Talk:Godhra train burning/Archive 2

Theories
user:Vanamonde93 this is in response to your note on my talk page [] regarding my recent edit []

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)


 * Please read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. As per wikipedia policy, we cannot weight the court verdict more than an academic paper. If anything, it is weighted less. The nationality of the author is irrelevant. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Having read WP:NPOV or WP:RS do not find any WP policy that you claim supports inclusion of this American author's opinion in the main narration.
 * Based on WP:CONTEXTMATTERS in this main narration, the reports of the investigation team and judgement of the Indian court is what needs to be provided.
 * If you still wish to include this American author's opinion in the main narration, provide relevant section from the cited book by this author that claims this was not terror attack and only an accident. Let us understand context and on what basis these claims are being made. What "multiple" investigations does this author refer to as having taken place that leads to this theory of it being an accident Prodigyhk (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You are being obtuse. Nussbaum is a well known scholar, and her work on this issue has been cited many times. By that criterion, her views need to be represented as per NPOV. End of story. The reliability of the source is established by the author and the publisher. And stop referring to her as "this American author;" her nationality is utterly irrelevant to the question at hand. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Vanamonde93 You have not provided what I requested and you are calling me obtuse :( Do you have the information or not ? Prodigyhk (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Vanamonde93 Did some checking.
 * 1. As per the publisher this book "Values and Violence: Intangible Aspects of Terrorism" is not written by  Martha Nussbaum Here in WP it is wrongly cites Nussbaum as the author. Whoever has included this in WP has done a sloppy job.
 * 2. Did find an article from 2003 by this American author and in page-1, states --> "Attempts to determine what really happened by reconstructing the event have shown only that a large amount of a flammable substance must have been thrown from inside the train. We will never know who threw it. " From this it is clear that Nussbaum's does not subscribe to "accident" theory as indicated in the lead of this WP article.
 * We can now remove the sentence. If you have other articles by Nussbaum on the "accident" theory, please present here for review and discussion. Prodigyhk (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Values and Violence: Intangible Aspects of Terrorism p81 Read it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * the article link, I have provided is clear that she does not subscribe to the "accident" theory. You need to give more detailed information and references to continue pushing this. Not just a page number. Prodigyhk (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And even if she has changed her mind after 2003, provide details of the "multiple inquiries" that may have led her to change her opinion. Prodigyhk (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I gave you the source and page number, go read it, then come back. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Had done that. Have requested details of the "multiple inquiries" that this American philosopher bases her opinions upon. She just makes up this opinion without any reference/citations to readers on what she bases her opinion on ! Prodigyhk (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am quickly becoming pissed off with your obvious denigration of a highly respected academic, You have the source, the content stays. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Nussbaum is staying. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You DO NOT second guess the veracity of a well-reputed academic source, published by a respected academic publisher, explicitly supporting the statement in the article. That is Wikipediam gold standard for sourcing, and you live with it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Pushing this American philosopher's opinions in the lead narration does not meet WP standard. Request for opinions from other editors.Prodigyhk (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * She is not in the lead. Get your facts straight. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Notice that both of you are in a major hurry to revamp the entire article to push your "accident" theory. Very unprofessional. Prodigyhk (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want a response, make substantive content suggestions, and leave off the comments on other people's behaviour. If you believe either of us is in violation of WP standards, go ahead and report. If you have no constructive contribution to make, go away. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Godhra_train_burning Prodigyhk (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * So the incidental opinion of a Craig Jeffrey from "Companion to the Anthropology of India" is enough to make the multi-year investigations by the Indian court of the causes of fire "unproven"? These POV hacks don't give up, do they. If you are going to dispute the court judgement please present a source that has done a comparably thorough investigation of the evidence. Till then this POV remark should be removed from the introduction. Puck42 (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Vanamonde93 Being an academic myself, I have no problem with academic viewpoints being represented on Wikipedia. However, the manner in which Nussbaum's views have been used in this article are problematic because she is not a primary source of the information here.  She is reporting the results of "two independent inquiries" (but doesn't state which ones) and is saying the fire was "most probably a tragic accident".  The uncertainty represented by "most probably" doesn't suggest any effort to "challenge the narrative," as is being claimed by Wikipedia.  In fact, her purposes in her article are entirely different from analysing the Godhra incident.  There are plenty of other primary sources that Wikipedia can use to provide balance.  Using Nussbaum here is quite wishy-washy.  Her commentary is also outdated.  The most comprehensive investigation represented by the Nanavati-Shah Commission was not completed at that time, and the court convictions of the accused had not taken place either.  Now that we have all that additional information, her conclusions seem quite out of place in 2014.  Reddyuday (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Reddyuday, the reason Nussbaum is used is precisely because she is not the primary source of the information. Wikipedia functions slightly differently from either the media or academia; specifically, our sourcing policy dictates that a secondary source (like Nussbaum) gets more weight than a primary source (like the commission report), and an academic source (again like Nussbaum) gets more weight than a media source. As [[User:Darkness Shines|DS noted, Nussbaum is quoted directly here because she has summarized academic views on the subject; I am fairly familiar with the literature on this subject, and I do not know of another comparable piece. If you find such, I would be most interested (and I am being absolutely sincere here).


 * Also, please keep the comments sequential, no matter who your are responding to; that way, confusion is avoided. That is the reason I refactored your comments above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Vanamonde93 WP allows for academic research works to be cited., not opinions of an academics. Hope you can understand difference between research and opinion. Prodigyhk (talk) 05:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand you. The sourcing policy says that a secondary source published by a reputed academic publisher is the gold-standard. Nussbaum satisfies these requirements. Therefore, the cited source is research by definition. What opinion are you talking about? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Vanamonde93 Re other sources, searching for "Gujarat Riots" on Amazon throws up a host of books, in particular, one by Parvis Ghassem-Fachandi and a collection edited by Siddarth Varadarajan.  These are likely to be more authentic than Nussbaum's article.  The problem with Nussbaum's article is that, even though she claims to have studied Gujarat violence extensively, this particular article is not such a study.  It is entirely theoretical, in the nature of a commentary or essay that takes certain "facts" to be granted.  When the facts are in dispute between the Left and the Right, an author whose express purpose is to attack the Right cannot be seen to be balanced.  My two cents.  Uday Reddy (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If this were academia, I would accept that argument; on Wikipedia, I cannot. We don't second-guess sources that our policy describes as RS; we present all such, duly weighted. In this case, I have come across Ghassem-Fachendi before, and if memory serves me right he has been used in either this article or the 2002 violence article. I am not familiar with Varadarajan's collection; I will take a look. I would also point out, though, that if these people agree with the meat of Nussbaum's analysis, then we are not obligated to mention them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:VALID we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it,. Nussbaum's opinion does not meet the accepted understanding of the event. Nussbaum opinions are invalid and out-dated. Needs to be removed. Prodigyhk (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Find me a single academic source that shows Nussbaum is fringe. Jaffrelot, Brass, Nandy, the whole crowd of academics that study this issue, broadly agree with her. Therefore, she stays. Commission reports are irrelevant. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From TP discussion clearly 4 editors (including myself) Uday Reddy Puck42 Calypsomusic oppose inclusion of Nussbaum. Since, you do not agree with 4 other editors, advice which other resolution process you prefer for us to follow Prodigyhk (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Read point 4 of WP:VOTE. If you wish to remove Nussbaum, find a better alternative, or take her to RSN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We never did any vote on this matter. The 4 editors have been in discussion with you. Since you do not seem to be listening to any thing we have said till now. We need to escalate. But, RSN is not the forum for this issue. Do you have any other preference. Prodigyhk (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The only one among the four of you who is raising substantive issues, and who is willing to discuss these issues in a policy bound manner, is Uday Reddy. In case you has not noticed, I have engaged him in discussion. All the rest of you have done is to insist that Nussbaum is inappropriate because of her nationality, or that the court proceedings contradict her. Neither of these objections are remotely based in policy. This has been pointed out to you by at least three different editors, and yet you insist on repeating them, which is why they are being ignored. If you wish to help Uday Reddy find a more recent and more comprehensive academic overview, be my guest. What forum you take this to is not my problem. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention that you also denied the existence of the source for a while, until the link was practically shoved down your throat; are you then surprised that your objections are not taken quite as seriously? Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde93 it is ok if we do not agree. Let us plod along, till we get to point of better understanding :) Prodigyhk (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Prodigyhk: I agree with Vanamonde93. While I am not thrilled about Nussbaum as a source, the position she represents, viz., the "accident theory," should stay.  It should be balanced by citing equally strong academic sources for the opposite position, like Madhu Kishwar, at the moment.  Wikipedia is not a court of enquiry to find the truth; it is merely a compendium of the "knowledge" that is out there. Uday Reddy (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See your point to keep "accident theory" and its counter arguments. In which case, suggest we have it as a separate section and not include in the main narrations.Prodigyhk (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"Staged trigger"

