![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
user:Vanamonde93 this is in response to your note on my talk page [ [1]] regarding my recent edit [ [2]]
This incident has gone through a proper due process by the police and the judiciary. And a verdict has been provided. This should be the primary narration of the article.
Regarding the theory of this American intellectual that it was result of an accident. It will be best to be removed. Such theories are not helpful, especially as part of the primary narration. Prodigyhk ( talk) 00:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Nussbaum is staying. Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Godhra_train_burning Prodigyhk ( talk) 20:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
It is a strong suggestive and present in quotes, which is backed by only one source. If there are other sources to the quotes please add per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. -- AmritasyaPutra T 16:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I accidentally breached 3rr, therefore I have self-reverted. However, I am genuinely confused as to what you are disputing. Do you require a page number? That can be fixed, given (a little) time. Is it the figure of "over 2000?" That is from the source; even SDmarathe accepted that. Is it the phrasing of the entire paragraph? That can be discussed, but only after SD accepts the notion that scholarly sources are the main ones we should be following. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 07:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Besides, "some" is even more of a weasel word than "some commentators." "Some scholars" would be even better. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 07:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
NPOV is not about balancing all views on the subject. It is about reflecting reliable sources. Court decisions, SIT reports, and such are not reliable sources, and this is not really a debate; our guidelines say that fairly explicitly. Media sources are highly dodgy in this situation, and even those do not back up the SIT in most cases, they only report what it said. Like it or not, our guidelines mean that scholarly sources are given more weight than the SIT, and I really don't want to debate this further; go to RSN or Jimbo's talk page, if you disagree. If, on the other hand, you want to debate how the various scholarly sources are represented here, that is a debate I am happy to have. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 21:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I am opening this new Talk topic regarding the recent revert of the mention of 25 women and 15 children from the victim count. 15 children dead shows an advanced level of brutality. Killing those that can not defend themselves (usually referred to as women and children) and is often used in journalism. Even if one was to not mention women separately, children are especially vulnerable, and their killing is widely considered more heinous. A similar analogy (although both despicable) would be child rapists vs adult rapists. -- Sdmarathe ( talk) 06:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC about the 2002 Gujarat riots. To view and/or participate, follow the link at: Talk:Bombay_Riots#RfC:_Equality:-Add_series_.22Violence_against_Hindus.22_or_Remove_series_.22Violence_against_Muslims_in_India.22.3F. Note: This RfC link fully complies with Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Placing_an_RfC_in_a_page_other_than_a_talk_page. Do not delete without consensus. Unbiasedpov ( talk) 22:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Interesting that one is not allowed to edit this article and provide links without being called a vandal and getting into an edit war. 122.176.129.101 ( talk) 07:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.129.101 ( talk) 06:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Surely one doesn't need your personal permission to make an edit within the parameters of wiki without seeking your approval first. I know it is sensitive, therefore adding as much information one knows of is in all our best interests. Do look at the news articles, and published government and other reports without calling people vandals and recursively undoing what value they hope to add.
//You have provided zero links// Which is why I need to take your permission before I can finish making changes, in violation of the 3 undo's rule? I did read up, for the first time thanks to your endeavours. :) 122.176.129.101 ( talk) 07:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I see your point. Fighting on the edits page and on talk before a person has finished and then claiming validity by stopping them is not an edit war.
Do keep your version of history, if incorrect.
//Vandalism is "action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property". The term also includes criminal damage such as graffiti and defacement directed towards any property without permission of the owner.//
Care to explain where and why the word "Mulsim" lead to this?
Or are you just a vandal claiming validity because you made an ID :) 122.176.129.101 ( talk) 07:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.129.101 ( talk) 07:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
//First off, you better sign in with a username// - do you run wiki that you would lay down its policy again?
//WP is not your scratchpad// Same goes for you. :)
I suggest you write to them and ask them to make you head of policy. Till then, I do believe you are a troll with intent. :) 122.176.129.101 ( talk) 07:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
My point exactly, allowing a person to edit before claiming a recursive debate is basic common sense. What on earth is a WP:RS? Do search for forensics on the matter and the 90 people also pronounced a verdict on. One of the key accused was 70 years old and apparently poured fluid that was never found from a jerry can a few feet higher than he could reach, even according to the already posted link on the matter.
The information is all there should prevention of it being shared not be imperative. 122.176.129.101 ( talk) 07:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:RS Saw. The reason I came to the page was politics and religion independent. Over the years I have come across many reports of basic flaws in physics. This too was mentioned in one of the listed links of the Govt reports, if fleetingly. I saw that and a bunch of other contradictions. When religion is brought in it sustains a basic mockery of science. That silly conflict is what I feel you have not allowed me to move beyond.
I don't plan to make a show of it by getting into an edit war with you. The increase of such is already making fresh edits of wiki loose credibility.
The truth is ofcourse far more murky than most can allow to be known. Thus our conflict, which I imagine will not be limited to wiki. 122.176.195.234 ( talk) 08:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Kuch bhi? (Anything?) why do those 31 not include all tried. Were they all of one religion? Give me another man.
