Talk:Naroda Patiya massacre/Archive 1

POV nightmare
"Tension between Hindus and Muslims" is a clear case of POV, as the reason was protests over the Godhra accident. Same applies to "To cause damage to Muslims" No source was that the attackers were Hindus, and there were also some Hindus residents in the society. There is no citation for "Naroda, an industrial suburb". Also the one who died in Godhra were Hindu pilgrims, and this article ridiculously term them as Hindu nationalists. I will add more tags later, but to be honest this is one of the biggest POV nightmares I have seen. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did some more reading on this article and the most major problem I founded in it was that it lacks the viewpoints and statements of the Gujarat Government. For example, the "State-sponsorship" is heavily based on allegations and lack the government's response. Same applies to "Restoration of shrines", where the government refused to restore the shrines, similar to what it did for the Akshardham Temple attack, but the section doesn't covers it much. Because of this I am adding . If someone disagrees, I would suggest to discuss here.  ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 08:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did search a lot but didn't find any source for Restoration of shrines. If you find any quotes by govt. or any opinion about it which I've missed then please state here rather then tagging. As far as "State-sponsorship" goes, oh yes, I agree with you. I basically used up every source I came across easily for it. Now I'm on a hunt finding for govt's response as BJP is not a kind of party to sit back and here people against them. I've got few points and will add them. You can help too buddy :) If you find the response of the govt, can you add it as I'm having little less time. Be assured that the edit on govt will be finished by tonight. Cheers!  TheSpecialUser TSU 09:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tags are important so that the readers know what they are reading. The article has a lot of instance of POV, and I don't think it will be able to make up to DYK. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 09:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yunshui along with his edits will clear the POV and other thing; can you please state here that what POV can you find? If you state here, I'll fix, but it need you to state here please for the ease and quick fixes. Cheers!  TheSpecialUser TSU 09:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all fix the second point of my DYK review. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 10:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Roger that sir! I add where it lacked, "according to HRW". At other places, it was done by someone else previously. Cheers!  TheSpecialUser TSU 10:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are still many instances where HRW claims have been presented as facts. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 10:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

 TheSpecialUser TSU 14:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Still NOT DONE. Plese check again, I can find times where it has been not done. In addition, I guess that if this article has to get free of POV, either you need to short the allegations on the state government, or add the court/committee judgement which gives a clean chit to it. Here is an example from 2002 Gujarat violence:


 * On Narendra Modi's role the Special Investigation Team report states,

Law and order review meetings were held by Modi and all the things was done to control the situation... the Army was called on time to contain the communal violence.

Modi was busy with steps to control the situation, establishment of relief camps for riot victims and also with efforts to restore peace and normalcy.

In view of the detailed inquiry and satisfactory explanation of the person involved, no criminal case is made out against Narendra Modi.


 * ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Added the quote and other details about government. Every problem that Vibhi cited is and if there is still POV, please state the sentences on the talk. Thanks!  TheSpecialUser  TSU 22:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as HRW goes. I haven't added that at the places where in the book itself, HRW cited a news source or report by officials and added the text, thus it is not a direct report by HRW. Cheers!  TheSpecialUser TSU 22:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sept 2012

