Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:16, 9 June 2013

India: Gujarat B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages'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).

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

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

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages? 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: 3 months

Name of the article

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Valid concerns that the proposed name is sensationalist and WP:NPOV. Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Godhra train burning → Godhra train massacre
or,
Godhra train burning → Godhra train violence
– Common usage and other reasons stated below. Note: The renaming discussion has already started before this procedural formalities took place. Hence including the move template in the same discussion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Should the name of the article be, Godhra train burning or Godhra train Massacre. The whole conspiracy by the Islamist Mob has been proven in the court. I think we should move this.--sarvajna (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Rationale

I think any other suitable name would be more accurate than this "train burning". Mr T 08:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree. It was still a burning. WP is not a tabloid, it does not need sensationalist headlines. Plus, there was an official government inquiry which, even though probably overruled by other judicial authorities, declared the whole thing to be an accident. The article mentions this, but still the overall tone of the article says that the burning was due to arson by radical Islamist mobs. The current title is in my opinion NPOV, and should remain so. Aurorion (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A comparison using Google searches: "godhra train burning": 530,000 hits; "godhra train massacre": 57,700 hits; "godhra train carnage": 299,000 hits. The web overwhelmingly favor "godhra train burning".

Google Trends shows that "Godhra Train Burning" has always been a more popular search phrase than the other two. Academic sources on Google Scholar and JSTOR also heavily favor the current title "Godhra train burning". All these show that "Godhra train burning" is the WP:COMMONNAME and hence should be retained.

However, Google book searches throw a different trend (the only exception): 492 results for "godhra train burning", only 89 results for "godhra train massacre", and 1010 results for "godhra train carnage". But in recent times (2010 and after) "Godhra train burning" is much more common here too: 120 results, against just 1 for "Godhra train carnage". So it looks like "Godhra train carnage" may have been a common name in books earlier, but now is outdated and "Godhra train burning" is much more favored now. Aurorion (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Things that have been overruled by judicial authority has no value, look at the naming of other articles, Gulberg Society Massacre, Naroda Patiya Massacre. -sarvajna (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support a rename to "Godhra Train Violence" or "Godhra Train Massacre" or "Godhra Train carnage". We don't need to use euphemism for this massacre. It is a gross insult for the victims of this heinous crime.

Although usage of different terms in the media to refer to this massacre of Hindu pilgrims matters not a damn after it was established in a court of law that it was a communal mob that was responsible for the carnage, I have provided multiple sources (I doubt majority of Indian sources fall into this category) to prove that even the so-called words like "massacre", or "killings", or "carnage" are not even the least bit uncommon when referring to this dreadful incident. I think any other name would be more accurate than this "train burning".

The name used for referring to the 2002 riot does allude to violence as in 2002 Gujarat violence. There is no ambiguity that violence was the main highlight of that incident. Misplaced Pages doesn't refer to the incident in Gulberg as "2002 Gulberg house burning" or "2002 Gulberg destruction of property" even though houses were burnt; properties were destroyed, it refers to it as "Gulbarg Society massacre", hence it's only fair that we refer to this incident (the Godhra train carnage) as ″Godhra train violence″ not ″Godhra train burning″. Besides, it was a Massacre, Murder, Killing inside a train, not merely incineration of a train compartment. Violence is the main identifier of this incident also. To say it was Godhra Train Burning is very misleading and deceptive. Per WP:COMMONNAME "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources."
(my emphasis)

BBC : Godhra train massacre

Asianews: Godhra train massacre

DAWN: Godhra Train carnage

Zee news: Godhra train carnage

The Hindu Godhra Train carnage

Business-standard: Godhra train carnage

Oneindia news: Godhra train carnage

Rediff: Godhra Train carnage

Times of India : Godhra Train carnage

DNAINDIA: Godhra Train carnage

Hindu business line : Godhra Train carnage

Indiatvnews: Godhra Train carnage

deccan herald : Godhra train carnage

Dailypioneer: Godhra train carnage / Godhra train inferno

Indianexpress: Godhra train carnage

India Today: Godhra train carnage

I hope it makes it clear that the act of referring to it as "Train Burning" is a mockery of the real deadliness of this violent incident. Mr T 08:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Post script

Google Book hits:

"godhra train burning": 492,

"godhra train massacre": 89

"godhra train carnage": 1010.

