Talk:2002 Gujarat riots

NOTE: See bottom of page for mediation proposal

Dear anonymous user under IP numbers 64.171.186.75 and 128.107.253.42, i hope you accept my integration of the two versions of this page as NPOV.

i suggest you do not remove references to external sources such as to Justice Iyer's report. i've left in your description of Iyer as a Marxist, and if it's true that some of the events in the report are false, maybe you should add a link to a web page showing very specifically which events are false, or else briefly put one or two sentences describing clearly and unambiguously which events are false.

The idea of wikipedia is more information to solve point of view disputes, not less information.

You may disagree on whether or not the Sangh Parivar was systematically responsible for the killings, but you can show this by adding a counterclaim, not by removing the information!

thanks

Boud 11:24, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

To Boud

I've restored the version stripped of unproven allegations. Neutrality is not the same as posting 25,000 points of view because someone wants it there. Neutrality is about sensibly posting verified information.

I am not sure why you have to choose Marxist sources selectively and post them here. You are not even consistent in your claims. On one hand, you claim that those killed in the train were 'allegedly Hindus' while on the other you assert that they were 'kar sevaks.' Clearly, this amounts to obfuscation and propaganda. Imagine a person writing up the page on Poland using the words alleged to describe Polish claims of German atrocities while asserting in no uncertain terms the atrocities of Polish people on Lithuania and their anti-semitism being the greatest of all anti-semites. At least the latter points are true.

The points I've posted have been verified.

1) No one carries petrol bombs to 'spontaneously' throw them at the train. 2) The train carried Hindus and was burnt by Muslims. The chief accused was an officebearer of Congress(I). 3) The Indian Marxist media happily gloated that the Hindus deserved it. 4) Riots broke out. Like all riots, people on both sides were killed. 5) The Marxist "investigation" was not authorised by anyone. It was a self-appointed "investigation." Why choose one self-appointed body over another self-appointed body? In fact, there are hundreds of vested interest groups with dozens of theories. It is only a substandard researcher who will present them as facts. A scientific minded person will weed out such points. 6) Arundhati Roy, a supporter of Marxists apologised for writing up fictitious events in her article. 7) The tea vendor and dragging of a girl into the train appeared with the phone number of the witness in it. Why don't you call up the phone number and check out for yourself? Good journalists did that and found that the person mentioned felt harassed by the flood of phone calls.

To: User:LibertarianAnarchist and User:Ark30inf.

We clearly have an NPOV dispute, and i'd like to solve this constructively.

What is verification? As far as wikipedia is concerned, it can only be references to other sources, either internal wikipedia, external electronic, or external non-electronic

The points of information i included, and which you and have removed, were backed up by link to an external electronic document. You may claim that the document is "unverified" and written by Marxists, but i don't see how that justifies not including it.

You state that you have a list of points which are "verified", but you provide no links of any sort. You should be able to provide information to at least the following:

2) The train carried Hindus and was burnt by Muslims. The chief accused was an officebearer of Congress(I).

name of the chief accused, since the fact of someone being accused in court is not itself libellous

3) The Indian Marxist media happily gloated that the Hindus deserved it.

a few links to specific Indian Marxist media articles which have these sort of statements

6) Arundhati Roy, a supporter of Marxists apologised for writing up fictitious events in her article.

a link to Arundhati Roy's apology

Neutrality is not the same as posting 25,000 points of view, Why choose one self-appointed body over another self-appointed body? In fact, there are hundreds of vested interest groups with dozens of theories.

i really suggest you read about NPOV.

i'm reverting to what i perceive as an NPOV version, but replacing alleged by mostly - while many people in India identify themselves as either Hindu or Muslim, it's unrealistic to claim that any large group is so homogeneous that everybody agrees with or desires such a label.

Boud 10:27, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Boud, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that Krishna Iyer is a Communist

Boud,

You seem to be either ignorant (VR Krishna Iyer was a Communist Minister and Communist Party candidate for PResident of India) or seem to have some grudge against India and Hindus that you have been spreading lies as facts.

If you are ignorant of Krishna Iyer being a Communist, you are not qualified to contribute to t Wikipedia. The aim of an encyclopedia is to spread information, not ignorance. Admit it, you are clueless about India. Even 10 year old kids in India know who Krishna Iyer is.

You have also been going around Wikipedia posting hateful stuff against Hindus and Indians most of which is nothing but propaganda on mailing lists of hatemongers.

I am willing to get into a constructive discussion with you, but you seem to be motivated by hatred.

Dear User:LibertarianAnarchist and User:Ark30inf - the point of wikipedia is not to debate the personal knowledge and ignorance of Boud. If i present disputed knowledge as fact, then someone from wikipedia should tell me to read about NPOV and simply correct the wording to show that what i claim as fact is in fact only one point of view.

Boud 12:13, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

LibertarianAnarchist's version is blatantly POV: "The Indian English media, which is largely Communist", "Marxist Justice VR Krishna Iyer" etc. He probably sees communists under his bed too. --Wik 14:39, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)

VR Krishna Iyer was a Minister in the Communist Ministry!

Hello, I am right and you are wrong. VR Krishna Iyer was a Communist minister. I don't know what you're dreaming. Yours is a blatant Communist lie. Mine gives the facts as they happened.

Dear User:LibertarianAnarchist and User:Ark30inf and others who have not yet read NPOV.

You are correct that VR Krishna Iyer was a minister in a communist government. So try reading the latest version and you'll see that it's stated there quite clearly.

In case you missed it, the following is on the latest version (first sentence 2003 -> 2002;...):

However, some observers claim that several events in the report Crime Against Humanity - An Inquiry into the Carnage in Gujarat are fictitious. Moreover, because the opinions of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer are left-wing, in particular, he had been a state government minister in what is claimed to be the first freely elected communist government in history starting in 1957 (the government of E.M.S. Namboodiripad), and because he was a candidate for President of India in 1987, chosen by the opposition against the ruling Congress (I) party, some people refer to him as a Communist and consider the inquiry and report to be highly biased.

So relax, people are listening to you - when you provide uncontroversial facts, it's easy to obtain consensus. Controversial facts can only be presented as claims.

Boud 11:25, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Because of the persistence of this edit war, I have added another comment to Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles. Probably, this page should be protected by an admin until some consensus can be reached. -- VV 05:52, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

While presenting a neutral version, one must not compromise on basic factual rigor. The present version is far too wishy-washy, while containing too many "points of view" and too few facts. Even verified facts are presented as "points of views". This could be in part due to the limited knowledge of the contributor on the issues and events involved. At any rate, the "some say this, some say that" format of presenting an issue is not appropriate for an entry in an encyclopedia such as this. Hence taking the liberty to edit.

Contributors are urged to take criticism and edits in a constructive manner and avoid submerging in petty ego-wars, what is essentially a superb source of information collated from diverse POVs. At the same time, there are verified facts that must not be drowned out by overzealous or misguided NPOVism. One must also remember that no one is supremely neutral and unbiased, however much you may think yourself to be. (217.136.132.149)

Feel free to add any "verified facts" that you can document. But don't try to pass off POVs as facts, e.g. saying Krishna Iyer is a communist, when Iyer himself says he never was one [1]. (Being a minister in a communist-led government doesn't make him a communist.) --Wik 21:15, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)

An unexplained revert. Well, I'm afraid Wik's version, apart from being wishy-washy with the facts, reads rather like a schoolboyish article. Once can also a certain deficiency in the English language. There is perhaps a difference in the manner in which articles are written in your mother tongue, however your style of enumerating each point along with the counter-view tends to introduce a lot of redundant phrases. As I have stated before, it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry such as this. If you have a crib with any point, you are always free to elaborate the reason and edit it.

You keep trying to insert your POV there. This is not demonstrable fact: "58 train passengers, including Hindus returning from a pilgrimage to Ayodhya, were burnt alive by a mob of fundamentalist Muslims who surrounded the train near Godhra, Gujarat and set it alight after dousing it in petrol." --Wik 23:31, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)

Not a demonstrable fact? At this rate, nothing is "demonstrable" unless you have witnessed the incident perhaps? Your knowledge on this issue appears to be limited and extracted solely from a few reports in Western newspapers and various conspiracy theories. It would be honest of you not to impose on others what seems to be your apparent ignorance on Gujarat and India.

Let's suppose someone starts denying that the holocaust occurred and claims it to be "non-demonstrable" by pointing to some conspiracy theory or the other that claims so. Are you even going to bother to entertain his views? Sounds a bit ridiculous? Well, that's precisely how your claim about Godhra sounds. There is more than sufficient circumstancial evidence and witness accounts about the case, conspiracy theories and political propaganda notwithstanding. Please check it out for yourself and exercise some basic intelligence.

Wikipedia would be better off without self-appointed guardians of "neutrality" who seek to impose their ignorance on others who are better informed and more aware of the various facts and points of view on a given issue.

Meanwhile here is a bit of information from what you'll agree is an adequately "neutral" source, the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2802591.stm

"The burnt coach of the Sabarmati Express still stands today as if time had stood still since a Muslim mob set it alight near Godhra station in western Indian state of Gujarat. "

Wik, your aggressive editing and inability to respond to my points leads me to either one of the two conclusions:

-you either lack basic intellectual abilities and depth.

-or else you suffer some kind of hatred towards Indians and Hindus in particular.(just as a lot of people reveal their hatred of Jews by questioning the authenticity of events in which they were victims.)

I however give you the benefit of the doubt and put it down to the former, given your inability to recognise the inferiority in substance as well as style of your version of events.

I've protected this page. Please try to decide how you're going to write the page on this talk page rather than continuing to revert without discussion. Thanks. Angela 01:27, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)

The page is no longer protected and Bcorr has agreed to help mediate. Angela

As Angela indicated, I will work to help mediate the ongoing dispute. I am in the process of reviewing the article, the edit history, the various comments linked to this page, and the email traffic on the mailing list related to it. Even though the page is unprotected, I would ask all parties involved to hold off editing this article voluntarily until I can offer a few suggestions, which I will do within a few hours. Thanks for your forbearance, BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:37, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Advice apparently not taken. Candidate for Wikipedia:Dark side of Wikipedia? -- VV 08:02, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi folks -- LibertarianAnarchist apologized to me and said that the editing happened before seeing my note -- "I read your request only after I restored it a couple of times. My apologies." It's taking me longer to read through things than I thought it would, but I will be making some suggestions this morning on a way to proceed. Thanks in advance for being willing to work with me on this. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:27, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Proposal for Mediation from Bcorr

Here's my proposal for moving forward:

First, I'm proposing a three-day period for working on a new version of the article that will be based on common agreement – it won't be comprehensive or final, but the goal is that it will serve as the core around which future editing and writing can take place. I will place that article on a temporary page. During that period, I will ask that people continue to refrain from editing that article and instead work on the new article.

Assuming feedback on this proposal is generally positive over the next 24 hours, the three days will begin tomorrow at this time (1 p.m. EST/18:00 UTC/23:30 in New Delhi on 12 Nov 2003) At the end of the three days, I will more the new article to 2002 Gujarat violence and begin with that

Second, in the new article, I am asking that contributors only add content that they believe that all contributors will agree with. If there is disagreement, I am asking that contributors discuss that on the talk page for the temporary article -- not on this page -- Talk:2002 Gujarat violence. I am also asking that contributors refrain from removing content that they disagree with, but instead allow me to make suggestions about how to handle disagreements -- remembering that my goal is to create something that we can all agree on as a basis for making progress on this article. I will note that this will involve some judgment calls on may part when it comes to deciding how much of the article is devoted to the "some people say X, while others say Y" content -- I ask that people go along with me for the time being. I will add any disputed facts, sources, or links to a section of the talk page for the temporary article.

Third, I am proposing the following guidelines for editing and for the talk pages and the WikiEN-l mailing list:

Editing

Sign all posts to the talk page.
Avoid characterizing the politics, motives, POV, or objectivity of material added to the article. Simple explain what you disagree with and why you disagree based on accuracy or that it disagrees with your point of view and then explain briefly what yours is.
Avoid extrapolation of the above, e.g., "X supports Y, so if X says ___, it must be…"
Work from the assumption for the three-day period that no one has a monopoly on the truth, even if one is certain that facts or evidence is 100 percent clear.

Talk pages/Mailing list

Refrain from personal attacks.
Refrain from characterizing the politics, motives, POV, or objectivity of other contributors.

Obviously this is all voluntary, but I believe this is a way that we can all move forward and create an article that is NPOV, factual, informative, and still reflects the differences in opinions and the interpretations of the facts.

Please respond below this line. Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:39, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Although I understand the need for neutral mediation, I think in this case it is pretty clear-cut what is going on. LibertarianAnarchist, Democrate2003, and Conradx (probably all the same person) are modifying articles all over Wikipedia with hugely biased, Indian/Hindu nationalist POV. Furthermore, they throw frivolous accusations of "Communist" and even "racist" against those who disagree, and LA has even made vicious and ignorant racial attacks against "white skins" on the mailing list. This is the behavior of a problem user, not just a little neutrality disagreement. That is why so many people are autoreverting these changes.

Contrary to accusations, I have no special interest in Indian politics, merely in Wikipedia. Perhaps these users do not understand that "facts" are not necessarily NPOV. The current version, presenting both perspectives, is the only way to go, even if it could be written better. Anyway, good luck on the mediation process. -- VV 22:19, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I am a newbie at wikipedia, and I hope a fresh opinion is worth reading here. I think we have to formulate some kind of a solution to stop the meaningless see-saw battles we are currently witnessing here. As a person in touch with the topic discussed, I feel some POVs are needlessly exaggerated and given undue importance, often given an equal platform, with whatever is the most commonly agreed version of the incidents. I dont have anything against one particular POV, but I feel the better way to present the article would be to elaborate on the most widely accepted POV (for which we have to rely on the global media reports. There is no point in questioning them and ascribing a bias to the media as a whole and simply ignore their acceptance by the wide majority.) We may "also" quote the other POVs, elaborated to an extent proportional to their measure of acceptance. Otherwise, the article serves no purpose at all in terms of informational content and the reader comes out with a feeling of coming out from a debate on "political correctness".

And nothing here stops people from commenting about each others' "ignorance" and "out-of-touch" ness, which I feel is completely unacceptable. I, for one do not believe that just because a person is not from a particular country, one can assume that he/she knows nothing about what is happening there. That is a crude objection to state in a world of information explosion. And I do believe when there are repeated "offenders" of this sort, there should be a way to check them from doing it. So here's agreeing with VV. User:Chancemill 07:53, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Bravo to User:Angela and User:Bcorr for taking the meta-initiative! i must say i'm more impressed than ever with how the wikipedia community functions. :))

Warning: the following is a distraction (side issue) from the main aim - read at your own risk!. At the risk of diverging from the question of NPOV, i feel i should defend Libertarian/Anarchist/Democrate2003/Conradx in response to VV. The intention is to improve understanding between people. If Libertarian/Anarchist/Democrate2003/Conradx thinks that we are all opposed to him/her, s/he is unlikely to cooperate.

Although I understand the need for neutral mediation, I think in this case it is pretty clear-cut what is going on. LibertarianAnarchist, Democrate2003, and Conradx (probably all the same person) are modifying articles all over Wikipedia with hugely biased, Indian/Hindu nationalist POV.

i don't know about all over Wikipedia, but i more or less agree, though rather than hugely biased ... POV i would say with a Sangh Parivar POV and having difficulty accepting alternative POVs as POVs.

Furthermore, they throw frivolous accusations of "Communist" and even "racist" against those who disagree, and LA has even made vicious and ignorant racial attacks against "white skins" on the mailing list. This is the behavior of a problem user, not just a little neutrality disagreement. That is why so many people are autoreverting these changes.

i would probably agree with the formal content of this, but i think it's important to understand the emotional and historical context. Many people in India are angry at Western arrogance and the history (and continuation) of colonialism, and this user (users?) supporting the Sangh Parivar POV probably does identify him/herself as a victim of Western racism and barbarism. So this user is angry and probably has difficulty imagining that the non-Sangh Parivar POVs just possibly might be true. i'm not trying to justify this user's editing war, i'm just saying that we should be able to understand this user's anger - independently of whether his/her POV is true or not.

Moreover, in the Indian context, the label "Communist" is not as emotion-laden or insulting as in (e.g.) the US context. Communist parties often get elected to state government in Kerala and West Bengal, just as a fascist party is the main party in the coalition in national government (the Centre) right now (though unlike the communist parties, it doesn't call itself fascist). It's a fact that V. R. Krishna Iyer participated as a minister in a Communist government. While the extrapolations made by Conradx/etc from these facts may be unjustified, the word frivolous dismisses this user a little too lightly, IMHO.

Contrary to accusations, I have no special interest in Indian politics, merely in Wikipedia. Perhaps these users do not understand that "facts" are not necessarily NPOV. The current version, presenting both perspectives, is the only way to go, even if it could be written better.

i should not pretend that my own POV is neutral. i lived in India for two years and contributed to Indian scientific research in cosmology. And i am biased in favour of human rights and openly available documentation on human rights which has maximum tracability to its sources (apart from protection for individuals at risk, who need anonymity, but sources such as local organisations should be tracable) and maximum transparence on its methods. In this particular context, some good wikipedia pages on human rights violations in J&K (against Hindus, against Muslims, against others), the historical context, etc - while also representing alternative POVs - is something i am biased in favour of.

BTW, i should remind those who missed it that Libertarian/Anarchist/Democrate2003/Conradx did post at least one version of the page which was much better than his/her earlier versions - so s/he is willing to make an effort :).

Anyway, looking forward to User:Bcorr's mediated version in 3 days' time :)

Boud 13:06, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Response to Boud: All over Wikipedia: well, I know of at least eight articles off the top of my head, I think that counts. Sangh Parivar: This POV is hugely biased; look at the edits on, e.g., Babri Mosque, he is giving a one-sided portrayal of events. Communism: It may not have the same bite as elsewhere, but he is using it very viciously, along with words like bigot, India hater, racist, white skin; you will have a hard time convincing me these were not meant to be "emotion-laden" or "insulting". Anti-Western (i): Actually, until recently his edits were mostly anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan (and perhaps anti-Communist), not anti-Western. (ii): I don't want to respond in detail to the "arrogance" claims (what people isn't arrogant?), but you leave your ethnic resentments at the door when you are writing for objectivity; journalists know that, Wikipedians should too: if you cannot do that, don't participate (Americans should not vandalize France or Taliban either). (iii): Generalized resentment does not justify this behavior; Americans should not call Arab Wikipedians ragheads or whatever, regardless of how they may feel, because it is abusive. Iyer: The fact that he was in the communist gov't is mentioned in the other (your?) version, so additional unjustified claims about him do not need to be made. I think that many attempts have been made to cooperate, and at this point either LA needs to change this behavior or be gone. -- VV 09:50, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

End of mediation process

Please continue to respect the guidelines above while editing I have removed the notices on the mediation process and have left the article as it had been before the process began, other than adding in the material from the revision, as it meets the guidelines laid out for the process, and because only one person did any editing to the the revision, and it was not enough for a stand-alone article. This is not an invitation for another edit war -- it is my sincere hope that the article will stabilize and that the fact that people respected the mediation process and did not contribute to the revision is an indication that the current version is a workable article, even if imperfect. Therefore I would ask all to continue to follow the above guidelines for editing while working on this article. With thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:28, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Update as of 15 Nov 2003

Well, the three-day period has passed, and only one person has worked on the revised article -- someone who hadn't been involved previosly BTW. I'm going to leave the pages as they are for the weekend, and see what happens until Monday.... Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:06, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't mean to buck the mediation process, but in case someone uses this page as future source, I wanted to disambiguate "english" now. That was my only change. Rossami 20:41, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

So i guess we're now working on the original page rather than on /revision ? IMHO it's time to add a few pieces of info (presented as POVs if likely to be disputed, presented as facts if unlikely to be disputed) from organisations like HRW and Amnesty International. Both organisations have their faults, but they do have something like a wikipedia NPOV in their published material, and at least Amnesty makes an effort to counteract the local racism (and other biases) of each national section by having ordinary members and researchers work on other countries than their own (the "own country rule"). Anyway, i'm waffling.

Boud 22:28, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Can anyone find any claims from an organisation (or an individual who can be named and clearly identified) for any of the following, which were claimed by LA:

(1) that deny that the number of post-Godhra victims was over 2000

or

(2) that the statement "most of the victims in the post-Godhra rioting/violence were Muslims" is false

or

(3) that several events in the report Crime Against Humanity - An Inquiry into the Carnage in Gujarat are fictitious.

While my feeling is that (1) and (2) are part of the general Sangh Parivar claims, at least in internet fora, IMHO the fact that one wikipedist claims one of these without being able to bring us any nearer to a source is insufficient to include these.

IMHO, if noone finds anything, then these should be dealt with something like:

(1) could be kept as something like it is usually claimed that there were over 2000 victims without specifying who claims otherwise

(2) Points of view also differ on what fraction of the victims ... would become something like Most of the victims were Muslims, though some were ...

(3) This sentence would be simply dropped. The stuff about Iyer's background etc can be kept IMHO. If Stalin were still alive and claimed that "the sky is blue", that would not make the statement false, but it would probably be wise to be suspicious and sceptical, just in case...

To give someone willing to identify him/herself with a valid username the time to post sources/references to (1), (2), (3) onto this talk page, i propose to wait 7 days, i.e. until Wed 3 Dec before making the corrections.

And after 3 Dec, in order to avoid this being perceived as me converting NPOV sentences into POVs, it would probably be better that some "3rd party" like User:Bcorr, User:Rossami, User:VeryVerily, ... do the changes rather than me - lots of new people turned up here and can do this.

Boud 00:23, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Removed the sentences on torture and harassment. This edit was POV, in the sense that it is incomplete and seems to suggest a portrayal of sympathy in the arresting of alleged Muslim perpetrators and a sense of retribution in the fact that the alleged Hindu perpetrators have been recognised as such and punished. When one deals with such topics one has a responsibility, even while presenting facts, to present it in a neutral and palatable manner. One can't put just the facts that one chooses to know and ignore other facts. A partial or incomplete truth could do a greater damage than a blatant lie. Please give a balanced argument, it is precisely these kind of arguments that is making moderate, neutral people in India go to extremes and inciting the revert wars.

POTA was brought to combat terrorism attacks in India- who ever may have caused it; if you want to discuss the problems of implememnting POTA where innocent people also are affected(I don't know about that), then it belongs to that discussion. Please don't link it directly to this one incident so that further hate wars are avoided.KRS 02:45, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

With due respects to your viewpoint, I fail to see how quoting a reputed human rights organisation, becomes a PoV. Seeing that the source link is still there as a part of External Links in the article; I would expect that the source can be quoted in the article without any qualms. At least in wikipedia, Amnesty International (AI) is yet to recieve any negative comments or disputed claims (Check Amnesty International.) So, as a reader I would expect the claims of AI to hold a lot of weight. The website of AI contains only two articles related to the incident, one immediately after the incident, and the other recently published (The latter was quoted.) And if AI, deemed it fit to mention this "side of the story" (as always, there is more than one), I would expect a lot of people to believe AI's judgement of the severity of the crimes in "this side" than on the "other side".

Regarding your views that crimes under POTA can be described under the appropriate section, I would say that AI chose to title the article

India - Abuse of the law in Gujarat. Muslims detained illegally in Ahmedabad

and not as

Human rights violations under POTA

So, it is fairly obvious, that AI views the crimes not under the "seemingly bigger" picture of "POTA abuse", but as a specific case of wrongful retribution against one particular community.

None of what is stated above is my PoV of the incident. However, I would like the more forceful, and accepted claims on the incident given the appropriate weightage. If you still feel, it amounts to "partially presenting the facts", you are welcome to complete the picture, by quoting alternate reputed sources that balance the viewpoint, but not by deleting a reference to a potentially powerful indicator to the true picture. I am waiting for your response before reverting the edit chance 06:54, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)

I must confess that I don't know much of the facts for the other side and I don't have the time to research and present it. So you can revert if you want to. But if one reads through the page one gets an impression that there is some subtle connection established in the way the whole paragraph is worded. Probably rewriting the sentences might help.

Though I am not up-to-date on current affairs(thats why I can't actively participate in this page),I know enough to get worried about the general tone of all the India related articles where there seems to be crusades going on at two extremes- tending towards left or right( I followed the mailing list). I know that the way the English media in India reported the incidents has made ordinary people react in a much more harsher way. One need not go the extreme left to counter the right, which is what seems to be happening in some India related articles in wikipedia.

For example, if you take incident 1- the train fire, it is constantly left ambiguous and reverted to reflect concrete proof and not speculations though we all know what happened. This is good and NPOV. But when you take incident 2- the riots, it was titled as active 'killings' before I changed it to riots. This is not good and POV. Why should this be the case when the trials are still ongoing? Why not just say people were killed in the riots, mostly Muslims, which is equally bad in meaning but not inciteful? As a very neutral person who has minimal interest in politics, if I seem to get hassled by such phraseology, one has to imagine the effect it would have on the extreme right side. I think there is an element of moral responsibility in presenting the truth in an acceptable manner. KRS 16:51, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Dear User:KRS,

You wrote

a sense of retribution in the fact that the alleged Hindu perpetrators have been recognised as such and punished.

i do not understand this. In the text i added yesterday, there was nothing about any of the arrested alleged perpetrators being people who identify themselves as Hindu. The most interesting information which should be added (if someone can find it and reference it) would be if they are members of the Sangh Parivar.

Maybe you are referring to information which you know but which hasn't been included yet in the text? In any case, i don't understand.

You wrote

One can't put just the facts that one chooses to know and ignore other facts. A partial or incomplete truth could do a greater damage than a blatant lie.

Agree with the first sentence.

i also agree with the second sentence, but only in the context where the statement is widely distributed without the practical possibility of rapid negative feedback. For example, if the Gujarati language press or the English-language press in Gujarat present a partial or incomplete truth regarding political/religious conflict to one crore (10 million) people, your second sentence is extremely relevant.

But wikipedia is very different. Long before even one lakh (100 000) people can read a correct but incomplete truth on the wikipedia, there is a very high chance of negative feedback adding more correct information.

I must confess that I don't know much of the facts for the other side and I don't have the time to research and present it.

Well, the rest of us do make some efforts to seek the facts. If you don't have the time, someone else will sooner or later seek the facts and complete the information. Probably by the time 100 or so people have read it, or maybe 1000 people. In any case, long before the reading audience reaches one lakh or one crore, the article (or any similar article) should have reached a pretty good consensus on what are agreed facts and what are the different POVs.

Boud 20:11, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)