Talk:2002 Gujarat riots/Archive 4

message: 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.
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?
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! Hornplease 07:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello all 

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

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

message: 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, — FireFox (talk) 12:21, 28 July '06
: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 Babri Mosque which has also been protected.Netaji 12:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: "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 removedNetaji 13:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupported statement 

message: "The United Nations International Human Rights Commission has not yet recognized the Gujarat riots as a human rights issue"
to
"The United Nations International Human Rights Commission has not recognized the Gujarat riots as a human rights issue"
"yet" is POV. It takes a position on the subject. More vandalism from Lkadvani Netaji 02:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is somewhat addressed in a previous complaint against you by User:Rushdie as one can see from User:Blgnuyen's talk page 
Lkadvani 03:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 this article before trying to vault a certain Sheiks propaganda here. Netaji 05:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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..
Lkadvani 02:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 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.Netaji 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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!
Lkadvani 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another thing to edit out 

message: Netaji Please dont remove contents from Discussion Page.These are for discussion and they also refer to instances where you have misused Wikipedia 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.Netaji 22:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.Netaji 23:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted 

message: 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 Mediation Committee. I am making this proposal as an informal, unofficial mediation — not as part of the standard Wikipedia dispute resolution 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 2002 Gujarat violence 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, BCorr|Брайен 20:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for ''informal'' mediation from [[User:Bcorr|Bcorr]] 

message: I have created the page for creating a new version of the article (as proposed aboove) at 2002 Gujarat violence/2006 revision. It has three sentences to seed editing -- not to claim that they are the undisputed truth.
Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing can begin at [[2002 Gujarat violence/2006 revision]] 

message: 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.Netaji 08:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  numbers 

message: So, when will the mediation be finished, these other miscellaneous issues resolved, and the article unlocked?  --Cyde Weys 02:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presently, the 2006 revision is being edited. Follow the link on the page.Shiva's Trident 17:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have seen this. Thanks very much.Shiva's Trident 17:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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 WP:NPA and WP:Civil. Thank you and have a nice day.Shiva's Trident 17:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When will this be unlocked? 

message: 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. —Centrx→talk • 22:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There hasn't been anything new in a while in the rewrite.Hkelkar 23:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections.Hkelkar 18:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would hope that the article could  be cleaned up a bit first, as it certainly does have grammar/spelling/etc. errors.  Mar de Sin Speak up! 20:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of rewrite 

message: Since the dispute appears to have settled, I've merged the two page histories and unprotected. Recent discussions can be found at Talk:2002 Gujarat violence/2006 revision. Hiding Talk 20:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: User:Bakasuprman made this edit and User:Hkelkar made this edit in which they removed the following material from an external, verifiable report made by a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India, V. R. Krishna Iyer and other notable people such as Aruna Roy. 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 "PROTECTING & PROMOTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN INDIA", 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", made by an ad hoc, unofficial court led by retired Supreme Court judge Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer 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. 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." 
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. Boud 21:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We dont have to prove sabrang is true/false. Please see Sabrang is an advocacy group. Anyways, I can cite G.T. Nanavati (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 WP:RS. Anyway good luck finding a real web-archive of info (shouldnt be too hard, most Indian newspapers are more leftist anyways) . Bakaman Bakatalk 21:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch 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 WP:RS. 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. Boud 23:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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?Hkelkar 22:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 G.T. Nanavati 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></nowiki>, so maybe you could help NPOV by provided the source. Boud 23:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh my dear fellow, CAG is even WORSE a source. It is a polemical hate site. Please find MAINSTREAM news sources that corroborate this.Hkelkar 23:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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.Hkelkar 23:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (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 anti-Hindu nonsense sabrang and CAG give)  . Bakaman Bakatalk 23:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Coalition Against Genocide is a coalition of 40 organisations. You cannot just claim that their information is unreliable. Please find a quote by G.T. Nanavati where he claims the opposite. Wikipedia is about documenting information not hiding it. Boud 23:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see WP:RS#Partisan_and_extremist_websites:
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 Wikipedia, 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.
We must treat CAG and sabrang refs with extreme care, which you have not done.Hkelkar 23:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit-con)Good I'll quote Hindu Unity, Hvk, and the RSS website when I'm at it. CAG is a coalition 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.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not Bakaman's problem.The name of the judge VR Krishna Iyer already appears in Hindu Unity's Hit list..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.TerryJ-Ho 10:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hinduunity isnt something people care about. Who cares what iyer thinks? (I'm an Iyer 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.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see admins statement below concerning the unreliability of sabrang or CAG per irc discussion.Hkelkar 12:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of summary of material by a retired Supreme Court judge 

