained above, I believe that the fundamental idea of moving to retrospective, secondary sources is obviously the way every Wikipedia article should move. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently, I am supporting the same version which you and User:Darkness Shines prefer (and which is currently there in the article). See my edit request and the comment above in which I mentioned it. Rahul Jain (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The Rahul Jain, neither I nor Darkness Shines preferred that version. I had been confused about where the article had sat prior to DS's edits; the version you are suggesting actually contains both the original and the changed version, with a lot of duplicated and sometimes even contradictory info (without explanation). The one DS reverted to is the one that I would agree with, for now, based upon the explanations originally given in the edit summaries and my quick (though not in-depth) look at the changes made. I would, of course, be happy to discuss any specific individual changes, or even the change as a concept, but, as I explained above, I believe that the fundamental idea of moving to retrospective, secondary sources is obviously the way every Wikipedia article should move. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am quite sure, only User:Neo. disagreed. Me, User:Darkness Shines and most probably User:Qwyrxian too were in support of that version. Also, given the fact that User:Neo. failed to explain his position, it should not be counted for consensus. Rahul Jain (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The Rahul Jain and Qwyrxian jumped in on this article only to oppose me because of prior disputes related to Jainism articles. They had no idea what this article is about and what DS is trying to do. Their only point is to oppose whatever I am doing and support whatever opposite party, DS, is doing. That's why they got confused while reverting my edits. I am damn sure DS is laughing because of this mindless unexpected support from both of them. Even if they have realized their mistakes, it will be very embarassing for them to question or oppose DS. So their support to DS will continue. neo (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually I think I was mistaken in my revert, I didn't realize there was also a lot of less well sourced material that I was reinserting. I looked at the first couple of sources that were all academic secondary sources and then I didn't take as close a look at the rest as I should. My apologies. It has been reverted now right, so I don't need to self-revert?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- @User talk:Maunus, I guess there is no need to self-revert as it seems like a misunderstanding. Though it's good that most of the involved users seem to agree.
- @User:Neo., uh...your comment just seems to be criticizing other editors personally. Is there a problem with the article in its current state or are you alright with its current status? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Neo...I've actually argued against Darkness Shines a number of times before. I think I may have even argued in favor of blocking him before, though it's possible I'm confusing him with another India-Pakistan-topic editor. In this case, I am completely clear with what you are doing: you are attempting to return the article to it's state where it was based mainly on newspaper accounts written during the events themselves (or shortly afterward), while DS has (correctly) changed the article to being based on reliable secondary sources--sources which you've rejected for completely fallacious reasons (some sort of ridiculousness implying that academic sources are more likely to be biased and POV pushing than newspaper sources). You'll find that I am very consistent about one thing on Wikipedia: on making sure our articles and editors follow policies and guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
What NPOV means
As I just reverted Neo, I realized that maybe some of the problem maybe simply be a misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV means. If there are, for example, two major theories about what happened, NPOV does 'not say that we are required to give equal standing to each. Rather, WP:NPOV says that we have to weight the theories approximately equally to how they exist in the real world. Note, too, that this does not mean "approximately equal to the number of people who believe the theory"--it means the weighting as determined by experts in the field. For example, even though something like 40% of people in the US don't believe that the Earth is warming, or, if it is, it isn't the cause of human beings, our articles on Climate change state it as an undeniable fact that the Earth is warming due to human behavior; we do this because this is the overwhelming consensus among scientists, especially among national science organizations. So, we need to be careful that we weight the theories appropriately here; if all major research, especially research done later with more detailed evidence, supports one theory, we must give prominence to that theory.
Also, as a side note, due to the contentious nature of these claims, we probably should err on the side of too much citation rather than too little--we probably shouldn't use only a single citation for a full paragraph with lots of claims (though individual circumstances may vary). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest you self-revert. I have given two investigation, by Human Rights watch and Nanavati report. Having said that, we go by reliable sources and not by investigations. If you want to clutter that section with sources, I will do it. But first self-revert and explain what is unsourced. neo (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- You had a whole paragraph verified only by HRW, and as far as I saw from reading the page you linked to, many of the details were not in that report (unless they were on a different page). And, no, we don't go by "reliable sources", at least not the way you're saying. When we decide which theories to include, and in what weight, we look at the overall picture of what reliable sources say, paying particular attention to the most authoritative. Based on the sources you yourself included, along with those already in the article, the "Accidental fire" appears to be, by far, the more widely accepted theory. Thus, we must give precedence to that theory in our article, and make it clear that said theory is the primary one. Now, perhaps I'm misunderstanding your info and the sources you gave; if so, please explain. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I have given Human Rights Watch and existing Shah-Nanavati commission sources. Here are another two sources, United Nations Human Rights Council[1] and Time (magazine) [2] sources which talk about muslim angle in Godhra train attack. Do you want more? Please explain by quoting sentences what is unsourced. neo (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Here is United States Department of State 2002 report[3] which state that muslim mobs had attacked train. Do you want more? Please explain what is unsourced or self-revert. neo (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- (ec)A few things wrong with the edit ,one no single investigation needs a full overview here, that belongs on the other messed up article on the train burning itself. That is why when I rewrote I only gave a few lines per investigation, so all got the same weight. Second, "Attack by Muslim mob" violates POVTITLE in my opinion. Third and most important, absolutely nowhere in the HRW source you used are any of this "poured petrol in S-6 compartment of the train and set it on fire. The doors of the carriages were locked from outside, preventing the passengers from escaping thereby killing 58 passengers in S6 compartment." that I can see. Misrepresenting a source is not a good thing, so do not do it again. The section is fine as it currently stands. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- There are two different stories both of which should be mentioned and described and attributed. Taking one of those as fact in the title is a clear POV violation. Both stories start with the cadres causing an altercation with the Muslim shop keeper, then continue to the train stopping, but the cause of the fire itself and the existence of the Muslim mob is not determined. Sources from 2003/2005 typically give the story of the mob causing the fire and more recent stories generally describe the cause of the fire as uncertain. We should not rely on the primary sources here, but on how they are interpreted and weighted in secondary scholarly sources. The ohchr report is not a particularly good source here, since it is not specifially about this event, but simply summarizes other sources and it doesn't state which. Neo's misrepresentation of the HRW source is problematic, and also Neo's description of the Ayodhya events is highly partial. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- (ec)BTW, you will notice I hope that the newer source your cite (Time) says "a train full of Hindu pilgrims and activists was set on fire by an allegedly Muslim mob in the town of Godhra, killing 59" The USDoS report is from 2002, so how is that any good? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I have changed title as 'attack by a mob'. Removed ayodhya vhp and petrol thing, i would have included source if my edit had been a minute earlier. But sorry anyway for missing it. Anyway, point of contention is "mob", so I will concentrate on it for the moment. Please take a look at this draft in my userspace. If you object about sources, I will go to RSN. Anyway, there are many sources. You will be flooded with sources if you reject reality. neo (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- This version was much better than your previous one, but I agree with Qwyrxian's reversion based on the relative weight of the two theories. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- The sources for the most part are junk, as I pointed out about Re two of them, the NYT sources is an Op-Ed, which is next to useless for a historical article. And is there any particular reason you do not like the current version? As it covers the same stuff you have written but has better sources, and of course the current version does not say "Muslim mobs" every few lines. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
@Maunus By weight if you and Qwyrxian mean placing of sub sections, then I have no problem if 'accidental fire' is first subsection. @DS: The tone and info in the section is such that it makes reader believe that the fire was accident. I just want to give due weight to other side of the story. I have more sources but I don't want to clutter RS noticeboard. neo (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I do not care how many sources you have, as the section now stands all investigations are given equal weight, it is quite simply not possible to be more neutral than that. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- So you are not talking about reliability of sources anymore? neo (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- A court verdict has proven that there was conspiracy, how man such theories were proposed after the court verdict? Any such theories which were proposed before the court verdicts should be given less weightage. -sarvajna (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- That is not how our policies work, which has been explained to you ad nauseum on the anti-muslim violence in India page. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- and the policy says that conspiracy theories should be given more importance than the court verdicts ? -sarvajna (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- A court verdict determines the legal consequences of an event, it does not determine what happened and didn't happen. Often times court verdicts are contested, or considered biased. If the viewpoint that a court verdict is biased is the mainstream viewpoint in the lityrature then that viewpoint should be given more weight. We report on what the relevant literature says, not on what judges say.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- and the policy says that conspiracy theories should be given more importance than the court verdicts ? -sarvajna (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- (ec)Also, as I said to Neo. above, "Misrepresenting a source is not a good thing, so do not do it again." The same goes for you. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- That is not how our policies work, which has been explained to you ad nauseum on the anti-muslim violence in India page. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- A court verdict has proven that there was conspiracy, how man such theories were proposed after the court verdict? Any such theories which were proposed before the court verdicts should be given less weightage. -sarvajna (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- So you are not talking about reliability of sources anymore? neo (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Again, DS, do you have any problem with reliability of sources? If not, I will include 'attack by a mob' as second subsection (after some more draft improvement). neo (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Neo, I think you should present your sources here on the talkpage before making further edits. Then we can discuss which claim their are reliable enough to support.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Again, DS, do you have any problem with reliability of sources? If not, I will include 'attack by a mob' as second subsection (after some more draft improvement). neo (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Revert, why
I asked the editor on his talk[2] page to correct his source misrepresentation, he instead choose to add a synthesis to try and get around it, this is a violation of two policies and as such I have reverted the changes. Please do not restore that content unless a single source is used to support it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- What the hell is wrong with the BBC source? The source says The court has accepted the conspiracy theory. It was not an accident," public prosecutor JM Panchal is quoted by the AFP news agency as saying.. I just summarized it. The Hindu source [3] I provided did support what I wrote, it says Additional sessions judge P.R. Patel held 31 persons guilty of a “pre-planned conspiracy” and setting fire to coach S-6 so DS and Maunus you both being disruptive. There was absolutely no synt when I used two source. How was it a synt? I hope you revert yourself. -sarvajna (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Jesus mary and joseph and all the saints, tell me, does the Hindu source mention the court case? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Have you even read the source? This is what the source say The special fast track court, which tried the Godhra train carnage case, was in agreement with the prosecution that a large number of local Muslims did gather “within minutes” of stopping the Sabarmati Express on the outskirts of the railway station on February 27, 2002, and they had stocks of petrol with them. Additional sessions judge P.R. Patel held 31 persons guilty of a “pre-planned conspiracy” and setting fire to coach S-6..-sarvajna (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- You are on 4RR, are you going to self revert or do I report you? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is your edit right? Guardian source, no mention of a conspiracy. The Hindu spurce, no mention of a courtcase. That is a synth. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)This is the Hindu source that is added now, sorry for the wrong source in previous edit, it was a oversight. -sarvajna (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Have you even read the source? This is what the source say The special fast track court, which tried the Godhra train carnage case, was in agreement with the prosecution that a large number of local Muslims did gather “within minutes” of stopping the Sabarmati Express on the outskirts of the railway station on February 27, 2002, and they had stocks of petrol with them. Additional sessions judge P.R. Patel held 31 persons guilty of a “pre-planned conspiracy” and setting fire to coach S-6..-sarvajna (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Jesus mary and joseph and all the saints, tell me, does the Hindu source mention the court case? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, DS and Maunus, both BBC and Hindu source mention conspiracy. I am worried that RegentsPark will jump in to support your disruptive behaviour and protect DS version of article which is one sided. So I am trying not to edit war. Pls stop this disruptive behaviour. Thanks. neo (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Or some other partial admin. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- If you have nothing constructive to say then do not post. What's with the bullshit tags you planted all over the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- The tags seems legitimate. Rahul Jain (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, the tags are pointy, or do you not find it strange the only content he tagged is the stuff I improved? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have better stuff to do than to hunt down your sentences and tag them. In fact you should see it in a way that only the sentence you added are questionable; which shouldn't be a shock to you as you have done POV pushing before too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, it is not a shock to me at all, but then again I am the one fixing the article, I am the one researching and finding the best sources, I am the one following NPOV. You on the other hand have yet to make one single constructive comment on this talk page, or one single constructive edit to the article. Fell free to provide a diff to prove me wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- You fixing the article is just your POV again. And how is anyone gonna prove anything to you when you are always in denial. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ya, I am such a wanker, using the best sources available, researching, following policy, it is a miracle I get away with it. Here I asked Neo. this question up above but he never did get around to responding, maybe you can, is this neutral?
