Talk:Direct Action Day/Archive 1

message: Thousands of hindus were killed and their womenfolk abducted in Noakhali District in 1946-1947. Can someone write an article for wikipedia on that carnage? --Shyamsunder 09:06, 01 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did as much as I could so far. More information sources needed. Hkelkar 11:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Noakhali

message: I expanded with some stuff I dug up from the library & online. I need more sources. Plus, also need to expand the section on riots etc in Punjab, Bihar and NWFP. Plz help. Hkelkar 11:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More information Needed

message: This is an absolute travesty of history... which quotes one side of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.67.241 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are most welcome to up-date with proper citations and references. In case, you are not registered, it is a good idea to take a user name. It will be more helpful for future. --Bhadani 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased and onesided article

message: The article makes several deliberate factual errors regarding the Muslim League which I have tried to correct and the general tone of the article goes against historical facts... It is sadly based on one sided Indian propaganda and nothing else. Despite my corrections, the article is so skewed that it must have been funded by some extremist Hindu groups in India.  Please see below... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teabing-Leigh (talk • contribs) 15:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits were rent with original research, unverified claims and misrepresentations. Please stop this. Kjartan8 06:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Wolpert did not say "This quote however does not find favor with Jinnah's biographers". That is Original research and you have been reported for violating wikipedia regulations. Kjartan8 07:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's still Original research
More false statements exposed:
1.Diagram caption put by you not verified by source.(Dead and wounded after the 'Direct Action Day' which developed into pitched battles as Hindu mobs were let loose on the Muslims,Calcutta in 1946, the year before independence)Kjartan8 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I did not add anything to the article. Information was already there that you removed. Stating the same thing twice in bolded letters (which you have done) is undue weight.Kjartan8 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's been removed right now. You removed it because you want to remove good entries and replace them with deliberate falsifications. Kjartan8 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No ... there aren't any other deletions only sourced addtions. Teabing-Leigh 07:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes there are. Kjartan8 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Prove it. Kjartan8 07:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Assumption of bad faith is a violation of wikipedia regulations. I will add this to my complaint against you. Kjartan8 07:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have been watching this article for many weeks and I have seen nothing but vandalism. YLH 07:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously a Sock puppet Kjartan8 07:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes it does. Reported you also. Kjartan8 07:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Using a different account on the same computer to bypass 3RR IS sock-puppetry. The Kinslayer 08:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't spin it.  If YLH uses the same computer and reverts something from his account that is NOT sock puppetry. Teabing-Leigh 09:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In the interests of resolving this, can you both please refrain from making ANY further edits to the article until the Request for Commentary has been answered. This is not an endorsement of the current version, rather it is a step towards making the issue less cloudy. Appropriate actions can be taken in response to the commentary after it has been given. If this civil, good-faith request is not respected, then I will be seeking to get the paged locked to all editors until such time a compromise can be made. The Kinslayer 10:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And he says the same thing about your sources. This is not going to be resolved while you both revert