Misplaced Pages

Talk:2002 Gujarat riots: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:23, 8 December 2006 editHkelkar (talk | contribs)7,279 editsm →PUCL← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:12, 19 September 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,741 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:2002 Gujarat riots/Archive 8) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ipa}}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
{{Calm talk}} {{Calm}}
{{Indian English}}

{{Notice|

*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
'''Please sign all your posts on Misplaced Pages ] by typing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to be accountable and to help others understand the conversation.''' '''Please sign all your posts on Misplaced Pages ] by typing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to be accountable and to help others understand the conversation.'''
}}
{{On this day|date1=2005-02-27|oldid1=16332577|date2=2012-02-27|oldid2=479209102|date3=2015-02-27|oldid3=648874268|date4=2017-02-27|oldid4=767768467|date5=2020-02-27|oldid5=942936243|date6=2022-02-27|oldid6=1074273797|date7=2023-02-27|oldid7=1141869973}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=High|organizedcrime=yes|organizedcrime-imp=mid}}
{{WikiProject Death|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Hinduism|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement |importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=low|Interfaith=yes}}
{{WikiProject India|importance=high|politics=yes|politics-importance=top|history=yes|history-importance=high|gujarat=yes|gujarat-importance=top|assess-date=August 2013}}
}}
{{Archive basics|archive=Talk:2002 Gujarat riots/Archive %(counter)d|counter=7}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 8
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:2002 Gujarat riots/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Press
| subject = article
| author = Aria Thaker
| title = Indian election battles are being fought on Misplaced Pages, too
| org = ]
| url = https://qz.com/india/1620023/aatish-taseers-wikipedia-page-isnt-the-only-target-of-modi-fans/
| date = 16 May 2019
| accessdate = 16 May 2019
| quote =


| subject2 = article
----
| author2 = Rachel Chitra

| title2 = 1600 edits on Delhi riots, Wiki wars turn fierce on ideology
== Hello all ==
| org2 = '']''

| url2 = https://www.pressreader.com/india/the-times-of-india-new-delhi-edition/20200314/282067689002544
I took this article off my watchlist some time ago and have returned to discover its a real mess. Rather than discuss the riots themselves, half of the time is spent discussing what caused the Godhra incident, which clearly should have its own page; and the other half is mystifyingly discussing a movie, with a list of awards. The only parts that were actually about the riots were unwieldy.
| date2 = 14 March 2020
I have not removed anything major. The Godhra discussion is still there, just all in one place. I have also tried to categorise the various criticisms and defences of the Gujarat govt. I dont know what to do about the movie. Ive left it in, but it should surely be just a reference? We dont need to debate the merits of the movie, surely?
| accessdate2 = 15 March 2020

}}
OK, finally, if you want to add anything, change anything, introduce a crazy POV, or whatever, at least please try to do so ''in the right subheading.'' And discuss it on the talk page and ''sign your edits''! Its easy! ] 07:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
{{Archive box|search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=1 |units=month |index=/Archive index |

* ] (2002–2003)
== Worse than Bosnia?==
* ] (2003–2005)
Dudes, are you people from this planet or what? Look at ] and compare please. No hyperbolic crap.] 23:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
* ] (2005–2006)

* ] (2006–2010)
: This is not my hyperbole but that of an international women's enquiry committe reported by Press Trust of India.You can click on the link
* ] (2010–2013)
] 00:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
* ] (2013–2014)
This is just one of the international and humanitarian agency's report.I dont know what will be your reaction if all of them are included.Abstain from hindering serious research and putting Fact templates on what you personally dont agree. and get some sleep too..you are working too hard for improving the image of some organisations..Better not become Silas of DVC
* ] (2015–)
::Fine, then I'm putting detailed figures of death tolls in Bosnia and slamming those worthless claims into the ground.] 00:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Subhash ,Whatever your own personal thinking is..perhaps the organisation or enquiry committee is rt or wrong..but it is something that happened.If they think the events are worse than Bosnia..perhaps they are ..as they would be experts in their field.Now dont say Ad Hominem that they are westerners so they have misconception.Their point of view is mentionable but what you will add to this will put in your own personal ideas - Weisel wordings to add your own POV.I am reporting this to BNguyen.
] 00:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
::::By mentioning the term 'Bosnian War', you opened the door. Now any comparison between the War & Godhra Riots is valid in this article as long as you keep the statement. Remove the statement 'worse than Bosnia', and I'll remove the rest. You may keep the overall section and the link if you want] 00:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Sorry ,but your grievance should be against those who said so..you may ask the international committee why did they call it worse than Bosnia.As an author I am citing what happened and not adding my POV.
:::::What you're doing is engaging in selective quoting and introducing bias as part of a systematic attack on Hindus. What I have done is added facts to place your POV in the right context, is all. The fact remains that Gujarat is like Bosnia only in the dream world of Osama bin-laden's abortion clinic and pot-smoking jizzporium, not on planet Earth, which is where Misplaced Pages is located.] 01:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::'''"Teesta Setalvad is a convert to Islam. Though,it is , surprisingly, known by a few people only."'''
Good - '''She told you only''' and where are the sources you need to back up this argument.Is this not your own POV,monseigneur.
] 00:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Nein mein freund. ''Read Koenraad Elsts article'' <u>AS I HAVE REFERENCED IT</u>. His exhaustive research confirms Setalvad's lies.
:::::::monseigneur????? I'm not a priest dude! You're the anti-Hindu crusader here, not I
] 00:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

==Riots Section==
The riots section makes statements that are not backed up by the cited source.] 23:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
::Please could you mention what sources do you personally admit as valid to be cited on these pages and I will try citing them.

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

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

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

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

] 20:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


:Yeah, Setalvad is a well established radical Islamist and so is unreliable.] 20:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

::Read this court judgement again Supreme court expunged all negative remarks placed by Gujarat Judges and she was discharged of all the charges levelled in Zaheera Shah affair.If the Supreme court has nothing against her..why should you level such charges and bad mouth her..
] 20:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

More news sources speak of the same:So far I have refrained from putting any Muslim sources lest it be non NPOV but it seems my restraint is only allowing you to become more aggressive.

:My dear hindu hater. I have tried to balance the article and make it neutral. You have soiled it with distorted, deluded propaganda. The facts are correct, it's your presentation of them, through pejoration and redundancy, that make it anti-Hindu propaganda.] 20:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

::I am not a Hindu hater unlike you who has time and again used foul language against your country as well as the Islamic religion.I have only used facts in the sense, majority of sane observers in academicia, press and Human Rights arena have expressed and have avoided more direct statements in the Muslim or Christian media.