message: 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. DurovaCharge! 04:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citecheck template 

message: Moved from User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
Are you able to decide? TerryJ-Ho 10:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 09:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS , I have a better supreme court report, from an actual reliable source; the esteemed judge G.T. Nanavati quoted by The Hindu, and maybe the Tribune as well. What's more reliable:The Hindu or some nn hate site?Bakaman Bakatalk 17:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 08:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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 WP:WEASEL terms. Contact me, if there is a dispute on this bit. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 09:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Blog entry, should not be used in the article. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Same as #2?. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, this blog entry should be got rid of. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Reply - See WP:RS, 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 bottom of the page where you will see the "Fascist Heritage" header. 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 advocacy group, 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 "secular/combatting communalism" nonsense.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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).Hkelkar 13:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please prove through reliable sources why Sabrang and CAG are extremist hate sites.From above it seems your personal opinion..TerryJ-Ho 10:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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.Hkelkar 10:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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.Hkelkar 10:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I quote from WP:RS
In certain rare cases, specific blogs may be exceptions.
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. 
Now, Ramesh Rao 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.Hkelkar 10:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The provisions on Wikipedia 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 WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:V and decide for yourself. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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?Hkelkar 11:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (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 consensus. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Good. Then I shall initiate a third party discussion on irc in a few hours. All parties please exercise restraint until then. Thanks.Hkelkar 11:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You will have to invite other users to comment here. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 08:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I was thinking of medcab actually.Hkelkar 08:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I have filed medcab:
Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-11-13_2002_Gujarat_violence Hkelkar 10:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reasons to believe that MedCab is dead. You would need to wake up some people. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 09:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Then shall I file rfC?Hkelkar 09:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Good idea, I'll post in RfC.Hkelkar 02:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

text: 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. JBKramer 19:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay. Hkelkar 19:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute 

message: - 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 trialThe tragedy of Bilkis Banu,Rediff.com.</blockquote>
:Reply - See WP:RS, 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 bottom of the page where you will see the "Fascist Heritage" header. 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 advocacy group, 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 "secular/combatting communalism" nonsense.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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).Hkelkar 13:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please prove through reliable sources why Sabrang and CAG are extremist hate sites.From above it seems your personal opinion..TerryJ-Ho 10:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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.Hkelkar 10:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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.Hkelkar 10:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I quote from WP:RS
In certain rare cases, specific blogs may be exceptions.
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. 
Now, Ramesh Rao 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.Hkelkar 10:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The provisions on Wikipedia 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 WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:V and decide for yourself. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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?Hkelkar 11:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (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 consensus. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Good. Then I shall initiate a third party discussion on irc in a few hours. All parties please exercise restraint until then. Thanks.Hkelkar 11:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You will have to invite other users to comment here. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 08:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I was thinking of medcab actually.Hkelkar 08:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I have filed medcab:
Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-11-13_2002_Gujarat_violence Hkelkar 10:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reasons to believe that MedCab is dead. You would need to wake up some people. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 09:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Then shall I file rfC?Hkelkar 09:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kausar Bano and [[Bilkis Bano]]