each others tags, so I suggest you both go find other articles to (non-controversially) edit while we wait for the Request for Comment to be processed. Is there anything unreasonable with this request? And if so, please state why it's unreasonable. The Kinslayer 10:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the second this message goes live, if so much as a mis-spelling in this article is edited, I will revert it as vandalism. Find other articles to edit. Presumably you both have this article on your watchlists, so you will know when the RfC has been answered. Until then, just forget about this article. Find something more constructive and less controversial to do with your time. The Kinslayer 11:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes alright. I will stop editing since I want to cooperate. But I can point by point prove that T-Leigh's edits are original research (obvious from his comments up above), mis-attributed and , in many cases, outright false or based on partisan propaganda sources from militant Pakistan government. In the interests of fairness, non-academic sources (news media, papers etc.) can be forgone because there is chance for media bias from both sides. Kjartan8 11:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Be that as it may Teabing, it does not give you permission to act in the same manner. There are various places you can report his beavious, or he can report your behaviour, if you genuinely believe he is making personal attacks. The way I'm seeing it, we have a pro-indian trying to put his POV on this article, and we have someone opposed to him trying to put his POV on the article. The Kinslayer 12:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting that I never made a direct personal attack on him as such, but he just made one more on me. Still, who knows what Deobandi madrassa teaches these things. In any case, I have reported this user for gross abuse of wikipedia, two sets of 3rr violations, sock puppetting and numerous other cases. Now the time has come to wait until the authorities to clean up the garbage. To continue, I have Stanley Wolpert's books that are "referenced" by this user. I do not know which madrassa releases the versions of Wolpert's books cited here, but the present edits do not accurately reflect Wolpert's work, not to mention the numerous original research and weasel words like "Most historians agree" (really? Where in the references do they say so? Only 3 references show that only 3 "historians agree", and I can easily show that at least two are falsely cited by this person), and "This quote however does not find favor with Jinnah's biographers". Really, is it necessary to treat trolls such as this with any credibility at all?Kjartan8 12:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You need to read WP:NOR a bit better. If a quote is reliably attributed, that's all that matters. All else is inference. Kjartan8 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Kinslayer leaving aside your hatred for me....   please see this below:
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/bengal_india_history/tuker_calcutta_riot.html
C.D.L. tanks with strong searchlights joined the troops at dusk and the eerie flickering of their lights as they passed from street to street playing on the dead and on the devastation in which they died, made a Dore's Inferno of Calcutta. 
In the early hours of the 18th, the 1/3rd Gurkhas moved into the Dock area. From then onwards the area of military domination of the city was increased. Static guards took over from police guards and a party of troops under Major Littleboy, the Assistant Provost-Marshal, did valuable work in the rescue organisation for displaced and needy persons. Outside the 'military' areas, the situation worsened hourly. Buses and taxis were charging about loaded with Sikhs and Hindus armed with swords, iron bars and firearms. 
....  This is the book I quoted.  You can find this quote there and in the book. Yet this is being cited as "failed verification".   You see Kjartan is playing a rather interesting game here to forward his POV.  