- You fixing the article is just your POV again. And how is anyone gonna prove anything to you when you are always in denial. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, it is not a shock to me at all, but then again I am the one fixing the article, I am the one researching and finding the best sources, I am the one following NPOV. You on the other hand have yet to make one single constructive comment on this talk page, or one single constructive edit to the article. Fell free to provide a diff to prove me wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have better stuff to do than to hunt down your sentences and tag them. In fact you should see it in a way that only the sentence you added are questionable; which shouldn't be a shock to you as you have done POV pushing before too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, the tags are pointy, or do you not find it strange the only content he tagged is the stuff I improved? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- The tags seems legitimate. Rahul Jain (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- If you have nothing constructive to say then do not post. What's with the bullshit tags you planted all over the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Or some other partial admin. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, DS and Maunus, both BBC and Hindu source mention conspiracy. I am worried that RegentsPark will jump in to support your disruptive behaviour and protect DS version of article which is one sided. So I am trying not to edit war. Pls stop this disruptive behaviour. Thanks. neo (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Proposed edit
I think 'Godhra train burning' section is highly biased. Tone and info is such that it makes reader believe that the fire was an accident. Hence I am proposing two sections. Info of DS can go in 'accidental fire' section.
Attack by a mob
The Sabarmati Express train carrying Hindu activists to and from Ayodhya had scheduled daily halt at Godhra railway station. Godhra railway station is situated in pre-dominantly Muslim locality. In the morning of 27 February, Sabarmati express arrived at Godhra station at around 8 am local time. The exact sequence of events after this is unclear. Most of the sources report that Hindu activists alighted on platform for refreshment and a altercation started between Muslim vendors on platform and Hindu activists over paying of bill. The activist were shouting Hindu nationalist slogans and refused to pay refreshment bill until Muslim vendor say "Jai Shri Ram" or "Praise Lord Rama". Shortly after train left platform, someone pulled emergency chain to stop the train.[4] A 2003 Human Rights Watch report states that "a Muslim mob soon gathered and surrounded the train compartment which was then set on fire".[4] A 2002 United States Department of State report on International Religious Freedon state that "On February 27, 2002, Muslim mobs attacked a train in Godhra".[3] In May 2002, European Parliament adopted a resolution which states that:
Condemns in the strongest possible way all the sectarian violence in India which followed the burning to death of 58 Hindu pilgrims on the train in Ghodra on 27 February 2002 by Muslim extremists and the ensuing violence in which Hindus indiscriminately targeted Muslims as reprisals
[5] A 2003 Amnesty International report state that "On 27 February, a train in Godhra, Gujarat, was attacked and 59 passengers believed to be Hindus were killed". [6] In a 2004 article for Social Science Research Council, Ashutosh Varshney writes that "according to credible press reports, the train was attacked by a Muslim mob".[7] A 2007 United Nations Human Rights Council report writes that "the state's Muslim population was targeted in retaliation for an attack by a Muslim mob on a train carrying Hindu militants returning from Ayodhya."[1] A 2012 TIME magazine article writes that "In February 2012, a train full of Hindu pilgrims and activists was set on fire by an allegedly Muslim mob in the town of Godhra, killing 59."[2] A 2012 Wall Street Journal article writes that "the train was set on fire by a mob of Muslims".[8] A 2012 Human Rights Watch report writes that, "The violence in Gujarat started when a train carrying Hindu pilgrims was attacked by a Muslim mob and caught fire."[9]
Comments
No. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Negative. Rahul Jain (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- You both are supposed to explain why 'no'. And TRJ, stop supporting someone only because of our prior disputes. If I don't get reason from anyone, I will include it in the article.neo (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is not neutral, it is just a collection of quotes, it is giving undue weight to the train incident. If you had managed to write "muslim mobs" any more than you have then the article would need to be renamed "muslim mobs kill people". Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- (1) Not neutral? Are these sources biased to muslim community? (2) I am giving direct quotes to avoid dispute over wording. (3) The train incident triggered all this violence. Why it is undue to tell other side? (4) You have written 'attacks on muslims' in whole article in gory details. At least I am not adding gory details of train incident. The point is that the section is written in such a way that it tells only accident side. I want to give due weight to other side. neo (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- This article is about the events post Godhra, the attack on the train is mentioned already FFS, all this article needs regarding that is a summary, which it now has. Stop with the "Muslim mobs" And in case you had not noticed, there are a great many sources which say the violence was preplanned. All views on the train incident have been given equal weight already, all you wish to do is beat our readers over the head with "Muslim mobs". So no. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- You have cited Banerjee report, Hazard centre investigation, CCT investigation, independent observers report to tell reader that the fire was an accident (muslims got nothing to do with it). You have cited some Ainslie to deny muslim hand. Then you start Shah-Nanavati report with tone to make believe that it was appointed by 'hindu nationalist' party to investigate attacks against muslims, therefore making reader to believe its credibility. Shah-Nanavati report writes "locals" word, not muslims. But still you go ahead in next sentence quoting some Pandya that Shah was BJP's man and Nanavati could be bribed. Purpose of this sentence and tone is to make reader believe that it was fake. Where exactly you are telling other side? International bodies like UN, Human rights watch, amnesty international, US etc either directly use muslim mobs or allegedly muslim mobs. I just found latest April 2013 UN report which use words 'allegedly perpetrated by muslims'. They don't give importance to 'accident' theory. Direct or alleged involvement of muslim mob need to be stated in the article. Now if you do not come up with better reasoning, I will include 'attack by a mob' sub section. neo (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- You have been given the reasons, add it without a consensus and it will be removed. Before making any further suggestions I strongly recommend you go read NPOV a few times till it sinks in. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Quote from WP:NPOV, "Editing from neutral point of view(NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately and, as far as possible, without bias all of the significant views that have been published reliable sources on a topic." Questions, (1) do you think my sources are not reliable? (2) do you think direct or alleged involvement of muslim mob is not significant view of all reliable sources? In that case do you want more sources? neo (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- But Neo, the view is already represented. And yes of course it is a significant view that must be in the article - but outside of Indian nationalist circles it is loosing ground.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- User:Neo. Can you cite three secondary, high quality, academic sources which supports the attack by mob theory? Rahul Jain (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I just looked at the sources, two from 2002/2003. Three primary sources and one blog post. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Quote from WP:NPOV, "Editing from neutral point of view(NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately and, as far as possible, without bias all of the significant views that have been published reliable sources on a topic." Questions, (1) do you think my sources are not reliable? (2) do you think direct or alleged involvement of muslim mob is not significant view of all reliable sources? In that case do you want more sources? neo (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- You have been given the reasons, add it without a consensus and it will be removed. Before making any further suggestions I strongly recommend you go read NPOV a few times till it sinks in. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- You have cited Banerjee report, Hazard centre investigation, CCT investigation, independent observers report to tell reader that the fire was an accident (muslims got nothing to do with it). You have cited some Ainslie to deny muslim hand. Then you start Shah-Nanavati report with tone to make believe that it was appointed by 'hindu nationalist' party to investigate attacks against muslims, therefore making reader to believe its credibility. Shah-Nanavati report writes "locals" word, not muslims. But still you go ahead in next sentence quoting some Pandya that Shah was BJP's man and Nanavati could be bribed. Purpose of this sentence and tone is to make reader believe that it was fake. Where exactly you are telling other side? International bodies like UN, Human rights watch, amnesty international, US etc either directly use muslim mobs or allegedly muslim mobs. I just found latest April 2013 UN report which use words 'allegedly perpetrated by muslims'. They don't give importance to 'accident' theory. Direct or alleged involvement of muslim mob need to be stated in the article. Now if you do not come up with better reasoning, I will include 'attack by a mob' sub section. neo (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- This article is about the events post Godhra, the attack on the train is mentioned already FFS, all this article needs regarding that is a summary, which it now has. Stop with the "Muslim mobs" And in case you had not noticed, there are a great many sources which say the violence was preplanned. All views on the train incident have been given equal weight already, all you wish to do is beat our readers over the head with "Muslim mobs". So no. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- (1) Not neutral? Are these sources biased to muslim community? (2) I am giving direct quotes to avoid dispute over wording. (3) The train incident triggered all this violence. Why it is undue to tell other side? (4) You have written 'attacks on muslims' in whole article in gory details. At least I am not adding gory details of train incident. The point is that the section is written in such a way that it tells only accident side. I want to give due weight to other side. neo (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is not neutral, it is just a collection of quotes, it is giving undue weight to the train incident. If you had managed to write "muslim mobs" any more than you have then the article would need to be renamed "muslim mobs kill people". Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
@DS, which sources are primary or blog? @Maunus I don't know what do you mean by "loosing ground". But this side should be in article. . @TRJ I can't search 'academic sources' in google books due to browser problem. Are you questioning reliability of above sources? neo (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I mean that scholars don't tend to believe it anymore. I can find one scholarly source from 2004 that gives the mob explanation and this is Varshney's piece here[4]. I'll keep looking.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is in the article, as I have said, all views have been given equal weight. What in your proposal is not in the article currently? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Maunus, what do you mean? If white house statement declare war and it is covered in world media but not in some 'scholarly' book, does that mean declaration of war is unreliable source? Scholarly books are good for science, medicine, history, literature. Don't expect some scholar to publish book on events like 9/11. Too much info, analysis is already in media. No one will buy book which simply repeats info in media. If you believe my sources are unreliable, please tell me. I will go to RSN. I will not get caught in your 'scholarly' argument. And, DS, I have already proposed edit. Stop trolling. neo (talk)
- Scholars have written hundreds of books and thousands of articles about 9/11 and dozens of books and hundreds of articles about the Gujarat riots. Those are the sources we should use, and they are the sources that determine how we weigh different explanations. Recent scholarship clearly tend to believe the accident explanation and not the Muslim mob explanation, or they simply say that the cause is unknown.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I ask you a question and you accuse me of trolling? I shall ask again, what in your proposal is not already covered in the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Maunus, what do you mean? If white house statement declare war and it is covered in world media but not in some 'scholarly' book, does that mean declaration of war is unreliable source? Scholarly books are good for science, medicine, history, literature. Don't expect some scholar to publish book on events like 9/11. Too much info, analysis is already in media. No one will buy book which simply repeats info in media. If you believe my sources are unreliable, please tell me. I will go to RSN. I will not get caught in your 'scholarly' argument. And, DS, I have already proposed edit. Stop trolling. neo (talk)
@Maunus September 11 attacks article is using media sources. I have posted in RSN to take opinion of others reg credibility of sources.
