Talk:2002 Gujarat riots/Archive 2

message: -The fact that Fire-bombing and fire happened at the same-time at same-spot is suppressed. 
-Fire-bombing and train attacks are an important fact. This fact is not mentioned.
-An important fact that most passengers who died were women and children is omitted. Their death is dubbed as death of 'Kar Sevak' who had a dispute with tea-vendor.
-Fact that couch S6 was a ladies-only couch is missing. On the other hand, Brazen lies eg. abduction of girl are mentioned in the article.
:Thanks for pointing it out. I've included the fact that the coach was reserved for women & children in the introduction, as were reportedly most of the train fire victims. The current version of the introduction gives equal coverage to all the hypotheses without asserting any of them as fact. I accept that there was a fire. I don't assert that it was an accident, nor do I assert that it was an attack. These are two of the hypotheses put forward by different agencies. Please check the intro for subtle NPOV points that I may have missed. -- Brhaspati (talk, contribs) 08:38, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
:: I think the paragraph is pertty NPOV. As the official enquiry is still ongoing, until the courts establish what really happened we cannnot support one hyposthesis over the other. We also need to work on the rest of the article as a number of paragraphs are still pretty POV. kaal 18:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV compromised. Article's Defect 

message: The article currently says "they abducted his young daughter, they took her in the S-6 coach, locked its doors and closed the windows". "Took her" can be used to mean forcible sexual intercourse, a meaning reinforced by the listing of abduction and taking her as two different activities. Is that the meaning intended? If it isn't, perhaps this should be reworded to "they abducted his young daughter, taking her to the S-6 coach, locking its doors and closing the windows." Jamesday
done - took her to removes the possible misinterpretation IMHO Boud 22:26, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That took care of it - no more room for minsinterpretation. Jamesday 13:55, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: the daughter

message: The following content used to be in Gujarat riots, which now redirects here:
:The Gujarat riots are the largest riots ever seen in India. Thousands of women and children were raped and killed. The government of Narendra Modi was accused of turning a blind eye to the rioteers.
It doesn't look to me like there's anything worth merging into the article.  dbenbenn | talk 20:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content from [[Gujarat riots]] 

message: "At the same time the riots were further exacerbated by the blatant lies spread in the English media. An apology for some of the lies was issued very late and was not widely circulated." - this claim is not substantiated with any facts (examples or dates). It seems like just some editor's opinion.
-- It is already evident that the English Media spread blatant lies. If not please take a look at the Ehsan Jafri case. The media reported that his entire family was burnt alive and then does not report the *fact* that his only son is alive and well and was in US at the time! Calling people dead even when they are alive is a crime if not a blatant lie. 
-- Will put in the apology as well as the date of the blatant lies spread in the English Media into the article. That will definitely not make it non-opinionated. User:Abhijna
--There was no blatant lie by the English media. There were entire familes that were burnt alive in the society where Jafri lived - basically his neighbours. Arundhuti Roy mentioned them as his family, which was incorrect. However, that still didn't change the nature of the crime.
**** The nature of the crime remains. But a spin is put onto it. The fact that people who are alive and well are reported as dead is a blatant lie. And if you have removed the apology of Arundhati Roy in this case, please put it back. Otherwise all the facts are not presented. And "entire families burnt alive"? Where did it come from? The human rights report does not even claim that? Further what about the "entire families burnt alive" in the train carnage? 
***** But if people were found burnt beyond recognition in Jafri's house, it would be reasonable to believe that they were his family members, unless someone points out otherwise : . As this report mentioned, there were 35-40 people who were killed in the Gulbarg society, most charred and it included a brother sister who took shelter in Ehsan Jafri's house, falsely believing that his contacts with the police would save them. Not his family members, but close to it, don't you think?
** Also, there are some sweeping allegations against the English media. Now, you can more or less compare the reports from all of them and find that they would concur. These are reputed organizations - to accuse them all of blatant lies and "making up" the riots is very sweeping (what would be their incentive behind doing such a thing anyway?). And finally, why is this page being used for communist bashing? From former judges to newspapers to other critics of the riots, everyone is being accused of being communist and therefore upto some mischief. This isn't a fair POV.
**** I do not know what you are reading or what are your preconceived notions. Nobody said that the English media made up the riots. However English media acrophycally did add fuel to the fire by publishing rumours as fact in a highly charged atmosphere. User:Abhijna
**** The link from Outlook where Arundhati Roy puts an apology is removed but the link where an unsubstantiated report from the same magazine is published is put back. To make this NPOV, both sides of Outlook needs to be presented.
User:Abhijna
* There are entirely too many references to muslim deaths, while none on hindu deaths. Amnesty International, that 'bastion of truth' which called Gitmo a Soviet Gulag, (obviously implying that they lie when required, and have no idea what Gitmo is like and what Gulags were like), is given too much time. Non official reports are also talked about, and the official report under the 'Congress' government (India's left) is also glossed over, in favor of more dramatic versions. Be warned, I will be doing a much bigger edit later, if this skewed POV is allowed to endure. The fact of the matter is, that the entire article has a decided pro-islamic bias. Facts are given short shrift, and allegations are given more time. The single most salient fact is that the electorate right after the election put Modi back into power by an unrecorded landslide. The people have spoken.
*"People have spoken" cannot be a criteria for judging. The Congress MP blamed for the riots in East Delhi in 1984 won by record margins just two months after the riots. More importantly, the popularity of the nazis and Hitler was unquestionable during the time that they carried out their genocides.
The facts in the article are in sync with all human rights organizations, not just Amnesty as well as most intellectuals and journalists from the mainsteam media. Perhaps you are insisiting on harping the point of view of the Hindutva leader, the co-accused in this pogrom.
** I notice you have removed the fact that the compartment was a woman and children only compartment. Proof positive of your bias. As for Amnesty and your 'human rights organizations'. Im sure the Gulag in Gitmo attests to their NPOV.
*** About Amnesty, even though it was at odds with US government on the G'Bay issue, it is an organization respected by the US government. On subjects like pograms, it is definitely an organization whose opinions matter.
**** It is sad that Amnesty International does not report on Jihadi Terrorism and the human lives lost in it.
***** Whether or not AI is neutral in selecting facts is irrelevant to this discussion: the question is whether or not AI makes certain claims or not. The neutrality (or otherwise) of AI is (or could be) documented in the article Amnesty International. However, i would suggest that you actually read the reports by AI on http://www.amnesty.org - IMHO you will find many reports which are related to terrorism which could in some sense by described as Jihadi terrorism, e.g. http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450202005 Boud 12:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinionated 

message: i have put back the external link to the Citizens for Justice and Peace report  Crime against Humanity at http://www.sabrang.com/tribunal/ - it is an NPOV fact that this extensive enquiry collecting a massive number of testimonies from witnesses exists. Whether the witnesses spoke the truth or not and whether or not the synthesis is a neutral synthesis, is POV. However, removing the external link is POV. Please do not remove the link. If someone can point to an external document which claims that the Citizens for Justice and Peace report is biased in some way, then please add that. Boud 12:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  crimes against humanity 540 page report