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

==Koenraad elst==
Until people show links to accusations of bias on the part of Elst, you cannot accuse him of pro-Hindutva. Plus, do not delete legit quotes from time magazine.
::In the reference Subhas provided Elst attempts to defend himself from charges of being biased, and an apologist for Hindutva. That is all that the article has been edited to reflect.
:::No, you wrote "Hindutva sympathizer Koenraad Elst". That is a proclamation, not an acucsation (Bah! He's not even a Hindu!). Fi you want to engage in defamation of Elst then <u>THAT BELONGS IN THE SEPARATE KOENRAAD ELST ARTICLE</u>. Get it?] 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Again, please, note that if you wish to introduce criticism, then it should be noted that Elst is not considered a mainstream source and has been accused, and denies, being an apologist for Hindutva. That is all that the edits say. Note that it is not NPOV to introduce a quote supposedly from an unbiased 'scholar' without noting that he is in a minority in his field, and that he is considered to hold unbalanced views. If that is a problem, please note that the best alternative is to find another, more reliable source, and one whose motivations can be understood by the reader. ] 22:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

::The quotes from Time magazine that were deleted properly belong, if at all, in the separate Godhra article, where they still exist. ] 20:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Sorry old boy. The 'divide and rule' trick was already tried by your British masters, won't work anymore. THIS article is supposed to be about 2002 Gujarat Vilence, NOT 2002 Hindu violence ONLY. since the train burning incident was the START of the violence, it must be chronicled here, including accredited quotes by TIME magazine.] 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I added an excerpt from Elst's interview in the 'defense of Gujrat Administration' section. No deletions of other people's edits.]
::::Subhash, this is the last time I will remid you about ] against me. I have taken the time to read your past interactions with people, and I see no improvement. This article is too long; the Godhra incident is difficult enough to chronicle. If you include the Time article, then someone will wish to include subsequent revisions to the theory of what happened. Very soon it will again expand to dominate half the article, and this article cannot afford that. Please understand that a simple link to the Godhra article is sufficient, along with a bare-bones statement of what happened, and what the disagreement is.
::::Also, please consider that you are introducing far too many lengthy quotes that are statements of opinion and not of fact. Further, they are from individuals, and not organisations; and not individuals close to the playing out of affaris, like Advani or Modi, or even individuals considered mainstream opinionmakers like Stephen Cohen. Unless you have a good defence of your edits, they will be removed.
::::Finally, please refrain from being aggressive on the talk page. Your attempts at rudeness will not work with experienced editors, as they merely make you appear immature, and they certainly arent amusing, which is how you have defended them in the past. ] 22:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Don't patronize me bub.Your friend LKadvani added a lot of the same kinds of crap. Quotes, opinions, etc. No problem with that eh? Anything to defame Hindus right? Sheesh, Hindus attack each other so much that the muslims just have to sit back and watch. If you vandalize my edits as you are threatening, then I will also remove his on the same grounds. Don't think I am not watching carefully. If necessary, I will dedicate my time to policing this article alone. You can't stop me with childish threats.] 23:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Again, please do not accuse me of attempting to defame either Hindus or Muslims. These rhetorical tricks add nothing to your argument, and only take away from it. Also, please note that editing an article to remove quotes of doubtful POV should not be called vandalism. Please read ], and extend the same courtesy of assumption to other editors as I am doing to you. Please feel free to remove any quotes inserted by anyone else that meet the criteria above: as being from a non-mainstream individual, from someone not close to the events or with special information.
:::I note that you have not responded to my actual questions. Aggression on the talk page is not a substitute for a careful defence of your edits. ] 00:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Elst is very much a mainstream individual. On what basis are you claiming otherwise? His degrees and qualifications are legitimate. Plus, he has extensive experience with Indian Culture and has collaborated with WELL known scholars such as Sita Ram Goel. Please look him up and read his many published works before making disguised ad-hominem attacks. Just because he is not an anti-Hindu hater and bigot does not make him 'fringe'. If you have any valid questions please itemize them logically below, as I can't tell your questions apart from your temper tantrums.] 00:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::PLease see my response on LKadvanis talk page, linked below. Also, please note that my questions were put as part of the edit summaries, so you can tell them apart from what you call my temper tantrums. ] 05:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is my defense of Elst:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Survey:Koenraad Elst as a creditable NPOV source?==
Please help in a dispute on this article by participating in the survey on my
] 23:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

== Protected ==

Would we all like to calm down a bit please? The content of some of the edit summaries used recently is unnacceptable. When you've all calmed down, and when you've all dicussed changes (if necessary), instead of edit warring (which has been going on for the past few days), only then will the article will be unprotected. Thanks, —&nbsp;] <sup>(])</sup> <sub><span style="color:#FF6600">12:21, 28 July '06</span></sub>
:Agreed. I am calm.Lkadvani's edit was completely irrelevant to the subject matter of the article. The boycott did not happen in 2002, it did not happen in Gujarat, it was not violent. It does not belong in an article titled "2002 Gujarat Violence". Plus, Lkadvani has been loading the article against Hindus without allowing me to present facts that present the entire situation in a dispassionate way. He has also been known to make pejorative remarks against Hindus in earlier talk pages of articles like ] which has also been protected.] 12:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

==Another thing to edit out==
<blockquote>
"The United Nations International Human Rights Commission has not yet recognized the Gujarat riots as a human rights issue"
</blockquote>
to
<blockquote>
"The United Nations International Human Rights Commission has not recognized the Gujarat riots as a human rights issue"
</blockquote>
"yet" is POV. It takes a position on the subject. More vandalism from Lkadvani ] 02:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
::This is somewhat addressed in a previous complaint against you by User:Rushdie as one can see from User:Blgnuyen's talk page
] 03:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
::Until the UN recognises this as a human rights issue (which they won't, they're too busy with somebody's, ah friends, in Darfur), the word "yet" is POV. It takes a position on the subject, which is a violation of NPOV regardless of how many smear campaigns you can think up. And our friend of the "Religion of Peace" should perhaps see article before trying to vault a certain Sheiks propaganda here. ] 05:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:::This whole sentence was as far as I remember, written by you and as you can see the various stages it has gone through were you wrote initially - "UN has not recoginsed..."- Rushdie wrote - "UN has recognised... "- and he cited the links to UN discussions after which you yourself wrote - "UN has not yet recognised...", at which state it was for a long time till a few days back - you have reverted it back to "UN has not recoginsed...", What points changed in this period that you had this sudden change of thought..I am not aware of what the specifics are of declaring a subject as Human Rights Issue but as far as I know UNHRC Chairman has reminded India of its duties in protecting rights of displaced in Gujarat after Narendra Modi ordered closures of refugee camps..and the rest of the links on the page refer to what the discussions have been going on in the UN.You re again diverting the issues and mixing them up when you present the newer issues.By the way, those responsible for the blasts in Bombay say it is a revenge for Gujarat riots..and they specifically wanted to target the culprit Gujarat policemen..
] 02:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