 * 1: A day before the Naroda massacre, an incident had occurred at Godhra. Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya, travelling via the Sabarmati Express train, were attacked when the train stopped at the station of Godhra.[1] Riots broke out and resulted in many casualties. It was reported that 58 Hindus, including 25 women and 15 children, activists of Vishva Hindu Parishad and pilgrims were burnt to death in a fire inside the Sabarmati Express train which was started by a mob, mainly consisting of Muslims.. Do we really need to be diplomatic here, 31 Muslims were convicted for burning the train. No non Muslims, according to Godhra train burning it was a radical Islamist mob. We should either write as Muslim Mob or radical Islamist mob.
 * Similar goes with Naroda so should we add Hindu mob killed 97 people? I'll be happy to change if there is a WP:RS which states that it was a Muslim mob.  TheSpecialUser TSU 09:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you joking?? You are saying that the sources say that it was not a muslim mob? OK here are two sources this says that 31 Muslim men were convicted for burning the train and this says that it was a Muslim mob that burnt the train and yes it was a Hindu mob that killed 97 people is it not very much clear in the whole article ?? --sarvajna (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that sources do not say that it was not a muslim mob. The sources used didn't had mention about the mob being entirely of muslims and since you've given this, I've ✅ the addition.  TheSpecialUser TSU 10:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 2 : In the massacre section do we really need the sentence Many of the killings were done either by hacking or chasing people into a huge pit and setting it on fire This has already been explained in previous sentences.
 * Ah that.. It was a sentence added by Abhishek which wasnt removed. I've ✅ it anyways.  TheSpecialUser TSU 09:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 3 : Again in the massacre section I felt that this senetnce is an example of POV Many eyewitnesses also reported large groups of youth who were reported uttering slogans of "Jai Shri Ram" (long live God Rama), and rioters shouted slogans like, "Kill them, cut them, find the 'Mullas' (Muslims)". They also cited that the rioters also wore saffron bands on their hands. This can be removed altogether, I am sure whatever the eyewitness said is not just restricted to Naroda Patiya but also Gulbarg and other places. This is only sensationalising the paragraph.--sarvajna (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Source talks about Naroda incident followed by a statement. There is another and similar one in Gulbarg para but away from this one. And as far as saffron bands and "jai sri ram" is considered, it is also regarding Naroda and not in general. There are few more sources available out there in books which I can add if you want me to.  TheSpecialUser TSU 09:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the sources say that but do we really need to mention what the rioters said and how they killed people? Do we need to mention it in an encyclopedia? i feel it is an effort to sensationalise the page, we cannot add everything that is present in the source.
 * We need to mention how the people were killed but I tend to agree with you about the saffron, ram and mullhas part. As said below, I'll work upon your suggestions and will be done by tonight. For now, I've tutions to attend (+ a 100 marks exam) so I'm leaving. Please post other issues if you find any and be assured that if valid, they would be addressed. As far as this one goes, I'll trim down that from being specific to a summary sort of thing per INDISCRIMINATE. Thanks!  TheSpecialUser TSU 10:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 4 : this source used to write The nature of the event has remained politically controversial in India. Some commentators have characterised the deaths of Muslims as a "genocide" in which the state was complicit is a dubious one. The book says Although there was no evidence that the fire was started by Muslims... Way back in 2002 itself it was established that a Muslim mob had started the fire and Court has finally accepted the theory. and the book also write ... and in the ensuing confusion a fire started inside the train which is wrong. the whole section in the book about the Gujarat riots is a gross misinterpretation of facts. We need to remove it --sarvajna (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it a copy-paste of another article. I'm and checking that what can be possibly be done. Thanks!  TheSpecialUser  TSU 10:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the Lead
I have made changes to the lead, I have removed few of the columns completely, following is my explaination. The lead should have information about the article we just cannot have generic things. Let me know your thoughts --sarvajna (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph which speaks about genocide is later mentioned in the article but as I had it mentioned previously the source is dubious even if we get a proper source the source would term The Gurjrat Violence of 2002 as a genocide not just Naroda Patiya incident. It would be wrong to term just Naroda Patiya as an incident of genocide.However few of the things like the Shrines being destroyed can be mentioned in the lead.
 * The third paragraph of allegations against state government and other such things is more suitable for 2002 Gujarat violence. Nothing to do with Naroda incident in particular.
 * It does. Per WP:LEAD, lead should summarize the article and as far as this is concerned, every event was different and the info in the article is particularly oriented to Naroda one. Plus, no book source is dubious and there is one more source who particularly describes this as genocide. The entire riots were genocide but various people of diff religion lost their lives while only Muslims did in this so it is wholly appropriate to consider it a genocide. 3rd para is also specially oriented towards Naroda as there were different issues pointed out at different spots and the source clearly explains that this was related to Naroda.  TheSpecialUser TSU 14:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please give the source which says that Naroda Patiya incident in particular was a genocide? --sarvajna (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * During the genocide in Naroda.... And I'm restoring the removed content about the use of slogans as it is obviously notable. In past, there had been many rfcs regarding similar issues (e.g., Pakistan Zindabad where inclusion of its usage while raping girls was included after long discussions. This looks pretty similar) and such info is not too detailed but just two extra lines. Please point me a policy which states that we cannot have content which was particularly pointed out by many people who saw large number of people doing it. It'd have been too detailed if there were 7-9 people doing it but it were tons of the people here.  TheSpecialUser TSU 14:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are only misinterpretating the source, it is about Gujarat Genocide and Naroda Patiya incident was part of that genocide, hope you understand the difference. Just because you were able to find "Naroda" in that book doesn't mean anything. Coming to your point about slogan this artilce is not about the slogan "Jai Shree Ram" so the example of Pakistan Zindabad doesn't serve any purpose. You can check out other article like Gulbarg Society massacre, Nellie massacre you will get a fair idea about what to include and what not to. If you want to include the fact that "Jai Shree Ram" was used during rapes then do it on the article of Jai Shree Ram not here. --sarvajna (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Woopsi... I didn't saw the comma. Sorry. I'm removing it now.  TheSpecialUser TSU 15:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Few inaccuracy and other suggestions