@DS, My opening thread and also this comment answer your question. neo (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
@Maunus September 11 attacks article is using media, government websites as sources, not "academic books". I have posted in RSN to take opinion of others reg credibility of sources.
@DS, My opening thread and also this comment answer your question. neo (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- You are not responding to the question put to you, what in your proposal is not already covered in the article? Kindly give a direct response. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- DS, the 'godhra train burning' section is not covering the direct or alleged involvement of muslim mob in fire as given in reliable sources. And let me make it clear, 2012 Human rights watch report, 2012 US religious freedom report, 2013 UN report still talk about direct or alleged involvement of Muslim mob. neo (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your obsession with writing "Muslim mob" everywhere is depressing. Is this currently written in the section on the train burning "the attacks on the train had been pre-planned and was the result of a conspiracy by locals" A simple yes or no shall suffice. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- DS, the 'godhra train burning' section is not covering the direct or alleged involvement of muslim mob in fire as given in reliable sources. And let me make it clear, 2012 Human rights watch report, 2012 US religious freedom report, 2013 UN report still talk about direct or alleged involvement of Muslim mob. neo (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the text exists but without meaning. If it is depressing for you to see 'muslim mob' so many times, here is the solution. You should write one line that "the Banerjee, hazard centre, CCT investigations and other independent observers have concluded that the fire on the train was an accident". I will write one sentence that, "UNHRC, EU, USCIRF, Amnesty, HRC, SSRC, TIME, etc writes in their reports that muslim mob was directly or allegedly responsible for fire on train". Agree? If not, you may continue to argue in DRN. Then I think issue will go on in RFC/U. RegentsPark and Qwyrxian will have to answer to community why they allowed highly biased material in the highly controversial article. As you have threatened above to revert my edit, I will not edit war. I will use EVERY option in wikipedia policy. Think with calm mind. Thank you and Good night. neo (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, I do not agree as we do not duplicate content. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just for reference, if you (Neo) want to seek outside opinions on the topic, you start an RfC. If you want to argue that a particular user has had long term poor behavior across Wikipedia (or, at least, on a series of articles), you raise an WP:RFC/U. You can't start an RFC/U about my (or anyone else's) conduct at only this one article, unless you could show that I've had months or years of poor behavior here. And since I didn't even know this article existed until a week or so ago, that won't work either. Just want to make sure you start the right process. Also, you can't start an RfC/U because you haven't done the necessary pre-cursor steps, nor do you (I assume) have a person to certify it (though I'm sure you could find someone with a grudge against myself or RegentsPark). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, I do not agree as we do not duplicate content. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the text exists but without meaning. If it is depressing for you to see 'muslim mob' so many times, here is the solution. You should write one line that "the Banerjee, hazard centre, CCT investigations and other independent observers have concluded that the fire on the train was an accident". I will write one sentence that, "UNHRC, EU, USCIRF, Amnesty, HRC, SSRC, TIME, etc writes in their reports that muslim mob was directly or allegedly responsible for fire on train". Agree? If not, you may continue to argue in DRN. Then I think issue will go on in RFC/U. RegentsPark and Qwyrxian will have to answer to community why they allowed highly biased material in the highly controversial article. As you have threatened above to revert my edit, I will not edit war. I will use EVERY option in wikipedia policy. Think with calm mind. Thank you and Good night. neo (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
Please do me a favor and leave this section blank. I will use this section to post in upper thread because my edit box can't handle more than 5000 characters. I will blank this thread when disussion is over. Thanks. neo (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
31 convicted, we know already
[5] Now in the article three frigging times. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- The lead is supposed to reflect the material in the article. Prior to that edit, lead promoted a certain theory which contradicted facts that have been outlined in multiple court findings and investigations.Pectoretalk 19:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- The lede does reflect the material in the article, the lede reflects the academic views of the incident, as well as all the investigations. Per NPOV. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Or, to put it a different way--court findings are not Reliable sources. I know that may sound odd, but a judge's opinion is a legal decision, it's not reviewed by an editorial board or fact-checked. Of course, we should talk about court findings, but what we should do is write about what secondary sources say about those findings and the results in them. For example, if Person A was convicted of murder, but later academic analysis conclusively showed the murder was committed by Person B, and that analysis were widely accepted, our article would state, as facts, that 1) Person B committed the murder, and 2) Person A was charged, tried, and wrongly convicted of the murder. I don't htink I can say this clearly enough: academic sources trump, by a very large margin, both of-the-moment news reporting and legal decisions. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would phrase that differently: Court opinions are primary sources regarding the judge's legal opinion - they are reliable for that information. Otherwise of course you are entirely right.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Is there any official policy that court findings should not be considered as non reliable?judge's opinion is a legal decision, it's not reviewed by an editorial board or fact-checkedWrong, a judge arrives at judgments based on various evidence, facts presented in the courts and based on the testimony of the witnesses. Since when did Wikipedia started rejecting legal opinions? Also how many such theories do we see after the court gave its verdict?-sarvajna (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Court decisions in common law countries are not "opinions" or "legal opinions", they are rulings and judgements often given by judges who are legal scholars or experts in their field. Court judgements are fact-checked and they do not have to be reviewed by any editorial board. A court concludes its findings on the basis of a rigorous process of fact-checking through analysis of evidence and cross-examination of witnesses. So, yes, court decisions are far more reliable than academic sources that tend to contradict them simply in a matter of opinion. Court judgements are also primary sources, and hence it is always advisable to use reliable secondary sources that quote specific portions or provide an analysis of the judgement. A critique of a judgement (academic or otherwise) should not be given undue weight-age, because such critiques are not sufficient to establish a mainstream viewpoint. On many occasions, academic sources often reflect opinions of the scholars themselves (which may swing one way or the other), however these are simply opinions or assumptions that the scholar has been working with and should not be confused with concrete empirical research or findings. However, there may be an apparent consensus among certain scholars on a matter of opinion, and that may be included while being quoted as such with due regard. WP:RELY says: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field." — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Court findings are NOT reliable sources? On the other hand, an editorial board or an obscure academic scholar sitting within the air-conditioned confines of their rooms and writing about their opinions on some matters are reliable! Exactly how? Shovon (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Where the hell do you get the idea that a court judgement is fact checked? A judge hears from both prosecution & defence, and then makes his judgement based on what he has heard. There are no "fact checking" done by a court, ever. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Darkness Shines, this is not a bar brawl where you can address your opponents in a manner of your choosing. This is a discussion on a Wikipedia article talk page, so please be civil while addressing other users. An adversarial court proceedings involves analysis of evidence presented by the prosecution and its refutation by the defense. The judge, in their official capacity, also ensures that due process is followed and the principles of natural justice and equity are applied in consonance with the Criminal Procedure Code or the Civil Procedure Code. The judge bases their ruling by weighing the evidence and arguments presented by both sides. On a side note, how do you think scholars/editorial board engage in the process of fact-checking? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I do not have "opponents" I will leave that for those with a battlefield mentality. And judges do not fact check, so were the hell you get that idea from is beyond me. Scholars on the other hand cross reference information and search for sources on a subject, they do field work. A judge sure as hell does not. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Darkness Shines, this is not a bar brawl where you can address your opponents in a manner of your choosing. This is a discussion on a Wikipedia article talk page, so please be civil while addressing other users. An adversarial court proceedings involves analysis of evidence presented by the prosecution and its refutation by the defense. The judge, in their official capacity, also ensures that due process is followed and the principles of natural justice and equity are applied in consonance with the Criminal Procedure Code or the Civil Procedure Code. The judge bases their ruling by weighing the evidence and arguments presented by both sides. On a side note, how do you think scholars/editorial board engage in the process of fact-checking? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would phrase that differently: Court opinions are primary sources regarding the judge's legal opinion - they are reliable for that information. Otherwise of course you are entirely right.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Or, to put it a different way--court findings are not Reliable sources. I know that may sound odd, but a judge's opinion is a legal decision, it's not reviewed by an editorial board or fact-checked. Of course, we should talk about court findings, but what we should do is write about what secondary sources say about those findings and the results in them. For example, if Person A was convicted of murder, but later academic analysis conclusively showed the murder was committed by Person B, and that analysis were widely accepted, our article would state, as facts, that 1) Person B committed the murder, and 2) Person A was charged, tried, and wrongly convicted of the murder. I don't htink I can say this clearly enough: academic sources trump, by a very large margin, both of-the-moment news reporting and legal decisions. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- The lede does reflect the material in the article, the lede reflects the academic views of the incident, as well as all the investigations. Per NPOV. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- While this philosophical discussion is quite interesting nonetheless, the most germane point of Nick's post was that certain sources may be outdated (such as ones from 2004 that are cited in the lead). Certain cited academics in 2004 or 2006 more likely had less information to go off of than a court in the year 2011.Pectoretalk 07:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nick does not have a point, and the majority of academic sources in the lede are dated 2011/2012/2013. And these also agree, strangely enough with slightly older sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, yes. How could I have glossed over the informed academic perspective provided by Desi Divas: Political Activism in South Asian American Cultural Performances? Pectoretalk 07:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Any reason in particular you are removing reliably sourced and notable opinions form the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just to back up a bit, I think Maunus put it better than I did, which is that a court decision is only reliable for the opinion of a judge, and for the actual, factual result ("Person A was convicted, Person B was found innocent, Person C paid a million dollar fine, etc."). Beyond that, secondary sources are king. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK, if a person A is convicted by the court then it is considered to be a fact that he/she has commited that crime, beyond that if there are any other opinions they are just opinions of the author. -sarvajna (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, if a Person A is convicted of a crime then it is considered a fact that the court was of the opinion that they had done something punishable. A person may for example have killed someone without any doubt, but still be acquitted because of a legal technicality. Court's don't define reality they define the legal consequences of a particular set of evidence. Research studies are not "just opinions" they are research results, no matter how hard you try to discredit them when they disagree with you. If Research into a court case of the past finds that a person has been wrongfully convicted and the majority of other mainstream scholars fight their evidence and argument convincing then that is the story we include. That is how science works, and that is how wikipedia works. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- WP:CRIME A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. When courts says that someone has not committed crime then we should assume that he has not committed crime.WP:BLP also says the same thing A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. -sarvajna (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes that is a part of BLP used to protect living individuals. You cannot use it to draw the opposite conclusion namely that if a court convicts someone then we should assume that they have committed it. Your consistent misrepresentation of policy can only be considered wikilawyering and it is getting tiresome.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am not misrepresenting any policy, I am just quoting it while you on the other hand wants to throw the policy into the dustbin by relying on what you believe to be correct.You cannot use it to draw the opposite conclusion namely that if a court convicts someone then we should assume that they have committed it that is what the courts are meant for, they inform us whether a person is guilty or not.-sarvajna (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes and the social sciences are just people writing and publishing their uninformed opinions. You've said that already... And it was wrong the first time too. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am not misrepresenting any policy, I am just quoting it while you on the other hand wants to throw the policy into the dustbin by relying on what you believe to be correct.You cannot use it to draw the opposite conclusion namely that if a court convicts someone then we should assume that they have committed it that is what the courts are meant for, they inform us whether a person is guilty or not.-sarvajna (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes that is a part of BLP used to protect living individuals. You cannot use it to draw the opposite conclusion namely that if a court convicts someone then we should assume that they have committed it. Your consistent misrepresentation of policy can only be considered wikilawyering and it is getting tiresome.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- WP:CRIME A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. When courts says that someone has not committed crime then we should assume that he has not committed crime.WP:BLP also says the same thing A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. -sarvajna (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, if a Person A is convicted of a crime then it is considered a fact that the court was of the opinion that they had done something punishable. A person may for example have killed someone without any doubt, but still be acquitted because of a legal technicality. Court's don't define reality they define the legal consequences of a particular set of evidence. Research studies are not "just opinions" they are research results, no matter how hard you try to discredit them when they disagree with you. If Research into a court case of the past finds that a person has been wrongfully convicted and the majority of other mainstream scholars fight their evidence and argument convincing then that is the story we include. That is how science works, and that is how wikipedia works. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK, if a person A is convicted by the court then it is considered to be a fact that he/she has commited that crime, beyond that if there are any other opinions they are just opinions of the author. -sarvajna (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just to back up a bit, I think Maunus put it better than I did, which is that a court decision is only reliable for the opinion of a judge, and for the actual, factual result ("Person A was convicted, Person B was found innocent, Person C paid a million dollar fine, etc."). Beyond that, secondary sources are king. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Any reason in particular you are removing reliably sourced and notable opinions form the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment In above thread and this thread, DS and Maunus are arguing about reliability of governments and courts. So basically we are arguing...
Whether democratically chosen governments, parliaments and courts appointed by them are more reliable than 'academic books'.
Whether governments, parliaments and court findings-decisions are "original research", irrelevant or less credible than 'academic book'.
Whether 'scholars' must write a book analysing every govt, parliament and court decision.
Whether in absence of 'academic book', one sided POV should be allowed in the article. Or whether lede should reflect only 'academic views' but not views of other sources.
WP:RS is not clear about this because I don't think such situation arised somewhere on wikipedia. I am seeing similar arguments of DS and Maunus on other articles also. These arguments will continue on other articles also by wikipedians like DS, Maunus, Qwyrxian until some specific lines in policy are cited. I think policy discussion at appropriate forum is necessary to solve this issue. Otherwise government, parliament and court decisions regarding crime on planet Earth are 'original research' or less credible until some 'scholar' write a book to certify that decision. Thanks. neo (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Policy, actually, is perfectly clear. Please re-read WP:RS, especially the WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY parts. Except for citing very specific facts that require absolutely no interpretation (i.e., "X was found guilty of crime Y"), we should not use primary documents. If any interpretation is needed--and I mean literally any--we may not use them. So, for example, we cannot use a court case to say "Person X committed a murder"--that's interpretation; all we may say is "Person X was convicted of murder". We cannot use a court case to say "Person X was at the scene of the crime", even if said fact was explicitly stated by a lawyer or police officer in the court transcripts; we could, maybe say, "According to police officer Y, X was at the scene of the crime." So, yes, people could "argue" about this at other locations, but that doesn't mean the arguments are valid when the policy is very very clear. Now, I do have to admit that the policy is a bit more complex if we are comparing, for example, a newspaper report to an academic article, since some newspaper articles bridge the gap between primary and secondary sources. And we also get, as people have come up with above, the fact that something published a week after an event, no matter who publishes it, will on average be less useful (though not necessarily less "reliable") for an encyclopedia article than something published years after. So those debates will, of course, continue, because many of them are discretionary issues...that's why we have these discussions--to try to form a consensus. Oh, one last thing, though, Neo--these kind of debates happen all the time--there is absolutely nothing new in this talk page. Just look, for example, at any article on an Indian caste where someone wants to use the British censuses from 1871 as a "fact"...or even just look at other articles about high-profile crimes. The Amanda Knox case, for example, has caused literally hundreds of pages of debate, and quite a large number of blocks and bans of people who wanted to push a POV rather than actually follow policy (or who simply were too invested in the topic to understand that they weren't being neutral). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian your comment is very helpful, especially So, for example, we cannot use a court case to say "Person X committed a murder"--that's interpretation; all we may say is "Person X was convicted of murder" but if I was writing about the vicitm can I say that Person X was killed by person Y when person Y is already convicted by the court? For example we write Gandhi was assassinated by Nathuram Godse.-sarvajna (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes you can write that if that is the consensus in reliable secondary sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian your comment is very helpful, especially So, for example, we cannot use a court case to say "Person X committed a murder"--that's interpretation; all we may say is "Person X was convicted of murder" but if I was writing about the vicitm can I say that Person X was killed by person Y when person Y is already convicted by the court? For example we write Gandhi was assassinated by Nathuram Godse.-sarvajna (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian, Human Rights Watch has prepared this report using dozens of sources. UN has prepared this report after consulting many bodies. Court prepares report or verdict after analysing many documents, witnesses, prosecutors etc. An academician may not do analysis to such magnitude. But still, why you treat academic book as statement of fact and treat other analysis as primary sources? When X accuse that Y is murderer, X is sheer primary source. But when other persons agree that X is right, when prosecutors check witnesses and documents and when judge come to the conclusion, then judge is like some scholar doing analysis. Why judge should be given less weight or his verdict should be treated primary or original research? neo (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Dude that HRW website is not a "report" but a basically a blog post that is arguing that anti-Muslim violence is a problem and that the state of Gujarat is biased against Muslims and refuse to carry out justice. It basically supports the opposite point of what you are trying to make it support. You are also misrepresenting the OHCHR source which states that "6. The Special Rapporteur’s attention was particularly drawn to the high level of communal violence in Gujarat. The most serious incident dates to 2002, as a consequence of the burning of a train which caused the death of 58 Hindu pilgrims in February 2002. It was alleged that Muslims perpetrated the incident, which resulted in retaliatory acts and, eventually, communal violence." Very clearly it does not say that a muslim mob burned the train, it says it was alleged. If you can misrepresent sources this much you give us very little reason to take you seriously at all.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- That 2012 HRW report or article is quoting this 2002 report. It talks about muslim involvement in train attack and I am quoting it. Should I mention attacks on muslims and gujarat govt involvement in 'Godhra train burning' section? That report is used by DS in 'attacks on hindus' section. Why can't I use it in other section? And where is misrepresentation when I am directly quoting from sources in this proposed edit? neo (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Neo, you need to read the sources you use. It seems you have siomply made a search for the phrase "Muslim mob", but not actually read the meaning of the source. The report cites News reports for the "Muslim mob" part and then in the following paragraph writes that "In July 2002, results of an official investigation by the Ahmedabad-based Forensic Science Laboratory stated that the fire could not have been set by the mob from the outside as had been alleged; the fire, it claimed, was set from inside the train." And it does not contradict this. The report then clearly goes on to suggest that the incident had been preplanned by Hindus and that VHP activists had been moving in and out of Ayodhya in the days prior to Godhra and that few if any of the Godhra victims were Kar Sevaks. The HRW source is clearly arguing against the viewpoint you want to use it to support. It is disruptive to do this kind of misrepresentation of sources, and puts either your good faith or competence to edit in line with the rules into serious question.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- That 2012 HRW report or article is quoting this 2002 report. It talks about muslim involvement in train attack and I am quoting it. Should I mention attacks on muslims and gujarat govt involvement in 'Godhra train burning' section? That report is used by DS in 'attacks on hindus' section. Why can't I use it in other section? And where is misrepresentation when I am directly quoting from sources in this proposed edit? neo (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