 * The last sentence of the introduction uses the phrase "staged trigger" in quotes and cites Paul Brass's book. However, I find that there is no such phrase in Brass's book and he doesn't give any indication that the Gujarat violence was planned before the Godhra train burning.  This seems like original research by Wikipedia.  Does anybody know why this sentence and this citation are there? Uday Reddy (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The quotation is a real phrase, it is not OR. This is one place where I found it, although it will not display a page number, for whatever reason. I suspect it is sourced to Brass because Brass and this other source are used in conjunction in several places, and in all the copy-pasting and edit-warring that goes on around here, the two got switched. However, google books is not currently allowing me to read the cited page of Brass; I suspect he says something along the same lines, even if he does not use the phrase. If you have access, could you quote that page here? Regardless, I will change the source for now, but the statement is certainly not OR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added the correct source; I would prefer to wait until I can see Brass' actual language before I remove him. I'm not casting aspersions on your honesty; I am simply assuming that you used the fastest method of checking for the phrase, which is to search the google book for it. This is fine for the quote, but would not catch the same thing said differently. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Jeffrey's text on the cited page is as follows: But the Godhra incidents were quickly overshadowed by what followed, namely, what all available evidence points to as a systematic pogrom, enacted with precision and extreme brutality, by persons and organizations in the institutionalized riot system of the RSS family of organizations, members of the BJP government, the police and even members of the lite Indian Administrative Service. This pogrom began on February 28, a day after the Godhra massacre, under the auspices of the VHP, which called for a bandh (closing down) to protest the killings in Godhra.  (I believe that everything in these two sentences is quite clear and entirely non-controversial.) Uday Reddy (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Kudos for your knowledge of the literature! Ananya Kabir's text is as follows: Several observers maintained that although the pogrom was triggered by the confrontation at Godhra, that confrontation was but a staged trigger for attacks that were premeditated and abetted by the State.  Why else would the same pattern of brutality be repeated everywhere?  The meaning of "staged trigger," which is clarified by the following sentence, is that patterns of brutality were pre-decided, and the Godhra incident became a trigger to exercise these brutalities.  However, the phrase, as used in the WP article, conveys the sense that the Godhra incident itself was "staged," i.e., it was carried out by Hindu groups and made to look like an act of the Muslim groups.  So, the phrase has been taken out of context and says something entirely different in the article.  I still have a problem with it. Uday Reddy (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * With due respect, I don't believe that interpretation is correct. "Godhra confrontation was a staged trigger" is pretty explicit; to mean what you are saying, it would have to be "Godhra was a trigger for staged XYZ" and this is not what is said. At some point, second guessing what is meant by a source, especially when it seems fairly clear, is venturing into OR territory.
 * Jeffrey says explicitly that the causes of the fire have never been conclusively determined. Jeffrey is not cited to support the "staged trigger" sentence; that is Brass. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde93: I see. Can you explain your understanding of "staged trigger"?  What was staged and who staged it? Uday Reddy (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde93: Sorry that I mixed up the name. Upon double checking, I found that the text I copied above is indeed from Brass's book.  I attributed it to Jeffrey wrongly. All that Brass saysabout the Godhra incident  on p. 388 is the obscurity and indeterminacy of the "causes" the initial acts, the process of "blame displacement" (to ISI apparently) and the fact that news reports appeared that cast doubt on this.  Nothing about staging anything. Uday Reddy (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please comment only on the bottom of the thread; otherwise, it becomes confused very quickly. First, we do not need to get into the nuances of what "staged trigger" might mean, because it is quoted and not paraphrased in the article. More importantly, it is presented as a secondary narration, and so one highly reliable source is more than enough.
 * Personally, I see two possible meanings there; first, that the train burning itself was a conspiracy by the extremist factions of the Sangh Parivar; second, that even if the actual perpetrators were Muslim, the Sangh provoked the arson, and was prepared to use the predictable reaction as an excuse for rioting.
 * Examining the sentence once again, it seems to me that Brass is cited to support the "premeditated, targeted violence" part of the sentence. Since it includes a quote, this is bad structuring, but that is all it is; shifting the refs around a little will fix it. Also, I'd still prefer to read the entire page, if you could provide it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There isn't anything else on p. 388 about premeditation. But, I found text on p. 389, which gives several facts without comment.  Mobs of killers carried lists of voters and licensing documents from municipal authorities.  The attacks were accompanied by the distribution of leaflets calling for an economic boycott of Muslims.  Months before the enactment of the massacres, a leading Gujarati newspaper published an article naming the restaurants owned by Muslims, which were then duly burnt down.  But no explicit comment about premeditation.  I have now found other sources which articulate the premeditation point more clearly (Hibbart and Nussbaum), which I will add to the sentence.  Uday Reddy (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if the "staged trigger" sentence belongs in the leading section. It certainly is suggested by one scholarly source (Brass) but since it is only one of the sources doing so, I suggest we move this elsewhere in the article.
 * There is only one source because of WP:CITEKILL. We could easily add more sources if we so chose; a number of academic sources take that position, even if they do not use the specific term "staged trigger." Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:26, 10 November 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 do not mind the statement elsewhere in the article. In my opinion, it merely appears to sensationalize especially with quotation marks. Also since the SIT inquiry does not place any credence in that theory nor a majority of sources, I think as such does not belong in the leading section. --Sdmarathe (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not seen any response to AP's post other than mine. Is everyone in WP:CON here about removing it from the lead description and/or moving into the body of the article? --Sdmarathe (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they are not. The SIT report counts for little on Wikipedia. The phrase "staged trigger" is specific to the sources used, but the idea that the train burning triggered premeditated violence is held by the majority of scholars. Take a look at Nussbaum, for starters. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have got to say that the view that this burning was staged by Hindus - is quite a minority opinion along with UPA probe that was ruled biased and unconstitutional. From what I see this is not considered central in scholarly opinions - which hold that the burning was done by a mob of 1000-2000 (all or mostly muslims) and the later violence by mostly Hindus (and retaliated by Muslims in some case). In any case, I do not support this opinion deserves to be in the leading section. --Sdmarathe (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought we had consensus on keeping the phrase but move it further! Nussabaum research is based on unconsitutional probe that UPA ordered. AP and I do not agree that there is no majority opinion around this being staged at all - but I had no issues putting it in the second paragraph and I did so. The staged trigger has no place in the leading section. It is not a majority opinion. And please stop just reverting the post without responding to Talk section. I had merely moved the statement in a better flow place and did not revert content as such. If you have more sources than Nussabaum please cite them. one or 2 sources do not mean majority opinion. If you have a source that studied all the sources and articulated that it is a majority opinion, please do so. Also, bear in mind, I do have keeping the statement if it flows better in the second paragraph - just not in leading section since it does not belong there --Sdmarathe (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It belongs in the lead, because we cover it in non-trivial detail in the main article, and the lead is a summary thereof. It is in the main article because it has received significant scholarly attention. You certainly did not have consensus, because my last post here explicitly said that I disagreed. You also do not second guess an academic source without an equally weighty source questioning the first one. If you want more sources, and/or want the lead reworded, we can discuss that, but you need consensus for a change. The vast majority of scholars believe that the riots themselves were most certainly staged; Madhu Kishwar is the only significant voice who disagrees with that, and even her disagreements are qualified. On the other hand, Jaffrelot, Nussbaum, Brass, Gupta, the whole bunch agree that the riots were pre-planned. If you are objecting to the wording of the sentence, we can work on that, but that takes a careful reading of the sources, and therefore some time. There is no deadline, after all. Vanamonde93 (talk)
 * First of all, the riots were pre-planned as you stated, can be debated. Second, that does not necessarily mean the Godhra train massacre was pre-planned as a staged trigger. How are you making the two connections? It was a mob of 1000-2000 burning a train coach. The only theory that says fire was started from inside is argued via an unconstitutional probe. Third, no - the is not a non trivial detail - stating that this was somehow a "staged trigger" goes against the actual act itself. It puts a theory in lead section without actual merit and flows better in the paragraph where I moved - which talks about such scholarly opinions. Your reply to talk page did not address my thought of keeping the phrase but moving to the second paragraph and hence I had made such a move. I am not going to go with more arguments here, but you have got to stop reverting without presenting your side on the talk first and take issue with everything I say. I mean come on - the article is about a train boggy full of people that was charred down and we are talking about this theory and that theory on the lead itself? --Sdmarathe (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstand the phrase "staged trigger;" it doesn't imply that the train didn't burn down, quite the opposite. It means that the train burning was staged to provide an excuse for the planned gujarat riots. Theories, opinions, you call them what you like; stuff said in an academic source has weight per our policies. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Contrary to your statements, the majority consensus does not exist and you have not provided conclusive source that shows it is a majority opinion that this incident was a "staged" trigger for Gujarat riots. Your contention that the sources suggest Gujarat riots were pre-mediated/pre-planned, in no way translates to this specific incident itself as staged by those that pre-meditated the riots. Nussbaum specifically says that this incident may have been an accident and not a pre-meditated attack - I am unclear how you can attribute to her as a source suggesting this incident was a "staged" incident by (alleged) pre-planners of Gujarat riots? In either case, this does not belong in the lead section. This is a theory which, regardless of whether majority or minority, does not merit in the leading section and instead should figure as I noted in the second paragraph without changes. --Sdmarathe (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sdmarathe about the analysis regarding "staged trigger". --AmritasyaPutra T 17:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent reverts
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)