:A large bulk of UN members are muslims. Enough said. Also, UN Human rights has been criticized for being partisan before (by Israel prime minister Yitzhak Rabin). Anyways, I didn't edit the "not yet recognized" part because I also have other work besides watching your trolls on wikipedia.] 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks again for reminding that UN is a trustless organisation because some of its members are Muslims..I see you have dozens of changes made on this same article since you wrote that "UN has not yet recognised Gujarat riots as a Human Rights issue but campaigns to recognise it have been undertaken by Islamic organisations".Lying blatantly..have some shame - the whole world is watching!
] 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

==Human Rights Watch has been criticized as a fraud==
See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Human_Rights_Watch#Criticism
HRW is pro muslim and <u>'''anti-semitic'''</u>! I will add this wikilink to all references to hrw here.] 01:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::Proving Misplaced Pages by Misplaced Pages good..tells great of your standard..by the way there are a few lines below in this same article
http://en.wikipedia.org/Human_Rights_Watch#Response

Forgot to mention :
Now that you supsect HRW being fraud, should we remove this part from the article where you have proved something based on Human Rights Watch
I have again and again asked you which sources to use for this article.You dont agree on Indian government,judiciary,Human Rights Organisations,News Sources..Tell us what sources are NPOV and what are non NPOV in a list.
Cheers
] 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::Human rights watch has a 15 page report on Human rights violations by USA. It has a 3 page report on HR violations by Pakistan. So, according to them, a democracy like USA violates more Human Rights than an islamist dictatorship like Pakistan. Lol! What a joke.
:Ha,Nice joke Netaji,I thought Pakistan did not send forces to Iraq,Abu Ghraib,Guantanamo,Afghanistan,stubborn support to Israel..to merit 15 page report.
] 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::Support for Israel is a must, otherwise anti-semites will commit genocide on them. Afghanistan was a legitimate retaliation to 9/11. Only US has the courage to do this.] 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
No wonder they are such laughingstocks in the US. Plus, it is a fact that hrw has been accused of bias towards muslims and of <u>'''anti-semitism'''</u>. I did not say that the refs should be removed. However, given the extent to which our anti-Hindu friend has quoted a biased site, the citations (both his and mine) should be qualified with the statement that hrw has been accused of bias by reknown world leaders.] 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::There is a world outside the US,where they dont laugh ...and I still await the list of acceptable references..
] 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::No there isn't.--] 22:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::Here:
All taken from the wikipedia article on hrw.
More on UN human rights fraud:
[http://www.ngo-monitor.org/archives/op-eds/041304-1.htm
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/archives/op-eds/041304-1.htm]

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

==Deleted==

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

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

I have moved an irrelevant piece of prose to ] ] 00:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

== Proposal for ''informal'' mediation from ] ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

:'''Editing'''

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

:'''Talk pages'''

:1. Refrain from personal attacks.
:2. Refrain from characterizing the politics, motives, POV, or objectivity of other contributors.

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

'''Please respond below this line.''' Thanks, ]<font color="chartreuse">|</font>] 20:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
----
*IMHO, quite sensible proposals. Let me know if you need an administrative enforcement of them ] 21:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
* '''Wholehearted agreement'''] 21:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
* Sounds very reasonable, I agree. ] 15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
*Perfectly reasonable. I intend to follow the suggestions, and urge other editors active on the page to do so as well. ] 07:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
* I will work under these gudelines <font color="red">] </font><font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 17:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

== Editing can begin at ] ==

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

Thanks, ]<font color="chartreuse">|</font>] 20:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

== numbers ==

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

http://hrw.org/wr2k3/asia6.html

human rights watch:

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

Human Rights Watch's investigations, and those of Indian human rights groups, revealed that much of the violence was planned well in advance of the Godhra attack and was carried out with state approval and orchestration. Gujarat is headed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a Hindu nationalist party that also heads a coalition government at the center. State officials and the police were directly involved in the violence: In many cases, the police led the charge, using gunfire to kill Muslims who got in the mobs' way. The groups most directly responsible for this violence against Muslims included the VHP, the Bajrang Dal (the militant youth wing of the VHP), and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteer Corps, RSS), collectively forming the sangh parivar (or "family" of Hindu nationalist groups).
:See discussion on the bias of hrw.] 08:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

== When will this be unlocked? ==

So, when will the mediation be finished, these other miscellaneous issues resolved, and the article unlocked? --] 02:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
::Presently, the 2006 revision is being edited. Follow the link on the page.] 17:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Netaji, you're everything but neutral. So please stop trying to pretent hindous are clean from what happened in A'bad. I was there. I have talked to raped women. Some of them have been raped by 5o men, and saw their children murdered to their eyes.
When looked at your profile, it's pretty clear you're a muslim hater.
Do good to wiki and stop spreading your hate. Thanks.
::And I have seen . Thanks very much.] 17:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
::Anecdotal evidence is original research and not allowed on wikipedia. All my edits are sourced. My motivations are immaterial if I follow the rules, which I fully intend to. In the spirit of following the rules, I am warning you for your edit as a personal attack and a violation of ] and ]. Thank you and have a nice day.] 17:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

==Status of rewrite==
What is the status of this re-write? This article is not going to be protected forever. If people are edit warring, they will just be blocked. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 22:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
::There hasn't been anything new in a while in the rewrite.] 23:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
So does these mean the re-write is finished and should replace the current article? —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 18:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
::I have no objections.] 18:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
::: I would hope that the article could be cleaned up a bit first, as it certainly does have grammar/spelling/etc. errors. ] ] 20:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
==Latest Development==
The "findings" of Banerjee Committe constituted by Railways Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav were struck down by Gujarat High Court on 13th October 2006. The Committe alleged that the bruning of Sabarmathi Express at Godhra was an accidednt. The High Court in its judgement said that the Committe's allegation does not square with the facts on record, which show that the train was deliberately set on fire. The High Court also declared the Committe as illegal, and prohibited its report from being tabled in the Parlaiment. This is an important development and needs to find a mention in this wiki.

==Unprotected==
Since the dispute appears to have settled, I've merged the two page histories and unprotected. Recent discussions can be found at ]. ] <small>]</small> 20:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== removal of summary of material by a retired Supreme Court judge ==

] made and ] made in which they removed the following material from an external, verifiable report made by a retired judge of the ], ] and other notable people such as ]. i can understand that Bakasuprman and Hkelkar, based on their POVs, may believe this material to be biased.