Clarification: I would just like to add, prior to the conviction of Muslim conspirators and criminals, this incident was referred to as train Burning. That's why there may be some outdated or partisan sources which still refer to it as train burning but it has been proved that it was a conspiracy to massacre Hindus by Muslims and multiple people were given death penalties for it.

Google Hits for Godhra Train Carnage: 205,000.Mr T 08:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Syed Wamiq Ahmed Hashmi wrote, "Muslims would like to refer to it as an ‘accident’ or a ‘tragedy’, whereas Hindus would like to call it a ‘massacre’ or a ‘holocaust’. Why not keep the third neutral alternative ‘burning’?" - seems very close to a negotiation in the market. The "votes" should be counted on there own merits basing on policy. I would have thought that the current title was honestly indefensible but some portions of wiki-community always manage to startle me. The arbitrary "votes" in this type of discussions are what render the whole process of building consensus properly dysfunctional. Mr T 07:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This is by far the more common name is journalistic usage.Pectore 00:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support "Godhra Train Massacre" or "Godhra Train Carnage". They are more "to the point" and descriptive. The present title is misleading.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Godhra Train Carnage. That is how the incident is referred. Their main target was the pilgrims and not the train. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 12:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The incident itself was a train burning or train carnage. To call it a massacre would be, as Aurorion points out, heading into sensationalist territory. Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid. To call this a "massacre" while a similiar article, 2002 Gujarat violence, is not called anything more than that, shows bias and moreover the fact that a spade is not being called a spade. Mar4d (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I know you don't live in India, and that you may not be cognizant of all the info. But I am happy to see you at least acknowledge that it was a carnage. You ought to know that it was provably a conspiracy by some people to massacre and target Hindu Pilgrims that day. It has been proven in court. There are scores of reliable sources that have reported it, people have been given even death penalties for it. In light of all these do you really believe that to call it "train" burning would be objectively accurate and neutral? Yes, "massacre" may not sound like the right word, it is possible. But that's why we are here. You may propose another alternative to the current title and then the closing admin will hopefully choose the name which has the best argument behind it. But you can't possibly support the current name, or do you? Mr T 06:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Academic sources overwhelmingly refer to this as an "Incident" or "Burning" Also this source says "At the time, it was widely reported that the blaze, which killed 59 passengers, had been caused by Muslims; it has since been suggested that it may have been an accident." Darkness Shines (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The article you quoted says that at that time it was suggested (past tense). Even I concede at one point it was suggested that it was an accident but new developments show that it was not an accident, it was a case of arson to murder Hindu Pilgrims, did you not read anything I wrote above? How can you deny that "train Burning" is deceptive when referring to this incident of mass-murder? WOW! Mr T 08:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

MrT, you seem to have read that article backwards. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow what an apt rebuttal, it's hard to claim that I didn't expect something like this from you. You sometimes are exceptionally neutral, so neutral that others think you ought to be banned (no kidding!) and sometimes you seem so far from being neutral that it's hard to assume that you're the same person. I am not making any sense to you maybe, but your attempts puzzle me. They really do. I thought of you as a reasonable person, what happened to that person? Chicanery after chicanery, what is this?
Do you really doubt that it was a mass-murder? Do you really doubt that it was far more than just "train burning" after everything has been proven in court and the verdict is out? Is this a joke? 58 helpless Hindu pilgrims, including women and children, were locked up and burned to death and we call it "train burning", we don't even have the decency to refer to it as "train violence"? Mr T 09:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Please keep comments in a chronological order, it is why we have indents. My response was entirely apt as it is entirely correct, you have that article ass backwards. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr. T, please avoid getting too worked up over Misplaced Pages discussions. Please see WP:Article titles. Misplaced Pages does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. "Godhra train violence" does not seem to be a frequently used name for this incident - if you disagree, please provide sufficient justification. As I mentioned in my comment above, I believe "Godhra train burning" is the most commonly used name. Perhaps there can be a case made for "Godhra train carnage", but definitely not "Godhra train massacre" as in the RM proposal or "Godhra train violence" as you suggest. Please assume that other editors' comments are made in good faith, avoid getting emotional over issues that you may passionately identify with. Aurorion (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Please keep comments in an order, when you reply to me you're expected to comment below my proposal/comment/remarks, not Aurorion's comment (which has been separated by an asterisk '*'). Aurorion, please avoid guessing, focus on the content, not the editor. Mr T 10:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Google Scholar results favor "Godhra train burning": 58 results against 6 results for "Godhra train massacre" and 21 results for "Godhra train carnage".