Read the links on this page that you seem to watch like a hawk. If you would be bothered please read the hospital and IIT burn pattern studies as well. If a liquid fuel was used why did the burning reduce as it went down, the floor was unburned for most part. The links already on the page say one thing and whats stated on the page another. Hell I would go so far as to recommend you make the matter on the page and the links match. I have no interest in this stupidity. Even if I do go ahead and present all the facts tomorrow someone else will come and write something to the effect of Zebras come from Mars and provide links to Earths plate tectonics, while acting all offended, if asked why.
Best regards, I am running off now. 122.176.195.234 ( talk) 08:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Should that template be in the article? The template was added without discussion by a now banned sock so perhaps we should be discussing it before including it. Are there independent and reliable sources that state that this was systematically targeting Hindus? -- regentspark ( comment) 22:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe it would be better to start with the common sense involved in the discrepancies of reports on the matter as a start in 'Forensic Science Laboratory Report', not only do the links provided state other than what is written on the page, multiple other studies exist.
Currently too much other information rests heavily on religion being stated as is, tackling it from that end will likely prove problematic.
As is the sheer volume of data on wiki frightens me away from taking responsibility, due apologies. Ps. I am the same fellow from the previous few edits on the talk.
122.176.133.63 ( talk) 00:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Still figuring out the formatting. I do believe in time religion should be removed from the article all together. Violence against Hindus has a consensus mainly due to political propaganda. Labelling crime should be secondary to basic facts being collated and maintained. As far as I know there was and remains a political motivation to alot of this. A handful of those tried were not muslim, while kar sevak is not a generic term for hinduism which is what the caption suggests. I mean though hindu law applies to me, I am no Kar Sewak. (Same fellow from the previous few edits on the talk).
122.176.133.63 (
talk)
00:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
//Your statement is heavily biased against Hindus.// Are you a kar sewak? Why on earth would I be biased against myself?
If we were to follow the logic Kar Seva is a synonym of Hinduism, cast based violence and most crime in India would imply that Hindus are suicidal.
I do belive a religion tilt should be removed from law, but then utopia is an ideal not a reality.
//You better go find all articles of violence against Muslims and do the same.// No. Lol. Prove that you are a Kar Sevak first. :) 122.176.133.63 ( talk) 01:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
There's a discussion on the PD status of images used in the article here. Unless it's proven that it is indeed public domain, the image will have to be retagged to match WP:NFCC. — Spaceman Spiff 04:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Godhra train burning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
This edit remains unsupported by the sources, no matter what any court might think. Until a preponderance of reliable sources accept this theory, we cannot state it in Wikipedia's voice. Please read WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:LEGAL. Vanamonde ( talk) 08:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
User Capitals00 has reverted my edits on the presumption that they are Original Research. All claims were meticulously cited. If anyone can show why this is OR, I'd be glad to hear you out. Willard84 ( talk) 00:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, thats not how it works. You need to review WP:NOR again. Citations have to be sourced from reliable publications. Like the Washington Post as my citation was. You're making up rules that it has to also be referred by other scholars, before it can be considered as anything but OR. What you said is patently untrue unless you can show me where it says on WP that "It's OR until the citation is also referenced by other scholars." If you can, then I'll gladly remove the information added. Till then, you can't just make up rules and expect us to follow them. Willard84 ( talk) 01:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Here, to satisfy your completely made-up assertion that a source isn't reliable unless cited elsewhere (and unless you can show where it says that in Wikipedia, then it stands that you made up this requirement), here's what I found an posted on my talk page. I'm copying it here so other users who may also buy into your made-up requirements can also see for themselves:
Here you go, here's a source which cites Chandrasekaran's piece. here too heres a third heres a fourth. Willard84 ( talk) 02:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, so now you've added an additional requirement that the article must be cited not just by different authors, but also different publishing houses? And i gave 4 examples, so even if two are from the same publishing house, that means that there are three different publishing houses quoting the story. This is of course, a pointless exercise because you simply made up this new requirement that a source be cited by other scholars before deemed reliable.
The link you just provided shows that Rajiv's story is credible enough to be cited. The fact that you don't like what it was published in is irrelevant. So is your fake requirement that all sources need to be cited in a second source to be deeemed reliable.
You still havent showed me anywhere in Wiki that supports your bogus and made up requirements. Its now plainly obvious that the issue isn't the sources reliability..." Willard84 ( talk) 02:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
You know for a fact that that book wasn't the issue. Disregard it if you will - that was one of seven citations provide, because my point was that Washington Post is reliable while you falsely claim it is not. There are several other sources provided that quoted Rajiv, showing that it's not the "isolated opinion" youre trying to portray it as. You're just pushing your POV, and are trying to come up with whatever weak excuse you can to prevent information you personally do not agree with from being seen. You've literally made up numerous bogus requirements. Despite repeated requests, you have not shown any wiki guide that support your numerous made-up requirements. Because you cant, since they obviously are just being made up as you go along.
You have so far claimed the following:
1) Articles cannot be 14 years old. You don't say how recent they must be, but all we know is that your subjective cut-off is sometime before the 14 year mark. This has no basis in Wiki guides as far as I can tell.
2) For a source to be deemed credible, it MUST be cited by other authors. You even went so far as to imply that unless this requirement is met, it is then not a news piece, but an opinion piece. Again, a made up and self-serving definition.
3) You then added that the sources must also be cited by multiple authors from multiple publishing houses. Again, this is made up.
4) You also stated that a new story with anonymous sources is somehow discredited. This is not only another bogus requirement, but demonstrates a lack of understanding of journalism.