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

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

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

:* In the report "Crime Against Humanity"<ref name="sabrang_report">{{cite web | last = Iyer | first = VR Krishna | authorlink = V. R. Krishna Iyer | coauthors = PB Sawant, Hosbet Suresh, KG Kannabiran, ], KS Subramanian, Ghanshyam Shah, Tanika Sarkar | title = Crime against Humanity | work = | publisher = ] | date = October 24, 2002 | url = http://www.sabrang.com/tribunal/vol2/compgovt.html | format = | doi = | accessdate = 2006-11-05 }}</ref>, made by an ad hoc, unofficial ] led by retired Supreme Court judge ] and calling itself the "Concerned Citizens Tribunal", the authors claimed that the Gujarat state government was criminally responsible in the violence that occurred and that the central government was responsible for supporting this. It stated, "The post-Godhra carnage in Gujarat was an organised crime perpetrated by the state’s chief minister and his government. The state’s complicity is evident from the various acts of commission and omission of the government and its officials." and listed 23 paragraphs itemising accusations.<ref name="sabrang_report_stategovt">{{cite web | last = Iyer | first = VR Krishna | authorlink = V. R. Krishna Iyer | coauthors = PB Sawant, Hosbet Suresh, KG Kannabiran, ], KS Subramanian, Ghanshyam Shah, Tanika Sarkar | title = State Complicity - Government of Gujarat | work = | publisher = ] | date = October 24, 2002 | url = http://www.sabrang.com/tribunal/vol2/compgovt.html | format = | doi = | accessdate = 2006-11-05 }}</ref> The report stated about the central government's role, "...the support of the central government to the state government in all that it did is also by now a matter of common knowledge. ... Far from invoking the provisions of the Constitution and performing their constitutional obligations and duties, neither did the Prime Minister nor the home minister even issue a stern order to the chief minister to crackdown on the lawless elements." <ref name="sabrang_report_centralgovt">{{cite web | last = Iyer | first = VR Krishna | authorlink = V. R. Krishna Iyer | coauthors = PB Sawant, Hosbet Suresh, KG Kannabiran, ], KS Subramanian, Ghanshyam Shah, Tanika Sarkar | title = Role of the Central Government | work = | publisher = ] | date = October 24, 2002 | url = http://www.sabrang.com/tribunal/vol2/rolegovt.html | format = | doi = | accessdate = 2006-11-05 }}</ref>

<references />

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

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

:We dont have to prove sabrang is true/false. Please see . Anyways, I can cite ] (the man behind the '''official'' report, not the terrorist front nonsesne) so I will add a section where VR Krishna Iyer and GT Nanavati are compared, because Iyer is nowhere as notable or respected as nanavati. Sabrang does not meet ]. Anyway good luck finding a ''real web-archive'' of info (shouldnt be too hard, most Indian newspapers are more leftist anyways) . ] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 21:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

::] and ] are also advocacy groups and they have been accused by governments around the world of supporting terrorism. Nevertheless, they are considered reliable sources in terms of ]. An organisation advocating for human rights which publishes a report by a retired Supreme Court judge is surely reliable enough, at least for the accuracy of the copy of the report. It should be expected to be biased in favour of human rights, as should any human rights organisation. ] 23:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

::If Iyer really said those things you should be able to find a more reliable source than sabrang. lots of terrorist fronts claim to be "Human Rights Groups".Nonetheless, their partisanship is well-known. The mere fact that you haven;t been able to find a better ref than sabrang should tell you something. If such statements were made then surely mainstream news media would report it, right?] 22:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:::OK, while i think that searching for a different source than Sabrang is unnecessary, i've done this and i think that should satisfy your primary concern. i agree with the idea of adding a response by ] at the appropriate place in the article. He too has been a judge in the Supreme Court, so his point of view is also notable. i put <nowik>{{citation needed}}</nowiki>, so maybe you could help NPOV by provided the source. ] 23:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
::Oh my dear fellow, CAG is even WORSE a source. It is a polemical hate site. Please find MAINSTREAM news sources that corroborate this.] 23:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
::If you can find a mainstream source that corroborates these allegations, then you may cite BOTH sabrang AND CAG in addition to that as backup.That is fine.Until you can find a more reliable source that supports these allegations, it is invalid. Good mainstream sources are Rediff, Times of India, Indian Express, Frontline, The Hindu, any international newspaper like The New York Times, The Guardian etc. Most of them are biased but are mainstream enough to qualify as reliable sources. CAG and sabrang do not.] 23:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


:::: (edit-conflict)Coalition Against Genocide isnt reliable either. Their name says they're "against" something instead of giving us the news. You may want [http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020404/main1.htm#3
Tribune India - A reliable source]. Sabrang.com set up the inquiry, that article in the tribune solves our mysteries. Here's one more reliable source (albeit without the juicy ] nonsense sabrang and CAG give) . ] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 23:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

::::: ] is a coalition of 40 organisations. You cannot just claim that their information is unreliable. Please '''find''' a quote by ] where he claims the opposite. Misplaced Pages is about documenting information not hiding it. ] 23:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Please see ]:

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

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


::::(edit-con)Good I'll quote ], Hvk, and the RSS website when I'm at it. CAG is a of 40 orgs is correct. You know which orgs? No org that actually represents Hindus, Indian Muslim Council, Indian Christian Council, and my favorite, Forum of Inquilabi Leftists. You know what "''inquilabi''" means? It meeans revolution. Its a communist party front org. If you look at the page, you might see they '''protested Modi's visit to the US'''. They have a completely obvious bias.] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 23:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::This is not Bakaman's problem.'''The name of the judge ..They write - "VR Krishna Iyer - Former Judge, Supreme Court of India. Anti-Hindu, P-Sec. Pro Islamic.''' Iyer writes "...Therefore, hidebound Hindutva, red in tooth and claw, is an invasion of the basics of our Constitution". Quoted by Communalism Combat another anti-Hindu paper. See Photo.." No doubt both Hkelkar,Baka and Nobleeagle are bent on removing the report.] 10:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::Hinduunity isnt something people care about. Who cares what iyer thinks? (I'm an ] myself, just not the P-sec kind). Girish Nanavati is much more respected than Iyer and is cited in actual ''news sources'' as opposed to secularist terrorist fronts.] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 00:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

However, i've kept in the "Dubious" tags so that '''you''' can remove them. At least for the moment until some rational, referenced discussion takes place. ] 12:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
::Please see admins statement below concerning the unreliability of sabrang or CAG per irc discussion.] 12:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

== Seperation of incidents ==

Singling out incidents, however tragic, doesn't really happen on Misplaced Pages, otherwise we really can't go anywhere. So many families were destroyed and so many tragedies occurred. But for the sake of this article, I am merging all those incidents together. ''']''' <sup></nowiki></font>]]</nowiki></font>]]</sup> 04:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::Are you doing a PR for Gujarat government,Narendra Modi and Hindutva organisations?The article goes on length on discrediting the news reports, Human rights organisations..All those incidents are very well known and infact deserve articles on them separately.Disgusting...]
::: BAd faith assumption.Hmmmmm... something to take note of.] 10:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::::What are you suggesting TerryJ-Ho, just to make it crystal clear. Are you suggesting that I am somehow supporting the cold-blooded killing of innocent people. Because if that is what the ''disgusting'' at the end meant then it is I who am disgusted and insulted. Please clarify what you meant. ''']''' <sup></nowiki></font>]]</nowiki></font>]]</sup> 04:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