@Maunus - HRW has attributed science lab investigation. If you have still doubt, this is summary of the report i.e own conclusion of HRW after analysis. Please tell me what are you seeing. neo (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is not entirely clear to me what it is you are trying to say here, there seems to be some language problems. The source yuo mention was published before the Banerjee investigation concluded that there was no mob, and it is clearly arguing for the opposite case that you are. For example it writes "The report, based on investigations conducted in Ahmedabad in March 2002, revealed that the violence against Muslims was planned well in advance of the Godhra massacre and with extensive state participation and support." I think it is a fine source, and we should use it to source the article, but not specifically on this point which is not one of its central points. I do note though that it also mentins that Muslims retaliated against Hindus in the weeks following the riots. We should probably include that more prominently. It is just hardly mentioned in any of the reliable sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Academic sources used in this article
There have been academic sources used in this article. Are there other users verifying the content (and its context) that has been used to back assertions in this article? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- You trying to say in a backhanded way that I misrepresent sources? Or does AGF only count when it suits a certain POV? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, I am concerned about the context that these views have been used in this article – are these simply opinions of the authors or findings from their field work or simply the authors quoting certain news reports appearing in the media. Since I do not currently have access to an online library, I cannot comment on these issues with certainty. Therefore, I am seeking more input from other participants on this page. Please don't take any comment personally unless it is specifically directed at you. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Academic sources represent research findings not opinions. Academics are trained to study the field they are studying and the validity of their results are corroborated through the review process. Their choice of methodology shouldn't matter to you or to us as long as it has passed a peer review process. If you suspect sources are being misrepresented you should check it. If you have a specific suspicion of a particular source and you ask me nicely I might check it for you since I have access to a good library.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- As in the case of Narendra Modi article, I suspect some sources relying extensively/solely on investigative reports published by Tehelka and other tabloid news. In such cases, it is essential to investigate whether these are actual research findings based on empirical evidence or an expression of opinion or reliance on rumours that have been reported elsewhere. For this reason alone, it is essential for all editors to know and understand the purpose of the research and the methodology behind the analysis and interpretation of events. According to WP:RS: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field." Many of these works may actually make exceptional claims in direct contradiction to court rulings and judgements. Such sources are to be carefully used and only given the weight they deserve in relation to established mainstream views. And thank you for offering help. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Academic sources represent research findings not opinions. Academics are trained to study the field they are studying and the validity of their results are corroborated through the review process. Their choice of methodology shouldn't matter to you or to us as long as it has passed a peer review process. If you suspect sources are being misrepresented you should check it. If you have a specific suspicion of a particular source and you ask me nicely I might check it for you since I have access to a good library.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, I am concerned about the context that these views have been used in this article – are these simply opinions of the authors or findings from their field work or simply the authors quoting certain news reports appearing in the media. Since I do not currently have access to an online library, I cannot comment on these issues with certainty. Therefore, I am seeking more input from other participants on this page. Please don't take any comment personally unless it is specifically directed at you. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- No Nick, i dont think anyone is checking that except the guys who are adding it. And of what use will it be? Why bang heads on walls? But you are right. For example Arvind Pandya bit comes from the video tapes of Tehelka which were inspired from fictional films and whose authenticity was questioned and found inadmissible. Previously it was stated in the article that the Banerjee Commission was first such to investigate. When asked for citation, it was removed. Am sure many such stuff will go if questioned. But then again the head and wall and the admin army's you-will-be-blocked doesn’t even allow others to add tags. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Erm, the Tehelka reports have all been proven 100% authentic. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah! Authentic to have been inspired from a Bollywood flick. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Erm, the Tehelka reports have all been proven 100% authentic. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Also I don't have access. I am sure, all his more than 80 sources are discussing 'muslim mob' theory also. But he won't mention it. We need to find someone who has access to his sources. neo (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
BLP issues
Please use this section to list out potential BLP issues in this article. WP:BLP states: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page."
- "In a recording by Tehelka Arvind Pandya who is counsel to the Gujarat government, stated that the Shah-Nanavati commission would fall in favour of the BJP, as Shah was their man and Nanavati could be bribed." [Jaffrelot, Christophe (2011). Religion, Caste, and Politics in India. C Hurst & Co. p. 398. ISBN 978-1849041386.]
I do not have access to this publication, however the Tehelka tapes were investigative reports, including sting operations, which were conducted by certain individuals and they make some claims. These claims have not been proven in a court of law and hence are only assertions made by authors or opinion of authors and potentially defamatory. They should be immediately removed as WP:BLPCRIME applies.
— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, as nobody is accused of being guilty, nor having committed a crime. What we have is a reliable secondary source reporting on what a person said. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Correct, it is Pandya who is making an accusation on camera, wikipedia can report his statement because it has in turn been reported in other reliable sources. The constant nonsense about everything not proven in a court of law being "opinion" is becoming ludicrous.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, as nobody is accused of being guilty, nor having committed a crime. What we have is a reliable secondary source reporting on what a person said. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- That Tehlka sentence is clearly WP:SYNTHESIS. It is combined to destroy credibility of Shah-Nanavati report. Example from WP:SYNTHESIS:
Template:Quote box4 Also see WP:NOREX for more examples. DS should remove that sentence without argument. neo (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is not synthesis, because reliable sources use the Pandya interview as an example of the the dubious status of the Nanavati commision. IN fact Nanavati himself has responded publicly to the accusations, showing their notability.[6] In fact the HRW source you have yourself peddled here, criticizes the Nanavati commision along the same lines.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Please provide the portion of the paper that makes this assertion over here. Additionally, please review WP:BLPCRIME: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- These people are not "relatively unknown" And as has already been pointed out to you, twice now in fact, what we have is a reliable secondary source reporting on what a person said. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
@Maunus - It is like some editor trying to include following synthesis in Moon article: "Man landed on Moon on 20 July 1969(sourced). Some people say that NASA's Moon landing was hoax!(sourced)." And then, just like you did, that editor may give this link to say that as NASA has responded Moon landing hoax allegations, therefore it is notable and it should be written this way. Ah? neo (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Except that the moon landing is not contested in many reliable sources. The outcme of the Nanavati-Mehta commission is.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Qwyrxian
User:Qwyrxian, you reverted my edit within minutes but have not yet commented on my further improved proposed edit in above thread. Are the sources not reliable? Or what? neo (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have commented extensively, as has Darkness Shines and others. Your edits do not meet WP:NPOV, and, to a lesser degree, violate the need to focus on secondary sources rather than primary. You have continuously refused to discuss this point. You keep acting like all you have to meet is WP:RS/WP:V and then your info, however you phrase it, with whatever weight, should be in the article. WP:V is only one of our rules, and if you read WP:V, it does not say "If something can be verified, it should be in the article"; rather, it says that being verified is only the bare minimum criteria.
- So, if you'd like to address the NPOV and primary vs. secondary sources issue, we can go further, but if you're unwilling or unable to follow all of our policies, then I'm simply not sure how to proceed. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Neo, please consider involving a mediator for dispute resolution or starting an RfC to seek wider input. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
@Qwyrxian: here you reverted my edit just after 6 minutes. Then in this discussion you insisted that 'accident theory' is primary theory. I have said that I have no problem if it is mentioned first in the article. Maunus pointed out my few unsourced sentences. I have said I could not include source because edit was reverted in 6 minutes and apologized for it. I started gathering more sources and as point of contention is "direct or alleged involvement of muslim mob", I concentrated on it and prepared new draft and posted it in above this 'proposed edit' section. In response,
(1) DS is insisting that I should not include my draft in the article because he has covered 'direct or alleged muslim mob involvement' theory. I have pointed out that he has not. He has stated only Shah-Nanavati report and in next sentence he has done WP:SYNTHESIS to destroy credibility of that report.
(2) He said out of my 6 sources, 3 sources are primary and 1 source is blog, but refused to tell which. Then here in RSN, first he said that sources are not dispute at all. Then again insisted that my 3 sources are primary and 1 blog but again clearly refused to tell which.
(3) Maunus said that scholars don't support old theory of muslim mob involvement, I pointed out that even 2011, 2012, 2013 sources are talking about direct or alleged involvement of Muslim mob. Maunus insisted to use only scholarly sources or books. I pointed out that almost all sources used in September 11 attacks are media, govt site sources.
(4) DS said that it is depressing to see 'muslim mob' word so many times in my proposed edit. I proposed that he should write his 'accident' theory in one line and I will write 'direct or alleged muslim mob' theory in one line. But he refused my proposal.
(5) The Rahul Jain asked me whether I can find 3 scholarly books. I answered him I can't search google books due to browser problem and asked him whether my sources are unreliable. He didn't reply.
(6) During this discussion you, Qwyrxian, commented only once and that too about RFC/U. You didn't comment a single word about my proposed edit.