5) You've implied that the Washington Post is not a reliable source. This despite the fact that Washington Post is the newspaper that broke the story on Watergate which led to the downfall of President Nixon. WashPo also has broken numerous stories about the current Trump Administration which have even lead to investigations into Michael Flynn's conduct with the Russians.
6) You said WashPo had to be "legible" several times on my talk page. I don't even know what this was in reference to but I assure you, Washington Post's choice of font is quite legible.
7) You also said that MBlaze made the same reverts in an attempt to justify your actions. This was patently untrue as he/she removed a citation that was linked to Vishwa Hindu Parishad's own website. That isn't the same thing as you did.
8) That my original edit violated the WP:NOR despite me conforming to the stated requirements of properly citing the source. Remember, that is the reason you FIRST gave for reverting my edits. The remaining fake requirements popped up after I demonstrated that no such OR was ever ever ever introduced on my part.
You've made it abundantly clear that you're just a POV-pusher who will make-up requirements in your self-serving pursuit. Willard84 ( talk) 03:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
All the discussion above is much ado about nothing. Washington Post is a highly-regarded mainstream WP:NEWSORG, and all its news items are reliable sources. The article cited by Willard is a news item, not an opinion piece. I see no grounds for objections. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, the reasoning for the "not a paper ENCYCLOPEDIA" article is this (and you omitted the "encyclopedia" part): Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility, especially for dial-up and mobile browser readers, since it directly affects page download time (see Wikipedia:Article size).. I didn't add tens of thousands of words to the article, so the link you gave doesn't really apply here.
Secondly, that's bad reasoning because if something has a reputable source, then it's can be included. It's even more bogus because it's just two well written sentences(how messy is that?), and accuracy shouldn't sacrificed to satisfy your subjective definition of what a messy page is. What you're doing is stonewalling to preserve your POV. Have you demonstrated that any of the following claims from the source have been debunked:
1) That there was no dispute over payment 2) that the reported rowdy behavior is false 3) that the reputation for rowdiness did not precedence trains arrival into godhra 4) that the passengers actually did pay at Godhra station
I ran a quick google search and can't find anything credible to debunk these 4 claims. Can you? Because you unjustifiably removed all these claims without even showing exactly how all 4 of these claims in the reliable citation were ever debunked. Oh, and it'd be helpful if you can't demonstrate an article which meets all 9 of capitols00 bogus requirements. And remember, you removed ALL four of these points, so you have to justify why each point must be removed, because otherwise your just being disruptive to maintain a POV. Willard84 ( talk) 20:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Even though the objectors haven't been able to articulate it clearly, the article at the moment, states the salient facts of the "incident" and then covers the investigation reports, which are presumed to have some authenticity. This was presumably because they were various views voiced in the Press, and it might have been too much of a hassle to cover all of them. This is probably what D4iNa4 means by WP:UNDUE.
However, there is no requirement that the article should stay in the same shape for ever. Now that considerable time has elapsed since the incident, and various views have been published in books or journals, we should be able to provide a BALANCED account of the happenings. The fact that the Washington Post report was doubted by senior journalists like Prem Shankar Jha makes us to be more cautious in using such sources, but it doesn't invalidate them per se. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The section heading should be lowercase. LordAtlas ( talk) 00:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Dear fellow Wikipedians
It is sad to see this page turn into an absolute circus.
This could have been a good chance to provide an objectively written wiki on the Godhra train burning (a bit in line with the manner in which Jewish holocaust is written - not in black and white, and presenting the shades of grey that exist - upto what Hannah Arendt has written of it).
The concerned citizens tribunal report to me is the best official and unbiased report so far as (a) it is written by Indians of extremely high repute and from all spheres of life including the judiciary - do check out the credentials of the 9 people who have affixed their signatures to it(b) is rather well researched and takes information from Police reports as well as witness evidences (c) the government has not published its official reports (The reports are invisible in the Gujarat government's website and other government agencies - I would be happy to add them as citations if someone can provide a pdf of the same. I have used the court and bench judgements in the best bakery case, but I have not come across such credible facts here)
Unfortunately, all the edits I have made ten days back have been undone by numerous people thereafter. I have little interest in fighting with fools, hence I leave it to others to take on the battle while I pursue gentler wiki pages such as Indian classical music (I need the respite after learning of the terrible depths to which my country's leaders will go to grab power, and what my countrymen will do when led by zealots)
Incidentally - I strongly recommend that anyone editing this page / undoing edits read the complete citizens tribunal report on Gujrat riots prior to making any changes / edits. (I have read the executive summary of and the entire Godhra train section of it - after which I had made the edits. But of the entire report I have only so far completed reading 25% of - it is too strong and the behavior of people involved during this time in Gujarat is too repulsive to read it in its entirety at one go.)
I bid you adieu, with the message that four musically minded people said a few decades back, "Thank you for the music"...