== Citecheck template ==

The citecheck template may have been misused in this article. Citecheck applies only to misuse of reliable sources, such as quotes taken out of context. Please discuss specific misuse of reliable sources on talk or replace citecheck with a more appropriate template. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 04:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

== Dispute ==

''Moved from ]''

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

*
:I believe this edit was genuine and should not be reverted. I have had a look at the source and its contents can be deemed to be NPOV as it does not highlight or potray any kind of fundamentalism. Bakaman, please keep in mind that contentious edits are not to be reverted using pop-ups but by leaving edit summaries. &mdash; ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 09:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
::] , I have a better supreme court report, from an actual ''reliable source''; the esteemed judge ] quoted by ], and maybe the Tribune as well. What's more reliable:] or some nn hate site?] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 17:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Ah, yes. Sabrang is not reliable at all and references to it should be removed. As their own page says "its an advocacy site". But cease using popups to revert contentious edits. &mdash; ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 08:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*
:Again, this was a very valid entry, sourced reliably. I suggest that it be restored, but as it proclaims the opinion of an author, it should be done in an NPOV manner while avoiding ] terms. Contact me, if there is a dispute on this bit. &mdash; ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 09:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
*
:Blog entry, should not be used in the article. &mdash; ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 10:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
*
:Same as <nowiki>#2?</nowiki>. &mdash; ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 10:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
*
:Again, this blog entry should be got rid of. ]. &mdash; ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 10:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
*
*
*
:I have had a discussion regarding this link over IRC, and people seem to agree that this is not an NPOV site, and as they have stated by themselves, it is used for advocacy. Please avoid using links to this site. &mdash; ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 10:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
*
<blockquote>Removing the following -
where a family as well as their children “were surrounded in their car and drenched in petrol and set alight” and of another</blockquote>
:Generally, when an article is disputed, it is always advisable to use sources from the Internet. If you are able to provide the source for this particular phrase, it can remain in the article, otherwise get rid of it. &mdash; ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 10:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
*

===Kausar Bano and ]===
- Kausar Bano was nine months into pregnancy when on February 28th 2002, 500 strong armed mob stormed into their house at Naroda Patia. Her womb was allegedly cut open with swords and the fetus was burnt along with herself and 7 other members of her family of 12.
- Bilkis Yakoob Rasool was six month pregnant when, on March 3rd 2002, a mob attacked their house in Randhikpur village located in Dahod district and gang-raped her while killing 14 of her closest relatives.
- She was left for dead but she survived. During the trial for these crimes , she subsequently identified 20 of the accused including 6 policemen in an ongoing trial<ref>,''Rediff.com''</ref>.</blockquote>

:'''Reply''' - See ], I removed links from Sabrang, an extremist website. Also I am totally unrealated to 66.xx . If the best users critical of the BJP can come up with is Sabrang, their efforts are futile. If you go to sabrang, look at the . You may notice its only attacking the RSS, and totally quiet on Genocide in Kashmir, NLFT terrorism, Naga terrorism, and Communist terrorists. They even state they are an , meaning they are an partisan website. While people sympathetic to the BJP have quoted reliable sources like the Hindu, Refiff, The Pioneer, the other sidew of the debate has nothing to show but "human rights" groups and "]/combatting ]" nonsense.] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 17:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

::I basically support Baka's view on this matter.Sabrang and CAG are extremist hate sites disguised as "advocacy groups". The polemic and rhetoric that fills their rubbish is ample evidence to any objective observer.However, if non-partisan sources confirm their basic contention regarding this matter then they can be cited as support.At present, this is not the case. Non-partisan means accredited news sources, academic publications from scholars whose discipline is connected to the issues at hand (so a reputable scholar on mathematics, for instance, cannot be used here even if he has advanced an opinion concerning the subject of the article).] 13:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Please prove through reliable sources why Sabrang and CAG are extremist hate sites.From above it seems your personal opinion..] 10:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that sabrang and CAG are Hate-sites. There is no debate as their polemic is obvious. By Terry's argument, websites like stormfront.org and jewwatch.com are not hate sites. Point of fact, the maintainer of jewwatch.com insists that his site is not a hate site. Nonetheless, the site is uncitable on wikipedia. Since sabrang is clearly a terrorist propaganda mouthpiece and CAG is full of virulently anti-Hindu polemic and uses the term "genocide" to depict the Gujarat riots (which has been contested as you can see), it follows that neither is reliable enough to be citable on wikipedia. My point is that if the Iyer report is geniune, there will be SEVERAL reliable sources for it. There are NONE!! NONE!!!] 10:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
::As for Ramesh Rao, I have said that he is a notable enough personality (founder of infinity foundation, a collaborative scholar etc.) that his statements can be used as a primary source which, in this case, I have.] 10:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
::besides, the Ramesh Rao post appeared on Hamarashehar magazine (Hyderabad based). Also, there is precedent on wikipedia for citing posts by notable persons (not non-notable people, obviously) provided it is qualified as such, which I have done.] 10:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

::I quote from ]

<blockquote>
In certain rare cases, specific blogs may be exceptions.
</blockquote>

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

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

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

] ] 10:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I have reasons to believe that MedCab is dead. You would need to wake up some people. &mdash; ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 09:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::Then shall I file rfC?] 09:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

=== Mediation request ===

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

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

It appears that the discussion is already civil and all you need is input from a wider community. You can ask at the ], post a ], or file a ]. --] 02:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
::Good idea, I'll post in RfC.] 02:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

:Can I close the Mediation Cabal case? --] 02:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
::Sure.] 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

=== Summary of debate===
A debate is raging over the inclusion of as a source for the following section
], current version is .Now, Sir Nick objects that the entry is a blog and so cannot be quoted per the wikipedia policy of ] in the clause
<blockquote>
Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment.
</blockquote>

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

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

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

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

] 02:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


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


==Change of section name in article==

http://en.wikipedia.org/2002_Gujarat_violence#Response_of_the_accused_parties

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

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

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

] 21:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
::I agree.] 21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

==Number of Victims==

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

] 21:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
::That's going to take a lot of work. Please help.] 21:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Indeed. Also, I don't like terry-ho's edits. they are very bias and he does not discuss them. something should be done about it.--] 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== PUCL ==