 * Under the section allegations of state sponsorship it is written On 10 April 2010, Special Investigation Team had given clean chit to Modi in the riot cases while it should be 2012.
 * Next it is said A case was filled against Modi by one of the victims of the riots, in 2006 no sorry no case was filed not even according to the source presented there.
 * Abruptly the next sentence is The report was based on testimony of suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt that he had allegedly ordered top police officers to not to take active actions in the riots. SIT, however, rejecting the plea and giving clean chit to Modi stated that What report?? The source mentions the report of Rajiv Ramchandran and I don't think it has anything to do with any case filed in 2006 because Rajiv Ramchandran was appointed as Amicus Curiae quite later I guess in 2011. It either needs major correction or removal as most of it is not related to Naroda in particular.

Also the paragraph ''India's National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), an official body, found evidence in the killings of premeditation by members of Hindu extremist groups; complicity by Gujarat state government officials; and police inaction in the midst of attacks on Muslims. The NHRC also noted "widespread reports and allegations of well-organized persons, armed with mobile telephones and addresses, singling out certain homes and properties for death and destruction in certain districts-sometimes within view of police stations and personnel," suggesting the attacks may have been planned in advance. Christians were also victims in Gujarat, and many churches were destroyed.'' has nothing to do with Naroda in particular even according the source. We just cannot add everything that should be part of 2002 Gujarat violence in this article. --sarvajna (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The section "Allegations of state-sponsorship" is an absolute synthesis, the source presented doesn't say anything about state-sponsorship, laxity of police cannot be interpreted as state-sponsored terrorism by the editors. Please let me know your thoughts.--sarvajna (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not absolutely synthesis. The source clearly says the allegations of state sponsorship and so what is written. As far as police goes, it should be under state as police is under control of the state and they don't exist independently.  TheSpecialUser TSU 16:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction but I re-read the Naroda Patia related pages in this source that is presented in the article, no where it is alleged that it was a state sponsored incident. Check it out--sarvajna (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Page 21? Yes, it is stated for entire 2002 incident but it says that, "starting from the morning of Feb 28...." and covers the term in the upcoming 1 or 2 lines. Anyhow, I've added few more sources supporting the term.  TheSpecialUser TSU 21:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * you are again misinterpretating the source, let me show how.