NOW (1) I ask you, DS, Maunus and The Rahul Jain to type with absolute clarity and name which of mine sources are primary or unusable. I will ask other users and if necessary, I will bring secondary sources for them. Please type with absolute clarity whether you need more sources to establish notability of 'direct or alleged involvement of muslim mob' theory. (2) If you all four have made up your mind not to allow edit on this issue no matter what, then type it clearly. neo (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
@Nick - I have asked for mediation in WP:INB. Last time my Rfc was forcefully removed by Qwyrxian and has threatned to ban me. Should I go for DRN or Rfc this time? neo (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Here's what I see based on reading what you wrote from the sources you provided. Two of the sources, WSJ, and Time, assert that the train was set on fire by a Muslim mob. All of the other sources you provided state, instead, that there 1) was a Muslim mob, and 2) the train caught on fire, and very clearly do not assert a connection between them. However, the whole purpose of the section you've proposed is to assert the "Muslim Mob" as the cause of the fire. That's the problem. You've taken a bunch of sources that vaguely relate to your suggested point, but misrepresented most of them to imply a cause and effect relationship which is not there. That is the problem. Now, I don't know whether to call this an WP:NPOV problem, an WP:OR problem, or simply a reading comprehension problem on your part. But you've got a whole bunch of sources which do not support your main argument, and you're using them in a way to imply that they do support it. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
There were several inquiries into the train burning incident
Obvious statement really, so why the CN tag? Pointy much? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please do not include personal commentary into an encyclopedia article. Quote specific sources making specific claims. Vague hand-waving doesn't make the article encyclopedic. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- "There were several inquiries" is a statemennt of fact not a personal commentary or handwaving.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your opinion is not factual information. As far as I know there was only one official and constitutional inquiry - the Shah-Nanavati Commission. The Banerjee Commission was declared illegal and unconstitutional by the Gujarat High Court. Please provide proper sources for your assertions. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. That is ridiculous reasoning. The multiple inquiries are supported by a slew of reliable sources, and the fact that it was declared illegal by the Gujarat high court (which has been highly criticized as partial and biased by dozens of neutral observers, including the sources provided by Neo himself) does not mean it doesn't exists. I will remove your pointy and disruptive tag immediately.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- There was only one legit inquiry. One was non-constitutional. And other all that you are counting under "several", which you aren’t mentioning by names, are just personal projects. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- You are contradicting reliable sources. Talk about "opinion".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Maunus, the burden of proof to support the assertion falls on you. Please include a proper citation to the assertion or revert yourself. Please do not accuse others of disruption without cause. I could have very well removed the phrase from the article, but chose not to, giving you the opportunity to present reliable sources. Inquiries are governmental in nature, and if there are private projects which have their own specific findings, they should be explicitly noted as such. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have lifted that burden already and added a source that lists the chronology of inquiries. There is no requirement that an "inquiry" be governmental in nature and usually independent inquiries by NGOs are considered reliable. The status of the banerjee commission is already mentioned in the article. My accusation of disruption was not without cause as the insertion of thag was clearly not done in good faith as even a two second google search could have found reliable sources for the existence of seveal inquiries. Apaert from the source I have added it is mentioned in sources by Ogden, Jaffrelot, and several others. Most of which are readily available online. Your failure to consult them is not my problem.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- The distinction between governmental and private inquiries has to be clearly made. The assertions you include or defend in the article have to be properly cited. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have lifted that burden already and added a source that lists the chronology of inquiries. There is no requirement that an "inquiry" be governmental in nature and usually independent inquiries by NGOs are considered reliable. The status of the banerjee commission is already mentioned in the article. My accusation of disruption was not without cause as the insertion of thag was clearly not done in good faith as even a two second google search could have found reliable sources for the existence of seveal inquiries. Apaert from the source I have added it is mentioned in sources by Ogden, Jaffrelot, and several others. Most of which are readily available online. Your failure to consult them is not my problem.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Maunus, the burden of proof to support the assertion falls on you. Please include a proper citation to the assertion or revert yourself. Please do not accuse others of disruption without cause. I could have very well removed the phrase from the article, but chose not to, giving you the opportunity to present reliable sources. Inquiries are governmental in nature, and if there are private projects which have their own specific findings, they should be explicitly noted as such. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- You are contradicting reliable sources. Talk about "opinion".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- There was only one legit inquiry. One was non-constitutional. And other all that you are counting under "several", which you aren’t mentioning by names, are just personal projects. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. That is ridiculous reasoning. The multiple inquiries are supported by a slew of reliable sources, and the fact that it was declared illegal by the Gujarat high court (which has been highly criticized as partial and biased by dozens of neutral observers, including the sources provided by Neo himself) does not mean it doesn't exists. I will remove your pointy and disruptive tag immediately.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your opinion is not factual information. As far as I know there was only one official and constitutional inquiry - the Shah-Nanavati Commission. The Banerjee Commission was declared illegal and unconstitutional by the Gujarat High Court. Please provide proper sources for your assertions. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- "There were several inquiries" is a statemennt of fact not a personal commentary or handwaving.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Done, minor copy edit and an academic source added. And yes Nick, it is pointy to tag a sentence which states the obvious. "There were several reports" which is then followed by discussion of three reports. So it is pointy and time wasting, much like your ANI try. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- That was not minor copyediting. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I beg to differ, this is most certainly not a major edit. And what does it matter anyway? As the consensus version has again been editwarred out, strange that you are not adding CN tags to that which now resides in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Darkness Shines
You want to own whole article or abandon it. Why go to extreme? I have seen this Gujarat violence on TV right from breaking news about Godhra. As per my understanding, Muslims attacked train but after that Hindus went on killing Muslims and Gujarat govt supported it to some extent for few days. Have I ever argued that Hindus didn't kill Muslims or Gujarat govt was not part of the killings? But I simply won't accept your one sided version about Godhra. My whole argument is about Godhra. I don't think I will argue about other section, except for tone and gory details. I won't try to prove that Gujarat govt was not involved at all.
- You have added some very good contents (under GFDL). Please learn to accept other's views and other side of the story. Please restore version of Utcursch. After that, I won't be on this article for a long time. neo (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Train burning
This is the current consensus version, that last rewrite replaced academicly sourced content with newspaper articles at least one primary source, some had no sources at all. So I have reverted to the consensus version. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong. It had consensus of Maunus and as I have pointed out few times, Qwyrxian and The Rahul Jain support you only because my prior dispute with them on jainism articles. Now you are supposed point out what is unsourced in Utcursch's contents. But having said that, you don't accept even sourced text. I am reverting your edit. neo (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- (ec) Please respect the consensus version. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, Neo. is edit warring against consensus, he is reverting in unsourced content, content sourced to a primary source, statements of fact sourced to opinion pieces. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please tell which are unsourced sentences, primary sources, opinion piece in Utcursch's contents. Your version never had consensus. Don't try to suppress other side taking advantage that most users don't have access to academic books. neo (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Erm, no. You are once again editwarring against consensus, the fact that you cannot even see what is unsourced or which sources used are primary or opinion pieces only shows thta you have not even looked at the content, just editwarred. The fact that academically sourced content has been removed in violation of NPOV does not seem to bother you? I am not going to discuss anything with you, self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- There was no consensus. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is complete, pure, utter bullshit. The reverted to version is absolutely, undeniably in violation of multiple policies, some so extreme that they do real harm to living people. That version may not be reverted to. I cannot stress this enough--policy requires that we replace, whenever possible, primary sources with secondary. Policy requires that we not misrepresent sources into claiming something which they do not. Policy requires that we not treat allegations against living people, named or unnamed, as if they are fact. I have reverted back to the currently best, though certainly imperfect, version. Any reverting to that version again will result in my request arbitration enforcement against the violaters; I'm already going to do that for one of the editors above. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- User:Qwyrxian please take a look at this, its revision 564327311 versus the current one. I think the former is better. Rahul Jain (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is complete, pure, utter bullshit. The reverted to version is absolutely, undeniably in violation of multiple policies, some so extreme that they do real harm to living people. That version may not be reverted to. I cannot stress this enough--policy requires that we replace, whenever possible, primary sources with secondary. Policy requires that we not misrepresent sources into claiming something which they do not. Policy requires that we not treat allegations against living people, named or unnamed, as if they are fact. I have reverted back to the currently best, though certainly imperfect, version. Any reverting to that version again will result in my request arbitration enforcement against the violaters; I'm already going to do that for one of the editors above. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- There was no consensus. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Erm, no. You are once again editwarring against consensus, the fact that you cannot even see what is unsourced or which sources used are primary or opinion pieces only shows thta you have not even looked at the content, just editwarred. The fact that academically sourced content has been removed in violation of NPOV does not seem to bother you? I am not going to discuss anything with you, self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
DS, as evident by the reverts, there was no "consensus" on this version (which you restored the article to). Anyways, here are my arguments:
- Your version doesn't clearly distinguish between these two things: (1) the initial confrontation / stone pelting (2) The train fire. All the theories (including "accident" and "Muslim conspiracy") agree that the mob pelted stones: the debate is on whether it burnt the coaches or not.
- Your version has subtle POV-pushing, achieved through omission or complete twisting of what the sources say. Two examples:
- "concluded that the fire had been an accident" - omitting the words "most probably" used in the source cited, not to mention the spelling/grammatical mistakes (e.g. "independent inquires", "both which concluded" etc.)
- "According to Columbia Professor of History Ainslie Thomas Embree the official version of the attack on the train: that it was organized, pre-planned and carried out by people under orders from Pakistan, is entirely baseless."
- This is the exact quotation from Embree: "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 was a premeditated, well-planned attack by people under direct orders from Pakistan." There is no other mention of the train burning in that source. Even if Embree did mention something like that, I don't see why we need a sentence mentioning his opinion in a summary section, ignoring others.
- Your understanding of WP:PRIMARY is flawed: linking to original reports to support their conclusion isn't wrong, and in many cases, better. In this case, for example, Martha Nussbaum mentions only the cooking stoves, but the original reports mention them as one of the several possible causes: the Hazards Centre report suggests 5 different possible causes, and stove is last one. WP:PRIMARY is applicable when you cite a report to support its interpretation or state one of its assertions as a fact.
- This is OK: "The Nanavati report states abc ..."<ref>Nanavati report</ref>
- This is not OK: "The Nanavati report is based on credible witness accounts..."<ref>Nanavati report</ref>
- This is not OK: "It has been proved beyond doubt that the train was burnt by a mob."<ref>Nanavati report</ref>
- This is not OK unless secondary sources indicate that the Godhra Victims Association is notable: "Godhra Victims Association report concluded that..."<ref>Godhra Victims Association</ref>
- I retained all the academic sources except Jafferlot, which was used to cite a statement about Tehelka recording speaking about a person who thinks Nanavati could be bribed etc. Just because something is mentioned in a book by a European academic doesn't mean it is scholarly. The statement is still a wild allegation, and including it in a summary section is undue weight, if not blatant POV-pushing. Using Jafferlot (who cites Tehelka), instead of directly citing Tehelka, doesn't make Pandya's statement academically sourced content.