Notthebestusername ( talk) 07:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
As it can be seen the links added to support this are neither working nor do they belong to any source with credentials. more over it has already been proved in court of law so there is no point in creating a grey area which does not exist. If you want to bring back the text, please fix the link properly. and it should be from a credential source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravsaral ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The Gujarat High Court has accepted the version that the fire was set by a mob and upheld the convictions of 31 accused in the case. There is no other authority (except maybe the Supreme Court of India) which can decide if the matter has been "proven conclusively". Independent scholars may disagree, the text has to show as much. I propose the line be changed to something like "the actual causes of the fire remains a matter of debate among independent scholars" or "independent scholars disagree with the court version of what had caused the fire". Ankit2 ( talk) 16:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I decided to check out the reference for the sentence Although the actual causes of the fire have yet to be proven conclusively
since it seems to be a perennial source of disputes at the talk page. The page number mentioned in the reference seems to be wrong. It is given as 1988, but every source that I checked gives the total number of pages for the book either as 566 or as "xii, 552". It can't be a simple typo as pages 198 and 188 are both under the chapter "Crafts, Artisans, and the Nation-State in India" by Mira Mohsini. The chapter by Craig Jeffery, "Great Expectations: Youth in Contemporary India", only spans the pages 62–80. I checked the page history to find out the author of this sentence, but I could only get as far back as
July 2013 where the edit summary suggests that the editor is merely restoring content. Can anybody provide the real page number or an explanation for this discrepancy? —
Gazoth (
talk)
10:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Despite this categorical finding, the cause of fire, like the cause of the stalling, remains a mystery.... Besides forensic reports, the trial court accepted the prosecution's narrative of the incineration on the basis of the testimonies of some hawkers as well as the retracted confession of an accused person. But then, none of the authorised passengers and kar sevaks travelling in that coach vouched for the dramatic manner in which the coach was said to have been burnt from inside. There was no corroboration even from the passengers and kar sevaks who happened to be in that very part of the coach where the conspirators had allegedly entered and splashed petrol from 20-litre cans. [1]
References
User:Vanamonde93, Please see the page 3 of this source [16]. I would like to hear your thoughts if the acts of the Karsevaks as mentioned in this source can be added to the article. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 14:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Reference [16] is inaccessible. Reference [17] is a book that reflects the authors' opinions, and may not be admissible as evidence (or is rather a weak form of evidence). I don't see any other cross-references, so recommend removing the "The causes of the fire have yet to be proven conclusively." line from ther article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amunix ( talk • contribs) 22:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Godhra train burning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "The Godhra Train Burning was an incident that occurred on the morning of 27 February 2002, in which 59 Hindu pilgrims and karsevaks returning from Ayodhya, were killed in a fire inside the Sabarmati Express train near the Godhra railway station in the Indian state of Gujarat." to "The Godhra Train Burning was an incident that occurred on the morning of 27 February 2002, in which 59 Hindu pilgrims and karsevaks returning from Ayodhya, were killed by Muslim groups by torching the Sabarmati Express train near the Godhra railway station in the Indian state of Gujarat." Vshantam ( talk) 09:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Godhra train burning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following:
1. In August 2018 SIT court has found Faruq Bhana and Iqbal guilty of conspiring to kill Godhra victims and punished both of them with life imprisonment taking the count to total of 22 culprits punished by life imprisonment by SIT. Reference: https://www.newsbharati.com/Encyc/2018/8/27/Godhra-case-life-imprisonment.html
2. In January 2018 Gujarat Police arrested Yaqub Pataliya one of the prime accused in the Godhra case. The SIT has punished him with life imprisonment. Reference: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/godhra-train-burning-case-court-sentences-convict-yakub-pataliya-to-life-imprisonment/articleshow/68496754.cms
3. The prime accused of Godhra train burning Rafiq Bhatuk was arrested in February 2021. https://www.india.com/news/india/godhra-train-coach-fire-prime-accused-arrested-after-19-years-in-gujarat-4425162/ Ashok Rajpal USA ( talk) 19:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Ashok Rajpal USA ( talk) 19:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
We have multiple secondary and tertiary works on the event. cc: Vanamonde93 TrangaBellam ( talk) 12:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I recently removed writer Barbara D Metcalf's citation from the very lead and fixed the wording accordingly. This is what has been quoted from her book:
"The cause of the initial fire has not been determined, but it was almost certainly not deliberately set by Muslims on the station platform, as Hindus frequently alleged."
Basically, she has completely rubbished an Indian High Court order. How can she be considered a WP:RS for this page and why shouldn't her quote be considered WP:UNDUE for WP:Lead? Saying that the cause is disputed in the very first para of lead is like endorsing the highly dubious Banerjee commission report which was dismissed by the court. So, the wording "allegedly perpetuated by a Muslim mob" is fine here. The term "allegedly" makes it WP:NPOV as we are using this term despite clear court order against the Muslim mob on the basis of eye-witness records. -- Yoonadue ( talk) 18:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The new lead was drafted by me, last week. I do not see any policy-compliant objection. If Yoonadue has equally high-quality sources that assert the judicial conclusion as a categorical fact, they may be presented. TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Is it 17th May or 18th? TOI says Tuesday 17th night, TIE says Wednesday 18th — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 10:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
A sentence at the beginning of the article cites early enquiries and academic opinions to state that the cause of the fire is disputed. That is not the case. The train was burned by a mob at the Godhra station, and this has been proven in multiple court cases, with plenty of proof.
The refusal of the authors to include court cases, while citing speculation makes the article read like a conspiracy theory. Hussar 117 ( talk) 06:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Somehow, even after court ruling that burning was an act of arson by Muslim mob. Article claims cause of fire to be disputed. 103.117.177.2 ( talk) 22:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
user:Vanamonde93 this is in response to your note on my talk page [ [1]] regarding my recent edit [ [2]]
This incident has gone through a proper due process by the police and the judiciary. And a verdict has been provided. This should be the primary narration of the article.