1. In the source "Muslim India you just search for "State sponsorship in naroda patiya massacre" because this is what you want to see and surprisingly there is nothing that says that Naroda Patiya in perticular is a state-sponsored act.But you still want to include it. 2. The other source "Gujarat after Godhra: real violence, selective outrage" actually refutes the charges that it was a state sponsored act. There cannot be a better example of how you are indulging in synthesis. Check out the rest of page 189.(I am sure you have no idea who Koenraad Elst is or else you would have never included his book) 3. Even this source "Religious politics and communal violence" doesn't say anything Naroda Patiya being a state sponsored violence. The synthesis of the sources shows poor understanding of sources as well as the event. Searching for few terms like "State sponsorship in naroda patiya massacre" in a google book search and including whatever you want without actually analysing what the source say is wrong. You can do a better job. I advice you to edit 2002 Gujarat violence and include these things. Try to understand that a particular incident cannot be called a state sponsored violence or even alleging that a single incident is a state sponsored violence is childish. The incidents like Naroda, Gulbarg etc can be collectively considered as state sponsored act. --sarvajna (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * They can be collectively called state-sponsored only and only if there was some sponsorship in a single event. If there was no SS in Naroda, then it cannot be included as state sponsored collectively. And I'm really flattered by your comment about Koenraad Elst, I'm eager to know that why wouldn't I have included if I had known him? Yes, I was aware of who is he.  TheSpecialUser TSU 10:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that because he was a support of Hindus or critic for Muslims? For the record, nor m I a hindu nor a muslim.  TheSpecialUser TSU 10:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply was bit busy with something else, My comment about Elst had nothing to do with your religious affiliations, just wanted to tell that his work possibly would never say that there was a state sponsored violence. Hope you got my point.--sarvajna (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Opinion piece
The third reference in the article is an opinion piece, these opinion articles appearing in news papaers cannot be considered as WP:RS. Its a minor thing, this source can be removed safely. --sarvajna (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
I have few comments about the section "Findings regarding role played by RSS, BJP, VHP and Bajrang Dal activists". The whole second paragraph can be moved to the massacre section. It has nothing to do with the title of the section. I remember this was under a section titled "Voilence against women" or something like that. Second what value does the findings of some lawyer has? It cannot have the same importance as the findings of SIT or the police. No court has held those organisation as responsible for the violence. These kind of ameture findings should not be mentioned on wikipedia. --sarvajna (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed text
Doesn't quite make sense in the context of the sentence after I fixed a misused quotaion (which also didn't quite make sense and had been cherry-picked): which were later pointed out by media and by Govind Parmar, a human rights activist. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC) which were later pointed out by media and by Govind Parmar, a human rights activist.
 * Initian investigation:

