Talk:Godhra train burning: Difference between revisions

India: Gujarat B‑class Mid‑importance

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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Gujarat (assessed as Mid-importance).

Terrorism B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving Godhra train burning was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 February 2011.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 27, 2012.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Godhra train burning article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days

I deleted the following sentence from the main page: Investigations and court rulings on the case later established that the fire was caused by arson by radical Islamist mobs and 31 people were convicted for the crime.^[1][2]

I have several problems with this sentence: The reference materials do not mention 'radical Islamist mobs' nor have i ever heard this term used before for the mob which set fire to the train although it is certainly believed to have consisted of muslims. Secondly, it has been suggested that the burning of the train could have been accidental: http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2013/05/5921 The lower courts in Gujarat have convicted some people for the Godhra train killing, but then the lower courts had also convicted some people for the killing of Narendra Modi's former colleague Haren Pandya. All the people who were alleged to have been involved in the killing of Pandya were subsequently released on appeal. So the judicial process is not yet complete on the guilt of the Godhra accused and the WP article cannot make a definite conclusion about guilt. Soham321 (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the point raised that it was an accident I must clarify that now it is an established fact that it was a well-planned attack and not a mere accident. Raising this point now is certainly devoid of any merit:

1. Supreme Court appointed SIT headed by an ex-CBI director has found out so.
2. The trial court has found so and several people have been convicted for this.
3. Nanavati-Mehta Commission had found out so.
4. The conflicting opinion was given by Banerjee Commission which was quashed by the Gujarat High Court. I must point out that Court ruled that the panel was "unconstitutional, illegal and null and void", and declared its formation as a "colourable exercise of power with mala fide intentions", and its argument of accidental fire "opposed to the prima facie accepted facts on record."

• Banerjee panel illegal: Gujarat HC Indian Express
• Bannerjee Committee illegal: High Court -The Hindu
• HC terms Sabarmati Express panel illegal - Financial Experss

5. These kinds of observations were also made by Teesta Setalavad and now its upto an individual to give credentials to her observation taken the fact that she was not present there and that her story also relies on the point that there were inflammable substance found out inside the train. I do not know if she has still been talking of the same. Also because her own role in the subsequent events and economic motives in the same are under question now.--Mohit Singh (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I may also clarify the other two points raised by User:Soham321. Though these remarks are devoid of any merit for the present discussion but it should be necessary to clarify the legal position:

• Haren Pandya Murder Case: People were convicted and later released on Appeal. I presume you meant, they had appealed an subsequent released on bail application by them. But then what? Its a legal process. India is a common law country. We have a system of precedents. One is not guilty untill proven so. If a person has been released on bail on appeal after conviction, he is treated as a convicted person for that period. But even then this point does not serve the current discussion as any reference to Pandya murder case is irrelevant. It would have been relevant if the legal system was referred to and I have clarified the position. It is the trial court which deals with the fact. High Court and Supreme Court are the Courts of law. They are not treated as a court of fact.--Mohit Singh (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

During recent research I noted that the main cause of this incident was caused by the activists on the train kidnapping a Muslim women, why is this not mentioned in the lede? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, what is the source for that? Shovon (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few, but will need to dig them back out, sorry about that but I would have thought this common knowledge by those who edit this "article" Darkness Shines (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This might help [1].-sarvajna (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really given "He described the whole incident as a 'pre-planned conspiracy'." & the killer punchline of course being "Mahapatra did not rule out the involvement of the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence in the incident." Grow up. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What??He is/was a Additional director general (law and order) of Gujarat police, he said that no women was kidnapped (it is a 2002 source),I am sure he would know about that incident better. Also what is the reason behind you adding those tags? The tags should be used as a last resort. You have just started the discussion and have not made more than two points. Also when there is no content in the body then why should someone add it in the lead. I have provided the source that shows that there were no kidnapping. Please remove the tag.-sarvajna (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have always respected you, but if you actually believe that bollocks , well then that respect is gone forever, you can remove the tag if you want I will not complain, all it will do is prove one single thing. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DS, get the source, discuss it, even if you are right that only means that the article is incomplete. We do not need a POV tag for that.-sarvajna (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is just another speculation among a cornucopia of unproven allegations. There is also a theory that suggests Hindus (RSS) actually carried out the burning. Some allege it was Modi himself who burned the train. And it goes on.
I would also like to point to WP:UNDUE. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." That's all. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the delay, source is Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India Princeton University Press p32. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few observation:

1. Neutrality:
   1. The use of the label "pogrom" while describing the Hindu-Muslim riots of 2002 which was triggered by the slaughter of Hindu pilgrims and included murder of 250+ Hindus and ended with the criminals getting their due share of comeuppance from the court, gives away the neutrality and factual accuracy of the rest of the book. Just in case anyone is wondering, the author of the book is Parvis Ghassem-Fachandi, an assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology at Rutgers.
   2. The abstract of the book doesn't even mention the fact that more than a quarter of those who lost their lives in Godhra riots were Hindus.
2. In that book itself the author says (page 68), "Some karsevaks, or other travelers, were, it seems, worried that women were abducted. [..] There were no firsthand witnesses to the abduction, and the newspaper cites no evidence other than chatter to support the claim."

This seems that the karsevaks were the ones who were concerned about the abduction as opposed to being complicit in the crime. It also is apparent that there were no evidence basically to support the claim of kidnapping other than stories and conjectures. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source says that the activists tried to kidnap a woman, also why does the article not mention that forensic reports show the fire started inside the train? Everyday Nationalism: Women of the Hindu Right in India p26 Darkness Shines (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anything missing then make some concrete proposals and discuss it, your question "why does the article not mention.." makes no sense, you are a very experienced editor you know how to make additions to the article. Adding tag because some info which you think is important is not present is not correct, do not add the tag just because you don't like the way it is written.-sarvajna (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is factually incorrect, nor does it maintain a NPOV. Hence the tag. I will fix it but knowing that any fixes will likely be reverted is why I am pointing out the current state of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sure please go ahead and propose your fixes. -sarvajna (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have nothing tangible to propose, then why add a tag DS? Propose what you think should be included and we can discuss and include it. BTW, do not paraphrase use the exact line you wish to include and add sources too. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could asl the same of you. And I am pointing out major issues here, which are the prelude to what I will do to the article Darkness Shines (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your perception of what I am doing at other venues is not really the topic here. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DS, I have reverted your edit for two reasons, 1) You thought that Banerjee committee's verdict is more important than court's verdict, it might not be your intention but looked like that 2) Banerjee committee's report has been declared unconstitutional, illegal and null and void and its formation as a "colourable exercise of power with mala fide intentions" by the courts. -sarvajna (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the BBC, which is already used in the lede. The source used before (which you restored) Rediff. 27 February 2002, and does not even support the statements of fact being made. So you removed a source from 2011 for one from 02 which does not even support the sentence? I am reverting you. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And unsurprisingly I was reverted, as it seems accuracy is now POV. The most recent academic sources say the fire started inside the train. "Subsequent forensic reports indicate that the fire began inside the train" Everyday Nationalism: Women of the Hindu Right in India p26 2011 The Making of India: A Political History "the Ahmadabad-based Forensic Science Laboratory reported that it was impossible for flammable liquid to have been thrown inside" 2012 Darkness Shines (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To claim that the massacre was an accident after the court's verdict is out and people have been given death penalties, it is horrendous POV, read what Ratnakar wrote. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To claim an accident was a massacre after suspect court proceedings is a horrendous POV, I do not care what Ratnakar has written, we are meant to use the most recent and high quality sources available for our articles, you seem to want to ignore them. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DS, I do not want you to care what I say, the most important thing is that the courts on different occassion have said two things 1. The Banerjee committee is unconstitutional, illegal and null and void 2. The burning was a pre planned conspiracy, I will provide a better source in the lead and also I will be removing the POV tag, I initially thought that you had some genuine concern, now I have started to feel that you intention might be disruption.-sarvajna (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you intend to ignore the most recent academic sources? Choose to do so and the POV tag will be there forever. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "most recent academic sources" may be relying on outdated information. There may have been forensic reports (probably ordered by the Banerjee committee) that indicated that the fire began inside the train, but as far as I know, no report claims this after the court verdicts. Can you provide more sources to indicate the dates of these reports? Since the most recent and latest available court judgements indicate that the fire was due to Arson, and most mainstream sources say this, I think the lede should mention only this. Details of other inquiries and conflicting reports can be included in the body, however, also with information about any court judgements against them. - Aurorion (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on this article's lede before - so I may be biased - but I think it is mostly factually correct, NPOV, and overall appropriate. (Two exceptions: the "2000" figure which may not be a widely accepted figure; and IMO the "31 Muslims" should be changed to "31 people" in the last sentence of paragraph 1.) But perhaps the body can be restructured a bit, to give details of all inquiries including the Banerjee Committee (and including court judgements against this committee). But I think the lede reflects the mainstream consensus on this incident. - Aurorion (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already did above, 2011 and 2012. This needs to be reflected in the lede per policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You used a BBC source of 2011, I used a NDTV 2011. -sarvajna (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but aren't those the years of publication of those books? Or do the sources explicitly mention that the reports were from 2011 and 2012? In any case, I think more high quality sources (not sure about the authors of these books) are needed to warrant including this in the lede, considering most mainstream sources seem to believe the version given in the court verdicts.

On the other hand, this source gives some info on the alleged misbehaviour of train passengers which may have provoked the mob (similar to what you mentioned above): "Taking advantage of the alleged misbehaviour by kar sevaks with Muslim girls, the absconding accused Salim Panwala and accused Mehboob Ahmed alias Latiko raised shouts, called Muslim people from the nearby area of Signal Falia, misleading [them] that kar sevaks were abducting Muslim girl from inside the train, and also instructed [them] to stop the train by pulling the chain". However, even if this is to be included, I think it should be in the body only. (The arson and murder is the important issue, the provocation of that - especially something as flimsy as this - is not nearly as important.) Thanks. - Aurorion (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DS, request you to please provide suggestions and try to arrive at consensus before making edits to the lede. Your recent "not proven conclusively" edit is not a suitable addition to the lede in my opinion. Moreover, I am not sure the source actually supports that statement. I think page 1988 of the book you provided talks about family planning and demographics in India, and not about the subject of this article. Thanks. - Aurorion (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fifty-eight killed in attack on Sabarmati Express Source says:

″As the train started moving, someone pulled the emergency chain and it came to a halt near the signal point, where a mob attacked the coaches with petrol and acid bombs, setting them on fire, the official said. Some passengers were trapped inside the coaches and burned to death, he said.

Mahant Devendradasji, the head priest of a temple in Ahmedabad, who was in the train, said: "A few people began stoning the train without any provocation. As a reaction, people inside the coaches downed shutters."

The mahant said the attackers numbered over 2,000.″

--That's an eyewitness's testimony.

The Organiser reported:

In an unprovoked and pre-planned attack over 2000 Muslim goons armed with swords, crude-revolvers, petrol bombs, acid bulbs, knives and hockey sticks, attacked the four bogies of the Sabarmati Express and burnt alive 58 Ramsevaks. --Organiser - Volume 53 - Page 104 (2002)

Hindu Vivek Kendra wrote:

A mob of 2000 Muslims swarmed on this coach with Petrol cans, stones and sticks. They first threw stones on it and as the doors and windows were closed, threw petrol and set the entire coach on fire. Dalits suffered heavily during Gujarat riots

The Hindu reported:

The Nanavati-Mehta judicial inquiry commission has based its conclusion that the Godhra train carnage was a “pre-planned conspiracy” on the recorded evidence of over 100 witnesses, who claimed to having heard a crowd of about a 1,000 Muslims shouting “set the train on fire and kill the Hindus.” The report said “instigating slogans” were also made over loudspeakers from a nearby mosque to attack Hindus. The evidence recorded by the commission also claimed that a mob of Muslims attacked the train and stoned the coaches so heavily that the passengers could not come out. This was to ensure maximum casualties when the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express was “set afire.” The commission, in its 168-page report, said the “conspiracy” was hatched by some local Muslims at the Aman guest house in Godhra the previous night. The conspirators immediately made arrangements for collecting about 140 litres of petrol from a nearby pump on the night of February 26, 2002, the next day when the train arrived in Godhra, Hasan Lala, after forcibly opening the vestibule between coaches S-6 and S-7, entered S-6 and threw burning rags setting it on fire. ——Muslim mob attacked train: Nanavati Commission

‘Sandesh’ daily the report was,

“Today in the morning a monstrous mob of more than 500 having set on fire coaches overcrowded with passengers and more particularly by the Hindu devotees returning after attending Ram Yagna in Ayodhya more than sixty persons were burnt alive.” --Google it up I could not find the link online.

I could not find the link online but ‘Asian Age’ published a report on 28 February 2002 Headline was : “1500-strong mob butchers 57 Ramsevaks on Sabarmati Express”. It read

″As soon as the train stopped a mob of more than 1,500 persons reportedly belonging to a minority community, attacked the passengers travelling in the S-6 coach.″

(My emphases)

I hope you really stepped away from your chicaneries. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 18:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of you guys need to read WP:BRD and try for a bit for D and a lot less R. I have locked the article for 3 days to allow you time to sort out your differences. If you reach a consensus before then, feel free to nudge me or another admin to unlock the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editors are blocked! This protection will be needed when they'll come back! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 19:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those two were not the only ones blind reverting. I'll be happy to consider lifting the prot if its shown that there will be no further revert warring. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few days of protection won't hurt. Tito, if you think there is anything egregious in the article, just drop a note on this talk page. --regentspark (comment) 20:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The following line was recently removed from this article, should it be restored? The source is from an academic publisher and is one of the most recent ones I could find on this incident. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the actual causes of the fire have yet to be proven conclusively.^[3]

• Is there any online preview of the book? --Tito☸Dutta 22:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what part of the world you live in, try this link. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, the linked source doesn't say that the causes of the fire have yet to be conclusively proven. It merely says a fire broke out. Is there a specific sentence that categorically states that the origins of the fire have not been conclusively determined? --regentspark (comment) 01:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The fire was widely understood to have been started by Muslims, although this has never been conclusively proven" is what the source says. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The court passed its judgment in Feb 2011, I do not know whether the author of that source has taken the court's judgment into consideration. -sarvajna (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The most up to date publsihed academic discussion I can find describe the events as follows:-

1. "On February 27, the VHP resolved to begin construction of the Ram Temple. To celebrate the occasion, thousands of karsevaks—Hindu volunteers—converged at the site, including many from Gujarat. Returning back to Ahmedabad, around 2,000 boarded the Sabarmati Express train. As the train reached Godhra railway station in Gujarat, on the morning of February 27, a fierce fire engulfed one coach of the train. The fire claimed fifty-nine lives, mainly karsevaks. Without any investigation, the BJP government immediately issued a press release calling the fire a “pre-planned terrorist attack”; subsequently the government labeled it “inhuman genocide” or “inhuman carnage.”26 In a state where trivial incidents had previously triggered large-scale violence, this was a trigger of immense magnitude, its impact further heightened by inflammatory headlines in the vernacular press. Later investigation refuted the claim of terrorism. The central government’s Ministry of Railways concluded that the fire was accidental.27 Alternatively, and more plausibly, the incident began with an altercation between the karsevaks and Muslim tea vendors at the station, and then escalated when passengers attempted to abduct a Muslim girl; a Muslim crowd then attacked the train.28"^[4]
2. "there are competing versions as to how exactly the fire started in the train bogies. While the Nanavati commission of inquiry (NCI) instated soon after the Gujarat pogrom and completed in 2008 declared that the fire in the train bogies was a premeditated act by Muslim conspirators, the Banerjee commission instated in 2004 questioned the theory of premeditation and called the incident an accident. The latter commission had been ruled illegal by the Gujarat High court in 2006. Both commissions of inquiry are regularly derided as "politically motivated" by respective opposing political constituencies. Uncertainties surrounding the incident remain."^[5] Dlv999 (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Dlv999, the conclusion of the Banerjee commission that the above sources are referring to was quashed by the Courts and the courts ruled that the panel was "unconstitutional, illegal and null and void", and declared its formation as a "colourable exercise of power with mala fide intentions". We cannot use the Banerjee commission's report to claim that the fire might be accidental, however the report is still mentioned in the article. -sarvajna (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition to what Sarvajna wrote above, I would like to clarify, The Nanavati and Mehta Commission report states:

  "The Commission is inclined to take the view that such an incident had, in fact, not happened and probably what Sophiabanu has stated was at the insistence of Salim Panwala who had spread a false rumour. It appears to be an attempt to pass off the false rumour as true," - False alarm was raised to gather a mob near the train: Nanavati report

Furthermore, the newsreport appends,

"This conclusion is important in the context of the conspiracy theory, as it suggests that there was a plan to set the train on fire and a rumour regarding the abduction of a Muslim girl was spread to mobilise a mob near the train. The conspiracy theory would have suffered if the mob had spontaneously reacted to an attempt to abduct a Muslim girl — a version that had found official endorsement in police reports. While the first chargesheet of the case does not mention Panwala and Sophia, they figure in all the 16 supplementary chargesheets filed later."[2]

(my emphases)

There is NO EVIDENCE of any kidnapping. The book by Ghassim Fachandi you quote actually corroborated this (in page 68),

"Some karsevaks, or other travelers, were, it seems, worried that women were abducted. [..] There were no firsthand witnesses to the abduction, and the newspaper cites no evidence other than chatter to support the claim."

This seems that the karsevaks were the ones who were concerned about the abduction as opposed to being complicit in the crime. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't suggested we use the the Banerjee commission report to draw any conclusions. I think that would be interpretation of a primary source that, as editors of Wikipedia, we are prohibited from doing. What I have done is cite very recent high quality academic sources which take into account the Banerjee commission report (also acknowledging it "had been ruled illegal by the Gujarat High court in 2006") as well as other evidence and conclude that "Uncertainties surrounding the incident remain".

As a Wikipedia editor, you shouldn't be drawing any conclusions from court cases or commissions either. The process is to identify high quality sources for the article and represent what they say accurately and without bias. The points on which they agree, we can describe as facts. Where they disagree we describe the points as "significant views". That is the process. Trying to refute what has been written in high quality RS based on your own personal beliefs about the topic is not part of the process. Dlv999 (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that we interpret a primary source, I am saying that the latest sources that you provided are dependant on the Banerjee commission report, I am not drawing any conclusions from the court case but I am considering the court rulings and commenting that the sources are using report which was ruled as illegal. So you want us to consider that source no matter what? Also like I said above the details of Banerjee commission is present in the article. One more point I see that you have removed User:Mrt3366 can I know why you did that. -sarvajna (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not "dependant" on the Banerjee commission report. They take the report into account along with other evidence, including the High Court ruling which declared the Banergee commission to be illegal. This is what we rely on high quality sources to do: to sythesize the evidence and draw conclusions (because we as Wiki editors are not allowed to do it.)

"I am considering the court rulings and commenting that the sources are using report which was ruled as illegal." - Sure and the RS acknowledge that it was ruled illegal and still find that it is relevant as a piece of evidence in the discussion. As published RS, that is their call to make. As Wikipedia editors I don't think it is within our remit to second guess what evidence high quality sources should or should not be considering. We should be identifying the high quality sources and then accurately representing what they say in the article, even if it conflicts with our own personal beliefs about the issues. I think your approach to source analysis is backwards: you are assessing the reliability of the source based on how it conforms with your own personal understanding of the topic and issues surrounding it. Of course there are countless legitimate reasons for questioning the reliability of sources. But I don't think original research/beliefs of individual editors about the topic is one of them.

@Mr T, as I discussed with you at 2002 Gujarat violence, I don't think journalism is a good source for articles about historical events, especially contentious ones such as these. Our policies and guidance (see WP:HISTRS, WP:SOURCES) tell us to base these articles on academic scholarship. I don't think it is legitimate to cite journalism to try to refute better quality academic sources. Regarding Ghassim Fachandi's comment about the kidnapping. That is fine. High quality RS can disagree on points, and in a topic like this they most likely will disagree a lot. Our job is not to try to identify the one "true" narrative, it is to represent all of the significant views that have been published on the topic (even the ones we may personally find unconvincing). Dlv999 (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it was ruled illegal and still find that it is relevant as a piece of evidence in the discussion - A source, IMHO, is not of high-quality if it bases its arguments on down-right illegal and spurious reports while ignoring otherwise relevant conflicts of interests of some of the complainants, witnesses^[3] and accusers^[4].

″I don't think journalism is a good source ″ - Would you care to explain why you think so? "Our job is not to try to identify the one "true" narrative" - stop attacking straw-men. I never argued that our job is to try to identify the one "true" narrative.
"is to represent all of the significant views" - that is what I am telling you all along. Thanks for admitting it. WP:HISTRS is an essay and has not been formally adopted as a guideline or policy. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again we are straying away from the subject here

The subject is actual causes of the fire and the conclusiveness of theories. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Dlv999 As Wikipedia editors I don't think it is within our remit to second guess what evidence high quality sources should or should not be considering : We just cannot use everything that is published, when these sources use illegal report I would not consider them high quality. I am not saying what the source should consider, it is upto the author of that source but when they use wrong reports they become wrong sources.Sure and the RS acknowledge that it was ruled illegal and still find that it is relevant as a piece of evidence in the discussion Like I said again and again we have mentioned about those reports in the article (This might be the third time I am telling this, please check the article).I think your approach to source analysis is backwards: you are assessing the reliability of the source based on how it conforms with your own personal understanding of the topic and issues surrounding it I am sure every editor needs to have some understanding about the subject he/she is editing, let us not question each other's personal beliefs here. Comment on the content if you want. Lastly I understand that you think that Banerjee commission report, it is very much included in the article. -sarvajna (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]