So, the general Google search as well as Google Scholar search favor (overwhelmingly) "Godhra train burning". Google Books search favors "Godhra train carnage". "Godhra train massacre" is very infrequently used. I think the current title, "Godhra train burning", satisfies WP:COMMONNAME.

"Godhra train massacre" in the proposal is overly sensationalist and is rarely used to describe the incident. - Aurorion (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: It was not a genocide, or a planned massacre. It was just a part of a terrorist procedure. Why are not all terrorist activities termed as "Massacre"? Faizan 13:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: The article title is not intended to be a sensational newspaper headline. It is to be a nuetral title describing the main thing in the event. No doubt, the Muslims who actually committed the crime of burning people alive (the worst form of punishment in Islam: Muslims are forbidden to kill anyone by burning; being described as the form of punishment used by God for sinners in Hell) were totally out of their minds, but being too sentimental is no good. Muslims would like to refer to it as an ‘accident’ or a ‘tragedy’, whereas Hindus would like to call it a ‘massacre’ or a ‘holocaust’. Why not keep the third neutral alternative ‘burning’? —Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ 14:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"It is to be a nuetral title describing the main thing in the event. " - and you think calling it "train burning" is neutral? What's wrong with you? Is it the highlight of the event? Nope. The "main thing", as you call it, is that there were 58-60 helpless Hindu Pilgrims who were burned to death. Mr T 08:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: As I mentioned above, both general Google search and Google Scholar/JSTOR searches heavily favor the usage of "Godhra train burning" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) to describe this incident. Additionally, Google Trends shows that this term has been used by most people all through its history, including recently, after the court judgements some editors mentioned above. Hence, I think it satisfies WP:COMMONNAME.

The alternative suggested in the original proposal, "Godhra train massacre" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), is not used widely at all. "Godhra train violence" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), another suggestion, is very rarely used: just 400-odd Google results.

Another suggestion given, "Godhra train carnage" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) gives more results only on Google Books, but I don't think that alone is enough to warrant a renaming over the current title.

In addition to being WP:COMMONNAME, the current title also is more neutral. Hence I think it should be retained, until it is proved that another name is more widely used to refer to this incident. - Aurorion (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "the current title also is more neutral." - neutral? The title is clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME which actually says, "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Clearly, clarity takes precedence over common usage. Besides, it was proved in a court of law that this was a massacre carried out of by fanatic Muslims, and still you say this vague name is neutral, wow! This makes me wonder, do you even know what "neutrality" means? Taking the liberty to speak forthrightly, subjective comments like these are what render the whole process of building consensus futile. This is all I can say. Thank you. Mr T 10:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Godhra train burning" is neither "ambiguous" nor "inaccurate". Fire definitely was involved in the incident, wasn't it? "Burning" is perfectly clear, there is no lack of clarity in it. It is not "vague". Burning has one single dominant meaning in English, and this incident definitely was a burning. Did the court of law rule that "massacre" is the official, technical term for the incident? "Godhra train burning" is the most widely used name to refer to the incident, including in scholarly sources, which are not known for ambiguity or inaccuracies or vagueness. "Godhra train massacre" is *much* less used. - Aurorion (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Utter baloney! "Godhra train burning" is absolutely "ambiguous" and "inaccurate". Murder of Hindu pilgrims was definitely the highlight of the incident, wasn't it? 'Train burning' is not even close to the most accurate descriptor, the "train" was only a collateral damage in that incident, the main target was Hindu pilgrims (Kar sevaks). Hence, "Train burning" is not at all clear, there is not a vestige of clarity in it. This needless focus on the "train" in the article title and not the helpless Victims who were ruthlessly murdered in that incident is unfair. It is indeed "vague". If Misplaced Pages were to refer to the incident in Gulberg as "2002 Gulberg house burning" or "2002 Gulberg destruction of property" instead of "Gulbarg Society massacre", basing on the fact that houses were burnt; properties were destroyed, would it be fair? Nope. Hence it's only fair that we refer to this incident (the Godhra train carnage) as ″Godhra train violence″ not ″Godhra train burning″.
  Prior to the conviction of the murderers and arsonists, this incident was referred to as train Burning. That's why there may be some outdated or partisan sources which still refer to it as "Godhra train burning" as opposed to more apt descriptions as "Godhra Train violence" or "Godhra Train Carnage". Mr T 16:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• The train was burned, and the incident took place in Godhra, so the name looks very accurate to me. And since there are no other famous train burnings (arson or other) that have taken place in Godhra, it is unambiguous too. "Murder of Hindu pilgrims" may have been the result of the incident, but it took place as a result of the burning of the train, which definitely took place. So again, I think it is perfectly unambiguous, accurate, and clear. And apparently, most secondary sources (including news media and academic sources) seem to agree.