I just took a quick look through this . Could anyone verify whether it mentions attacks on Hindus or mentions Hindus doing anything else but killing Muslims, destroying Mosques and replacing them with Hindu idols etc. etc. ''']''' <sup></nowiki></font>]]</nowiki></font>]]</sup> 04:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
::Pretty much all about how those pesky cruel, uncivilized and inhuman "Hindoos" did little else but kill Muslims, destroyed Mosques, lied in newspapers that the Muslims were attacking them, and replaced Muslim shrines with deities etc.etc.How the cops were complicit, even when they arrested Hindus (apparently they were "too lenient on them"). Plus, apparently arresting Muslim rioters was a "misuse of POTO" (though arresting Hindus was hunky-dory).They use nice words to. The most hilarious is the "biological warfare" bit. Wow, I didn't know that the riots were an extract from a Tom Clancy novel.Sheesh!
::The standard Desi ] politburo propaganda really. There is a blurb or two down at the end about some Hindus helping the Muslims avoid rioters, sheltering Muslims, and holding off some rioters but naturally, in very small print and stated obliquely and flippantly. Of course, nothing about Muslim violence, or the Pakistan flag thingie reported by Rediff.Apparently all Muslim riots were either "false rumours" or "scaremongering". Sheehs, even Human rights watch is less bigoted, they DID report on Muslim riots. Who need al-Qaeda, we've got PUCL! Yay!] 05:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:::What if that is the truth.That the carnage in Gujarat has been compared to genocide of Muslims, could also imply that Muslim places of worship were destroyed.In fact,there are links on the page that show images of destroyed mosques and those converted to Temples.. ] 08:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Yes, "links" to destroyed "mosques" (i.e mud huts). I know that in Islam even a small hut can be a mosque, but this is pushing it. A few huts were converted from "mosques" to "temples". Hardly as bad as when the Muslims razed the ] to the ground and built a HUGE mosque in it's place.] 08:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::Reading the above justification of violence and destruction of Muslim places of worship in Gujarat,Hkelkar,I am constrained to believe that you are a Chauvinist.We live in a modern world and India is a secular democracy at least constitutionally - we should not live in a world of past, what others did in Turkish Caliphate period in the 10th century or before in their territorial spaces (when even the rules of war were different - that included demolishing each other's important places..Jerusalem knows how Saladin treated Christians and how the Christians treated the Muslims after the crusades..The present day Hagia Sophia is a Museum in secular Turkey ...the status that Hindutvavadis did not allow the historic ] have the least....they destroyed it) - Indian Muslims of present time are not responsible for their deeds,If you are so keen on going back to historic times you should not forget what Hindu King ] did to the Buddhists.There is no justification of killing of thousands of innocent civilians or say even a single civilian in a state that calls itself a democracy.] 00:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::You're accusing ME of being a chauvinist Mr. "Hindu Killers" and "Culture of Hate"? I find your Turkish caliphate analogy amusing since Indian/Pakistani Muslims ran behind the Ottoman Empire during the ] even after it collapsed after WW1, yelling "Khilafat Osmania" on the streets like a band of crazed Sturmabteilung lunatics, dragging the liberal nincompoops of the Indian National Congress right behind them.Even today, the ] and ] pine for the great Khilafat, where they could merrily string MerryJ-Ho upside down and flog you with a stick for even mentioning the word "secular". Violence against civilians during the Muslim perpetrated ], ],] and dozens of others naturally escapes your attention. But then again, "to kill a Kaffir is not a crime", right?

:::::As for ], Hindus tried to reolve the issue with Muslims and wanted to create a syncretic holy site where both Hindus and Muslims could pray. But that didn't suit the Muslims, since they would rather die than share a site with "idolatrous infidel kaffirs" (whose tax money they don't have any problems with during their pilgrimages to Mecca). Since we are throwing around demolitions, let's talk about the ] in your country mate. Muslims destroyed a whole temple (the last Hindu temple in Lahore, as it happens).Then what? You people denied it, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. Also, the temple mount in Israel was never preserved as a "museum" of anything. They built a mosque over the holiest of Jewish sites, and not during any damn war. ] 00:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::You better redress these issues that you have outside of Misplaced Pages.This is not a forum for your lamentations but an encycolpedia based on reliable sources and not your rhetoric.Should I thank you for calling my country India as Pakistan? ] 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::Likewise to you. Check my wikilinks above for reliable sources therein, and stop with the Hinduhate please.] 01:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::In any of my above edits.Do you find any confrontational language.You need to do some introspection on your own Dude ] 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


; NPOV dispute
Just wait, I've been told ] and the Noakhali Massacres in which around 100 thousand Hindus were killed were not genocide, and now the Gujarat carnage is being labelled as genocide against Muslims? ''']''' <sup></nowiki></font>]]</nowiki></font>]]</sup> 04:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
* ]
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Banerjee Committee) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Banerjee Committee","appear":{"revid":545073329,"parentid":545062024,"timestamp":"2013-03-17T22:31:06Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":566862558,"parentid":566770755,"timestamp":"2013-08-02T14:59:42Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
}}
__TOC__


== "Caused by" parameter ==
::Sorry but I am not an expert on the Political developments during Indian Partition in 1947 whose details are often sketchy on the web.The fact that partition was accpeted by the British could also mean that the things were not all black and white in colonial India.Partition of India was not only devastating for Hindus but was devastating for Muslims alike.While Gujarat pogroms took place in peacetime India when it boasts of a secular democracy under the watchful eyes of media and the entire world ] 13:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