 * The verbiage initially was "2000 Muslims" - correcting to "total 2000" (includes Hindus and Muslims) is what AP did = and I added "over" to reflect the source. My concern was over the placement of "staged trigger" in the lead description. This I feel is better suited for second paragraph where I placed verbatim, but you reverted earlier. One could also elaborate how Nanavati commission concluded that Godhra train carnage was pre-meditated by local Muslims to induce terror and (SIT later as well) gave clean chit to Gujarat Govt. One could also write how some scholars and UPA Banerjee probe concluded that the post Godhra riots were pre-planned by Hindu groups and elaborate on it. One could debate constitutionality or partiality of these opinions/probes. But all such supportive observations belong in second paragraph and not the lead description of the train carnage in itself IMO. --Sdmarathe (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that I cannot see the source at this moment, I can live with that; but I will check the source, as soon as I can get to it. But your other point is not quite correct. What the commission says, and what the SIT says, carries no weight here. What scholars say carries weight. Therefore, the situation is not symmetric. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * IF you could allow the same statement to put on second paragraph verbatim like I did, we would not be arguing. --Sdmarathe (talk) 08:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Van, is it the case that "scholars" totally disregard "What the commission says, and what the SIT says"? --AmritasyaPutra T 09:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The only source that fully analysed the SIT investigation is Manoj Mitta's book, and it completely rubbishes the SIT investigation. Then there are various biographies of Modi that came out during the election season.  Some are sympathetic to Modi (Madhu Kishwar, Marino) and some opposed.  The SIT outcome was quite ambiguous.  The SIT itself said that there wasn't actionable evidence against Modi.  The court-appointed Amicus Curae disagreed and said that there was.  The Supreme Court didn't force the issue and let the SIT decide (which is kind of natural, because SIT would have to do the prosecution in the end anyway).  The SIT closed it.  So, it is not a clear cut case of "SIT gave Modi a clean chit". It merely said the evidence isn't strong enough for them to pursue.  The Jaffri lady can still pursue it and I believe she is pursuing it. The SIT is nowhere as strong as what a Special Prosecutor in the US can do, go after a sitting President and kill him.  The SIT was mostly made up of serving Gujarat police officers and Raghavan was mediating between them.  It was just a window-dressing exercise. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So by your own observations, I gather that there is disagreement between the scholars and that there is no strong evidence either way. In case you did not know, Supreme court has rubbished accusations against SIT clean chit and has thrown the case out of court.http://zeenews.india.com/news/gujarat/gujarat-riots-sc-refuses-plea-questioning-sit-clean-chit-to-narendra-modi_923713.html. Supreme court categorically stated that those allegations are baseless - and we are to abide by that. As far as your accusation and characterization that SIT was comprised of Modi sympathizers, one might as well accuse scholar/reporter community of Modi antagonist bias. So let's not go there.. If someone wants to nit pick one side of the position, same can be argued against the other side --Sdmarathe (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I said, The only source that fully analysed the SIT investigation is Manoj Mitta's book, and it completely rubbishes the SIT investigation. How do you gather from this that there is disagreement among scholars? Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You said "Then there are various biographies of Modi that came out during the election season. Some are sympathetic to Modi (Madhu Kishwar, Marino) and some opposed.". You said the scholar who fully analyzed the SIT investigation rubbishes SIT investigation. Now we know from various reports including the one I gave above that Supreme Court upheld the SIT that gave Modi the clean chit (there is no confusion regarding SIT outcome - it is widely reported including the news article I cited). The scholarly biographies you mentioned have disagreements and have been seen as such - so there is no consensus to give credence to the staged trigger theory - not the least in the lead section IMO. --Sdmarathe (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sd, A question was posed, do all scholarly sources disregard what the SIT says. My answer is no.  There was only one scholarly source that analysed what SIT says, and it says that SIT botched it up.  As for the biographies of Modi, they have a different job, viz., to present Modi's story.  They pick and choose how positive they want to be about him and treat the SIT investigation according to what they have decided.  So, I wouldn't count them among my "scholarly sources," unless they give me the impression that they are looking carefully at the SIT information.  Marino and Kishwar don't look at it critically.  They are generally happy about Modi.  So they don't care much about what the SIT did or said.  I haven't checked all the other biographies to see what they say.  You are welcome to go and survey them.
 * Now, you keep beating the drum that the Supreme Court said something. It said nothing.  It left the decision to SIT, and SIT closed the investigation.  The news report that you pointed to, said that Jafri wanted a new SIT to be created.  Supreme Court said no.  So, that news report doesn't prove anything about anything. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What if people who wrote on SIT (other than Marino and Kishwar) were upset of Modi or didn't like him and so rubbished the SIT findings? What if they are not generally happy about Modi. What if they don't care about what SIT did and just wanted to not hear any of court judgments or investigation? - Vatsan34 (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is the real issue. Think about it this way. There are always two sides of the view point. Those who agreed with the SIT findings - really did not need to start writing critics of the SIT findings. In fact SIT was a fact finding mission in itself (special investigative team) whose report was supported by Supreme Court (2 Hindus 1 Muslim bench). There may not be consensus about the riots itself, but there is a lot of consensus that this arson of train burning was a pre-planned activity independent of the post burning riots. Now those who did not agree with SIT findings, started voicing their opinion by taking apart the findings and writing articles/books opposing it. There is really no proof one way or another as to if these articles are impartial or biased unless someone else does a research on their articles! That is "My" theory as to why there are many articles opposing SIT findings and few supporting it! --Sdmarathe (talk) 20:56, 22 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)
 * Van- I was merely conveying the reason behind why there are more scholarly sources opposing SIT findings and less supporting them. No real need for creating a source to support a fact finding mission if a scholar agrees. Also from WP:RS, I gather that unfortunately reliable sources do not need to be neutral for Wikipedia. We are voicing opinions that some of these scholarly sources WP:RS may not be WP:NPOV. I agree with your other points --Sdmarathe (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that is an issue; but in any case, it isn't something we can or should do anything about here. Here, we must work with what we have. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah - we should be working with what we have. But we are only voicing opinions about WP:RS and WP:NPOV related to article content in the "Talk" section and not in the article itself. It might have gotten a little verbose doing so!--Sdmarathe (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Kautilya - what kind of analysis is this? If they are critical of Modi - they are WP:RS else they are not? If you read my link carefully, it said "Describing the plea as `baseless`, the apex court also declined the appeal to reconstitute SIT". What part of describing the plea baseless did you not see? Also 2004 apex court decision (Justice HL Dattu, Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Justice MY Eqbal) approved of SIT findings. Did you forget about that? "news report doesn't prove anything about anything" - what kind of statement is that? It certainly proves what I just said. --Sdmarathe (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Critical" doesn't mean criticize. It means evaluate.  If Marino or Kishwar or anybody else evaluated the SIT investigation the way Manoj Mitta did, then they have some validity.  Otherwise, they are just providing stray opinions which don't carry weight.  I don't exactly know what exactly the "plea" was in the Supreme Court.  Other than Zee News, nobody seems to have reported it.  But the normal legal process is still in the Gujarat High Court.  . Kautilya3 (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So Kautilya - I think both of us went off the topic of Godhra train carnage and into Modi's role into Godhra. I want to bring back the attention on "staged trigger" part which indicates that there was deliberate fire set up to the train by a conspiracy to riot against Muslims. It has no consensus in either judicial findings nor scholarly sources for that. The closest the arguments and UPA investigation came was an accident. As such, if it belongs it is in the second paragraph about detailed discussions where it can be put forth if so desired. Certainly not worth the lead section by any means --Sdmarathe (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't stray. "Staged trigger" isn't my debate.  It is yours.  You and  can sort it out.  I am not getting involved. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding removal of number of women and children from the victims
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)
 * Ha ha! You carry on mate! I'm tired of trying to instill some NPOV in articles related to Gujarat riots and I was even declared a sockpuppet, trying to do so. Let the hijackers of Wikipedia continue hijacking it. - Vatsan34 (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I started reading some of these articles and I was shocked to see only one side of view point pushed. India is a secular country where there are opposing view points. It is a common knowledge that both the sides have their share of issues and it needs to be put forth in WP:NPOV--Sdmarathe (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * They consider Indians editors as some third-class and they have aversion to any Hindu names. That is the real reason. These NPOV and RS are just superficial ones. - Vatsan34 (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * you are so correct. I was going through all the revisions of this page - and the page has been radically changed in last 2 years! Going from a pre-planned train carnage by a local muslim mob of 2000 on a Karsevak group - all the way to a staged trigger by Hindus! Some of the sources on those old pages (which I can still see) had been mysteriously removed as dead links - and then questions asked to support with links. I am going to dig those out now.. All I want is to treat Godhra train massacres and the massacres that followed with same brush.--Sdmarathe (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Did everyone forget about this? Three people reverted Sdmarathe, but it still was left on that person's version with "women and children" without any discussion. Dustin  ( talk ) 02:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - that is not "my" version. It was there before I made any changes. I merely reverted back to where it was - and it was put to discussion... Please look at history before my edits on this page--Sdmarathe (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Distin V. S., I'm ambivalent about this; but if you feel strongly about removing it, please explain why. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Distin V. S., I believe it is important to mention women and children to distinguish this incident from a normal "communal riot", where only the combatants might get killed. The apparent "brutality" of the attack is treated as justification for the equally brutal retaliation. So I believe NPOV requires that the mention of women and children should be present. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine. Keep the article being biased if you want. You justify this as "NPOV", but in reality, as you consider men less important than women just because (a factor that they had no choice over), I can see right through your logic. The same may be considered with regard to the children who were killed; the things is, there is no specific relevance, and all this implies is that the lives of men are worth less just because they are men. This makes it appear that the moment a man or woman has reached adulthood, his or her life is worth less and he or she may as well just replaced by another child. Consider I already gave my reasons in my edit summary and on my talk page, but nobody cared to give my thoughts any consideration. Dustin  ( talk ) 16:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, my user name is "Dustin V. S." with a "u" after the "D" and a period after the "S", which is why your attempts to notify me more promptly have not worked. Dustin  ( talk ) 16:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We wish you the best of luck with your "man's rights" movement, but we have far more important issues to worry about on this page. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about rights. The thoughts of others matter; I try to give others consideration, but even when I do, I frequently am still disregarded. Did you even read what I said? Okay, so some woman is not capable of saving herself from a fire. What makes a man more capable of doing the same? There is no actual justified reason to make points like this, and I believe that use of the word including should only be used on an extremely restricted basis anywhere on Wikipedia with regard to any group, and only if the reason is made quite clear by the subject being described. Dustin  ( talk ) 22:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