"Prior to the conviction of the murderers and arsonists, this incident was referred to as train Burning. That's why there may be some outdated or partisan sources which still refer to it as "Godhra train burning" as opposed to more apt descriptions as "Godhra Train violence" or "Godhra Train Carnage".": This is an interesting claim, but it seems to be utterly false. Most sources still continue to refer to this incident as "Godhra train burning" even after the court ruling in 2011. For example, searching for the period starting 2012, Google Scholar gives 6 results for "Godhra train burning". ZERO for any of the other three alternatives proposed here. Even on Google Search, the results for "Godhra train burning" after March 2011 is greater than the results for the three proposed alternatives - COMBINED. A search on Google Trends will show that this is the same for Google searches too. And guess what - this is the case for Google Books as well! So your argument is without any evidence.

About Gulbarg Society massacre: if you think some other name is the WP:COMMONNAME for this incident, please initiate an RM for that article. I think that phrase is the most commonly used name for that incident, so I think that name is fine. We don't invent technically correct names here on Misplaced Pages, in most cases, we just adopt the most commonly used, correct names. "Godhra train burning" definitely satisfies this, and "Gulbarg Society massacre" probably does too: you can investigate if you wish. - Aurorion (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This amount of banal sophistry worries me.
"And since there are no other famous train burnings (arson or other) that have taken place in Godhra, it is unambiguous too. " - nope. It doesn't work that way. It has to be clear in its own merit, not the possibility of the presence of other tragic incident. The title indicates what the article is about. No amount of needless vociferation would be enough to obfuscate this.
The subject of the article is far more than mere destruction of the train. Misplaced Pages often avoids a common name for lacking clarity and neutrality in an event where a more accurate and equally common alternative exists. I know you'll leave a lengthy comment right this one but it won't make a any difference to my stance. If you say it's okay to label a deadly incident like a massacre on a train as merely "train burning" and then try to frame it as "accurate", well, then I do not know what neutrality means to you nor do I care. Mr T 19:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr T, plenty of academic papers (including those published after court judgements confirming arson as cause) using the current title to describe the incident (compared to few, if any, using the other alternatives under discussion) shows that a lot of intelligent people think it is clear enough, not to mention accurate and unambiguous. The current title shows exactly what the incident is about. Next someone else might argue (like regentspark says below) that "Godhra train massacre" sounds like a train got massacred in Godhra, hence the article should be renamed as "Kar Sevak murder" or some other random name - but Misplaced Pages articles are not named according to everyone's whims and fancies. Burning on a train, which is what it was, can well be called "train burning". I know this comment will not make any difference to your stance - this is well clear from your highly passionate comments above. But the fact of the matter is, most sources (academic as well as others) refer to the incident as "Godhra train burning" - and this includes recent sources, published after court judgements on the related cases. There is no case to be made that any other name is the common name for this incident. - Aurorion (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a comprehension problem? Arson means "crime of deliberately setting fire to property" (oxford 1994).

1. The title isn't "Godhra train arson",
2. the train was not the target the court has also established that pretty clearly,
3. Hindu pilgrims were the only target, they were locked from outside then fuel (over 60 litres of petrol along with acid bombs) was poured over to the coaches which were carrying the pilgrims and they were burned to death, some beyond recognition. That's more of a people burning than train burning. Since when is a train more valuable than numerous passengers it was carrying?
4. A good many people were given death penalties for conspiring to kill those pilgrims, why would they do that if it had been an accident? huh? Why?
5. The phrase 'train burning' is narrowly focusing on the train, while shunning the real identifier of the incident that is murder of Hindu pilgrims out of communal vengeance.

If the closing admin doesn't see these then shame on the whole enterprise. Mr T 07:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a comprehension problem? The fire took place in a train. Just because people were harmed doesn't mean it was not arson. And calling it a train burning does NOT imply that people were not harmed. As I mentioned above, does "train massacre" mean that the train was massacred, and people were not? So then even "Godhra train massacre" would be incorrect according to that logic, and it should be called "Godhra people massacre" or something like that! How silly is that?! How does "burning" imply that it was an accident? Before accusing others of having a comprehension problems, please examine your own faulty logic.

— Aurorion (07:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)

Calling it a "train burning" is vague, at best, because it does NOT imply that people were murdered. That's the problem it doesn't describe the actual reality of the situation. BTW, although it shouldn't matter but if you think "Godhra train massacre" is grammatically incorrect then I suggest you go consult with the writers/editors of hundreds of those news reports that use the exact same phrase. Mr T 08:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you do not understand the meaning of "vague". The title need not imply that there were casualties. There are several other WP articles of similar incidents (arson fires with casualties) with similar names: Happy Land fire, Pionirska Street fire, El Encanto fire, Primavalle Fire, Cinema Rex fire, 2000 Dharmapuri bus burning, 1979 U.S. embassy burning in Islamabad, Savoy Hotel fire. And I don't think "Godhra train massacre" is incorrect, but by the kind of logic you are saying, it definitely seems to me that it is just as incorrect as "Godhra train burning". And since you have a problem with the "vagueness" or "ambiguity", or "accuracy" of "Godhra train burning", you can consult with the writers/editors of thousands of news reports (far more than those using "Godhra train massacre"), plus the academics and researchers who authored the large number of academic papers. - Aurorion (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Putting your comments in bold will not automatically improve the sense of your argument. You have absolutely no valid argument to support a rename to "Godhra train massacre", when that name is not a commonly used name for the incident in the real world. As I mentioned above, Misplaced Pages does not invent technical or legal names for incidents, we just use the most commonly used correct names in the real world. And in this instance, I have demonstrated above that "Godhra train burning" is by far the most commonly used name for this incident, including in peer-reviewed academic sources, which are not likely to use incorrect or biased or misleading information, and including recent sources. A vast majority of these sources find "Godhra train burning" an accurate, clear and neutral enough name to describe this incident. Just because you think it is not clear or accurate or whatever, doesn't mean that the title should be changed.

— Aurorion (07:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)

You blindly keep on harping on your usual patter. Read WP:COMMONNAME for a change, it favours a clear phrase over an inaccurate, garbled title. If Google book hits are to be trusted as any indicator of popularity of the titles, "Godhra train burning" is neither accurate nor the most commonly used name for this incident; "Godhra train carnage" is.

