Talk:Sanjiv Bhatt

Revert

I came to the article owing to a BLP vio addition, but I found that the article had some copyvio issues as well as a lot of non-neutral additions. I've reverted to an earlier version. —SpacemanSpiff 10:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

written like an ad

The article is well sourced but its written like an advertisement. There are lot of POV issues. I can start to clean up if no one objects sarvajna (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I was in the process of cleaning up and had tagged it as such, but anons keep reverting. I've now sent it to WP:RFPP and will continue to do my stuff. Of course, that doesn't prevent you from doing things also. - Sitush (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Please do. Sitush has been trying, but a few IP editors are insisting on adding much unsourced and rather laudatory text to the page. I have warned and reported 122.169.25.117 (talk · contribs) for wp:3RR violation. --220 of ^Borg 09:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of Modi's profile in this article

Sitush had reverted my edit of removing the details mentioned about Modi this. Not sure why Sitush feels that it is necessary to mention about Modi and his association in this page. sarvajna (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Because we need to put into context why it is that Bhatt might be prepared to put his job & life on line to make what might otherwise seem (to a reader unfamiliar with the subject) a fairly outlandish accusation. It is one or two sentences and so hardly undue weight. Sure, BJP/RSS types are probably going to dislike it being mentioned but that is just tough. This is a very politicised situation and the reader needs to know that. - Sitush (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the sentence Modi is a member of the BJP and has long-time connections with the right-wing Hindutva Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh organisation.. is that it gives an impression that because Modi is from BJP/RSS he asked officials to be "indifferent" towards rioters. I feel its a POV. Do you have any source to prove why Bhatt is prepared to put his job and life on line? or any reference to prove that Bhatt is prepared to put his job and life on line because Modi is associated with BJP/RSS? sarvajna (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

People can read into it what ever they wish. It is a statement of fact. Modi is a senior figure involved in movements that aggressively promote an anti-Muslim/pro-Hindu stance & (in the case of the RSS) have been accused of paramilitarism etc. The article concerns allegations of his complicity in anti-Muslim riots. Are those allegations proven? No. Is your original reason for removal ("This article is not about Modi") justfied? No. Can we find sources that tie the allegations to his political opinions? Yes, although it could be argued that in later years he has shifted his position. Eg: this, this and this. Feel free to go running to Yogesh and those Wikipedians who support the BJP/RSS etc, but right now I see no reason to remove the content. - Sitush (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I need not run anywhere to anyone, if they feel the need for editing they would pitch in, you say so much about Modi and RSS and all that has nothing to do with the article in question, if you have some personal problem with BJP/RSS go and vent your anger somewhere else not here. If it is a statement of fact then it doesn't belong here go and put it on Modi's page not here. Provide some good justification for this addition.This article deals with allegations of Modi's involvement in anti-muslim riots which is very much mentioned in the first line of the article itself(not just first line, the article completely deals with the same matter), do not give undue weightiness to Modi's association with some organization. sarvajna (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

We could always take it to WP:3O, but there is probably no point until the rewrite is complete because the waters are muddied until then. And, believe me, there is plenty of support for the rewrite. I am working as quickly as I can, and from the perspective of someone who has absolutely no connection with India, its politics or its religious communities. - Sitush (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sitush do take your time, may be we can go for WP:3O or try to arrive at consensus in some other way. Even I am for the clean up and if you have noticed I have not made any edits to the article after you message on my talk page. Please do let me know once you are done. Thanks sarvajna (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. This is only the 2nd or 3rd time that I have used the {{underconstruction}} etc templates. I do not care for them because they can imply ownership, especially for someone who gets as much opposition as I do. However, when sorting out something as poor as this there is little doubt that the task is made much harder if the target is also moving. - Sitush (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Source dump

Dumping "Narendra Modi said let Hindus vent anger, cop tells SC". Hindustan Times. 22 April 2011. Retrieved 2012-01-18. here for now. I removed it as not supporting the statement to which it was appended, but it may yet have a use elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

DGP link

I know that a lot of DGPs have their own articles. Can anyone track down one for K. Chakrabarthy? It is evident from the sources that no-one can agree on the transliteration of his name. - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

its also spelled as K. Chakravarthi, check this out Gujarat ex-DGP refutes Sanjiv Bhatt’s claim. Not sure about his article on wikipedia sarvajna (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had seen that and it formed part of my "no-one can agree" point. The same problem arises with Jaffri/Jafri/Jaffery, but I found Ehsan Jafri and created some redirects. - Sitush (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

NMC

I am trying to work out if the N-M Commission hearings were in open or closed session. The news reports vary in how they present the information, and we are using a lot of relatively poor news sources. Can anyone supply an answer? - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

They were closed session, Jafri had to approach court to get the final report sarvajna (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I know that was the case for the SIT but we do not even have a source that says the final N-MC report has been produced. Is there such a thing out there somewhere?

There is a really big BLP problem coming up if they were closed sessions & the report has not been published: basically, we'll have to delete most of the stuff relating to N-MC because (a) the media reports are clearly unreliable; (b) they are clearly being used by Bhatt to further his position (practically everything cited is from Bhatt's POV, which is ridiculous); and (c) there are multiple BLP violations going on. - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The closure report is available at CJP. Not sure whether CJP can be considered a RS or not sarvajna (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

CJP were a party to Jaffri's action, so they are not independent. Furthermore, the report is a primary source. We need news stories citing the report etc, which as far as I am aware only exist for the SIT one, not the Nanavati-Mehta commission. That was a nice find, though! - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, and in any event, those reports are the ones produced by the SIT & amicus. What I am talking about is the N-M commission. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that I can do no more until Sunday evening. The article is better but still needs a fair amount of work. - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

other news and update

I feel that the section titled "Other News and Updates" should be renamed or the content be merged with other sections.sarvajna (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the plan. As you know, I am finding myself a bit distracted today (and yesterday wasn't much better!). Are any further deletions necessary? I rather suspect that there are but I've been awake for over 2 days and my brain is quite where it should be. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You have just done this. I do not understand why. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Its because in the very first paragraph "Background" its mentioned that Bhatt also says that he sent some fax messages to major officials soon after the meeting ended and that these referred to the meeting itself, the decision regarding the bodies of the dead and the growing activity of the BJP and BD. Subsequently, riots occurred in which around 1200 people died, most of whom were Muslim. So I just thought that it would be good to write what SIT thought about the fax message.- sarvajna (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought that I must have been mis-reading the diff, and I was! However, can we modify the "found" word? Maybe "in the opinion of the SIT, ..." THe point is, we have to try for neutrality among all these conflicting claims and although I know that "found" has a legal definition, it sounds rather like they "discovered" the things to be forged and thus makes it seem as if Bhatt was definitely lying on that point. I am not explaining this very well - let me know if you do not understand. - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I understood your point, I used found because 1. In accordance with the Source 2. SIT is an investigating agency so what ever is present in the report unless specified would be findings of SIT. I feel that we cannot use opinion becasue SIT gave a report that has some some legal value unlike opinions. Please let me know your thoughts --sarvajna (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like you managed to work your way through my poor explanation! Our problem is that the amicus has legal value also, and he says that the whole thing needs to be tested in court/has little faith in the SIT. For that reason, I think that we need to sit on the fence in order to maintain neutrality. - Sitush (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

you are correct about amicus, amicus has given a report that goes against SIT.As far as I know the SIT report would be tested in courts and either accepted or rejected.Only after this process we can say that the findings of SIT were wrong/right.unfortunately/fortunately the SIT report goes against the allegations of Bhatt and I feel that it would be wise to present the facts about what SIT has found. If you feel that we really need to change the word found how about making it the SIT report also noted that... (may be something like that) --sarvajna (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"Noted" is better but I am still not wonderfully happy with it. I'll have a think and perhaps some others will jump in. This is a really awkward article to deal with and there are several bits that still need work. The problem is getting the balance right and weeding out the "fact" from the "sources say" stuff! - Sitush (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

• 1. Under Arrest and reaction there is a statement Bhatt was among those who refused to accept an award offered by the Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar Academy in 2011. This was because a co-awardee was Jagdish Tytler, who is alleged to have been involved in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. What is this doing under arrest and reaction?

• 2.Under the section Supreme Court the lines Bhatt suggested in March 2012 that the final report of the NMC should be submitted to the governor of Gujarat rather than to its chief minister, Modi. He also thought that the earlier NMC report, which concerned the Godhra train incident and had been produced in 2008, should be recalled from the chief minister and presented instead to the governor. The basis for his request was that Modi's actions formed a part of the terms of reference of the enquiry and that ""no person shall be a judge in his own cause" can be trimmed or removed.He suggested a lot of things everything cannot be accomadated.

• 3.In the section Other news and Updates on Bhatt the line At a convention marking the tenth anniversary of the Godhra, Bhatt said that he is unable to see any justice for the victims of riots can be removed, he has made many such staements, what is speacial about this one?

• 4. The section named Supreme court can be renamed as Investigations and SIT report or something similar to it and a lot of things from the section "Other news and Updates on Bhatt" can be merged, like the paragraph from Other news The SIT released...(even the following paragraphs can be merged)

Let me know your thoughts--sarvajna (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think that (1) is presently a worthy point but, like you, I am unhappy with its placement. The problem is, where the heck should it be placed.

I think you can create a recognition section and it can be placed there. Pekon (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• (2) seems fine to me, In fact, it seems pretty central to his arguments concerning abuse of process etc. The question is, will it happen - the statement will need some amendment as/when the report is submitted (SIT has been submitted, NMC has not)
• (3) we should show at least one of his many statements regarding the issue, and this is both one of the more recent and one that was apparently said publically (rather than to a journalist etc) and at a fairly major event
• )4)Yes, there are various headings that need to be fixed and there is further merging that would be worthwhile
• NB: I still can't find a comfortable phrasing for the issue in our previous thread above. We may need some fresh eyes. - Sitush (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Usually in the biography articles the section Background would contain background of the person, but in this one we have something about the riots. I will try to find come refs about his personal life and background and may the point number 1 can added to that section.--sarvajna (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the NMC final report public ? Can someone point to that ?