message: 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 Wikipedia 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 Village pump, post a Wikiquette alert, or file a Request for Comment.  --Ideogram 02:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, I'll post in RfC.Hkelkar 02:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Can I close the Mediation Cabal case?  --Ideogram 02:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.Hkelkar 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation request 

message: A debate is raging over the inclusion of this entry as a source for the following section
2002_Gujarat_violence#Bias_of_the_New_York_Times, current version is .Now, Sir Nick objects that the entry is a blog and so cannot be quoted per the wikipedia policy of WP:RS in the clause
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.
However, my argument for including the entry is based on the following lines of reasoning
WP:RS has a clause that says:
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
In this case, the writer is Professor Ramesh Rao,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 Hindu American Foundation, 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 Hyderabad - 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 (Bnei Menashe) check the current version  where the following blogs are cited .
Hkelkar 02:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. JBKramer 19:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay. Hkelkar 19:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of debate

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
prasad88 21:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.Hkelkar 21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of section name in article 

message: 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.
prasad88 21:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's going to take a lot of work. Please help.Hkelkar 21:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--D-Boy 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Victims 

message: 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 Indian parliament
I think we should add this to the article, Here it is from Outlook Magazine.However, other copies are available on UN sites,this was discussed in Indian parliament
VHP leaflet, Jai Shri Ram]
*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!
2. I will not sell anything from my shop to such elements!
3. Neither shall I use the hotels of these anti-nationals, nor their garages!
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!
5. Boycott whole-heartedly films in which Muslim hero-heroines act! Throw out films produced by these anti-nationals!
6. Never work in offices of Muslims! Do not hire them!
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.
8. I shall certainly vote, but only for him who will protect the Hindu nation.
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.
10. I shall not receive any education or training from a Muslim teacher. 
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 [be] 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! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TerryJ-Ho (talk • contribs) 01:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.Hkelkar 01:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:AGF MerryJ-Ho 02:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is irrelevant lol. Note "violence" (like the Ghanchi and the train) and "peaceful" (like a piece of paper).Bakaman 23:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VHP Pamphlet on Economic Boycott of Muslims 

message: There is'nt a single mention of the Tehelka sting operation.
To say that the sting provided undisputable and original information is to state the obvious.
At least a link to the operation's article should be provided.
~~~~
:I agree.ManasShaikh (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tehelka Sting 

message: An Admin suggested mediation as a means of addressing problems here. I'm not entirely familiar with the processes, but if that is what is necessary, I'll go for it. Are others here willing to participate in mediation? Is there anything about mediation that participants would be obliged to follow once its concluded? The situation here is a joke, and one would think mediation wouldn't be necessary to persuade people to abide by existing WP policies. MinaretDk 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "In turn, some have accused these news media agencies, non-governmental organizations and human rights advocacy groups of media bias and bias against Hindus[14][15][16][17]." - these "some" could always be in any story - say if you write that Zarqawi killed x number of people. There will always be "some" people who will find themselves on the wrong side and they will criticise the media bias or bias against Al-Qaeda.What use is this sentence, other than as a weasel Neptunion 17:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a weasel, no doubt. RumpleStiltSkin and Bakasuprman don't care though. They've deleted content with  reliable sources, opting to retain 'original research'. The article emphasizes unreliable sources such as blogs and articles on community portal websites written by nobodies. They don't care. Unfortunately since my correcting these problems means me being accused of 'edit warring', I have to sit and just look at this bullshit. MinaretDk 17:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: BhaiSaab and TerryJ-Ho isnt there a better place to argue this?Bakaman 18:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: This was an act of terrorism and should be listed as such under "Terrorism in India". Almost all, if not all, of the terrorist acts listed under it were perpetrated by Muslims, and we all know Hindus have committed terrorist acts as well. This needs to be listed. JBull12 13:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JBull, By most accounts this was a state sponsored act of terrorism against people of Muslim faith in Gujarat [Most of the good links, journalistic ones tend to get disappear, you can imagine why] .This article - the way  it is being maintained serves to wash away the crimes of the perpetrators at the same time showing the incidents as fairly normal and two sided.Even the title of the article suffers from the same - instead of Gujarat Killings or Anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat [Some sources even call it Gujarat Genocide], it says Gujarat Violence..and you can still see why the end paras are all like ..[Bias of Media (against Hindus),Bias of X (against Hindus) ..and so on.I am wondering if there is a way we can make someone neutral actually own this page.The democratic aspect of WP is actually becoming a bane on this article , for there is an overwhelming presence of the like minded persons of a particular community who would rather think this page never existed.Mcleodganj 03:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the titles of the sections such as "Bias of the X" seem POV.  I think they should be edited to be more neutral. Buddhipriya 03:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only heard spurious allegations from Muslim extremists () and sockpuppeteers (like Jbull). Terrorism is like blowing up a train, not larghe swaths of people beating each other up. Did you forget 200+ Hindus died, and tribals were killed in cold blood by Muslims? Its not terrorism, its a string of riots and killings, accurately summed up as violence.Bakaman 18:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism 

message: on the contrary, it is not NPOV to word an allegation of a criminal act as "believed to have done", after the allegation has been dismissed by court-appointed enquiry, without reporting either Setalvad's denial or the court's findings and without reporting the many other allegations thrown around both by Zaheera Sheikh and others. Doldrums 11:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...that Teesta Setalvad was accused of bribing witnesses is not a disputed fact at all and it is backed up by sources. Wikipedia's policy on neutrality does not deny entry of facts that are backed up by relevant and reliable citations. You can easily fix the lacunae by adding relevant information alongside with the assertions of allegations instead of reverting. Go Dhokla! -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 11:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "believed to have been" is not an accusation, it is a weasal-worded statement of fact. it is also a contentious statement about a living person reported in a non-neutral manner. so i did what i can do to fix it. Doldrums 11:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with you there, we should take utmost care that we do not violate WP:LIVING in any manner. I hope you do agree with the change I have made now. But if you don't, please feel free to revert! :) Go Dhokla! -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 12:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  explain reversion 

message: why does the Roy piece in particular need to be duplicated (in full) as "context"  out of more than half the article (sections on the role of the government, hindutva organisations, press) that is also context for the violence? Doldrums 07:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  duplicated content 

message: text removed from article. 
The only thing supported in the cited article is that Justice Nanavai says that on the evidence the commission recorded they have recorded so far, it would not be fair to say that only Muslims were targeted. HRW does not make claims of "exclusive Hindu involvement", in fact the WP article describes earlier, HRW's characterization of attacks on Hindus by muslims.Doldrums 09:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Include the sourced part(s) and seclude the misrepresented part(s). -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 09:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bias of Human Rights Watch" 

message: Balbir Punj is a very notable journalist and a notable politician as well.Bakaman 22:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very sorry. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 09:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Balbirpunj is a Rajya Sabha MP from the BJP and is therefore not a credible and unbiased source. Rolledex (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Balbir Punj]] 

message: have tagged the article after finding several instances where source material has been incorrectly or misleadingly reported , , , , . Doldrums 09:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fact check 

message: in this edit, sourced text has been deleted and the re-organisation of sections to get rid of a large "Controversy" section (for reasons mentioned here) has been undone. the edit summary says this is a reversion of the "deletion of sourced edits". 
the "sourced edits" that have been deleted earlier, material such as media criticism by Bhogle, etc has been deleted for reasons discussed before. if you contest this, pls state  reasons and pls do not continue to revert other uncontested changes to the article. Doldrums 10:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent reverts 

message: Substituted at 04:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I think that the word "violence" is a tad too vague. I suggest that we change it to something more specific. Perhaps the word "riot" could be better?--A 02:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Riots would entail that it was set in only one location. Violence is broad, to encompass all the bombings, fights, and large group conflict that occurred.Bakaman 22:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The title 

message: CCT is reliable enough to be cited by upon by several, for instance, (isbns) 1841136808 and 0761934081. Doldrums (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is meaningless. Teesta Setalvad publishes the paper, which is a partisan source. It is not usable per WP:RS, otherwise we may as well use Panchajnya and other RSS papers to write this page.Bakaman 23:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They refer to themselves as an advocacy group.Bakaman 23:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of RS says an advocacy group publication cannot be linked to. period. especially when the publication itself is notable enough to be mentioned in the article and plenty of reliable source cite it as reliable? Doldrums (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: now on WP:RS/N. Doldrums (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (taken from the noticeboard).Just because a source was used in a book (along with hundreds of others) really does not give any rubber stamp of approval. Sabrang, is an unreloable source, since it is funded and published by Teesta Setalvad, who was accused by a victim of the violence, Zaheera Sheikh of  coercion to falsely implicate 21 people. The organization is controversial in the media, and some allege is has been used for embezzling foreign funds. Also of note is that it is an Advocacy Group. There is really no logical way that Sabrang can possibly fit under WP:RS, noting all this obvious controversy that surrounds it. When writing an article as contentious as 2002 Gujarat violence, it is obvious that only reliable, non-controversial sources should be used. Using a political ideologue in an NPOV article is nonsensical.Bakaman 01:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "unreliable" CCT 

message: Both of the sources comment on stability in Gujarat, and how this has benefited Muslims in the educational and financial spheres. . I'm certain a certain user would leave the note untouched if it talked about "modi=hitler" and "final solution for muslims", but since it vindicated Modi, it has to go on the chopping block.Bakaman 18:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: Both the sources in question note large loss in property.
[]
The sources corroborate with a fair description of attacks on Hindus. Also the quote about HRW is unsourced.Bakaman 17:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that both sides of the debate and all the facts must be covered. From what I understand of WP:Neutral point of view/Examples, I don't think we can make the conclusion that the Gujarat riots were "just" anti-Muslim, even if media and other sources do. ShivaeVolved 18:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The media does ralk about ~250 Hindus dying in relation to ~700 Muslims, so the barbs went both ways. What perturbs me is the sensationalization of the article, and the obvious fact that its almost solely based on HRW reports. Very little content is not from HRW, and this violates WP:UNDUE, since people may as well get the same picture from reading HRW. Also what isnt, is often removed or undermined by nitpicking and semantics. I agree that we cannot, and should not make this look like a one way fight, when it was a cesspool of anger.Bakaman 18:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this article lacks some key information, which may possibly help overcome the sensationalism you suggest. I remember reading stories about (1) a Hindu-Muslim effort in villages to keep out the rioters and political groups to preserve peace, which shows that it wasn't all total hate and mayhem (2) about police arresting a top Muslim cleric in Godhra for conspiring the train attacks, (3) about riot victims and military families being evacuated to Army bases and (4) more details of what measures K.P.S. Gill took to restore order. (5) There were often cases of pure looting of Hindu and Muslim shops by non-rioting civilians, (6) of roads/highways and supplies being shut off for over a month. (7) Many Muslim shop-keepers put up pictures of Hindu Gods to escape the rioters. (7) Finally, I feel there should be a clear distinction made about the figures detailing those killed in riots and those killed in police/Army firings. ShivaeVolved 07:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There was