There is an RfC about the 2002 Gujarat riots. To view and/or participate, follow the link at: Talk:Bombay_Riots. Note: This RfC link fully complies with Requests_for_comment. 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)
 * First of all, you are not signed in. Second, You have provided zero links. Third, have gone on changing article that is quite sensitive to say the least, without first coming to Talk page to gain consensus. I am glad you started the talk entry. Please articulate what you want to change and why you want to change with sources. If you provide sources up to date, reputable sources, your changes are more than welcome! thanks!--Sdmarathe (talk) 06:54, 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)


 * What value add have you done? DO enlighten. The changes you made, had ZERO backing in either news or academia or otherwise and you are just making vandalism changes to suit your desires. You certainly do not need anyone's permission to edit, but are subject to reverts for making vandalism edits as you yours. 3 RR does not apply to revert vandalism edits like you have done so far. --Sdmarathe (talk) 07:11, 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 - your talks mean nothing if you want to be taken seriously unless you are a WP:SP. Second, You have made random edits here and there with not an iota of evidence. You reverted the sourced content, removed template for the article that is widely accepted without looking at the sources. Finally, you say your edit was not finished before it was reverted. I suggest if you have not finished editing, better finish it on your computer and THEN submit to Wikipedia. WP is not your scratchpad --Sdmarathe (talk) 07:25, 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)