Regarding the theory of this American intellectual that it was result of an accident. It will be best to be removed. Such theories are not helpful, especially as part of the primary narration. Prodigyhk ( talk) 00:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Nussbaum is staying. Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Godhra_train_burning Prodigyhk ( talk) 20:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
It is a strong suggestive and present in quotes, which is backed by only one source. If there are other sources to the quotes please add per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. -- AmritasyaPutra T 16:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I accidentally breached 3rr, therefore I have self-reverted. However, I am genuinely confused as to what you are disputing. Do you require a page number? That can be fixed, given (a little) time. Is it the figure of "over 2000?" That is from the source; even SDmarathe accepted that. Is it the phrasing of the entire paragraph? That can be discussed, but only after SD accepts the notion that scholarly sources are the main ones we should be following. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 07:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Besides, "some" is even more of a weasel word than "some commentators." "Some scholars" would be even better. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 07:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
NPOV is not about balancing all views on the subject. It is about reflecting reliable sources. Court decisions, SIT reports, and such are not reliable sources, and this is not really a debate; our guidelines say that fairly explicitly. Media sources are highly dodgy in this situation, and even those do not back up the SIT in most cases, they only report what it said. Like it or not, our guidelines mean that scholarly sources are given more weight than the SIT, and I really don't want to debate this further; go to RSN or Jimbo's talk page, if you disagree. If, on the other hand, you want to debate how the various scholarly sources are represented here, that is a debate I am happy to have. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 21:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I am opening this new Talk topic regarding the recent revert of the mention of 25 women and 15 children from the victim count. 15 children dead shows an advanced level of brutality. Killing those that can not defend themselves (usually referred to as women and children) and is often used in journalism. Even if one was to not mention women separately, children are especially vulnerable, and their killing is widely considered more heinous. A similar analogy (although both despicable) would be child rapists vs adult rapists. -- Sdmarathe ( talk) 06:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC about the 2002 Gujarat riots. To view and/or participate, follow the link at: Talk:Bombay_Riots#RfC:_Equality:-Add_series_.22Violence_against_Hindus.22_or_Remove_series_.22Violence_against_Muslims_in_India.22.3F. Note: This RfC link fully complies with Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Placing_an_RfC_in_a_page_other_than_a_talk_page. Do not delete without consensus. Unbiasedpov ( talk) 22:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Interesting that one is not allowed to edit this article and provide links without being called a vandal and getting into an edit war. 122.176.129.101 ( talk) 07:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.129.101 ( talk) 06:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Surely one doesn't need your personal permission to make an edit within the parameters of wiki without seeking your approval first. I know it is sensitive, therefore adding as much information one knows of is in all our best interests. Do look at the news articles, and published government and other reports without calling people vandals and recursively undoing what value they hope to add.
//You have provided zero links// Which is why I need to take your permission before I can finish making changes, in violation of the 3 undo's rule? I did read up, for the first time thanks to your endeavours. :) 122.176.129.101 ( talk) 07:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I see your point. Fighting on the edits page and on talk before a person has finished and then claiming validity by stopping them is not an edit war.
Do keep your version of history, if incorrect.
//Vandalism is "action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property". The term also includes criminal damage such as graffiti and defacement directed towards any property without permission of the owner.//
Care to explain where and why the word "Mulsim" lead to this?
Or are you just a vandal claiming validity because you made an ID :) 122.176.129.101 ( talk) 07:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.129.101 ( talk) 07:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
//First off, you better sign in with a username// - do you run wiki that you would lay down its policy again?
//WP is not your scratchpad// Same goes for you. :)
I suggest you write to them and ask them to make you head of policy. Till then, I do believe you are a troll with intent. :) 122.176.129.101 ( talk) 07:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
My point exactly, allowing a person to edit before claiming a recursive debate is basic common sense. What on earth is a WP:RS? Do search for forensics on the matter and the 90 people also pronounced a verdict on. One of the key accused was 70 years old and apparently poured fluid that was never found from a jerry can a few feet higher than he could reach, even according to the already posted link on the matter.
The information is all there should prevention of it being shared not be imperative. 122.176.129.101 ( talk) 07:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:RS Saw. The reason I came to the page was politics and religion independent. Over the years I have come across many reports of basic flaws in physics. This too was mentioned in one of the listed links of the Govt reports, if fleetingly. I saw that and a bunch of other contradictions. When religion is brought in it sustains a basic mockery of science. That silly conflict is what I feel you have not allowed me to move beyond.
I don't plan to make a show of it by getting into an edit war with you. The increase of such is already making fresh edits of wiki loose credibility.
The truth is ofcourse far more murky than most can allow to be known. Thus our conflict, which I imagine will not be limited to wiki. 122.176.195.234 ( talk) 08:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Kuch bhi? (Anything?) why do those 31 not include all tried. Were they all of one religion? Give me another man.