also an article back then in the Times of India that described how VHP/BJP activists had compiled lists of Muslims living in neighborhoods, of schools and colleges with Muslim students, so as to guide the rioters where to attack. While it seems that such information may actually aggravate neutrality issues and sensationalism, it actually helps by providing specific details that are factual - a generalized, basic article is susceptible to vague theories, speculation and the broader Muslim-Hindu blame game. It gives the wrong impression by reducing everything to "Hindu vs. Muslim; victim vs. rioters." Most significant is that example of village Hindus and Muslims taking joint action to keep out the rioters. These facts give the readers more insight, reducing the chances that they will simply think in terms of a "Hindu retaliation for Godhra," "Muslim victimization and genocide," "Government complacency and conspiracy," "right-wing political groups vs. biased media and secular political groups." ShivaeVolved 07:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think those generalized debates are over-emphasized here, leading to sensationalism - of whom the HRW blamed, of what the foreign govts thought of this, of how the Hindu right-wing responded, of the image of Modi, etc.. I would want to know as much as possible about what exactly happened, rather than reading a "whodunit." ShivaeVolved 07:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to add that to the article, can you provide the sources describing 1-7? Or add the relevant sections to the article? That would speed up the rewriting process.Bakaman 21:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  attacks on Hindus 

message: A website has been devoted to the truth of the Gujarat riots- titled www.gujaratriots.com 
 This website gives comprehensive details of the Gujarat riots- and deals with facts and figures based on primary sources of the Indian media-who are biased against Hindus- such as The Times of India, The Indian Express, The Hindu, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.217.84 (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A website on this subject 

message: A suggestion I might make to improve the article is that there can be a brief explanation of politics in India. Global users might find it hard to comprehend statements regarding the role of political parties in instigating riots. A few sentences about the role and ideology of the Sangh Parivar, as well as on the fact that crimes by political parties and open violations of the constitution by constitutional authorities is not uncommon in India, would help users understand the violence better and lend more objectivity to the article 59.92.134.130 (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brief intro to the political scenario: 

message: What are Balbir Punj's news articles doing as references in the article? He is a BJP man and not a reliable source. Can anyone explain what is going on here? --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to his resume, he also has a tad bit of journalism expertise, a few (26) years under his belt working for some of India's most respected newspapers. His citation has already been qualified in this article as "BJP MP", but he is qualified outside of politics as a successful journalist.Pectoretalk 22:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balbir Punj 

message: While I agree with RP that a detailed description of the commission does not belong in the intro, the article cannot only display the "findings" of the Bannerjee commission and not discuss the more notable more recent findings of the Godhra commission. The Godhra train burning was the cause of these riots/pogroms/etc. and therefore a small summarization does have a place in this article.Pectoretalk 22:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright I guess the place you inserted it at was correct. Also many of the references are broken - I mean the links are broken or don't lead to the right articles. How to fix them? --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godhra commission 

message: My edits on this page (which added reliable sources, removed partisan rags, and added criticism of an author, who has been given undue weight on this article) were reverted under the blanket banner by the above user as "reverting vandalism". Below is a diff of all the edits I made with listed justification. Diffs
#Cited a previously uncited quote/argument about the Banerjee commission.
#Removed a link to Milligazette, an Islamist "newspaper" (using the term  lightly) and certainly not a reliable source
#Added important criticism about an author who has been given undue weight on this page.
Let me know, with links to Wikipolicy and reasoned argument how this is vandalism.Pectoretalk 02:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: were ALL of those sources neutral, un biased and reliable? Wasifwasif (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Wasifwasif, I am not trying to vandalise the page at all. I am neither Hindu nor Muslim nor anywhere related to the whole situation on the Indian subcontinent for that matter and I only stumbled on to this page due someone who had vandalised a page that I was watching and who had also vandalised this page. I have since that time also reverted edits of people on this page whom I suspected of being Hindu nationalist so you can't accuse me of being partisan in this article. The reason why I revert your edits is because you constantly edit out the mentioning of the casualty numbers of the Godhra train burning. It seems to me that you yourself are trying to gloss over the Godhra train burning. The article, as well as the Godhra train burning article, seems NPOV enough as it is as it mentions the controversy surrounding the train burning where the views of both parties are presented. But to leave out the casualties altogether, as you do with your edits, is not appropriate for a balanced article. So stop calling me and everyone else who is looking to achieve a balanced article a vandal just because you do not agree with them, because if anyone, it would be you who in this matter could be considered a vandal. - Takeaway (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wasifwasif edits