I wrote:
'That said, I find some portions of LibertarianAnarchist's edit quite acceptable, for example his opening statement, "In February 2002, 58 train passengers, including Hindus returning from a pilgrimage to Ayodhya, were burnt alive by a mob of fundamentalist Muslims who surrounded the train near Godhra, Gujarat and set it alight after dousing it in petrol." His critics would replace this with, "In February and March 2002, about 58 people (apparently mostly Hindus) died in a train fire in Godhra, Gujarat." Neither version matches the report made by the investigation into the matter: http://www.sabrang.com/tribunal/vol2/godhra.html It seems to be the local Muslim population who attacked the train, but they seem to have been extremely provoked. To characterise them as Islamic fundamentalists seems false, as does the denatured language, "In February and March 2002, about 58 people (apparently mostly Hindus) died in a train fire in Godhra, Gujarat." Somehow it must be included that it was Hindu fundamentalists who were attacked with fire by a Muslim mob, not just "there was a fire".'
On closer examination I find the statement, "There was a fire", quite acceptable. It is not at all clear that the fire was anything but an accident.
Fred