{{ping|D4iNa4}} The ] you linked to does not in any way establish consensus for this parameter; nor do the sources provided there actually support it. We have sourced text in the lead and the body saying that the causes of the riots were complex (to say the least). Please demonstrate that this text is ] (not just verifiable). Pinging {{ping|RegentsPark|Kautilya3|El cid, el campeador|Capitals00}} as the other participants in that discussion (not pinging Sdmarathe, as he is banned from interacting with me and therefore cannot participate directly in this discussion). <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 11:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
::Steaming pile of BS. Direct Action Day occurred BEFORE partition, not during. It was completely unprovoked, the British weren't even peripherally involved. Partition was far more traumatic for Hindus and smaller minorities like Zoroastrians and Jews because they were ethnically cleansed from Pakistan. No ethnic cleansing of Muslims took place in India (there are 130+ million of them there).Gujarat riots happened in retaliation to ]. The National government's ideas of "secularism" (which, in India means denial of history, appeasement of terrorism and unequal pandering to religious votebanks) is a non-sequitur here as the state government of Gujarat never claimed to be secular, any more than the United Kingdom, Argentina (Christian states) or Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of that lot (Islamic States). Secularism, even by it's original definition, has failed in most multi-religious places anyways. ] 13:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
: I added additional causes mentioned in the lead. -- ] (]) 14:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
:::All the above is rhetoric - the fact is that during India's partition .Hkelkar, you seem still entangled in the legacy of partition.] 13:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::That's now more complete, and also more confusing. The Godhra burning is generally acknowledged as a trigger, but not a root cause. State terrorism and ethnic cleansing are terms used for the riots themselves; sources say "the riots were an example of ethnic cleansing", not "the riots were caused by ethnic cleansing". It's just too complex to convey in three words in the infobox; hence my contention that it should just be removed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 16:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
::::All of the above is Islamist propaganda. Direct Action Day and the ensuing massacres in Noakhali and other areas of Bengal was a full scale state-sponsored genocide perpetrated by the Muslim League(Muslim league controlled most of the areas, hence they were the de-facto state). Read Bourke-White, Margaret (1949). Halfway to Freedom: A Report on the New India. Simon and Schuster, New York, and , and , as well as . The accepted death toll of Partition riots is around 700,000. BBC's "probably 2 million" is a load of BS that can only be expected from BBC in India-related matters, where they have little to say other than how bad India is. '''Scholarly sources, such as Richard Symonds, 1950, The Making of Pakistan, London, ASIN B0000CHMB1, p 74, put the death toll at around 500,000'''. So I call horsesh*t on BBC's typical ] rubbish. Terry, looks like you're still entangled in the legacy of the Ummayid Khilafat, spreading your prejudices against 'infidels' with questionable data and false propaganda. And, of course, you drag the Eurotrash media along for the ride.] 14:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Vanamonde93}} It does seem "complex" and one reason is indeed not enough for a infobox. Even in 2017, we had 1 more option that we should get rid of the infobox but 5 years have passed and there has been no other controversy with the infobox. I agree that this new addition is even more confusing because "state terrorism" (very minority view) and "ethnic cleansing" (one of the common view) is the classification of the riot than the "cause". I agree that this parameter can be blanked again. ] (]) 07:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
::::Kautilya, I trust that's okay with you? <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 07:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
::I don't think the other two reasons - State terrorism & Ethnic cleansing - should be listed, as they have not been proven. We should stick to findings instead of some individual's opinion. Changes like this would make Misplaced Pages look like an opinion piece. ] 20:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
::: Misplaced Pages is written based on ], and those sources do not agree that Godhra was the sole reason for the scale of violence that ensued.
::: In response to {{U|Vanamonde93}}'s earlier query, I think omiting the field is not a good idea, because somebody will come and add it again. It is easy enough to find good sources that say that Godhra caused it. But the matter doesn't end there. -- ] (]) 21:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
::::Sorry, I still don't like it. The parameter has no meaning here. It is sociological nonsense; things don't have singular causes. The riots were described as ethnic cleansing; how are they ''caused'' by ethnic cleansing? Entire book chapters and journal articles have been written about the genesis of this violence. We can't summarize it in three words. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 21:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::Agreed ] (]) 11:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Again, including some people's opinions as "caused by" sounds weird. That's not a fact; that's just an individual's opinion. Despite they were taken from a reliable source, they remain opinions of some individuals. Using them as a fact inside the infobox doesn't sound good. ] 13:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::How are is the link to the Godhra incident any less one person's opinion? <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 16:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


== This entire article reads like a biased Hindu-phobic propaganda. ==
==VHP Pamphlet on Economic Boycott of Muslims ==
I Wish to discuss the inclusion of this item on the article.Hkelkar has been removing this from the talk space ..Is Hkelkar wary of inclusion of this into the article so much...Why?Is he an involved party ..Why does he consider this as hate content and more so remove this from Talk page when this is a published item on OUTLOOK magazine and discussed in
] leaflet, Jai Shri Ram]


- Reflect to Supreme Court of India's verdict on the case. List the names of Godhara Train Burning convicts.
*Wake up! Arise! Think! Enforce!
*Save the country! Save the religion!
*Economic boycott is the only solution! The anti-national elements use the money earned from the Hindus to destroy us!
*They buy arms! They molest our sisters and daughters! The way to break the backbone of these elements is: An economic non-cooperation movement.
*Let us resolve:
1. From now on I will not buy anything from a Muslim shopkeeper!


- Remove ridiculous propaganda terms - "State Terrorism" and "Ethnic Cleansing" under "caused by" section.
2. I will not sell anything from my shop to such elements!


- Stop taking bribes from George Soros and China.
3. Neither shall I use the hotels of these anti-nationals, nor their garages!


- Also integrity of editors responsible to contribute to the biased changes to the article in past requires thorough investigation. It's nothing short of a shameless act of information terrorism. ] (]) 11:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
4. I shall give my vehicles only to Hindu garages! From a needle to gold, I shall not buy anything made by Muslims, neither shall we sell them things made by us!


== Narendra Modi about irresponsible journalism by NDTV ==
5. Boycott whole-heartedly films in which Muslim hero-heroines act! Throw out films produced by these anti-nationals!


] in an informal interview , told told journalist Madhu K that “If you see the data you will see that within 72 hours we had put down the riots and brought the situation under control. But these TV channels kept on playing up the same incidents over and over again"
6. Never work in offices of Muslims! Do not hire them!


Modi then further talks about another incident of reporting by journalist ]. “In a second incident in Anjar, she played up the news that a Hanuman mandir had been broken and vandalised. I told her, “What are you up to? You are in Kutch which is a border district. There you are showing the attack and destruction of a temple. Do you realise the implications of broadcasting such news? We haven’t yet recovered from the earthquake. Have you actually done proper investigation into the riots? Why are you lighting fires for us? Your news takes a few minutes to broadcast that such and such place is unprotected or a mandir has been vandalized. But it takes for me a few hours to move the police from one disturbed location to another since these incidents are breaking out in the most unexpected places.”
7. Do not let them buy offices in our business premises, nor sell or rent out houses to them in our housing societies, colonies or communities.


Modi further said that when he inquired about the said incident, the administration found out that it was a small, insignificant structure under a tree which had been damaged a little bit by some crazy individual. “But ] presented it as an attack on a Hanuman mandir. When the fires were raging these journalists were pouring fuel on those fires,” he said. Subsequently, the channel was banned temporarily from broadcasting news in Gujarat as it would only lead to flaring up of communal tension. Modi had called up ] and said, “I will have to put a temporary ban on your channel if you continue with the provocative coverage. There is a well-established regulation that media should not name communities during communal riots nor identify a damaged placed as a mandir or masjid. Why are you violating that code and well set protocol about not naming communities or identifying places, of worship? You are going against established norms.”<ref>{{Cite web |title=NDTV Role in Adding Fuel to the Fire During 2002 Riots |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpsfA3FRnwo&t=119s}}</ref>
8. I shall certainly vote, but only for him who will protect the Hindu nation.
] (]) 14:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)


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


Former NDTV employee, ] said that he personally believed that Modi was not responsible for the 2002 riots that followed after Godhra massacre.
10. I shall not receive any education or training from a Muslim teacher.