 * Is this conversation going somewhere? Do you have any current WP:RS to bolster your points? when you do, come back to discuss on talk page. Until then, goodbye! --Sdmarathe (talk) 07:36, 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)
 * The information is indeed out there - but it is contrary to what you state. The article has several places with bias towards defendants and even then those statements in this article are standing because those sections refer to some sources that comment on the events. Your edits are however disruptive and you must realize wikipedia is based on sourced content. You can not just go there and change to your liking without substantiating what you write with a WP:RS. As for as what it actually is, just click on it to find out. --Sdmarathe (talk) 07:51, 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)
 * so you logged in from another ip still anonymous! Also your interest was basic laws of physics. And to show that you don't care about religion you made not just incorrect edits you also removed template that showed anti Hindu violence and identity of those that were convicted. So you not only made factual errors you also showed a bias. As far as laws of physics. They were addressed sufficiently in the sit findings report released in 2014 if you cared to read it. one thing you did say correct. Religion is the root of most evil! the other being race and species superiority. --Sdmarathe (talk) 08:21, 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)

Violence against Hindus
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)
 * Violence against Hindus had a consensus even though the one who proposed might have been a WP:SP. The term does not have to be systematic. THere is ample evidence and sources that it is a by Muslims - but the category of Violence by Muslims is not attached to this article. The template Violence against Hindus should and will stay. --Sdmarathe (talk) 00:32, 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)
 * that makes no sense. By your logic religion should be removed then it better be removed from all articles. By that logic even Gujarat riots should also be labelled political riots. Your statement is heavily biased against Hindus. if you think about it not all Hindus were gunning for Muslims to be killed. Right?  you only have objections to article where Hindus were victims. You better go find all articles of violence against Muslims and do the same. --Sdmarathe (talk) 01:23, 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)

Discussion on image
There's a discussion on the PD status of images used in the article. Unless it's proven that it is indeed public domain, the image will have to be retagged to match WP:NFCC. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203025216/http://www.indlaw.com/guest/DisplayNews.aspx?56B07EF3-D892-4C2A-9912-290F301FEC75 to http://www.indlaw.com/guest/DisplayNews.aspx?56B07EF3-D892-4C2A-9912-290F301FEC75
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203025211/http://www.indlaw.com/guest/DisplayNews.aspx?B42ED5C4-09FE-4F2E-988F-225B5F66F8C6 to http://www.indlaw.com/guest/DisplayNews.aspx?B42ED5C4-09FE-4F2E-988F-225B5F66F8C6
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130625065302/http://liveindia.tv/india/godhra-train-carnage-judgement-tomorrow/ to http://liveindia.tv/india/godhra-train-carnage-judgement-tomorrow/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119002050/http://liveindia.tv/india/states/special-court-convicts-31-in-godhra-train-burning-case/ to http://liveindia.tv/india/states/special-court-convicts-31-in-godhra-train-burning-case/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Perpetrators
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)
 * Absolutely agree (for whatever my opinion is worth). The court system is not unbiased, especially in regards to this case where there are several accusations of politically-motivated verdicts. As an example of the international community's lack of confidence in the court's reliability, the Gujarat Chief Minister was not permitted to enter the US despite exoneration in India, and the ban was not lifted until it became clear that he would be the next Prime Minister. Willard84 (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing
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)
 * Firstly it was reverted by me, then it was reverted by because you are using an opinion piece 14 years ago as facts that doesn't go well that other more accepted opinions, see WP:FRINGE. Capitals00 (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The history log for this page shows that it was reverted by you.
 * As discussed on my own talk page, the age of the article does not alone disqualify it as a reliable source. You actually have to show WHY it is not reliable. Secondly, it still is not original research. I recommend you pay attention what is written here WP:NOR:
 * "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1]"
 * "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed."
 * Nowhere does it say articles must be of a certain age before they are acceptable. Follow the rules. Willard84 (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Outdate personal opinions cannot be treated as facts. Capitals00 (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You have to demonstrate why this is the case. You haven't done so. You keep referencing the age of the piece without explaining where you've come up with the idea that articles must be of a certain age for them to be useful. If you can find information on this, I'd gladly find sources from whatever time-frame Wikipedia deems acceptable. And refer back to your Fringe Theory page. You are misusing it. Examples given for Fringe theories include Holocaust Denial and Creationism. Not reports.Willard84 (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless you can prove that this opinion of one person is referred by other scholars in the reliable publications, then we can think of including it. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 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)
 * None of your sources are reliable either. They fail WP:RS. The report gives link to as a source, but it has been long removed from Washington Post. While MilleGazzette is itself unreliable source, "We are Indian Muslims' First NEWSPAPER in English. Started in January 2000 with both online and print editions, we alhamdulillah represent all Muslim sects" its website says. It means that you had falsely attributed the entire opinion piece to Washington Post. Capitals00 (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're implying that WashPo removed it, and therefore is not reliable any longer. I included a mirror to the WashPo page because I originally couldn't find the WashPo archived page. I then found it, and added it. And your denigration of Milli Gazette appears to be based on it's Muslim affiliation alone, which reeks of prejudice. In any case, the WashPo link has been found and included, while the MilliGaz reference was removed (even though the MG was a host server of the archived WashPo article.Willard84 (talk)