Hindu terrorism
I am not sure who added the category "Hindu terrorism", but there is no discussion of terrorism in the article. This doesn't fit my standard idea of terrorism. So, we need some discussion and sources if this label is to stand. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not participate in that discussion, either; what is certain is that POTA has nothing to do with the label. I do know, though, that references exist that make the connection; try Tanina Sarkar, Semiotics of terror, EPW, for one. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Does the article make a connection to "Hindu terrorism"? I think no. Is the event discussed in journals as "Hindu Terrorism"? . --AmritasyaPutra T 18:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not find any evidence of reference to Hindu terrorism in any of scholarly articles - hence I removed that term. My change was reverted by  --Sdmarathe (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your best bet to raise questions like this on the talk page, just like I am doing. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks . yes that is why I am not reverting his revert and instead discussing here :-) Getting out of newbie shell! --Sdmarathe (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the category was added by in this edit. do you want to explain why you think this is terrorism? Kautilya3 (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The article talks of "Hindutva terror," which is a term used to describe the actions of Hindus. It also says that "terror against Muslims becomes a perceived necessity in large Hindu circles." This is quite enough to justify the category; alternatively, if somebody wished to create a "Hindutva terrorism" category, I would have no issues with that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think "terrorism" is a more specialized ideology than communal violence or even communal "terror". I am fine with the term "Hindutva terror".  So, I can create a category for that.  There is a page on "saffron terror" but it looks confused to me.  There are also problems with the "saffron" label. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kautilya and Sdmarathe that terrorism and riots are two different category and that the event is not discussed in journals as "Hindu Terrorism"., you have also edited this page recently, what is your opinion? I do not see "Hindutva terrorism" discussed in this article nor do I find the quote "terror against..." (Quotes used Vanamonde93). --AmritasyaPutra T 01:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the terrorism label being applied by the majority of sources. It isn't in the article especially as a categorical descriptor of the event. As terrifying as riots are--and these certainly were--they aren't automatically categorized as terrorism. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * AP, I am quoting directly from the reference I suggested above. Did you misunderstand that, or are you suggesting that I am fabricating a quote? Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolved, then, to create a new category "Hindutva terror"? Kautilya3 (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, changed my mind. Both the Frontline article that coined "saffron terror" and the Tanika Sarkar article that introduced "Hindutva terror" used these terms for targeted violence against Muslims, not for acts of "terrorism".  However, this nicety has slipped by India's literati, who don't see the distinction between "terror" and "terrorism".  The term "Hindutva terror" has also been used for terrorism in Subhash Gatade's book.  (See the bottom of Saffron terror.)  So, I think it is futile to distinguish between "terror" and "terrorism" on Wikipedia, because our sources don't make that distinction. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi - to me it looks like the first source (opinion piece) and the second source (book), refer the term of terror, but they do not appear to articulate specific to this incident. The references appear to be generic references not specific to this riot incident and hence do not think the term be applied to this article. Thanks! --Sdmarathe (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure which you mean by the first source and the second source. The Tanika Sarkar article is a compelling analysis of the "Hindutva terror" as a phenomenon.  Naroda Patiya is a stark example of it.  The problem is that Gatade and a whole bunch of newspapers have now also applied this term to garden-variety terrorist attacks.  So, a good term has been misappropriated.  If I create a category for "Hindutva terror," sooner or later, people will start adding terrorist attacks into it.  I suppose I could create it as a subcategory of "Hindu terrorism", in which case people might think of this as a specialized phenomenon.  (The difference between "terrorism" and "terror" is that terrorism is done for the "bang" and it is usually hit-and-run.  "Terror" is killing for the pleasure of it.  There is no running involved.) Kautilya3 (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As AP or Jason said, I believe the argument was that sources did not specifically cite this incident as terror related - and they did not directly give this attack as an example of terrorism. I was led to believe that it is not our place to draw conclusions to add incidents to terrorism unless sourced directly as such in scholarly references. that is why both Godhra train massacre and the subsequent Naroda massacre do not appear tagged with terrorism --Sdmarathe (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what it is that you are referring to as an "opinion piece," but the Tanina Sarkar was published in EPW, and is therefore a reliable source. On page 2875 she makes the reference to the treatment of women and children in "Hindutva Terror," and gives the Naroda Patiya incident as a specific example. Which is a pretty direct link. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Whenever an act like that of Naroda Patiya is carried out, it would obviously involve an element of terror and in my opinion so would an act of murder, rape etc. But I do not think this should qualify the page to be categorised either as "terror" or "terrorism" under their commonly used definitions. For example, I have worked on this page Dabgarwad massacre, but I do not think that the categories "Islamic terrorism" or "Islamic terrorism in India" should have been added there. Tanika Sarkar is a person of reputation but just because some authors have used such terms it should not mean to change the way most others generally relate it to.Mohit Singh (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on usage of category "Hindu terrorism": There are four editors, who unambiguously agree that terrorism is incorrect categorization. I have removed the category. Now the discussion has moved by kautilya3 into creation of a new category "Hindutava Terror". Please participate. --AmritasyaPutra T 17:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , The discussion has moved on from AP or Jason.  has provided a source, which I have read (from the beginning to the end, every word of it), and I have said that it is compelling.  Wikipedia reflects the opinions of the scholars, not the opinions of the editors here.  The characterisation is "Hindutva terror" (not "terrorism").  You are continuing to talk about "terrorism", which is not being debated any more.
 * , other than the fact you are also talking about "terrorism", Google Scholar lists more than 100 citations of the Tanika Sarkar article, which tells me that her characterization has found widespread acceptance. If you find any scholars that disagree with her characterization, please mention them.
 * As for the Dabgarwad massacre, are there any scholarly sources labelling it as "terror"? If not, the comparison isn't valid.  Kautilya3 (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I found an earlier discussion regarding the category here. We should also note that before we deal with such renames... an article has to first make a connection to the category in its body based on scholarly articles directly. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra T 17:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

VHP and bajrang dal attack verbiage changed
Kautilya - You said that this is not allegation anymore and convictions have taken place. But I did not see you making those cases when Van was reverting my edits by casting doubts on convictions and Supreme court sanctioned/approved SITs and supporting a counter theory that is not even argued in UPA probe on the convictions of Godhra train burning convictions. This is double speak. So please revert your edit on Naroda Patiya or support making similar change on Godhra train burning page. Should I use your reference to make a change on Godhra page?

--Sdmarathe (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are driving at. These pages were written a long time ago.  Now that convictions have taken place, at least in some cases, we can remove the "allegation" qualification and state these as facts.  If there are other cases where allegations have been proved in court, you can similarly remove the "allegation" qualification. There is no "double speak".  The SIT is not a court. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are probably asking whether we can state Godhra case convictions as facts. No, we can't.  There, the scholarly sources don't agree with what happened in the court.  So, there we have to used words like "charged" and "convicted". Kautilya3 (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. this is your statement "Now that convictions have taken place, at least in some cases, we can remove the "allegation" qualification and state these as facts." You never mentioned scholarly sources agree or disagree. What is it? If a court conviction pleases biased scholars (remember WP:RS does not mean WP:NPOV) we can write as facts otherwise we can not? --Sdmarathe (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Our articles are always based on scholarly sources. That goes without saying.  If you think the sources are biased, you have to prove that.  You can go to WP:RSN if there are disputes about the sources.  Kautilya3 (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You mentioned "97 Muslims were killed by a mob of approximately 5,000 people, organized by the Bajrang Dal, a militant wing of the Vishva Hindu Parishad, and supported by the Bharatiya Janata Party which was in power in the Gujarat State Government." Do you have any scholarly consensus + court conviction that say 1. Bajrang dal is militant (as opposedto hardliner), 2. mob was organized as opposed to a response to Godhra 3. The killing was sanctioned by BJP. I specifically want to see source for #3. --Sdmarathe (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Besides, going to RSN would be a waste of time; we have a policy guideline WP:BIASED which says sources need to be reliable but not neutral. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Van - that is correct - the policy says sources can be RS but do not have to be NPOV. that is what I am saying. What I have issues with is painting these two acts with different brush when it comes to how they are represented in WP.I have added tags for second and third bullet point (specifically for the #3 which says BJP as a whole supported the Naroda massacre.) --Sdmarathe (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sd, you are being rather naive here. The original text said "it was initiated by the BJP...".  I weakened it to "supported by the BJP."  Why do we say that?  A BJP minister was convicted with life imprisonment.  She was the "kingpin" of the massacre, according to the judge.  Instead of throwing up spurious arguments, why don't you read?  You can start by first reading this article, then the citations given there, and then the pages that are referenced, and the citations given there.  As for Van's point, I don't agree.  If a source is biased, we attribute the statements to the source rather than stating them as fact. But, so far, no bias for any source has been demonstrated.  Just random beliefs that you carry. That is not good enough. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For your three points: (1) do a google search for "Bajrang Dal militant wing" (2) Read the Babu Bajrangi's statements referenced on his page, published by Tehelka (3) again read Babu Bajrangi's statements. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So the entire accusation is based on Tehelka publish - there are several articles debunking the expose's spin. one of them is this http://www.gujaratriots.com/index.php/2008/09/tehelka-lies/. The probe did not articulate that it was part of wider conspiracy other than fringe elements. What I ask is you treat both Naroda and Godhra with similar standards. Both had a large mob assailing a small group of helpless victims. If you read both pages, one says things as if they are facts (Naroda) - which to some extent I will agree, and then the other page (Godhra) everything that court has held and is widely held/reported is upended in the article articulation. Even a theory (staged trigger) has been presented in the lead - which even UPA probe did not argue. As far is Naroda BJP leader is concerned - that does not mean BJP sanctioned or supported it. She was fired and charged and convicted by Gujarat Govt. Is that a sign of support? There is incredible amount of bias covering these two apparently similar cases where one group was attacked by other group but one is considered massacre, the other as accident or even staged trigger !
 * Google and scholarly sources can be quite based - so you are bound to see those search results. When Bajrang dal or VHP says anything it is considered militant, but worse vitriol is thrown by Owaisi brothers, they are called heroes sitting in LokSabha and Assembly. I have not yet seen any Hindu group target Muslim Gods like the way Akbar Owaisi and Zakir Naik have done. The day they start doing so, it will be a dark day and I will myself criticize heavily. Oh well - I am digressing again--Sdmarathe (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess you are going to believe what you are going to believe. That is your choice.  As far as this article is concerned, your citation needed tag goes, because the body of the article amply demonstrates the BJP involvement. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Same goes for everyone I guess. But no, the tag should not go. It does not prove BJP supported it.--Sdmarathe (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also you said the article was old - but log history shows it is only two years old - long after court convictions and is being continuously updated ever since. --Sdmarathe (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde&Kautilya can we keep the discussion focused and constructive, agf? Is Tehelka source unbiased? Is court judgement relaible for this article but not others? --AmritasyaPutra T 07:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)