Read the links on this page that you seem to watch like a hawk. If you would be bothered please read the hospital and IIT burn pattern studies as well. If a liquid fuel was used why did the burning reduce as it went down, the floor was unburned for most part. The links already on the page say one thing and whats stated on the page another. Hell I would go so far as to recommend you make the matter on the page and the links match. I have no interest in this stupidity. Even if I do go ahead and present all the facts tomorrow someone else will come and write something to the effect of Zebras come from Mars and provide links to Earths plate tectonics, while acting all offended, if asked why.
Best regards, I am running off now. 122.176.195.234 ( talk) 08:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Should that template be in the article? The template was added without discussion by a now banned sock so perhaps we should be discussing it before including it. Are there independent and reliable sources that state that this was systematically targeting Hindus? -- regentspark ( comment) 22:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe it would be better to start with the common sense involved in the discrepancies of reports on the matter as a start in 'Forensic Science Laboratory Report', not only do the links provided state other than what is written on the page, multiple other studies exist.
Currently too much other information rests heavily on religion being stated as is, tackling it from that end will likely prove problematic.
As is the sheer volume of data on wiki frightens me away from taking responsibility, due apologies. Ps. I am the same fellow from the previous few edits on the talk.
122.176.133.63 ( talk) 00:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Still figuring out the formatting. I do believe in time religion should be removed from the article all together. Violence against Hindus has a consensus mainly due to political propaganda. Labelling crime should be secondary to basic facts being collated and maintained. As far as I know there was and remains a political motivation to alot of this. A handful of those tried were not muslim, while kar sevak is not a generic term for hinduism which is what the caption suggests. I mean though hindu law applies to me, I am no Kar Sewak. (Same fellow from the previous few edits on the talk).
122.176.133.63 (
talk)
00:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
//Your statement is heavily biased against Hindus.// Are you a kar sewak? Why on earth would I be biased against myself?
If we were to follow the logic Kar Seva is a synonym of Hinduism, cast based violence and most crime in India would imply that Hindus are suicidal.
I do belive a religion tilt should be removed from law, but then utopia is an ideal not a reality.
//You better go find all articles of violence against Muslims and do the same.// No. Lol. Prove that you are a Kar Sevak first. :) 122.176.133.63 ( talk) 01:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
There's a discussion on the PD status of images used in the article here. Unless it's proven that it is indeed public domain, the image will have to be retagged to match WP:NFCC. — Spaceman Spiff 04:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Godhra train burning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
This edit remains unsupported by the sources, no matter what any court might think. Until a preponderance of reliable sources accept this theory, we cannot state it in Wikipedia's voice. Please read WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:LEGAL. Vanamonde ( talk) 08:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
User Capitals00 has reverted my edits on the presumption that they are Original Research. All claims were meticulously cited. If anyone can show why this is OR, I'd be glad to hear you out. Willard84 ( talk) 00:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, thats not how it works. You need to review WP:NOR again. Citations have to be sourced from reliable publications. Like the Washington Post as my citation was. You're making up rules that it has to also be referred by other scholars, before it can be considered as anything but OR. What you said is patently untrue unless you can show me where it says on WP that "It's OR until the citation is also referenced by other scholars." If you can, then I'll gladly remove the information added. Till then, you can't just make up rules and expect us to follow them. Willard84 ( talk) 01:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Here, to satisfy your completely made-up assertion that a source isn't reliable unless cited elsewhere (and unless you can show where it says that in Wikipedia, then it stands that you made up this requirement), here's what I found an posted on my talk page. I'm copying it here so other users who may also buy into your made-up requirements can also see for themselves:
Here you go, here's a source which cites Chandrasekaran's piece. here too heres a third heres a fourth. Willard84 ( talk) 02:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, so now you've added an additional requirement that the article must be cited not just by different authors, but also different publishing houses? And i gave 4 examples, so even if two are from the same publishing house, that means that there are three different publishing houses quoting the story. This is of course, a pointless exercise because you simply made up this new requirement that a source be cited by other scholars before deemed reliable.
The link you just provided shows that Rajiv's story is credible enough to be cited. The fact that you don't like what it was published in is irrelevant. So is your fake requirement that all sources need to be cited in a second source to be deeemed reliable.
You still havent showed me anywhere in Wiki that supports your bogus and made up requirements. Its now plainly obvious that the issue isn't the sources reliability..." Willard84 ( talk) 02:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
You know for a fact that that book wasn't the issue. Disregard it if you will - that was one of seven citations provide, because my point was that Washington Post is reliable while you falsely claim it is not. There are several other sources provided that quoted Rajiv, showing that it's not the "isolated opinion" youre trying to portray it as. You're just pushing your POV, and are trying to come up with whatever weak excuse you can to prevent information you personally do not agree with from being seen. You've literally made up numerous bogus requirements. Despite repeated requests, you have not shown any wiki guide that support your numerous made-up requirements. Because you cant, since they obviously are just being made up as you go along.
You have so far claimed the following:
1) Articles cannot be 14 years old. You don't say how recent they must be, but all we know is that your subjective cut-off is sometime before the 14 year mark. This has no basis in Wiki guides as far as I can tell.
2) For a source to be deemed credible, it MUST be cited by other authors. You even went so far as to imply that unless this requirement is met, it is then not a news piece, but an opinion piece. Again, a made up and self-serving definition.
3) You then added that the sources must also be cited by multiple authors from multiple publishing houses. Again, this is made up.
4) You also stated that a new story with anonymous sources is somehow discredited. This is not only another bogus requirement, but demonstrates a lack of understanding of journalism.
