Talk:Godhra train burning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
This article is maintained by the Gujarat workgroup.
More information about this article...

This is an important incident in the Indian recent history.Will work on it to enlarge.

I removed the db tag. Travelbird 12:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Article is unblanced and incomlete as it does not discuss causes and only cites an anti-Hindu article to promote propaganda. Until I (or someone else) modifies this article to include a full perspective on the situation this article is not neutral.Netaji 09:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Motion for changing the title

I think that Godhra Train Burning should be changed to "Godhra Train Massacre". Does anyone know the process of initiating such an action of title change? R. Patel 16:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, since the request has been made, I will move it.Bakaman 18:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes this shows a real face of HINDUTA they will do anything for the political power

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3829364588351777769&q=%22Gujrat%22+%22Rakesh%22&hl=en

[edit] removal

Sabrang is not at all a credible source of opinion. They are a very left organization, and very very prejudiced towards Hindus. So I am against quoting Sabrang. R. Patel 16:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is total rubbish and looks like a Sangh Parivar propaganda. Neither the commission set up by BJP itself nor by the government of India has concluded that there was an attack from outside. When will these fanatics stop spreading non-sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.5.178 (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

One columnists opinion is irrelevant to the article. Also Sabrang is a partisan site, and can be disqualified under WP:RS. I am removing the columnist quotes and commenting out the Sabrang until a reliable and objective source is found.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the Sabrang stuff, but why is a columnists opinion irrelevant to the article? All news articles are written by journalists, many of who are columnists as well. Columns are frequently cited on Wikipedia. BhaiSaab talk 22:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Per Talk:2006 Malegaon blasts discussion of columnists. There are millions out there, and there is no need to turn this into a soapbox for certain views.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
A discussion between 2 or 3 editors on the talk page of another article is not conclusive. BhaiSaab talk 22:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, the columnists are nn. Jyoti Puniyani sounds like anti-Hindu activist Ram Puniyani but has no credibility or notability, other than on this wiki article.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Sources don't need to be notable; the subjects of articles have to be notable. BhaiSaab talk 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Show me the exact wikipedia policy that says so.Hkelkar 01:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you show me the wikipedia policy that states sources have to be notable? You won't find anything like that in WP:RS. BhaiSaab talk 01:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
No. You made the assertion you back it up. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but you used "Anyway, the columnists are nn." as an argument first, after you tried using "Per Talk:2006 Malegaon blasts." BhaiSaab talk 02:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah looks like someone is using a smokescreen. Find a poicy yet? Columnists can be selectively quoted, I might as well add Togadia, Modi, rajnath Singh and the like while I'm at it.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
What does a smokescreen have to do with this? You can use those columnists as long as they publish in sources that are generally regarded as reliable. BhaiSaab talk 02:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, show me the specific wikipedia policy that says so.Hkelkar 02:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and btw. How will you verify reliability in the absence of notability????Hkelkar 02:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to. You'll find that the concept of the journalist having to be notable in order for a newspaper article to be used is nonsense if you look at, e.g., articles that cover recent news events. A journalist need not be notable if the source he is using to publish his material, i.e. The Hindu, is generally regarded as reliable. BhaiSaab talk 02:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Where is the policy backing this assertion up? I find hinduunity reliable as well then.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Read WP:RS - I can't do the reading for you. Hinduunity.org is a bunch of nonsense. BhaiSaab talk 02:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree with user:BhaiSaab on this. Please try to understand both the letter and the spirit of the policies before editing controversial articles because that will save everybody lot of time. Andries 09:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Instead of giving us a nonsense you know nobody will listen to, why dont you actually read the article. You might notice I kept the Puniyani link anyways.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions

I Removed columnist opinions from the article. These opinions should not be the article but only on that columnist's page. An article is not a collection of opinions. Even comments or opinions of Bill O'Reilly whose The O'Reilly Factor, is routinely the highest-rated show of the three major U.S. 24-hour cable news channels (CNN, FOX News and MSNBC), are not in Wikipedia articles. They are only on His page. See Abortion Same-sex marriage and 2003 invasion of Iraq Preetikapoor0 00:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] category - clarification required

Why is the article being covered under "Terrorism in India"? This is not a terrorist activity, it is a communal violence event. Thus, shouldn't the template be updated and the template tag removed from this page. Kalyan 14:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Banerjee commission was declared as unconstitutional ,it's findings were not described as faulty. Thus the conclusion that the burning was due to a planned massacre or a spontaneous carnage by Muslims is not a logical deduction.

[edit] Documentary

Perhaps I should create a little section about the film Final Solution (Gujarat Riots) instead of adding it to external links.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.94.236 (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)