- By the way, the "academic" sources don't seem to have been included in your version as part of a well-thought research: it just seems that someone wrote the content, then performed a Google Books search to support that content, including whatever was available for free preview as a citation. I have checked only Nussbaum and Embree, and neither of them supported the text in your version. I suspect the same might be true for the other books cited as sources.
utcursch | talk 16:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. The Concerned Citizens report does clearly support the "fire started inside the train" theory, and it does not mention the pelting of stones and is highly suspicious of claims about a Muslim mob having formed all together. I do agree that it has a pov slant, that needs to be weeded out by more neutral wordings. Also, note that linking to a primary source is fine, but it cannot be used to support a specific interpretation of that primary source. Jaffrelot should be included, his using the Pandya interview shows that it is notable and has been accepted by scholars as casting doubt on the objectivity of the Nanavati commision.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- CCT report does mention stone throwing (2.2). That wasn't my point, though: I was referring to the other two reports that the article mentions.
- As for Pandya, note that I also removed the bit about the Banerjee Commission being declared unconstitutional/illegal. Such details might deserve a mention in the Godhra train burning article, but I don't see why we need them in a summary section in this article', esp. when the sentence is framed in a way that implies Nanavati was bribed. utcursch | talk 18:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- You have a point there. It should basically be a brief summary of the different views of the events, not an exhaustive treatment.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I am going to restore Jafferlot as it is not a "wild allegation" the guy was recorded saying it. I will also restore Embree: as "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 was a premeditated, well-planned attack by people under direct orders from Pakistan." Being paraphrased as "entirely baseless" rather than "without proof" is perfectly acceptable. In fact I have a good mind to revert to the last decent version. Given what is currently there needs sources, uses two primary sources. There is OR, as in "accident theory", and why is accident in scare quotes but "conspiracy" is not? This line "Both the reports concluded that the fire was most likely caused by an accident, but also agreed that the coach was indeed stoned by an angry mob" sourced to an opinion piece and used for a statement of fact. Give me one good reason not to revert these changes. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring
Folks, please don't edit war on this article. If you believe that the sources being used here are one sided, then the solution is not to remove that reliably sourced content but rather to provide other reliable sources that provide other viewpoints. Since the incident happened 11 years ago, and is a reasonably well studied one, I suggest a greater reliance on academic sources would be helpful. --regentspark (comment) 16:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Reason
User:Maunus, Please provide the reason for your revert, [7]. The source uses an unpublished paper.-sarvajna (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- The source cites an expert in his field, and is perfectly reliable. How about you stop removing well sourced content? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Really? an unpublished paper becomes reliable because you want that? -sarvajna (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, it is a paper by an expert in the field which was obviously good enough for a reliable secondary source to cite it, as such so can we. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- We need to use our common sense in certain cases, anything that is published or available on google books need not be included, the paper is unpublished, I do not know the reasons though.-sarvajna (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Common sense would dictate that we cite a reliable source which mentions how many investigations there has been into an incident. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is common sense that an expert in the field is able to count how many inquiries have happened. It is trivial information so unless you have a source by a more reliable authority that contradicts it excluding it is unwarranted.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Common sense would dictate that we cite a reliable source which mentions how many investigations there has been into an incident. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- We need to use our common sense in certain cases, anything that is published or available on google books need not be included, the paper is unpublished, I do not know the reasons though.-sarvajna (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, it is a paper by an expert in the field which was obviously good enough for a reliable secondary source to cite it, as such so can we. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Really? an unpublished paper becomes reliable because you want that? -sarvajna (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- The only reason for including anything and utterly anything published by someone is that we assume it has been peer reviewed. The publishing process is considered as the test for the content's notability and validity. Unpublished nature of the paper is interpreted as it meets none. Get a better reference or even better, get at least 50 such names of investigations. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Take it to the RSN board if you think a book from OUP is no better than a blog. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Request move
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.
2002 Gujarat violence → 2002 Anti-Muslim violence – Just about every single source describes this incident is an instance of anti-Muslim violence, the article title needs to reflect that. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
There are a consensus among academics that this was a deliberate instance of anti-Muslim violence, source The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future Harvard University Press. pp. 50–51 "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"
Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India Princeton University Press. The Blackwell City Reader p141 Wiley. India: government and politics in a developing nation p74 Cengage. India briefing: takeoff at last? p5 M E Sharpe. The State of India's Democracy p184 The Johns Hopkins University Press. Technology and Nationalism in India: Cultural Negotiations from Colonialism to Cyberspace p5 Cambria. Perspectives on Modern South Asia: A Reader in Culture, History, and Representation p24 Wiley. Islam in South Asia in Practice p31 Princeton University Press. After Secular Law p281 Stanford University Press. Social Movements In India: Poverty, Power, And Politics p62 Rowman & Littlefield. all call this an instance of Anti-Muslim violence/pogrom/genocide Darkness Shines (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think that that quote justifies the move, and I also don't think that that is in anyway the most common usage used to describe the events. I also think that it is problematic because it downplays the importance of the minority of Hindus who died in the violence. Even though I agree that there is a consensus that the Gujarat events were premeditated and directed against Muslims, I don't think that means that this is the more common usage in referring to the events. I think that most studies consider the Gujarat violence as part of an Indian tradition of communalist violence that tends to disproportionately affect minority groups, but which is not exclusive to any of them. I think if this article is going to be moved anywhere it will require a much more impressive lineup of sources to establish what really is the more common way to refer to the events. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Maunus: as you know I have been doing a great deal of work on bringing this article up to scratch, and just about every source I have looked at, from academic to media say this was an instance of anti-Muslim violence, now I could post literally hundreds of them but the ones in the content I added ought to suffice, all one needs do is look at the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that the sources say that it was an instance of anti-Muslim violence, but they do not call it "the 2002 anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat". User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- The suggested title is 2002 anti-Muslim violence, not "2002 anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat" because as you say, the sources say this was an instance of anti-Muslim violence and the title ought to reflect that per WP:NDESC "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. " Darkness Shines (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- That makes even less sense because there were obviously other instances of anti-Muslim violence in the world in 2002. There is no bass in naming policy for this move that I can see.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- The suggested title is 2002 anti-Muslim violence, not "2002 anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat" because as you say, the sources say this was an instance of anti-Muslim violence and the title ought to reflect that per WP:NDESC "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. " Darkness Shines (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that the sources say that it was an instance of anti-Muslim violence, but they do not call it "the 2002 anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat". User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Maunus: as you know I have been doing a great deal of work on bringing this article up to scratch, and just about every source I have looked at, from academic to media say this was an instance of anti-Muslim violence, now I could post literally hundreds of them but the ones in the content I added ought to suffice, all one needs do is look at the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Far too generic. Anti-Muslim violence where? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:UCN. Not for us to be making judgements. --regentspark (comment) 15:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:Common name. Seriously, this IS bordering on tendentious! Shovon (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Óppose per WP:UCN. Also the violence was not only directed against Muslims, unless the article's scope is limited to a subset of these events, the name should not be changed. - Aurorion (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose "the riots resulted in the deaths of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus" Redtigerxyz Talk 18:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: "Just about every single source describes this incident is an instance of anti-Muslim violence" That's because you have picked and added them such. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The Godhra incident was also a act of violence and comes under the scope of this article. Even the post riots resulted in many Hindus getting died. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Possible linkvio
The source used in this edit has obviously copy and pasted large chunks of the HRW report and has not attributed it that I see in their article, is this a linkvio? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Rather, it looks like the reverse. I went through the HRW PDF [8] and was unable to find such lines (I searched with Combing,power lines, chain). Then, I went to the HRW site and found out that this PDF was posted on April 30[9]. But India Today had published it at April 15[10]. - Vatsan34 (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Not thought to be!