My stance is that any suitable title would be better than the current one. Mr T 08:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I just keep emphasising the rules and evidence; and you keep harping on your silly emotional arguments with no or faulty logic. You are right that Google Books is one of the trusted indicators of popularity of titles; and by most trusted indicators of popularity of titles (including Google search, Google Trends, Google Scholar, JSTOR, etc.), "Godhra train burning" is both the most accurate and the most commonly used name for this incident. Your stance of "any suitable title" is rubbish: you even suggested a name which has all of 400 hits on Google, to replace a name which has over a hundred times more. - Aurorion (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The closing admin has to be concerned about Misplaced Pages rules, not about random people's comments about shame on the enterprise or whatever. The Misplaced Pages guidelines clearly favor the current name, "Godhra train burning". Getting emotionally worked up in discussions to push your own biased POV won't work. - Aurorion (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"The closing admin has to be concerned about Misplaced Pages rules, not about random people's comments" - thank you for echoing my view this time. Mr T 08:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. - Aurorion (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (events) clearly says "if there is an established, universally agreed-upon common name for an event, use that name." I think my comment above demonstrates that the current article title ("Godhra train burning" satisfies this. The current title also describes where the incident happened, and what happened (yes, it was a burning, and it was in a train). These descriptors are sufficient to identify the event unambiguously, since there are no other similar events that can be described using this name.

The section on maintaining NPOV provides clear guidelines on when strong words such as "massacre" can be used: and IMO this incident does not satisfy them, since "Godhra train burning" is the common name. - Aurorion (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

But I guess, in your opinion, Gulbarg Society massacre, Dabgarwad Massacre (i.e. an event of burning down of a single mother Maniben’s home in Ahmedabad, India, on June 9, 1985.) and Naroda Patiya massacre do satisfy the criteria to use such a strong word as "massacre"? This is the bias.

59 hindus are burned alive, that is not a strong reason for using ′massacre′ in the title, it should be downplayed with an utterly deceptive name "train burning", whereas one single mother’s home in Ahmedabad is burned down it's rightaway branded as a "massacre". WOW! When hindus do it, it's "Massacre", but when Muslims do heinous things however much fatal it may be, "massacre", or "carnage" they are just "strong" words that must be avoided at all cost. Mr T 08:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I mentioned earlier, if you have a problem with the titles of other articles, please initiate RMs for those, and I will be happy to provide my opinions there if you wish. If, for those articles, those phrases (with "massacre", etc.) are the common names, then those should be the article titles, as the WP guidelines clearly state. Here "Godhra train burning" is the common name, and there is not enough evidence to suggest otherwise.

Misplaced Pages is not the place where zealots of any religion can push their POVs. Before you accuse others of bias, please tone down the religious rhetoric in your posts. - Aurorion (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:UCN. Also, the proposed title is grammatically incorrect. The train was burned, not massacred. --regentspark (comment) 18:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

WOW! Grammar is incorrect, that is the reason you pick? Wow! Mr T 19:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read my oppose. The reason is UCN. Grammar is a secondary issue and would not be a problem if that were the common name. --regentspark (comment) 19:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you be in favour of a neutral and descriptive phrase as the title? (cf. WP:NDESC) If so, can you tell me what would that phrase look like? Mr T 19:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. Per policy, we use the common name and don't search for some artificial and subjective construct like 'neutral name' unless there is no common name. As ample evidence above shows, "Godhra train burning" is the common name. --regentspark (comment) 19:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. WP:UCN asks us to avoid non-neutral vague names that don't describe the topic clearly. You're an experienced editor, at least you seem to be, you should know that. I am asking, would you be in favour of a neutral and descriptive phrase as the title? Mr T 07:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Mrt, Godhra train burning is (1) the common name (2) describes the topic clearly (3) is descriptive (4) is neutral. We deviate from UCN only if there is a good reason to do so and I don't see any here. --regentspark (comment) 09:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The current title is commonly used and is neutral. Imc (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Deleted sentence

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.

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)

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)

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)

Factual accuracy

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 09:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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 07:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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 10:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

Your perception of what I am doing at other venues is not really the topic here. Mr T 10:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

1. "Godhra verdict: 31 convicted in Sabarmati Express burning case". The Times Of India. 22 February 2011. Retrieved 24 February 2011.
2. Burke, Jason (22 February 2011). "Godhra train fire verdict prompts tight security measures". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 24 February 2011.

• B-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• B-Class Gujarat articles
• Mid-importance Gujarat articles
• B-Class Gujarat articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject Gujarat articles
• WikiProject India articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Mid-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Selected anniversaries (February 2012)