 * Also, you should retract your false statement that MBlaze first made the reversions. The history log clearly shows it was you, and its poor etiquette to falsely attribute your actions to someone else.Willard84 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * He did reverted the same original research that you added back with more unreliable source than the previous one. Capitals00 (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Show me where this is the case. If you can't then you just falsely accused him. His last major revert was for websites that are not WashPo. They were Vishwa Hindu Parishad websites as far as I can tell. You made the accusation against him, its up to you to prove it.Willard84 (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It also includes few other sources, and same story about "S-5 and S-6" that you are bringing. Capitals00 (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Did you even bother to look at the unreliable sources that he reverted? cite web|title=Gaurav Ayodhya ka - Ram Janmabhoomi|url=http://vhp.org/know-about/|website=http://vhp.org/|publisher=VHP - Vishwa Hindu Parishad|accessdate=5 July 2017


 * VHP.org. Thats not the Washington Post. Don't falsely accuse him of making the same reversions as you. He was 100% justified in removing content from a political party's website. That is not the same thing as what you did.Willard84 (talk) 02:26, 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)
 * 2 of Human rights sources have referred the report, but they didn't made their actual report any equivalent to this article. A two or three sentences maybe enough with the attribution to Rajiv just like this source has done. That means there is no need to put this on lead but on the next section. Capitals00 (talk) 02:19, 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)


 * WP:IDHT is not going to help you. See WP:CIR and stop arguing over same thing. There were many opinion pieces about this story, we can't cite them all. Did any investigation support Rajiv's assertions? If they didn't then they are just opinion. And Rajiv is finally citing a policeman "who spoke on condition of anonymity". That's not enough for inclusion. Capitals00 (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't blame me for not "getting the point" because your fake requirements are the figment of your own imagination. There is nothing at all in wikipedia's pages that support your bogus and made-up requirements. And again, it wasn't an opinion piece, and your self-serving definition of what constitutes an opinion piece is equally bogus
 * And seriously, you think speaking on condition of anonymity turns a news story into an opnion piece? Do you understand how journalism works? Your accusation sounds like the Trump administration who continuously complains of "Anonymous Sources." BTW, he was widely ridiculed for this complaint because anonymous sources are a mainstay of journalism.


 * And it bears repeating: YOU made up this requirement that sources be cited elsewhere before being deemed reliable. That is, unless you've found the wiki site recommending this requirement. I'd also like to see that wiki guide that states that article after a certain age are no longer reliable, because that was a mainstay of your argument earlier. It, of course, was a bogus requirement you made up.Willard84 (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Since we don't even regard the sting operations as reliable sources unless they are mainstream and supported by actual investigations, how come we can recognize one person as reliable source? Outstanding claims will require outstanding sources (WP:QUESTIONABLE). Capitals00 (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Why are you bringing up sting operations? That literally has nothing at all to do with this. Don't confound the point with unneeded distractions. And Again, the Washington Post, whose stories are widely accepted to such a degree that they've resulted in the launch of investigations into Presidential wrongdoing (where did you think the info that implicated Michael Flynn with Russia came from?), is a pretty outstanding source. I didn't quote some weak newspaper like Daily Pioneer or something like ZeeTV.
 * Again, you're making up self-serving requirements as you go along. First it was the age of the article, then it had to be quoted by others, then it had to be quoted by different publishing houses (even though I found 4 citations from THREE different publishing houses), then it couldn't cite anonymous sources. You'll keep making up requirements to suit your own POV, because that is EXACTLY what you are doing. You are pushing your own POV but making up fake requirement after fake requirement that has absolutely no mention anywhere on wikipedia's guide.
 * Just to humor you, and again this isn't even needed, here's another author that alludes to the rowdy behavior of Karsevaks.
 * here's another
 * I'm confident that you'll devise yet another bogus requirement in your attempt to force your POV onto this page.Willard84 (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC) Willard84 (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTAFORUM. To answer your POV pushing, it is taking you hard time to find sources to make your opinion look mainstream but its very far from that. is a random house, a WP:SELFPUBISHED source and any other narratives that you are pushing are already answered on the entire entire. By attempting to enforce these isolated opinions as mainstream you are simply disrupting the article. Capitals00 (talk) 03:22, 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)


 * WP:IDHT is the case on your part here. None of the editors since the creation of this article thought about including the the throw-away opinions. You get many of them on daily basis whenever there is an incident. While your continued use of this talk page as forum is getting disruptive, I would encourage you to wait until this opinion piece becomes mainstream before giving it a treatment as mainstream. Not that I believe it will be. Capitals00 (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah now the story changes again. Whether or not the editors beforehand thought about including this info is actually not true, as you yourself noted that MBlaze had made a similar reversion from another editor (although he removed it because it was sourced from VHP.org, whereas you justified removing the info i added on the basis that MBlaze had removed similar items for being OR. This was made up, as MBlaze's edit summary clearly stated the reason that the info was removed is because it used unreliable citations like VHP.org.)


 * Further, the fact that a piece of information wasn't "Thought to be included" is irrelevant, and as just noted, patently false. The nature of Wikipedia is that any editor can add any piece of information from a reliable source. You have tried whatever weak way you can to try to discredit the credibility of what I wrote, without actually offering a piece of evidence as to why what I wrote did not fulfill one of your 9 or 10 bogus requirements listed so far. You instead make up wild requirements and sweeping statements and expect us all to simply accept it as fact. Every bogus requirement you made-up for a source's reliability was quashed. You just keep coming up with more and more and more requirements. And it's obvious you wont believe the source, because again, you've made it abundantly clear to everyone that you're a POV-pusher.


 * And this is THE talk page. This is used for discussions. Don't again blame me for "not getting it," because I'm not going to just "get" whatever bogus requirements you decide to devise. Just because I keep pointing out that you keep making up requirements doesn't make me disruptive. It just reinforces that I am right because you surely would have pointed the Wikipedia Giudes which support your requirements. Of course, these pages don't exist because you simply made them up in a self-serving pursuit to push your personal POV. I mentioned several times that if you could provide the information requested where your requirements are listed, then I would be happy to find another source. But you can't, and are choosing to keep making up new criteria to defend what you obviously have just made up.


 * Oh, and we mustn't forget your very first accusation in your edit summary: that what I included was Original Research. Anyone who reviews WP:NOR can see what a ridiculous claim this was. I followed the guidelines to the word, whereas you're just making up bogus excuses in order to ensure that the page does not include any information which contradicts your POV. Willard84 (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

A review
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)


 * It is WP:UNDUE because very soon the ideas of this source were rejected by writers of this subject as it was purely based on speculation. If one is going to add it on the article, then there will be a need not only to cite the rebuttals that have rejected these ideas but also other opinion pieces, for example story of abduction of a girl which was also rejected, scholars considers that these rumors had been spread without evidence. That's why it was agreed before not to include such rumors (in talk archives). WP:NOTRUMOUR. Scholarly material on this subject doesn't seem to be even mentioning rajiv or his ideas for over a decade now. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This is yet another attempt at pushing a POV. Nothing in your sources puts the issue to rest, and if Washington Post isn't a good source, I fail to see how Rediff is any better. Additionally, the book you linked to is a compilation of articles, and the one you cited was written by one Prem Shankar Jha and is actually an opinion piece. We had a huge debate about news vs opinion, so its odd to now include an opinion piece as evidence. And again, you're merely citing sources which support your own POV. And as for scholarly material not mentioning Rajiv, you're absolutely wrong. I gave 7 examples above. And lets remember that Wikipedia makes no requirement that a source be cited by other scholarly works - just that the source cited be reputable, which as has noted, Washington Post surely is. Willard84 (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes your 4 sources from 2002, two of them published in HRW, only mentioning stone pettling, and other one from Popular Prakashan that gives weight to at least 4 different opinions including Rajiv and saying none of them have any evidence, and other source you brought doesn't mention Rajiv and is a Random House publication (self published). So far you haven't provided any justification for treating Rajiv's theory as mainstream, despite its noted above that it is far from being accepted. Capitals00 (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * OH Capitol00, you know even 4 examples is good enough (and Human Rights Watch is also a very reputable organization). Because despite your made-up requirements, there is nowhere in Wikipedia that states sources must be cited by other in order to be deemed reliable. Drop that argument, we've gone through it, and every single thing you said was debunked. And stone-pelting? I didn't include that. Are you getting me confused with someone else? IF you could just finally show me where wikipedia supports your bogus requirement of re-citation by other scholars, it would have been most helpful. But you cant because you, again, have just made up these requirements in order to push your POV. Washington Post is reliable. Bring in a request for comment from neutral 3rd parties, because there's a 95% chance they'd agree the WashPo is reliable (some trump supports lambast it though, hence the 95 instead of 100).
 * And you've misused the mainstream argument by insinuating the WashPo article was a "Fringe theory". You posted a hyperlink to the Fringe Theory page, but likely didn't read it. Examples of Fringe theories included Holocaust Denial, Intelligent Design, and Alien abductions. Don't try to equate a respected journalist's news story in a highly-respectable newspaper with those ridiculous fringe theories.Willard84 (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * HRW released many reports, but only one from 2002 referred to your source. WP:FRINGE: "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." It fits here. Capitals00 (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * where does it diverge from mainstream views? The argument hrw report is superfluous because you made up the requirement that a source had to be cited to be reputable. You haven't been able to show where this requirement is stated anywhere in wiki guides because you made it up. And BTW, HRW is a reputable organization whose recommendations have influenced US policy. If I'm not mistake, the US State Dept referenced HRW to justify its ban against Modi - which was removed only because he became PM, not because he was exonerated in the US.  But again, the reference to hrw is unnecessary because you made up a self-serving requirement that citations be quoted by other people. So don't get hung up on HRW when you can't even demonstrate why such further citations are even needed. This requirement was made up by you alone, and isn't found in wiki guides.Willard84 (talk)
 * Willard84 seems not to be understanding that wikipedia is not a paper. If we are going to include one opinion then we will have to include more opinions and it will make a mess. How about we add only those facts that are not questionable? That's what we have done on the main article. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:06, 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)

Another view
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 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)
 * I'm fine with more than one viewpoint being presented. I only object to them trying to remove my source based on made-up and self-serving requirements. There were 4 specific points made in the WashPo article that Capitols00 and D4iNa kept removing.Willard84 (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

In popular culture.
The section heading should be lowercase. LordAtlas (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the music
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)