5) You've implied that the Washington Post is not a reliable source. This despite the fact that Washington Post is the newspaper that broke the story on Watergate which led to the downfall of President Nixon. WashPo also has broken numerous stories about the current Trump Administration which have even lead to investigations into Michael Flynn's conduct with the Russians.
6) You said WashPo had to be "legible" several times on my talk page. I don't even know what this was in reference to but I assure you, Washington Post's choice of font is quite legible.
7) You also said that MBlaze made the same reverts in an attempt to justify your actions. This was patently untrue as he/she removed a citation that was linked to Vishwa Hindu Parishad's own website. That isn't the same thing as you did.
8) That my original edit violated the WP:NOR despite me conforming to the stated requirements of properly citing the source. Remember, that is the reason you FIRST gave for reverting my edits. The remaining fake requirements popped up after I demonstrated that no such OR was ever ever ever introduced on my part.
You've made it abundantly clear that you're just a POV-pusher who will make-up requirements in your self-serving pursuit. Willard84 ( talk) 03:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
All the discussion above is much ado about nothing. Washington Post is a highly-regarded mainstream WP:NEWSORG, and all its news items are reliable sources. The article cited by Willard is a news item, not an opinion piece. I see no grounds for objections. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, the reasoning for the "not a paper ENCYCLOPEDIA" article is this (and you omitted the "encyclopedia" part): Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility, especially for dial-up and mobile browser readers, since it directly affects page download time (see Wikipedia:Article size).. I didn't add tens of thousands of words to the article, so the link you gave doesn't really apply here.
Secondly, that's bad reasoning because if something has a reputable source, then it's can be included. It's even more bogus because it's just two well written sentences(how messy is that?), and accuracy shouldn't sacrificed to satisfy your subjective definition of what a messy page is. What you're doing is stonewalling to preserve your POV. Have you demonstrated that any of the following claims from the source have been debunked:
1) That there was no dispute over payment 2) that the reported rowdy behavior is false 3) that the reputation for rowdiness did not precedence trains arrival into godhra 4) that the passengers actually did pay at Godhra station
I ran a quick google search and can't find anything credible to debunk these 4 claims. Can you? Because you unjustifiably removed all these claims without even showing exactly how all 4 of these claims in the reliable citation were ever debunked. Oh, and it'd be helpful if you can't demonstrate an article which meets all 9 of capitols00 bogus requirements. And remember, you removed ALL four of these points, so you have to justify why each point must be removed, because otherwise your just being disruptive to maintain a POV. Willard84 ( talk) 20:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Even though the objectors haven't been able to articulate it clearly, the article at the moment, states the salient facts of the "incident" and then covers the investigation reports, which are presumed to have some authenticity. This was presumably because they were various views voiced in the Press, and it might have been too much of a hassle to cover all of them. This is probably what D4iNa4 means by WP:UNDUE.
However, there is no requirement that the article should stay in the same shape for ever. Now that considerable time has elapsed since the incident, and various views have been published in books or journals, we should be able to provide a BALANCED account of the happenings. The fact that the Washington Post report was doubted by senior journalists like Prem Shankar Jha makes us to be more cautious in using such sources, but it doesn't invalidate them per se. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The section heading should be lowercase. LordAtlas ( talk) 00:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Dear fellow Wikipedians
It is sad to see this page turn into an absolute circus.
This could have been a good chance to provide an objectively written wiki on the Godhra train burning (a bit in line with the manner in which Jewish holocaust is written - not in black and white, and presenting the shades of grey that exist - upto what Hannah Arendt has written of it).
The concerned citizens tribunal report to me is the best official and unbiased report so far as (a) it is written by Indians of extremely high repute and from all spheres of life including the judiciary - do check out the credentials of the 9 people who have affixed their signatures to it(b) is rather well researched and takes information from Police reports as well as witness evidences (c) the government has not published its official reports (The reports are invisible in the Gujarat government's website and other government agencies - I would be happy to add them as citations if someone can provide a pdf of the same. I have used the court and bench judgements in the best bakery case, but I have not come across such credible facts here)
Unfortunately, all the edits I have made ten days back have been undone by numerous people thereafter. I have little interest in fighting with fools, hence I leave it to others to take on the battle while I pursue gentler wiki pages such as Indian classical music (I need the respite after learning of the terrible depths to which my country's leaders will go to grab power, and what my countrymen will do when led by zealots)
Incidentally - I strongly recommend that anyone editing this page / undoing edits read the complete citizens tribunal report on Gujrat riots prior to making any changes / edits. (I have read the executive summary of and the entire Godhra train section of it - after which I had made the edits. But of the entire report I have only so far completed reading 25% of - it is too strong and the behavior of people involved during this time in Gujarat is too repulsive to read it in its entirety at one go.)
I bid you adieu, with the message that four musically minded people said a few decades back, "Thank you for the music"...