He knows that all my sources are valid... but he is deliberately creating an issue where there exists none. 202.163.67.241 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What establishes the reliability of this so-called "book"? is it peer reviewed? Is it written by an academic in a proper university (there are a few in Pakistan as well you know), or some Mullah in the middle of a desert somewhere? The main point here is one of attribution and reliable Sources. How do we establish reliability? Through reputation, publication lists, peer-review etc. So far, this user has done precisely zero out of the three. Kjartan8 12:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How do we know that the reference is real and not fake? It has no reliability since it is not peer-reviewed or academic in nature, but some random website. That is the question. Kjartan8 13:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation with the sources is one that should be left until the RfC has been done, and then sources can be judged based on the neutral 4th parties comments. As for the personal attacks, the point I am trying to make is that if either of you feel the other has made personal attacks against you, then you should report it here: WP:ANI and stop just yelling it at each other in the hope someone else will do something about it. I will state now that I will not judge any sources, my interest here is solely limited to ensuring a reasonable outcome for all parties is achieved. Again, this is not a judgement on the article, I just wish to remain as neutral as possible, and the best way to do this is to not get drawn into a debate about the merits or failings of sources and the article. I appreciate you both leaving the article until a comment has been made. The Kinslayer 13:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no interest in mud-slinging on webpages devoted to that purpose. Let this sockpuppet master do that if he feels that is how he will get his propaganda across. He will probably be banned soon anyway, given his rampant disregard for wikipedia's methods, after which I will return and discuss with editors who want to make meaningful contribution instead of getting into insulting rants about "Hindu extremists" or what have you. I refuse to assume good faith with Jamaat-e-Islami trolls touting bogus "publications" and misrepresenting legitimate ones to advance what is quite obviously a well-indoctrinated Islamist agenda. Kjartan8 13:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm now reporting you Kjartan, I warned the pair of you, but it seems that only Teabing is prepared to make the effort. The Kinslayer 13:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Response is posted here  Kjartan8 13:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also I must add that Kjartan's attempt to brush me with "Islamist" colors is rather indicative of his inability to argue civilly.  I am a secularist and a non-Muslim.  My agenda is hardly Islamist...  historical accuracy... especially when the subject of inquiry are people like Jinnah and Gandhi and Suhrawardy who weren't Islamists by any stretch of imagination either....   how can one accuse me of being an Islamist. I suppose this is to play on the Islamophobia that is prevalent in the world. 202.163.67.241 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As a Non-Muslim I take umbrage to the fact that I am being painted with the same brush as Jamaat-e-Islami by Kjartan.  Probably he doesn't know that the religious alliance was as anti-Jinnah and anti-Pakistan in 1947 as he is today.  So he is way out of his depth right now.202.163.67.241 14:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And perhaps you should know that "Hindu extremist groups" were as pro-Jinnah and anti-India as they are today (you know about Advani's recent eulogy of Jinnah?). They wanted the same thing Jinnah did, get the Muslims out of India; I guess a nut is a nut no matter what his religion. Hindu extremists could not have been happier with Partition or Pakistan, for it gave them the excuse they needed to make innocent Muslims look bad. So you are way out of your depth right now with your knee-jerk accusations. 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wrong again.  Advani's eulogy is his departure from extremism.  He was actually nominated in an FIR to assassinate Jinnah in 1947.  So you need to get your facts straight.  The reason why Hindu extremists killed Gandhi was because Gandhi in January 1948 for making conciliatory gestures to Jinnah and Pakistan. Furthermore... you should know that Hindu extremist leader VD Savarkar actually wanted Muslims to live under Hindu domination or be driven out of even those parts of India that are now Pakistan.  So your claim that Hindu extremists wanted Partition is not based on history...  and if you read H M Seervai's "Partition of India Legend and Reality... you would know that Nehru and Patel insisted on partition even after Jinnah had agreed to unity with Cabinet Mission Plan.202.163.67.241 16:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual errors

message: They were not edits... simply an attempt to take out sourced information.  The article is WP:POV as is ....  but by taking out the balance it was an attempt to distort history.  I will continue to monitor this and Ktrjan does this again,  I will report him to the moderators. 202.163.67.241 06:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits were rent with original research, unverified claims and misrepresentations. Please stop this. Kjartan8 06:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Wolpert did not say "This quote however does not find favor with Jinnah's biographers". That is Original research and you have been reported for violating wikipedia regulations. Kjartan8 07:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's still Original research
More false statements exposed:
1.Diagram caption put by you not verified by source.(Dead and wounded after the 'Direct Action Day' which developed into pitched battles as Hindu mobs were let loose on the Muslims,Calcutta in 1946, the year before independence)Kjartan8 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I did not add anything to the article. Information was already there that you removed. Stating the same thing twice in bolded letters (which you have done) is undue weight.Kjartan8 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's been removed right now. You removed it because you want to remove good entries and replace them with deliberate falsifications. Kjartan8 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No ... there aren't any other deletions only sourced addtions. Teabing-Leigh 07:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes there are. Kjartan8 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  REVERTED Ktrjan's edits

message: Kjartan8 has taken to quoting Gandhi's autobiography which covers events upto 1928.   He is putting as a source for events in 1946.   Teabing-Leigh 07:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prove it. Kjartan8 07:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Assumption of bad faith is a violation of wikipedia regulations. I will add this to my complaint against you. Kjartan8 07:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have been watching this article for many weeks and I have seen nothing but vandalism. YLH 07:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously a Sock puppet Kjartan8 07:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes it does. Reported you also. Kjartan8 07:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Using a different account on the same computer to bypass 3RR IS sock-puppetry. The Kinslayer 08:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't spin it.  If YLH uses the same computer and reverts something from his account that is NOT sock puppetry. Teabing-Leigh 09:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In the interests of resolving this, can you both please refrain from making ANY further edits to the article until the Request for Commentary has been answered. This is not an endorsement of the current version, rather it is a step towards making the issue less cloudy. Appropriate actions can be taken in response to the commentary after it has been given. If this civil, good-faith request is not respected, then I will be seeking to get the paged locked to all editors until such time a compromise can be made. The Kinslayer 10:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And he says the same thing about your sources. This is not going to be resolved while you both revert each others tags, so I suggest you both go find other articles to (non-controversially) edit while we wait for the Request for Comment to be processed. Is there anything unreasonable with this request? And if so, please state why it's unreasonable. The Kinslayer 10:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the second this message goes live, if so much as a mis-spelling in this article is edited, I will revert it as vandalism. Find other articles to edit. Presumably you both have this article on your watchlists, so you will know when the RfC has been answered. Until then, just forget about this article. Find something more constructive and less controversial to do with your time. The Kinslayer 11:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes alright. I will stop editing since I want to cooperate. But I can point by point prove that T-Leigh's edits are original research (obvious from his comments up above), mis-attributed and , in many cases, outright false or based on partisan propaganda sources from militant Pakistan government. In the interests of fairness, non-academic sources (news media, papers etc.) can be forgone because there is chance for media bias from both sides. Kjartan8 11:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Be that as it may Teabing, it does not give you permission to act in the same manner. There are various places you can report his beavious, or he can report your behaviour, if you genuinely believe he is making personal attacks. The way I'm seeing it, we have a pro-indian trying to put his POV on this article, and we have someone opposed to him trying to put his POV on the article. The Kinslayer 12:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting that I never made a direct personal attack on him as such, but he just made one more on me. Still, who knows what Deobandi madrassa teaches these things. In any case, I have reported this user for gross abuse of wikipedia, two sets of 3rr violations, sock puppetting and numerous other cases. Now the time has come to wait until the authorities to clean up the garbage. To continue, I have Stanley Wolpert's books that are "referenced" by this user. I do not know which madrassa releases the versions of Wolpert's books cited here, but the present edits do not accurately reflect Wolpert's work, not to mention the numerous original research and weasel words like "Most historians agree" (really? Where in the references do they say so? Only 3 references show that only 3 "historians agree", and I can easily show that at least two are falsely cited by this person), and "This quote however does not find favor with Jinnah's biographers". Really, is it necessary to treat trolls such as this with any credibility at all?Kjartan8 12:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You need to read WP:NOR a bit better. If a quote is reliably attributed, that's all that matters. All else is inference. Kjartan8 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Kinslayer leaving aside your hatred for me....   please see this below:
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/bengal_india_history/tuker_calcutta_riot.html
C.D.L. tanks with strong searchlights joined the troops at dusk and the eerie flickering of their lights as they passed from street to street playing on the dead and on the devastation in which they died, made a Dore's Inferno of Calcutta. 
In the early hours of the 18th, the 1/3rd Gurkhas moved into the Dock area. From then onwards the area of military domination of the city was increased. Static guards took over from police guards and a party of troops under Major Littleboy, the Assistant Provost-Marshal, did valuable work in the rescue organisation for displaced and needy persons. Outside the 'military' areas, the situation worsened hourly. Buses and taxis were charging about loaded with Sikhs and Hindus armed with swords, iron bars and firearms. 
....  This is the book I quoted.  You can find this quote there and in the book. Yet this is being cited as "failed verification".   You see Kjartan is playing a rather interesting game here to forward his POV.  He knows that all my sources are valid... but he is deliberately creating an issue where there exists none. 202.163.67.241 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What establishes the reliability of this so-called "book"? is it peer reviewed? Is it written by an academic in a proper university (there are a few in Pakistan as well you know), or some Mullah in the middle of a desert somewhere? The main point here is one of attribution and reliable Sources. How do we establish reliability? Through reputation, publication lists, peer-review etc. So far, this user has done precisely zero out of the three. Kjartan8 12:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How do we know that the reference is real and not fake? It has no reliability since it is not peer-reviewed or academic in nature, but some random website. That is the question. Kjartan8 13:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation with the sources is one that should be left until the RfC has been done, and then sources can be judged based on the neutral 4th parties comments. As for the personal attacks, the point I am trying to make is that if either of you feel the other has made personal attacks against you, then you should report it here: WP:ANI and stop just yelling it at each other in the hope someone else will do something about it. I will state now that I will not judge any sources, my interest here is solely limited to ensuring a reasonable outcome for all parties is achieved. Again, this is not a judgement on the article, I just wish to remain as neutral as possible, and the best way to do this is to not get drawn into a debate about the merits or failings of sources and the article. I appreciate you both leaving the article until a comment has been made. The Kinslayer 13:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no interest in mud-slinging on webpages devoted to that purpose. Let this sockpuppet master do that if he feels that is how he will get his propaganda across. He will probably be banned soon anyway, given his rampant disregard for wikipedia's methods, after which I will return and discuss with editors who want to make meaningful contribution instead of getting into insulting rants about "Hindu extremists" or what have you. I refuse to assume good faith with Jamaat-e-Islami trolls touting bogus "publications" and misrepresenting legitimate ones to advance what is quite obviously a well-indoctrinated Islamist agenda. Kjartan8 13:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm now reporting you Kjartan, I warned the pair of you, but it seems that only Teabing is prepared to make the effort. The Kinslayer 13:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Response is posted here  Kjartan8 13:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also I must add that Kjartan's attempt to brush me with "Islamist" colors is rather indicative of his inability to argue civilly.  I am a secularist and a non-Muslim.  My agenda is hardly Islamist...  historical accuracy... especially when the subject of inquiry are people like Jinnah and Gandhi and Suhrawardy who weren't Islamists by any stretch of imagination either....   how can one accuse me of being an Islamist. I suppose this is to play on the Islamophobia that is prevalent in the world. 202.163.67.241 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As a Non-Muslim I take umbrage to the fact that I am being painted with the same brush as Jamaat-e-Islami by Kjartan.  Probably he doesn't know that the religious alliance was as anti-Jinnah and anti-Pakistan in 1947 as he is today.  So he is way out of his depth right now.202.163.67.241 14:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And perhaps you should know that "Hindu extremist groups" were as pro-Jinnah and anti-India as they are today (you know about Advani's recent eulogy of Jinnah?). They wanted the same thing Jinnah did, get the Muslims out of India; I guess a nut is a nut no matter what his religion. Hindu extremists could not have been happier with Partition or Pakistan, for it gave them the excuse they needed to make innocent Muslims look bad. So you are way out of your depth right now with your knee-jerk accusations. 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wrong again.  Advani's eulogy is his departure from extremism.  He was actually nominated in an FIR to assassinate Jinnah in 1947.  So you need to get your facts straight.  The reason why Hindu extremists killed Gandhi was because Gandhi in January 1948 for making conciliatory gestures to Jinnah and Pakistan. Furthermore... you should know that Hindu extremist leader VD Savarkar actually wanted Muslims to live under Hindu domination or be driven out of even those parts of India that are now Pakistan.  So your claim that Hindu extremists wanted Partition is not based on history...  and if you read H M Seervai's "Partition of India Legend and Reality... you would know that Nehru and Patel insisted on partition even after Jinnah had agreed to unity with Cabinet Mission Plan.202.163.67.241 16:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gandhi's autobiography dates till 1928 only