This article has this line in the first paragraph: The attack on 27 February 2002 on a train, thought by most to have been carried out by Muslims, .... with some commentators calling the violence an act of retaliation. When I tried to change the sentence in bold to carried out by Muslims, the edit was reverted stating that books are the major source and is treated better than newspapers, when I tried to quote this. So, I tried to go through the source [book] mentioned next to the line and searched for the Gujarat riots. In Hakeem, Farrukh B.; Maria R. Haberfeld, Arvind Verma (2012). Policing Muslim Communities: Comparative and International Context. Springer. p. 81, all I could find is this An attack by Muslims on Hindu pilgrims travelling in a train and burning of coach in Godhra that killed 50 Hindus set off.... The source had mentioned that it was An attack by Muslims on Hindu pilgrims and the newspaper that I had linked above says the same. Can we change the sentence to carried out by Muslims now? - Vatsan34 (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- err, no? Because there are many other sources that cast doubt on that claim.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Like this one [11]? Maybe, BBC is not a valid source? - Vatsan34 (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Any updated claims to support that? Shovon (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- So you mean to say Newspapers, Court judgements and Commission findings are not credible compared to books written? - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Even the particular academic source clearly says that, "An attack by Muslims on Hindu pilgrims traveling in a train and burning of a coach at Godhra that killed 50 Hindus set off a major retaliation inwhich almost 2,000 Muslims were killed (Sinha 2010)." Clearly it was misrepresented in the article earlier. Shovon (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- If people move shit around do not blame me, there are more that enough sources which say this, I will go through the history, again, and restore the correct source. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do you mean to say that the particular source wasn't introduced by you? Shovon (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please restore the sources or put it up here for discussion. There are a lot of differences between alleged and did. When it was obvious from the court judgement to photos and enquiries, why depend on a book authored by an author as an authentic source? If the commission or media is biased towards Muslims, then those authors also can be! So, how much GigaByte of proof is needed to say that the train that burnt and the lives that were lost was not just an accident? - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- The court judgment does not matter at all per our policies, this has been discussed to death and beyond. Shovan I have no idea, all I know is when I introduce content it is A in the source, and B the source is usually an academic one. Like I said, I will check to see were the error occurred. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- If so, please show me the policy page, which underlines that court judgment does not matter. If court judgement does not matter, what about this section 2002_Gujarat_violence#Criminal_prosecutions, which talks only about Court judgment. - Vatsan34 (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- That would be NPOV. We do not discount sources because a court has an opinion. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Here goes another source: In A Time of Coalitions: Divided We Stand By Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Shankar Raghuraman Pg.32, it is mentioned The orgy of violence began in the early hours of February 27,2002 when kar sevaks...travelling on the Sabarmati Express were torched to death by a Muslim mob near an obscure railway station called Godhra. Not thought to be! - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- All you are doing is proving that "widely believed to be" is accurate. Question, how is the way it is currently written not neutral? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, the article presents "widely believed to be" data instead of accurate data. A simple read can say it lacks NPOV. I bet even the people who were in Gujarat(non-Hindus) during the riots might find this article provocative rather than informative. A read on the pages of the books mentioned in the sources reveal that those authors depend on hear-say and rumors to describe incident. Many of the authors do not know much thing about past of Gujarat and rely on other authors, who in turn had believed accounts of two or more people in Gujarat. Those authors had their POV mixed with person representing it. A Hindu Nationalist will downplay the riots, while a hardcore Muslim might magnify it, but Wikipedia needs to provide NPOV. Upon reading the WP:IRS, it did not mentioned the order in which a source should be used. It had mentioned that a newspaper article written by an expert or a newspaper article written as describing news instead of mixing the writer's view can be considered as reliable source. Newspapers generally carry the events as it happened, while books written by foreigners can be easily spinned, as those authors can be easily given false info! That is what Tourist Guides usually do to earn a lot!(winks) - Vatsan34 (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- All you are doing is proving that "widely believed to be" is accurate. Question, how is the way it is currently written not neutral? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Here goes another source: In A Time of Coalitions: Divided We Stand By Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Shankar Raghuraman Pg.32, it is mentioned The orgy of violence began in the early hours of February 27,2002 when kar sevaks...travelling on the Sabarmati Express were torched to death by a Muslim mob near an obscure railway station called Godhra. Not thought to be! - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- That would be NPOV. We do not discount sources because a court has an opinion. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- If so, please show me the policy page, which underlines that court judgment does not matter. If court judgement does not matter, what about this section 2002_Gujarat_violence#Criminal_prosecutions, which talks only about Court judgment. - Vatsan34 (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- The court judgment does not matter at all per our policies, this has been discussed to death and beyond. Shovan I have no idea, all I know is when I introduce content it is A in the source, and B the source is usually an academic one. Like I said, I will check to see were the error occurred. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- If people move shit around do not blame me, there are more that enough sources which say this, I will go through the history, again, and restore the correct source. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Even the particular academic source clearly says that, "An attack by Muslims on Hindu pilgrims traveling in a train and burning of a coach at Godhra that killed 50 Hindus set off a major retaliation inwhich almost 2,000 Muslims were killed (Sinha 2010)." Clearly it was misrepresented in the article earlier. Shovon (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Sources written by respectable academics and hsitorians significantly after the fact are always better references than newspaper articles written in the heat of the moment. The former are the product of extensive research and a significant vetting process by the editorial teams. The latter are written extremely quickly, based on any available information (which may be later contradicted or retracted or found to be incomplete). In every case on Wikipedia, we should always always always strive to use sources written by experts significantly after the fact. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed! I wish someone had told me such a precise reply. I agree to this. But what I want is people to show me a valid source which says thought to be. Lets weigh the number of sources that say they did and number of sources that say many thought they did. If the majority of sources claim latter, then let the article stay as it is. Or else, I would request a change in it! - Vatsan34 (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- We do not need a source which says exactly that, the lede is an overview of the article, there are sources in the article which dispute the official narrative, such as A Concise History of Modern India A Companion to the Anthropology of India So the lede is accurate. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, Wow. So, a fiction novel has now become a reliable source. Sinha, Tuhin A (2010). "Chaitali". Of Love and Politics. Hachette. [12]. I think I might get more surprises here in this article. The book does not have single word called Gujarat or Godhra. - Vatsan34 (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- There are several sources in the book that consider the claim that the violence was incited by a Muslim attack to be specious, considering it instead to be the general consensus that the attacks were preplanned and that the Godhra incident was likely staged to frame Muslims: such sources include Paul Brass, Martha Nussbaum, Christophe Jaffrelot, the citizens for justice and peace report, and several others. We can not present the "Muslim mob" theory as fact while such prominent scholars contradict it. We can of course note that a number of muslims were convicted for it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, Wow. So, a fiction novel has now become a reliable source. Sinha, Tuhin A (2010). "Chaitali". Of Love and Politics. Hachette. [12]. I think I might get more surprises here in this article. The book does not have single word called Gujarat or Godhra. - Vatsan34 (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- We do not need a source which says exactly that, the lede is an overview of the article, there are sources in the article which dispute the official narrative, such as A Concise History of Modern India A Companion to the Anthropology of India So the lede is accurate. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Logically explain why sources by Jaffrelot, et al that predate the findings of the court case are legitimate criticism of the findings of the court case in question. By the way, DS, looks there is no such consensus to accept using Brass 2002 to argue against a 2011 case. There are numerous academic sources (which unsurprisingly were deleted in your reverts) that accept the court findings, and are from after the case. As has been noted ad nauseam, the CJP report is unreliable (and from Teesta, an accused perjurer).Pectoretalk 00:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would highly recommend you stop accusing Teesta of perjury, it is a BLP violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Being discussed at NPOVN
See WP:NPOVN#2002 Gujarat riots. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody ready to discuss?? Seems, you guys look at people who challenge your POV as someone who needs to be eliminated from Wikipedia, like accusing them as Sockpuppets? (hehehe) - Vatsan34 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Validity of the Sources
Let us discuss the validity of the sources, as there is a strong bias in the sources provided in this article. I will restrict myself in adding the validity of sources under this particular topic, instead of creating several new topics. To start with, this book Campbell, John (2012). Chris Seiple, Dennis Hoover, Dennis R. Hoover, Pauletta Otis, ed. The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Security. Routledge. p. 233. was credited in the second paragraph to vouch the line Other sources estimate that up to 2000 Muslims died. Now, a peek into the book shows that the author had mentioned the happening of Sabarmati train burning as 1993 and not 2002. A printing mistake maybe, but the number 2000 is not such it seems. Here goes the line - On February 27,1993, a train bringing supporters of RSS and VHP was on its way back to Gujarat from Ayodhya,where the travelers had attended a ceremony celebrating the destruction of Babri Masjid. Again, it was not celebration of destruction. The destruction day was Dec 6 and they were returning on Feb 27. The nearest event on Ayodhya that time was the Purna Ahuti Yagya [13], which started on Feb 18, 2002. I think the validity of the source needs to be rechecked. Whether this book a direct ground report of the happenings or a copy-of-the-copy-of-the-copy of a publication, is yet to be found out! - Vatsan34 (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have issues with reading? The source say, "Two events in 1992 and 2002" you cannot discount a source over a typo. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, I do not. What if it was not a typo? If you could credit a source for 2000 killed, then I can use that very same source to claim in this article that the Godhra train burning took place on 1993 and not in 2002. Other sources might be wrong, but Routledge can never be.(winks) - Vatsan34 (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- What exactly does "validity of the source" mean? Is it's reliability being challenged per WP:IRS? It's a Routledge publication, and they're a very highly respected publisher. If the issue really is just a typo, then it actually seems like a non-issue. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- If a source cites the event happening itself nine years back, will you still consider that source as credible? Imagine your history books placing US Independece to 1756 or First World War to 1905? Is this a Bible to take verses that suits and discard the rest? (chuckles) - Vatsan34 (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nonsense wikilawyering as usual, trying to find whatever reason possible to discount academic sources because they don't tend to support the BJP narrative.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Don't be a Racist. By stereotyping me as follower of BJP and as Hindu based on my name, you are in-fact making a racist comment! (playing victim) .. Jokes apart, this article does not have NPOV but MPOV(Muslim Point of View) and as a Wikipedian, I am committed to highlight the discrepancies and false stuffs in the article. I did not come here to prove that India is holy place or Modi is innocent or Muslims were not killed. - Vatsan34 (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am not stereotyping you, I am observing the actions of a group of editors who clearly are only here to intoduce as much of the BJP narrative as possible and do so in spite of wikipolicies about sourcing. You are doing the same, I don't care why, but you are. I have no knowledge of your race or religion, but your actions are visible to all.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Everyone's action is visible to all in Wikipedia. I do not belong to any race or religion and I had mentioned playing victim, so I felt you would had got the sarcasm. I find it funny that looking onto the sources here, you guys are still focused on approving one line from it which suits your POV, while not allowing another line from the same sources because it is against your POV! - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- I am not stereotyping you, I am observing the actions of a group of editors who clearly are only here to intoduce as much of the BJP narrative as possible and do so in spite of wikipolicies about sourcing. You are doing the same, I don't care why, but you are. I have no knowledge of your race or religion, but your actions are visible to all.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt it has a Muslim POV, given I wrote most of the existing content. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Is that meant to convey a point? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's approval, as even though what you said is true it also came off as kind of funny in its presentation. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Is that meant to convey a point? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Don't be a Racist. By stereotyping me as follower of BJP and as Hindu based on my name, you are in-fact making a racist comment! (playing victim) .. Jokes apart, this article does not have NPOV but MPOV(Muslim Point of View) and as a Wikipedian, I am committed to highlight the discrepancies and false stuffs in the article. I did not come here to prove that India is holy place or Modi is innocent or Muslims were not killed. - Vatsan34 (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nonsense wikilawyering as usual, trying to find whatever reason possible to discount academic sources because they don't tend to support the BJP narrative.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- If a source cites the event happening itself nine years back, will you still consider that source as credible? Imagine your history books placing US Independece to 1756 or First World War to 1905? Is this a Bible to take verses that suits and discard the rest? (chuckles) - Vatsan34 (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- ^ a b "India: large numbers of IDPs are unassisted and in need of protection" (PDF). United Nations Human Rights Council. 3 May 2007. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
- ^ a b "India's Gujarat Riots: Narendra Modi Feeling Heat After Verdict". TIME.com. 31 August 2012. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
- ^ a b "International Religious Freedom Report 2002: India". United States State Department. October 2002. Retrieved 10 July 2002. Cite error: The named reference "USREPORT" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ a b "Compounding Injustice". Human Rights Watch. 1 July 2003. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
- ^ "Texts adopted - Thursday, 16 May 2002 - Situation in India - P5_TA(2002)0255". European Parliament. 16 May 2002. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
- ^ "Amnesty International Report 2003 - India". Amnesty International. 28 May 2003. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
- ^ "Understanding Gujarat Violence". Social Science Research Council. March 2004. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
- ^ "The 2002 Gujarat Riots: Key Cases - India Real Time - WSJ". Wall Street Journal. 29 February 2012. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
- ^ "India: A Decade on, Gujarat Justice Incomplete". Human Rights Watch. 24 February 2012. Retrieved 10 July 2013.