Talk:Naroda Patiya massacre/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Persecution by Hindus

Sdmarathe, you are editing to make a point, which is sanctionable behavior. A very large number of sources in this articles mention that the perpetrators were Hindu, including footnote d (five refs), Paul Brass, Wilkinson, Dobhal, and several more. There is not a single source disputing it. You are engaged in a tit-for-tat removal because of your issues with the Godhra incident page. If you have issues with that page, take it to that talk. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 The perpetrators were Hindus - but there is no consensus this was a persecution by Hindus. It was rather a criminal act that was investigated and convicted by the judicial system. As far as your mention of Godhra, another criminal act, was investigated and convicted by the judicial system. Perpetrators in Naroda were Hindus and perpetrators in Godhra were Muslims - so yes - there are similarities. That is what I intended to state that Naroda incident was not a persecution by Hindus - rather criminal act by some Hindus. --Sdmarathe (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The comparison is incorrect. There are no sources disputing the identity of the perpetrators here; there are plenty, in the Godhra case. Please self-revert immediately. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Aside from POV sources, are there any NPOV sources that suggest perpetrators in Godhra were other than I suggested? I am asking for peer reviewed NPOV sources. thanks --Sdmarathe (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as comparisons are concerned - they are extremely accurate. Both incidents involve killing of innocents by each religious group. --Sdmarathe (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

If we have reliable sources that use the term "persecution," I think that would settle the issue. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I don't think that will settle it. SD wishes to label the Godhra train burning incident "persecution by Muslims." When that category was removed, he removed "persecution by Hindus" from this one, in a clear case of editing to make a point. The sources are very clear in this case, and so there isn't really a dispute here. SD, the Godhra page is irrelevant here. Keep your arguments to this page, and this incident. There are sources aplenty; Mahadevia, Darshini. "Communal space over life space: saga of increasing vulnerability in Ahmedabad." Economic and Political Weekly, refers to "such a persecution of one community, from among the Hindus, especially the educated middle classes." Kumar, Manasi. "Politics of exclusion and social marginalization of Muslims in India: case study of Gujarat." International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, talks about persecution of Muslims, and how Naroda Patiya was an example. There really is not argument here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3 If I see a consensus of reliable sources using the term Persecution "of" Muslims "by" Hindus, I can agree. From what I see, persecution by Hindus is quite a loaded term to be used in this regard when actions of some individuals is being labeled as persecution by majority. Persecution is usually valid when it is extremely widespread , e.g. persecution of Rohingya muslims in Myanmar, persecution of Christians/Muslim sects by ISIS, persecution of Hindus/Sikhs in Pakistan, persecution of coptic christians in Egypt, persecution of Muslims and Christians in Sudan. The article was attached two categories, "persecution of muslims" and "persecution by Hindus". In my view, "persecution of muslims" in case of Naroda and "persecution of Hindus" in case of Godhra are valid comparisons. Cheers! --Sdmarathe (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Vanamonde93 - We had this talk ongoing - and you reverted me while it was in session. Not cool. --Sdmarathe (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted you when it became clear that you are editing to make a point, and are not interested in the substance of this discussion. Reliable sources have been provided, on this talk page and in the body of the article, and you have not refuted these. Not a single source exists which denies that a number of Muslims were massacred by Hindus, and you have made no attempt to provide such. Therefore, the category stands. Do not bring up the Godhra incident again; that is utterly irrelevant. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Substance of discussion is - you provided sources that reportedly support Massacre and not a persecution of Muslims by Hindus. Additionally, the Godhra incident is EXTREMELY relevant considering it was a flash point for Naroda to begin with. Your logic defies common sense when you support both- persecution of muslims and persecution By Hindus while labeling Naroda while turning a blind eye on Godhra. You have also violated by reverting me while talk was in progress. --Sdmarathe (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah I see, so as I suspected, you haven't read the sources. There are hundreds of sources calling Naroda Patiya a massacre. I listed specific ones which call it an example of persecution. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I read your examples. The sources specifically Manasi Kumar's - talk about ethnic riots and Hindu Muslim clashes. It does talk about marginalization of Muslim community but does not talk about persecution of muslims by hindus. Oh and case in point, the very same article talks about how Godhra incident started it - "The particular riots under focus here are the 2002 Gujarat riots that started in the town of Godhra with the burning of the Sabarmati express train.". the very same incident you are trying to put under rugs when I call out similarities --Sdmarathe (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

She describes the persecution of Muslims during the 2002 Gujarat riots. Godhra is irrelevant here because it is a different page. If you wish to make changes to it, discuss them there, not here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have yet to see an attribution of this incident as persecution of muslims by Hindus in at least her article. 2002 riots has a page of its own - and that has already been tagged as such - what is your point? --Sdmarathe (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You have multiple reliable sources referring to this as an example of persecution (which is a mild term, given that there was rape and murder involved). I am not interested in further discussion; take it to DRN, if you are interested in pursuing it further. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

SO you can edit war but not discuss this. interesting. You reverted me twice fyi while talk was pending. Persecution of Muslims by Hindus was never characterized in those aforemention RS. Furthermore, you failed to see similarities between Godhra and Naroda - and even went on to suggest POV articles that is unfortunate --Sdmarathe (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see a reliable source labelling it "persecution." Until such a source is produced, I suggest that we leave out the categorisation. I think it was added by some drive-by editor sometime. It wasn't there originally. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I completely agree with "massacre" and "Anti-Muslim violence in India" but not the "persecution" categorization. --Sdmarathe (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, the sources provided above discuss it as an example of persecution. They refer to the 2002 violence as persecution, and Naroda as an example thereof. Perhaps it was added by a drive-by editor, but if the category is legitimate at all, it applies here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The category does not apply since there do not appear to be consensus in NPOV RS that label Naroda as a persecution "of" Muslims "By" Hindus. If you notice I object to Persecution "By Hindus" flag. An alleged incident by one small group does not imply "persecution" "of" and definitely not "by" the whole group of section of people. --Sdmarathe (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That argument makes no sense. Does "persecution of Muslims" refer to every single muslim? Of course not! "Category: Persecution by Hindus" simply means that it was part of a pattern of persecution, in which the persecutors were Hindu. And I'm not sure I like the "alleged incident" part of your statement, because it suggests that you believe the incident itself did not happen. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The same can be said about Godhra incident - which you have in past blamed it on HIndus (I could cite your diffs for that). All I have done is paint the two incidents in same brush where one community has massacred the other. You are nit picking and calling one persecution and the other as alleged incident. My reference to the alleged incident is related to persecution - not the massacre itself. You on the other hand believe Godhra was not persecution or massacre rather an inside job even after due process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdmarathe (talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You are just proving once again that you have not read scholarly sources on the subject. court decisions matter not a whit. Scholars still dispute the origins of the Godhra train burning; there is no dispute here. I have no interest in restarting that debate, especially when your position has no policy basis. Take the issue to DRN, or drop it and move on. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You have once again failed to prove the persecution "of" Muslims "by" Hindus via NPOV RS and instead keep on nitpicking. See above! Stop reverting my edits before taking to Talk page. --Sdmarathe (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Mention muslim mob in Godhra train burning case

I added "muslim mob burnt the train" qouting several news articles of judgement of Court where in total 31 Muslims are convicted for this case and several are absconding, so if 30+ people are getting convicted for this incident then why we can not term it as a mob? Sanjay mouse (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)