Notthebestusername ( talk) 07:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
As it can be seen the links added to support this are neither working nor do they belong to any source with credentials. more over it has already been proved in court of law so there is no point in creating a grey area which does not exist. If you want to bring back the text, please fix the link properly. and it should be from a credential source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravsaral ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The Gujarat High Court has accepted the version that the fire was set by a mob and upheld the convictions of 31 accused in the case. There is no other authority (except maybe the Supreme Court of India) which can decide if the matter has been "proven conclusively". Independent scholars may disagree, the text has to show as much. I propose the line be changed to something like "the actual causes of the fire remains a matter of debate among independent scholars" or "independent scholars disagree with the court version of what had caused the fire". Ankit2 ( talk) 16:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I decided to check out the reference for the sentence Although the actual causes of the fire have yet to be proven conclusively
since it seems to be a perennial source of disputes at the talk page. The page number mentioned in the reference seems to be wrong. It is given as 1988, but every source that I checked gives the total number of pages for the book either as 566 or as "xii, 552". It can't be a simple typo as pages 198 and 188 are both under the chapter "Crafts, Artisans, and the Nation-State in India" by Mira Mohsini. The chapter by Craig Jeffery, "Great Expectations: Youth in Contemporary India", only spans the pages 62–80. I checked the page history to find out the author of this sentence, but I could only get as far back as
July 2013 where the edit summary suggests that the editor is merely restoring content. Can anybody provide the real page number or an explanation for this discrepancy? —
Gazoth (
talk)
10:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Despite this categorical finding, the cause of fire, like the cause of the stalling, remains a mystery.... Besides forensic reports, the trial court accepted the prosecution's narrative of the incineration on the basis of the testimonies of some hawkers as well as the retracted confession of an accused person. But then, none of the authorised passengers and kar sevaks travelling in that coach vouched for the dramatic manner in which the coach was said to have been burnt from inside. There was no corroboration even from the passengers and kar sevaks who happened to be in that very part of the coach where the conspirators had allegedly entered and splashed petrol from 20-litre cans. [1]
References
User:Vanamonde93, Please see the page 3 of this source [16]. I would like to hear your thoughts if the acts of the Karsevaks as mentioned in this source can be added to the article. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 14:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Reference [16] is inaccessible. Reference [17] is a book that reflects the authors' opinions, and may not be admissible as evidence (or is rather a weak form of evidence). I don't see any other cross-references, so recommend removing the "The causes of the fire have yet to be proven conclusively." line from ther article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amunix ( talk • contribs) 22:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Godhra train burning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "The Godhra Train Burning was an incident that occurred on the morning of 27 February 2002, in which 59 Hindu pilgrims and karsevaks returning from Ayodhya, were killed in a fire inside the Sabarmati Express train near the Godhra railway station in the Indian state of Gujarat." to "The Godhra Train Burning was an incident that occurred on the morning of 27 February 2002, in which 59 Hindu pilgrims and karsevaks returning from Ayodhya, were killed by Muslim groups by torching the Sabarmati Express train near the Godhra railway station in the Indian state of Gujarat." Vshantam ( talk) 09:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Godhra train burning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following:
1. In August 2018 SIT court has found Faruq Bhana and Iqbal guilty of conspiring to kill Godhra victims and punished both of them with life imprisonment taking the count to total of 22 culprits punished by life imprisonment by SIT. Reference: https://www.newsbharati.com/Encyc/2018/8/27/Godhra-case-life-imprisonment.html
2. In January 2018 Gujarat Police arrested Yaqub Pataliya one of the prime accused in the Godhra case. The SIT has punished him with life imprisonment. Reference: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/godhra-train-burning-case-court-sentences-convict-yakub-pataliya-to-life-imprisonment/articleshow/68496754.cms
3. The prime accused of Godhra train burning Rafiq Bhatuk was arrested in February 2021. https://www.india.com/news/india/godhra-train-coach-fire-prime-accused-arrested-after-19-years-in-gujarat-4425162/ Ashok Rajpal USA ( talk) 19:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Ashok Rajpal USA ( talk) 19:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
We have multiple secondary and tertiary works on the event. cc: Vanamonde93 TrangaBellam ( talk) 12:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I recently removed writer Barbara D Metcalf's citation from the very lead and fixed the wording accordingly. This is what has been quoted from her book:
"The cause of the initial fire has not been determined, but it was almost certainly not deliberately set by Muslims on the station platform, as Hindus frequently alleged."
Basically, she has completely rubbished an Indian High Court order. How can she be considered a WP:RS for this page and why shouldn't her quote be considered WP:UNDUE for WP:Lead? Saying that the cause is disputed in the very first para of lead is like endorsing the highly dubious Banerjee commission report which was dismissed by the court. So, the wording "allegedly perpetuated by a Muslim mob" is fine here. The term "allegedly" makes it WP:NPOV as we are using this term despite clear court order against the Muslim mob on the basis of eye-witness records. -- Yoonadue ( talk) 18:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The new lead was drafted by me, last week. I do not see any policy-compliant objection. If Yoonadue has equally high-quality sources that assert the judicial conclusion as a categorical fact, they may be presented. TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Is it 17th May or 18th? TOI says Tuesday 17th night, TIE says Wednesday 18th — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 10:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
A sentence at the beginning of the article cites early enquiries and academic opinions to state that the cause of the fire is disputed. That is not the case. The train was burned by a mob at the Godhra station, and this has been proven in multiple court cases, with plenty of proof.
The refusal of the authors to include court cases, while citing speculation makes the article read like a conspiracy theory. Hussar 117 ( talk) 06:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Somehow, even after court ruling that burning was an act of arson by Muslim mob. Article claims cause of fire to be disputed. 103.117.177.2 ( talk) 22:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)