“It is unfair of us to say that Mr Modi or anyone was responsible for the riots. He did not ask or incite violence,” said Rajdeep Sardesai,Responding to a question by journalist ], on whether Narendra Modi the then Chief Minister of Gujarat in 2002 was in any way responsible for the incident,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Rajdeep Sardesai on how TV journalism failed the Godhra riots |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S52spI8P72g}}</ref> ] (]) 14:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Such strict economic boycott will throttle these elements! It will break their backbone! Then it will be difficult for them to live in any corner of this country. Friends, begin this economic boycott from today! Then no Muslim will raise his head before us! Did you read this leaflet? Then make ten photocopies of it, and distribute it to our brothers. The curse of Hanumanji on him who does not implement this, and distribute it to others! The curse of Ramchandraji also be on him! Jai Shriram!
A true Hindu patriot! <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 01:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
::Stop Hinduhate please. This is not relevant to the "2002 Gujarat violence" since the incident was peaceful, and didn;t occur in 2002 anyways. Typical of terry to use wikipedia as an anti-Hindu soapbox.] 01:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:::See WP:AGF ] 02:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:12, 19 September 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2002 Gujarat riots article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Please sign all your posts on Misplaced Pages talk pages by typing ~~~~ to be accountable and to help others understand the conversation.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on February 27, 2005, February 27, 2012, February 27, 2015, February 27, 2017, February 27, 2020, February 27, 2022, and February 27, 2023.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconDeath High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconHuman rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHinduism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLaw Enforcement High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIslam Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion: Interfaith Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject iconIndia: Gujarat / History / Politics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Gujarat (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Top-importance).
Note icon
This article was last assessed in August 2013.

Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Archives
NPOV dispute

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

"Caused by" parameter

@D4iNa4: The talk page section you linked to does not in any way establish consensus for this parameter; nor do the sources provided there actually support it. We have sourced text in the lead and the body saying that the causes of the riots were complex (to say the least). Please demonstrate that this text is WP:DUE (not just verifiable). Pinging @RegentsPark, Kautilya3, El cid, el campeador, and Capitals00: as the other participants in that discussion (not pinging Sdmarathe, as he is banned from interacting with me and therefore cannot participate directly in this discussion). Vanamonde (Talk) 11:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I added additional causes mentioned in the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
That's now more complete, and also more confusing. The Godhra burning is generally acknowledged as a trigger, but not a root cause. State terrorism and ethnic cleansing are terms used for the riots themselves; sources say "the riots were an example of ethnic cleansing", not "the riots were caused by ethnic cleansing". It's just too complex to convey in three words in the infobox; hence my contention that it should just be removed. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: It does seem "complex" and one reason is indeed not enough for a infobox. Even in 2017, we had 1 more option that we should get rid of the infobox but 5 years have passed and there has been no other controversy with the infobox. I agree that this new addition is even more confusing because "state terrorism" (very minority view) and "ethnic cleansing" (one of the common view) is the classification of the riot than the "cause". I agree that this parameter can be blanked again. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Kautilya, I trust that's okay with you? Vanamonde (Talk) 07:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the other two reasons - State terrorism & Ethnic cleansing - should be listed, as they have not been proven. We should stick to findings instead of some individual's opinion. Changes like this would make Misplaced Pages look like an opinion piece. Aniruddh 20:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is written based on reliable sources, and those sources do not agree that Godhra was the sole reason for the scale of violence that ensued.
In response to Vanamonde93's earlier query, I think omiting the field is not a good idea, because somebody will come and add it again. It is easy enough to find good sources that say that Godhra caused it. But the matter doesn't end there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I still don't like it. The parameter has no meaning here. It is sociological nonsense; things don't have singular causes. The riots were described as ethnic cleansing; how are they caused by ethnic cleansing? Entire book chapters and journal articles have been written about the genesis of this violence. We can't summarize it in three words. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed Chinmay nayak23 (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Again, including some people's opinions as "caused by" sounds weird. That's not a fact; that's just an individual's opinion. Despite they were taken from a reliable source, they remain opinions of some individuals. Using them as a fact inside the infobox doesn't sound good. Aniruddh 13:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
How are is the link to the Godhra incident any less one person's opinion? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This entire article reads like a biased Hindu-phobic propaganda.

- Reflect to Supreme Court of India's verdict on the case. List the names of Godhara Train Burning convicts.

- Remove ridiculous propaganda terms - "State Terrorism" and "Ethnic Cleansing" under "caused by" section.

- Stop taking bribes from George Soros and China.

- Also integrity of editors responsible to contribute to the biased changes to the article in past requires thorough investigation. It's nothing short of a shameless act of information terrorism. Chinmay nayak23 (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Narendra Modi about irresponsible journalism by NDTV

Narendra Modi in an informal interview , told told journalist Madhu K that “If you see the data you will see that within 72 hours we had put down the riots and brought the situation under control. But these TV channels kept on playing up the same incidents over and over again"

Modi then further talks about another incident of reporting by journalist Barkha Dutt. “In a second incident in Anjar, she played up the news that a Hanuman mandir had been broken and vandalised. I told her, “What are you up to? You are in Kutch which is a border district. There you are showing the attack and destruction of a temple. Do you realise the implications of broadcasting such news? We haven’t yet recovered from the earthquake. Have you actually done proper investigation into the riots? Why are you lighting fires for us? Your news takes a few minutes to broadcast that such and such place is unprotected or a mandir has been vandalized. But it takes for me a few hours to move the police from one disturbed location to another since these incidents are breaking out in the most unexpected places.”

Modi further said that when he inquired about the said incident, the administration found out that it was a small, insignificant structure under a tree which had been damaged a little bit by some crazy individual. “But NDTV presented it as an attack on a Hanuman mandir. When the fires were raging these journalists were pouring fuel on those fires,” he said. Subsequently, the channel was banned temporarily from broadcasting news in Gujarat as it would only lead to flaring up of communal tension. Modi had called up Rajdeep Sardesai and said, “I will have to put a temporary ban on your channel if you continue with the provocative coverage. There is a well-established regulation that media should not name communities during communal riots nor identify a damaged placed as a mandir or masjid. Why are you violating that code and well set protocol about not naming communities or identifying places, of worship? You are going against established norms.” 

Aravind Sivaprasad (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Rajdeep Sardasai on modi

Former NDTV employee, Journalist Rajdeep Sardesai said that he personally believed that Modi was not responsible for the 2002 riots that followed after Godhra massacre.

“It is unfair of us to say that Mr Modi or anyone was responsible for the riots. He did not ask or incite violence,” said Rajdeep Sardesai,Responding to a question by journalist Manu Joseph, on whether Narendra Modi the then Chief Minister of Gujarat in 2002 was in any way responsible for the incident, Aravind Sivaprasad (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  1. "NDTV Role in Adding Fuel to the Fire During 2002 Riots".
  2. "Rajdeep Sardesai on how TV journalism failed the Godhra riots".
Categories: