Talk:2002 Gujarat riots - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs) at 04:39, 20 May 2014 (→This article is awful and needs serious work: take it slowly, friend). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:39, 20 May 2014 by Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs) (→This article is awful and needs serious work: take it slowly, friend)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Please 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 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

India: Gujarat / History / Politics High‑importance

	India portal This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Gujarat (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
	This article was last assessed in August 2013.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Hinduism Low‑importance

	Hinduism portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam

	Islam portal This 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (2002–2003)
Archive 2 (2003–2005)
Archive 3 (2005–2006)
Archive 4 (2006–2010)
Archive 5 (2010–2013)
Archive 6 (2013– )

NPOV dispute

Talk:2002 Gujarat violence/2006 revision

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on February 27, 2005 and February 27, 2012.

Please sign all your posts on Misplaced Pages talk pages by typing ~~~~ to be accountable and to help others understand the conversation.

Largely one sided and biased article

The article seems to have been biased and extensively cites books and articles strongly favoring one side of the opinion while largely ignoring the other side. The editors of this article have chosen to ignore the facts upon which the courts have pronounced their judgements, a problem which the entire article suffers.

The section on the train burning incident is largely one sided and written like an advertisement for the defendants of the subsequent court case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclaren9 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I have fought a long battle here and I was cornered by the anti-Indian editors here that I am sock-puppet. Imagine, how a Neutral Misplaced Pages editor like me will feel. I nearly lost my energy in touching this article henceforth. - Vatsan34 (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Biased Article

Article is highly biased and tone is Anti BJP. e.g. "Chief Minister Narendra Modi has been accused of initiating and condoning the violence, as have police and government officials who allegedly directed the rioters and gave lists of Muslim-owned properties to them. In 2012, Modi was cleared of complicity in the violence by a Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court of India." In July 2013 allegations were made that the SIT had suppressed evidence. On 26 December 2013, an Indian court upheld the earlier SIT report and rejected a petition seeking prosecution of Mr. Modi.

This should be part of Inquiry and not main section, if required.

Again section

Modi and Rana had used inflammatory language which could worsen the situation.

Mostly reference is given as some book specially from foreign author which is not solid evidence as newspaper. All such sentences should be removed/rephrased and article need to be wikified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepeshdeomurari (talk • contribs) 19:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The sources are fine, academic ones are better then newspapers. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

These people are clearly racist. They consider Indians as no-brainers and consider Hindu names as bigotry and need to be avoided. I say it, straight from my brain here. -Vatsan34 (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vatsan34:Sorry, who is "clearly racist"? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Those who had claimed Indian editors as pro-BJP, pro-Hindu. For Anyone's Info, I consider myself as irreligious and have no sympathy for any religion. As a logical thinker, I found too many lapse from neutrality in this article from my past interactions here. I still stand by it. This article is written purely in Muslim side. And this is not blind accusation. -Vatsan34 (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but who here has claimed that "Indian editors as pro-BJP, pro-Hindu." are what? Your statement makes little sense. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It was claimed here that all Indian editors try to insert pro-BJP material into the article. I am not at all related to BJP, nor does my political affiliation forces me to edit this article. I once again affirm that I wanted to make this article NPOV, which this article totally lacks. Respected Sir, Please correct me If I had not followed any WikiPolicy in this statement - Vatsan34 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Biased article

I request administrators to read the links of sources given below in order to come to a conclusion.The current version of this page is heavily biased in favour of a particular community.

I have added few extra links.Rest are same as the previous ones. and darknessshines don't remove this section. --ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would I remove a section? I have however removed some linkvios and one BLPPRIMARY violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This link was part of the article in old version.there were others also which was removed.The attack on hindus section is biased as can be seen through my links.But some bad faith editor removed this http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/postgodhra-riots-dna-test-nails-4-killers/4719/0 ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no purpose in discussing anything with you, given you are about to be blocked for sockpuppetry. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I think most of the above links come from RS. But are these references already part of this article? I didn't check the page112.79.38.174 (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC) You don't want to discuss with me , I have no problem with that.But you must give some reason why the above references from reliable sources can't be included in this topic--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

How to find Sockpuppet the User:Darkness Shines way? Anybody trying to bring neutral point of view to this article is a sockpuppet. -Vatsan34 (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

He is currently blocked for socking, so keep your pointless allegations to yourself. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a pointed allegation. I had mentioned it in point. wink wink -Vatsan34 (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes Vatsan34, i think you are right. if the opinion is free opinion and not in favor of some people then they start to make point of sock in order to prevent your opinion from coming to the surface. This article is biased. 112.133.203.148 (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Sock on a proxy, now blocked Darkness Shines (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

As DS pointed out, the user in question has in fact been blocked for sockpuppetry, and so your accusations are completely off the mark. I suggest both you confine yourself to content based arguments henceforth. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not. I had been accused for Sockpuppetry based on evidences as strong as a bird's feather. I felt offended , but I conveyed it here in a funny manner. -Vatsan34 (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Vatsan; I was referring to the IP, who was indeed blocked for sockpuppetry. I said that the lesson to be learned there, was to confine the conversation to content. I did not make any accusations about you. Is that clear? Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Mention of religion

Either do not mention the religion of attackers and victims, Or mention them both. It is mentioned only when the victim is Muslim and attacker is Hindu, while it is not mentioned when the attacker is Muslim and victim is Hindu. Take, for example, in Godhra train burning section, it is mentioned 'a mob of 1000 people'. Almost all press reports (no, not even single newspaper in India is pro-BJP or pro-Hindu, so just relax) point to the direction of Muslim mob burning the train. Coming to the books being more reliable than newspaper, How can foreigner know about what happened in India? What kind of people he had interviewed? Will the investigation by Special Investigation Team be lesser accurate than investigation by a nobody knows Foreign author?? I have doubts on the accuracy of the facts mentioned in the books sourced here. So, let me just say it here and then raise it in the reliable sources section. Thanks! - Vatsan34 (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you here, the clean chit and whatnot is already mentioned in the lede, why add it again? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood it. Those are the recent developments in the case and I am sure it is related to the article. -Vatsan34 (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Any possibility of including an infobox at the top right? I think "Infobox civil conflict" will be of good use. Can provide a statistical brief data about the riots. - Vatsan34 (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No, what is the point? Anything added to it will be disputed by another source, that is why the infobox was removed to begin with. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Disputed by another source is the backbone of Misplaced Pages. Only when we give room for all reliable sources, we can achieve a Neutral article. Books and Newspapers may contradict each other, but both are reliable in its own way. Both goes through scrutiny of its publishers. Let us not decide what is best, let us decide what can be added to show all sides of a particular topic. - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

DS, for once I have to disagree with you, I believe a carefully monitored civil conflict box may be useful. We can leave out any and all information about perpetrators, and so forth, stick to casualties, damages, timeline, locations, and such....what do you think? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Which casualty figures? There are several, Damages? There were thousands of structures destroyed or damaged, which ones do we add? All information about perpetrators? That is in the thousands, who do we pick out for special treatment in an infobox? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, okay, that's fair. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles as complex as Syrian Civil War has infobox. See its size and contents even. Casualty figures mentioned by Indian (non-BJP) Government is there. Structural damages are not there in Civil Conflict infobox, for I myself had added it for similar riots articles. - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: moved. A majority of !voters opposed the move, but the only evidence presented showed that the WP:COMMONNAME is overwhelmingly 2002 Gujarat riots. The opposers preferred to substitute their own judgement of what the events should be called, which is not how article titling works except where there are WP:NPOV issues. In this case there were NPOV arguments on both sides, both unsupported by any sources, so have I discount those in weighing the discussion as a WP:CONSENSUS to move. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat violence → 2002 Gujarat riots – This article essentially covers the period of rioting that followed the Godhra train burning. Reviewing news sources covering the event shows the large majority of these sources refer to the period as the "2002 Gujarat riots"; thus, in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME, I propose this page be moved to "2002 Gujarat riots". Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC) NickCT (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose This was a deliberate attack against a minority community, violence is the correct term, will support a move to Anti Muslim pogrom in Gujarat, which is backed by RS Darkness Shines (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering the references given here still you are not changing the Attack on Hindus section.254 Hindus got killed but still this is anti Muslim pogrom.You are very clever and experienced.The editors should not have any bias towards any community or religion. Previously I had to face LX in Total Siyapaa who was neglecting my reliable sources and now I have to face you. You have got lots of medals for anti-vandalism.I don't know how you got support from administrators--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose "Riots" suggests that they were spontaneous; sources say the violence was anything but. "Violence" is appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Support It is spontaneous, not pre-planned. So definitely not a pogrom or even violence. Gujarat riots will be perfect title. Indian media (not pro-BJP) use this word. - Vatsan34 (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per Vanamonde95.—indopug (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:UNDUE to Martha Nussbaum in lead

There are many authors who commented on the issue. Though her views are noteworthy, why should the views of one author be highlighted in the lead? We have already said it was ethnic cleansing (" Still others have said the incidents were tantamount to ethnic cleansing"), premeditated ("Some commentators, however, hold the view that the attacks had been pre-planned, were well orchestrated, and that the attack on the train was a "staged trigger" for what was actually premeditated violence"), the complicity of the state government and officers of the law ("called it an instance of state terrorism."). What new idea does the quote add? The quote just repeats what the lead has already said. Martha Nussbaum is not the ultimate authority on the subject and there are hundreds of scholars who have commented on the issue. Why does Nussbaum get the privilege to be in the lead over all the others? The only two other people linked to, in the lead are Modi and Teesta who are part of the event. --Redtigerxyz 05:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The source is exemplary: A scholar published under a prestigious academic press. And in fact the quote does add something significant, Nussbaum is not giving us her opinion on the issue. She is stating that there is a "broad consensus" on the nature of the events. In Misplaced Pages we are obliged to WP:Weight articles according to the prominence of different views in RS. Our policy also tells us that academic, peer reviewed sources are the highest quality sources to use. If a high quality academic source tells us that there is a "broad consensus" on a topic, that is certainly something that is notable and important. Also if you read WP:RS/AC, it tells us that statements regarding consensus on a topic "must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." The current statement in the lead is sourced appropriately in line with policy, while your approach ("There are many authors who commented on the issue") seems to be based on your own opinions/assessments - something our policy tells us directly to avoid. Dlv999 (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Dlv999. Nussbaum's quote establishes that in academia, which is what Misplaced Pages is primarily based on, there is little debate about the nature of the violence that took place in Gujarat in 2002.—indopug (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Nussbaum summarizes the view of the hundreds of academics who have written about the matter - which is why that particular quote is significant and notable. Nussbaums personal opinion is not notable, but the consensus of academics is, and that is what the quote establishes. It is not undue. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Please rate this article not for children to read on 25 April 2014

This edit request to 2002 Gujarat violence has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Very Biased Article. If you choose to give numbers and the brutal way in which people were killed please give the true facts on both sides. I don't think you personally done any of the research except search the web and every link to the sources is by a non-Hindu. please put a rating on this article. It is too violent for kids too read. I feel statements like these are there just to provoke. "Children were force fed petrol and then set on fire, pregnant women were gutted and their unborn child's body then shown to the women" Why are you polluting the next generation mind! Being a responsible human being. Do not add fuel to fire even if it mean gain to some people. 192.55.79.165 (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done. Sorry! Misplaced Pages is not censored and we also don't have filters for adult or children suitable articles. All is open for all. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

If that is what happened or written as happened, then it shall be known to the next generation. Though I would surely say that this article it totally biased. - Vatsan34 (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent revert

I just reverted the removal of Martha Nussbaum, for a couple of reasons. First, Nussbaum is there not for the weight of her opinion, but because her book summarizes all academic opinion. Second, consensus favors keeping her in. Please see the related discussions on this talk page and also at the Godhra train burning page. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then I will ad another sourced opinion and then don't ask me to remove it. (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It does not quite work that way. I did not arbitrarily add this content just now; it has been here for a while, and has been discussed multiple times, as explained above. You are welcome to add new content, but it may be reverted, depending on what it is, as per WP:BRD. Also, you might want to read WP:INDENT as well. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to mention WP:CONSENSUS, which clearly exists (such as it may ever be) for this source; two editors besides myself supported it in the above discussion, a couple more on the Godhra train burning page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kumarila: I did not revert you, because I have done that several times already; but if you had actually read the article, you would have noticed that the same point is made higher up in the lead, with the exception of the "supervised by" bit, which is untrue. If you do not want to look silly, you should self-revert. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kumarila:What do you think you are doing? Are you aware of what "complicity" means? Every point you make with that addition has been covered above, and the place for details is certainly not the lead. Discuss it on the talk before you make additions like that; you know very well how sensitive a topic this is. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: U r just showing tour bias. The final line just provides a balance. Remove the final line and the whole paragraph shows that there is consensus that state Govt. was involved and did nothing. Also, statement by Matha Nabassum is unwarranted. Who decided that there is consensus on that ? My line talks about state not Modi. Kumarila (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous. Half the second paragraph is devoted to saying the State was innocent of anything. And do not bring up Nussbaum again; I already asked you to read the talk both here and at Godhra train burning, which you are not doing. Also, you might want to look at I didn't hear that; what you are doing with respect to Nussbaum is exactly that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not intend to revert you once again, but if you continue to insert that content, you are liable to get reported by somebody else, and then blocked. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is awful and needs serious work

This article needs a serious split into a factual summary and a commentary. What we have now is a horribly biased factual depiction of violence, throwing opinion and commentary into every bit of history. I'm also skeptical of an article that cites only print sources inaccessible to the general public. I have to take it at your word that these books do say what you claim they do, as there are no quotations given, only broad cites. If I can get any backing on this, I will begin a large edit job, keeping in tact as much of the commentary as I can. I see this ultimately breaking into three parts: (1) Facts (2) Anti-Hindu Commentary (3) Commentary defending Hindus. Obviously, much work has been done here on (2), but (1) and (3) are pretty much nil.The-Postman (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The article is supported by high quality academic sources (scholars published in peer reviewed journals or under academic imprint). If, as you say, you have been unable to read the academic literature on the topic it is difficult to see how you can make an informed judgement as to how consistent our article is with the literature. I also see that you only have 100 edits total as a Misplaced Pages editor. Some of your comments suggest you are not familiar with Misplaced Pages policies. For instance, your idea about breaking the article into sections based solely on POV is specifically discouraged in WP:NPOV - one of our core policies.

In your recent edit, you deleted the text which discussed the state wide bandh claiming that it was unreferenced: "even though these have been declared by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional and illegal. It is common knowledge in India that these strikes are usually followed by violence"

I checked the source and it fully supports the statement you deleted: "It had become common knowledge in India that bandh days brought riots in their wake. On this occasion, the violence started on the evening of the Godhra event, making it evident that it would continue the next day. Despite the Indian Supreme Court’s 1998 ruling that the call for a bandh is ‘unconstitutional and illegal’ and ‘violative of fundamental rights’,61 no action was taken by the government to prevent the bandh or to curb the violence."

I'm not saying the article cannot be improved but it seems to me that your judegments are not grounded in the source evidence and Misplaced Pages policy so, from a Misplaced Pages perspective at least, they do not hold much merit. Dlv999 (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dlv. In addition, we are not obligated to provide balance between the different theoretical reactions which could exist with respect to this. We are obligated to reflect what reliable sources say. The broad consensus among these is that the violence was targeted at Muslim people; therefore, the article will naturally contain more material about this, which could appear "anti Hindu" to some people. There was a much lower lever of violence against Hindus, so there is some mention of this as well. You would be well served by reading WP:NPOV. NPOV does not mean symmetry. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thirded.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that "it is common knowledge that" is acceptable in Misplaced Pages, then you need to stop editing. Now, there are other parts of this article that use similar phrases in quoting particular sources. If you're quoting a reputable source who says this, that's not necessarily a problem. If all you're saying is "it is common knowledge that X," then this is blatant Weasel Wording. This is very simple stuff and the nuance is explained at Misplaced Pages:Avoid_weasel_words#Unsupported_attributions. If you're going to use phrasing like "it is common knowledge that," it needs to be in the form of a direct quote.The-Postman (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect you only have about 100 live edits in the project so I will take your suggestion for me to stop editing with a pinch of salt. It is not weasel wording because the statement is directly supported by the cited source, which is a high quality academic source. You haven't provided a scrap of evidence of any significant opinion in RS that would dispute the statement. If you provide evidence of equal quality that would dispute the statement then there is no problem attributing and including both viewpoints. However, as it stands you are deleting well sourced material that accurately represents the cited source based solely on tour own (unreferenced) personal opinions. Dlv999 (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying this MUST present some sort of pro-Hindu POV. I'm not really even saying anything here is even inaccurate. I'm saying this is a terrible article, with blatant editorializing and poor, seemingly non-native writing throughout, which is not well-organized. An ideal article is ultimately going to cite with quotations, not with broad cites, and ideally it's going to present both sides. This should be set up to allow that, even if the opposing viewpoint is going to be much thinner. Sections of this are pretty good. The intro, for example, is strong. The further into this we get, though, the worse it gets. Post-Godhra Violence, for example, is not about Post-Godhra violence. It's about Modi's involvement in the violence. The way this is set up, Modi comes first in a section in which he should occupy the bottom paragraph. Do I have any evidence that he didn't make these statements? No! But that's not the point. The point is that the section isn't about what it needs to be. The Talk page is full of similar comments about the POV here, and yet even what should be utterly non-controversial edits, such as removing blatant weasel words, are instantly reverted, along with comments about my seniority. Have I been crafting this page since its onset? No. I am an outsider reading this page for the first time and stunned that, not only does this not get close to the standards I expect, it somehow isn't even flagged. Something stinks here.The-Postman (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It's clear I will receive no endorsements here, so I'm charging ahead while altering as little of the content as possible. I have worked on Post-Godhra Violence to trim that down to the facts. That section was previously full of commentary regarding State Involvement, which I have moved there. That section is now much more organized as well, although there are three hanging paragraphs that don't belong there, as they, while tragic, do not relate to state violence. Other sections need similar work. The passive voice is a major offender here--I'm the FIRST person to advocate the passive voice when it makes sense, but it DOES NOT make sense here. We need to be using active subjects--WHO in the media made these statements, WHAT government entity issued the edict, etc. "It is common knowledge that," "Reports in the media stated," and "A curfew was put in place" are not acceptable here. Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 still require major work.The-Postman (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

In fact I agree with your desire to avoid the passive voice and your argument that the phrase "it is common knowledge in India" s not a proper phrasing. But you should probably propose your changes first on the talkpage then gain consensus and then carry out the edits. That is a better approach for a controversial topic since it avoids editwarring.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming the article is perfect; like every article on "sensitive" topics, it has serious flaws. But you are serving nobody's interests if you come here with no background, and make massive changes to sourced content. Take it section by section, propose NPOV edits here, and you will find people very receptive; at least, those involved in this discussion are likely to be so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Categories: