Talk:Ehsan Jafri

POV

I cannot understand how an article can be imbibed with so much POV as this one and still get nominated for a DYK. There have been views and counter-views over the Godhra carnage and Justice Banerjee's views have been criticized by a significant number of intellectuals. However, this article seems to depict only one side of the story. Besides, Ehsan Jafri is a no-body, his only major claim to notability being his death in the Gujarat riots. However, this article commemorates his "legacy" containing a seperate section on his "Literary contributions".-Ravichandar 04:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

To call a member of parliament a nobody is a claim that shows what POV guides this comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.147.5 (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Have a look at this-13th Lok Sabha and tell me how many MPs from the 13th Lok Sabha (leave alone even 6th Lok Sabha) have articles of their own. I haven't said he is non-notable in the general context. He is notable only for being a member of the 6th Lok Sabha and his controversial death in the Gujarat riots. However, I find this article imbibed with so much POV making him a sort-of-martyr. Notes on his poetry etc. makes this article look like a memorial -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 11:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter whether the guy is a martyr or a no-body -- what bothers me is that a member of parliament could not get the police help - inspite of him making calls even upto sonia gandhi. 2) It does not matter whether the guy is somebody -- i am sure i dont want to be in his position even if i am a dog -- to be burnt alive -- knowing the death is coming so cruelly - not sure what was going in his mind. I was in Delhi in '84- watched the Gurudwara's burnt -- and the killings. Cannot believe this happened in '02 and the people who did this went scott free. Congress wont press for charges as they have skeletons in their cupboard -- so for now it is cong -1 bjp-1 -- score even. Hopefully now the people can get civilized and see this wont repeat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.56.231 (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• No different from most articles except in covering the manner of his death, which was notable. Removed tag as discussion is stale. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Reopening or just a protest petition?

This is in reference to the edits made by Soham321 on this article at [17:05, 16 May 2013.
"However, the case against Narendra Modi alleging his complicity in the Gujarat 2002 riots and the killing of Jafri has now been reopened by the Indian Supreme Court after a petition challenging the clean chit given to Modi was filed by Jafri's widow Zakia. "
I may like to clarify certain things to him. I hope he may take care of them in future:

1. Supreme Court of India is a court of law and and not of a fact.
2. Having said so, it may be noted that Supreme Court does not try a case nor does it reopen a case.
3. Arguendo, even if it were to do so, in the instant matter, Court had only accepted the protest petition.
4. A protest petition is entirely different from a reinvestigation or reopening of the case as claimed by the user. Its a stage prior to the protest petition.
5. The protest petition is heard by a court of a criminal court.

I have added the specific details.--Mohit Singh (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I will point out also that the Indian Supreme Court also has administrative powers. It can certainly direct a lower court to re-hear a particular case for example. Soham321 (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

To reduce the scope of any dispute, I have removed all reference to the Supreme Court intervention for now. ( It did intervene to prevent the transfer of the magistrate hearing the case against Modi and others as the references i have given clearly shows.) But I am putting back the reference to Modi's alleged complicity since Modi is a figure of national importance and a possible Prime Ministerial contender and since the case regarding his possible involvement in the killing of Jafri is still ongoing. Soham321 (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep hovering upon the point that he is a prime ministerial candidate? I have never challenged that though I do not assert that. If you may please note, I had not deleted the references but had added to a new section as it is suitable there than in the lead as per the lead policy.

Since you assert that you know about the administrative power of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, let me remind you that in the instant matter Supreme Court did not transfer but had directed the Gujarat High Court to do so because as per the Constitution of India, 1950, it is the High Court which has the direct supervisory power over the lower judiciary. Also, the transfer was a routine transfer as the term had expired. No malafide intention was asserted by the amicus curie.

I have transferred all the data to a new section as it was not suitable for a BLP lead. Please do not revert unless you have a very strong ground to do so.--Mohit Singh (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ehsan Jafri. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120428003855/http://archives.dawn.com/2002/04/30/top6.htm to http://archives.dawn.com/2002/04/30/top6.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071101043415/http://www.indianexpress.com:80/india-news/full_story.php?content_id=59771 to http://www.indianexpress.com/india-news/full_story.php?content_id=59771

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)