Talk:Nanavati-Mehta Commission
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Tehelka expose
editThe Tehelka expose about Pandya's statements regarding the Nanavati-Shah commission need to be added as well. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- @KRZ that would be my bad, I thought I'd added it, I'll work on that. Feel free to do the same. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Primary Sources
editSo far, the actual interim report of the commission has been used only for easily verifiable factual information, such as about the appointment. However, it is not advisable to use the report for the actual findings, and any attempt to do so will be reverted, as per WP:PS, because this is a highly controversial topic, and is best edited using academic sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- This page deals with the Nanavati-Shah Commission and not with Godhra train burning incident which has been discussed elsewhere. Hence the findings of this commission can be used here and are not liable for removal. Any removal should be reverted.--Mohit Singh (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not so. WP:PRIMARY (which you clearly did not read) says nothing about which page a source is being used for. A primary source can be used for non-controversial, factual, verifiable information, like the dates of appointment that you just used it for. You can also quote from the report for the findings, but cannot use the report as interpretation in any way, nor can you use it to say "such and such is exactly what happened." The topic is not relevant (unless of course this had been a BLP, in which case primary sources need even greater scrutiny). Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry but I am surprised by your attitude. Do not frame opinions on your own. Comparatively being a senior editor to you, I have read WP:PRIMARY. Your first comment is misplaced. Godhra incident is a controversial incident and not the commission. Though its report may be opposed but the finding can be quoted as its opinion. There is no point of making statements like " it is not advisable to use the report for the actual findings, and any attempt to do so will be reverted" as the controversial part is not the issue for discussion on this page but on Godhra train burning.--Mohit Singh (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- If harping on seniority makes you feel better, you are welcome to do so. Between your first and second replies you changed your position to match mine, and that is all that matters in this case (although you are once again welcome to insist otherwise). As I said at first, and as you have now agreed, the report may be quoted, but not used for any form of analysis. End of story. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- I did not change my position. I said findings can be used in this article and if they have to be, it shall be the commission's view as that is what this page is about. I was not harping my seniority. I was just pointing out how you declare yourself that you know all the policies and others don't.--Mohit Singh (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Nope. The first time you implied they may be used without reserve; the second time, you said they should be quoted, which is correct. Since you made that statement, the only possible conclusion was that you had not read the policy (or perhaps not read it recently enough) which is what I said. Regardless, you have now said that you have read it, so further discussion is pointless. See you at Talk: Rahul Gandhi whenever you choose to respond (or not). Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- That clarification was just to make you understand as it appeared that you feel that you are a revert champ.--Mohit Singh (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Intereting(and humouros) reading as Van tries to dictate MS what MS means! --AmritasyaPutraT 09:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- That clarification was just to make you understand as it appeared that you feel that you are a revert champ.--Mohit Singh (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Nope. The first time you implied they may be used without reserve; the second time, you said they should be quoted, which is correct. Since you made that statement, the only possible conclusion was that you had not read the policy (or perhaps not read it recently enough) which is what I said. Regardless, you have now said that you have read it, so further discussion is pointless. See you at Talk: Rahul Gandhi whenever you choose to respond (or not). Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- I did not change my position. I said findings can be used in this article and if they have to be, it shall be the commission's view as that is what this page is about. I was not harping my seniority. I was just pointing out how you declare yourself that you know all the policies and others don't.--Mohit Singh (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- If harping on seniority makes you feel better, you are welcome to do so. Between your first and second replies you changed your position to match mine, and that is all that matters in this case (although you are once again welcome to insist otherwise). As I said at first, and as you have now agreed, the report may be quoted, but not used for any form of analysis. End of story. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry but I am surprised by your attitude. Do not frame opinions on your own. Comparatively being a senior editor to you, I have read WP:PRIMARY. Your first comment is misplaced. Godhra incident is a controversial incident and not the commission. Though its report may be opposed but the finding can be quoted as its opinion. There is no point of making statements like " it is not advisable to use the report for the actual findings, and any attempt to do so will be reverted" as the controversial part is not the issue for discussion on this page but on Godhra train burning.--Mohit Singh (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not so. WP:PRIMARY (which you clearly did not read) says nothing about which page a source is being used for. A primary source can be used for non-controversial, factual, verifiable information, like the dates of appointment that you just used it for. You can also quote from the report for the findings, but cannot use the report as interpretation in any way, nor can you use it to say "such and such is exactly what happened." The topic is not relevant (unless of course this had been a BLP, in which case primary sources need even greater scrutiny). Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Recent move
editWP:COMMONNAME would indicate that "Nanavati-Shah commission" is the correct title; google, google scholar, Jstor, as well as an academic search engine I have access to, all pull up more results for NS rather than NM. Unless there is a significant NPOV violation with the old name, it should be moved back. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- @MohitSingh:, a response would be appreciated, I do not want to move war with you....Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Since shah was replaced with Mehta it did become Nanavati-Mehta. Its the new/current name that has indeed caught up in published sources [1]. Imagine Kolkata and Calcutta, there may be more reference to Calcutta but the new name is Kolkata and will eventually catchup. --AmritasyaPutraT 02:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- That may seem to be logical, but the search engines don't bear that out; limiting the searches to things post-2008, when Shah was replaced by Mehta, still yields more results for Nanavati-Shah commission. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Since shah was replaced with Mehta it did become Nanavati-Mehta. Its the new/current name that has indeed caught up in published sources [1]. Imagine Kolkata and Calcutta, there may be more reference to Calcutta but the new name is Kolkata and will eventually catchup. --AmritasyaPutraT 02:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- A Google search for "Nanavati-Mehta commission" returned about 45,700 results.
- It reflects the name of the two people who worked on the report and this is appropriately explained in the lead.
- Old name Nanavati-Shah commission appropriately redirects here. --AmritasyaPutraT 04:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- And a search for Nanavati Shah commission yields 89,100 results. On google scholar, NS post-2008 still gets 18; NM gets 4. See WP:COMMONNAME. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- And of course it redirects here; I created the page at NS commission, it was moved here, and the old title was kept as a redirect, per procedure. The fact that it redirects here shows nothing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- A Google search for "Nanavati Mehta commission" within double quotation marks returns 1,24,000 results and "Nanavati Shah commission" in the similar manner returns 4590 results.
- In addition to points raised by AmritasyaPutra: Justice Mehta has been a part of the commission for a larger period of time. The interim report bore Justice Shah's signature and the coming final report shall also bear his signature. It is preferable and logical to refer the commission by its existing composition.--Mohit Singh (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
External links modified (February 2018)
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Nanavati-Mehta Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/03/07/stories/2002030706110100.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119002050/http://liveindia.tv/india/states/special-court-convicts-31-in-godhra-train-burning-case/ to http://liveindia.tv/india/states/special-court-convicts-31-in-godhra-train-burning-case/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
"Combat law"
editIs there a way to access this source - "Iyer, SH (May–June 2008). "Babu Bajrangi's bail and Gujarat riot probe". Combat Law. 7 (3): 16–19"? This citation appears to be incomplete or unclear. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)