although the actual causes of the fire have yet to be proven conclusively.
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 "yet to be proven conclusively" sentence is weasel wording. Removed as 2016 police identified a matermind whereas the sources for the weasel sentence (which weren't ever properly sourced) were from 2013 at latest. Pectoretalk 14:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The ndtv source shares nothing new; it's about the arrest of an alleged mastermind. Furthermore, the source does not say the individual in question was the mastermind. It says the police believe him to be. The police are not a reliable source. If you believe the current sources (which are far higher quality) are out of date, find more recent scholarly sources contradicting them. Vanamonde (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to change the wording of the phrase " the actual causes of the fire have yet to be proven conclusively"
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)
 * Except that Wikipedia only gives weight to independent sources, and independent scholars are the best sources we have, while court rulings count for very little. Vanamonde (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My problem is with the phrasing. It says the actual cases are yet to be proven conclusively. Proven according to whom? Independent Scholars. This text should say as much. Ankit2 (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No it shouldn't, because if there is consensus among scholars, then we say what they do in Wikipedia's voice: see WP:YESPOV. If you disagree, please find reliable sources. Also, the court judgement is a primary source, and as such deserves very little weight. Vanamonde (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Page number for A Companion to the Anthropology of India citation
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)
 * Perhaps there are mutliple volumes. Does this link work for you ? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it did work. I guess the combination of several volumes and a different text flow in the e-book messed up the page numbers. As I was reading through the paragraph, I was surprised to see that the author did not make any mention of the convictions, the subtle questioning of which seems to be root of most disputes. Then, I noticed that the book had been published either on 10 February 2011 or on 28 February 2011, depending upon the edition or source. This would mean that the author was unaware of the conviction by either the special trial court in March 2011 or by the Gujarat High Court in 2017. I don't know how much weight the author might have placed on either of these judgements, but the current placement of the phrase is problematic. It gives an impression that there is widespread agreement among reliable sources that the judgements don't conclusively prove that arson was committed, but that is not shown by the provided reference. I think the placement needs to be justified by a source that is dated after the first judgement was delivered and ideally one that addresses the judgement explicitly, to avoid WP:SYNTH issues. —Gazoth (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, most of the sources are from before the trial. I know of only one solid source that was published after the Godhra verdicts and the SIT investigation. I reproduce a brief passage below.
 * It is clear that the court bought a concocted theory which nobody finds convincing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you add this source to the sentence? I think it will help to address the synthesis issue. —Gazoth (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you add this source to the sentence? I think it will help to address the synthesis issue. —Gazoth (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Acts of the Karsevaks onboard the train not discussed in this article
User:Vanamonde93, Please see the page 3 of this source. I would like to hear your thoughts if the acts of the Karsevaks as mentioned in this source can be added to the article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Jaffrelot is generally a solid source. That particular one is rather old, and since he's written more on the topic, a recent source would likely be preferable if it's contentious material. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Reference [16], [17]
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)
 * I agree with this, the sources used are a few years old. New findings are now available. The court has sentenced some people, according to The Hindu, The Economic Times, and other sources in the article itself contradicts this. - BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As has been made clear several times on this talk page, the court's findings do not affect our narrative, which needs to be based primarily on scholarly sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that there was enough WP:RS sources to question the validity of the statement "The causes of the fire have yet to be proven conclusively". This is after all a developing situation. The question here is not whether the court has sentenced some people for burning the train.But whether WP:RS sources have covered the court sentencing some people for burning the train? The answer is yes. The Hindu being one such example. As such the above statement cannot be presented as fact, but as an opinion of the author, to maintain NPOV. Ideally, the statement should be removed from the lead to maintain WP:DUE. Also, I do not recall signing up for any "narrative". What is this narrative that you speak of? - BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with observations of BhaskaraPattelar and Amunix. The Hindu is sufficiently reliable secondary source that adequately counters the old citations. The part of your narrative that no longer withstands scrutiny must be removed. Besides, both the old citations given are logically weak - they fail to list any evidence that gives ground to any alternative theory of the cause of fire. This makes them secondary sources that are not based on any other primary source (hence unreliable). As such, they should not have been cited for this to begin with. - Mukt (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that's an inappropriate use of the sources. First, scholarly sources are more reliable than media reports. Second, sources agree that some people were convicted for the burning, and that fact is mentioned; using that to say the causes of the fire have been proven is original research. Finally, nice to see an editor with less than a 100 edits, no previous edits to this page, and no activity for a week, jump right into this discussion... Vanamonde (Talk) 14:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The convictions, their basis, and their reporting are not the disputed content. Nor is my experience in editing wikis - thanks for such a warm welcome, by the way. I am focusing on the earlier sources which appear unreliable for the assertion drawn from them. Kindly list the primary sources for the assertion that these so called scholarly sources have cited, if any. Why shouldn't these citations be regarded as primary sources? They contain mere opinions of the author on the subject. Just as Wikipedia cannot be a tertiary source if it cites directly from primary sources, a secondary source cannot be secondary source if primary sources do not exist - regardless of who published it or where it is published. - Mukt (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe "Scholarly sources are reliable than media reports" should not be the yardstick of reliability, and it can also fall into the logically fallacious "appeal to authority" argument. If media sources derive directly from court judgement, and scholarly sources cite no primary source, would the scholarly source be considered more reliable? Finally, thanks for the welcome - I indeed realized it was time to contribute to wikipedia and start work on some pages close to my heart and mind. - Amunix (Talk) 15:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don't believe that should be the standard, please start a discussion at WP:VPP or elsewhere to amend our guideline about judging source reliability. Until then, we have to abide by it as written, and both the guideline and long-standing practice favor scholarly sources over media sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You still have not answered why this used be include in the lead, it's obviously breaking WP:DUE. - 17:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BhaskaraPattelar (talk • contribs)
 * The statement is a summary of scholarly positions on the causes of the fire, in an article about the burning. It is absolutely necessary to satisfy WP:DUE. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. It's a minority view of a couple of authors that is being presented as fact and is not at all required to satisfy BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Plus, the corroboration from primary sources is totally absent. - Mukt (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * What Vanamonde is saying is that court opinions, and the fact that newspapers have covered those opinions, are not a substitute for reliable scholarly sources. And Vanamonde is correctly interpreting our policies. If no scholarly sources are available that unequivocally change the conclusions drawn by the two sources in the lead, then we should leave that sentence untouched. If reliable scholarly sources can be found that agree with the court decisions, then it is a different matter, and we can then say something like "sources disagree on the causes of the fire ...". --RegentsPark (comment) 19:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reference [16] is non-free, inaccessible and should removed on that ground. And [17] cannot be called a reliable scholarly source for reasons amply detailed in this conversation. In addition, the statement summarizes the state of knowledge in the year 2011, but the article developed has significant developments in year 2017. Neither of the cited sources can possibly by relevant after 2017 developments by virtue of their datedness. - Mukt (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't remove references because they are not available online. In this case, a page number and direct quote is provided so, unless you can prove that the quote is incorrect, it will stay. Barbara Metcalfe is a respected scholar. So, neither of those references will go. Please provide a scholarly source (or sources) that say whatever it is you want the article to say AND which state that there is no further doubt as to the causes of the fire. Note that court opinions and reports of court opinions are not acceptable. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Whoever respects her, can they clarify if Barbara Metcalfe is respected as a primary source or as a secondary source? - Mukt (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I believe this cannot be generalized. Also, please note a court judgement is not an opinion, it is based on inspected evidence, which the scholarly source may or may not be privy to. In this case, a court judgement is primary source, the scholarly source is secondary. I suspect a lot of appeal to authority here, which is not neutral by any yardstick. As Mukt suggested, I am interested to hear the account of those who respect Barbara Metcalfe. I would still mark that statement as ambiguous and lacking evidence. Thank you. --Amunix (comment) 01:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What RegentsPark said. Metcalf is a professor of history, specializing in south Asia, and that source is published by a high-quality academic publisher. As such, Wikipedia considers it reliable. If you want to challenge how Wikipedia treats scholarly sources, take it up at RSN or VPP. I'm not especially interested in discussions about what her sources are or what the court's evidence is, because there's no basis in policy for considering either of those things. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This is like citing a biology expert in a number theory article, and giving the reason that she has used some numbers in some of her published scholarly research so she is a relevant expert. Even as per WP:RS, as an expert in history, she is not a relevant source for recent matters fresh in public memory. There is not one wikipedia policy interpreted in good faith that justifies her citation here. There is a good reason I asked this question, which remains unanswered: Is she a primary source, or a secondary source? - Mukt (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No offence intended but you don't seem to understand the difference between primary and secondary sources and it is not really the job of other editors to do your homework for you. But, here goes. Primary sources are original material that describe or, in a sense, "create" an event. A court verdict, for example, is a primary source. Secondary sources are conclusions, interpretations, or opinions that experts derive from primary sources. An academic specializing in an area (e.g., South Asian studies) is always a secondary source because they are drawing on their expertise to interpret events in that area. Metcalfe is, therefore, a secondary source on everything she says. And, since she is a renowned expert on matters South Asia, she is an unimpeachable source. I'm sorry to say that Kautilya3 is right. You're just using this talk page as a forum for your views. Instead, you might consider spending some time reading up WP:NOR. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for attempting to do my homework for me. I appreciate your effort. Thanks for taking a position on my question by clearly labelling Metcalfe a secondary source. Now, what primary source is a secondary source supposed to use? Can we examine how good Metcalfe is as a secondary source instead of dogmatically assuming its quality? Can we know the primary source that this secondary source has used for her assertions? I don't see any. - Mukt (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you clearly neither understand the nature of secondary sources nor what scholarship means. Equally clearly, you're wasting everyone's time. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Kindly cite a reliable secondary source. - Mukt (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I haven't yet seen the opponents of the content produce a single scholarly source that contradicts it. Without sources, this is simply a WP:FORUMy debate, completely unproductive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Umteen media sources that contradict it have been referenced. The scholarly source has not cited any primary source, and is misleading, if not outright misguiding. - Mukt (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2021
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)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I don't think that's necessary, the rest of the lead paragraph describes the investigation into the perpetrators well enough. Saying they "were killed by Muslim groups by torching the Sabarmati Express" is not only grammatically clunky, but stating it as a matter of fact when the article goes on to say that the "causes of the fire have yet to be proven conclusively" would be inconsistent (and an NPOV issue). Volteer1 (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2021
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)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nightwolf1223 (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Time to redraft the lead
We have multiple secondary and tertiary works on the event. cc: TrangaBellam (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not just the lead, but yes. In fact I'd say the lead comes closer to reflecting what scholarly sources say than the rest of the article. I expect to be quite active on Wikipedia in the next few weeks; I'd be happy to chip in, though I've a few things to catch up on. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Disputed cause: Undue for first lead para
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 lead paragraph says the cause of the fire disputed, and provides three high-quality scholarly sources that have disputed it. That is absolutely how it should be. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We give weight to scholarly sources over any committee reports. And even otherwise, "allegedly" is a dreadful qualifier in most contexts; all it does is obscure meaning, unless we're talking specifically of criminal proceedings. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 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)

Farooq Bhana arrest date
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)

The cause of the fire is not disputed
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.

Example: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/2002-godhra-train-burning-case-court-sentences-convict-yakub-pataliya-to-life-imprisonment-1482446-2019-03-20

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)

Article being an attempt to whitewash incident as accodent
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)