message: #Source "Stanley Wolpert Jinnah of Pakistan Page 287", and others are wrongly attributed to the Noakhali incident, whereas the sources actually refer to the Calcutta riots. Thus, statement above may pertain to the Calcutta riots section, not the Noakhali massacre section, where it was placed as a propaganda tactic meant to confuse the reader
#"This quote however does not find favor with Jinnah's biographers" is Original research as none of the cited sources say this explicitly, It is an inference drawn by T-Leigh and is thus against wikipedia regulations.
#"Hindu underworld targetted Muslim League processions": This claim is entirely made up with no sources to support it. Kjartan8 13:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of falsifications by T-Leigh

message: The original research issue regarding "balancing out Jinnah" will be discussed here. concerns this claim "This quote however does not find favor with Jinnah's biographers"
The main issue is balance is orrelevant in wikipedia. WP:NOR is WP:NOR. Your "balancing out" is a synthesis of sources that YOU made, not the authors you cite. This constitutes original research and is againtst wikipedia regulations. Wikipedia regulations precede over all issues of balance. Kjartan8 15:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: We discuss the tucker issue here to avoid confusion. Are you talking about this book ? Kjartan8 15:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tucker

message: Your edits to the caption picture says:"Dead and wounded after the 'Direct Action Day' which developed into pitched battles as Hindu mobs[not in citation given] were let loose on the Muslims,Calcutta in 1946, the year before independence". before that, it said "Dead and wounded after the 'Direct Action Day' which developed into pitched battles between Hindus and Muslims in Calcuta in 1946, the year before independence". The source for the picture says "Dead and wounded after the 'Direct Action Day' which developed into pitched battles between Hindus and Muslims in Calcuta in 1946, the year before independence.". I have exposed another lie from you. Kjartan8 15:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is your proof of that? "My madrassa said so" again? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good reason.Kjartan8 15:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  More personal attacks again?  I could respond in kind but I will not. 202.163.67.241 16:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: False caption for picture

message: Sure there is an "underworld" in Calcutta, just as there is on ein every major city in the world, but what evidence do you have to offer that they are "Hindus"? For all you know, they could be athiests. In the absense of specific and reliable attribution, the term is an ethnic slur and I demand that it be removed immediately else it will be recorded as a racist remark from you. Kjartan8 15:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations of a "Hindu Underworld" in Calcutta

message: "# Reason:They are "Kafir"?" Kjartan8 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the proof of "bias"? "My madrassa said so" doesn't count. Kjartan8 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where was the proof of bias when you pooh poohed a renowned historian writing in Dawn one of the oldest newspapers in South Asia... And stop the personal attacks.202.163.67.241 15:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What renowned historian is that? Kjartan8 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If it's biased then why did a reputable publisher publish it? Kjartan8 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  General Pervez Musharraf's Memoirs have been published by Simon&Schuster...  I suppose you accept his view of the Kargil War then ... you should if you really believe what you said above.202.163.67.241 15:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He does make some valid points about Kargil. I happen to like Musharraf a lot actually.Please stay on topic and try not to troll anymore. Kjartan8 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Actually whatever valid points he makes have been contradicted by General Zinni and Bill Clinton.  So there you have it...  a "reputable" publisher publishing a one sided badly written memoir by a third world military dictator. 202.163.67.241 16:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, so now we have a racist on our hands. I thought Islamists condemned racism. Guess I was wrong. Kjartan8 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not about racism. Furthermore your insistence on calling me an Islamist... even though I am not even a Muslim ...  let alone an Islamic minded Muslim is just amazing.   Not everyone who disagrees with POV is an Islamist.  Have you ever thought why Jinnah, who your own leaders called the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity,  turned against you guys-when he was hardly a Muslim?  So stop abusing me for simply standing up for the facts.202.163.67.241 16:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Like I said, "My madrassa says so" is not a valid reason. Find a reliable source. Kjartan8 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So where is the bias? Kjartan8 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is that a "biased source" s you tagged it? Where is Muriel's bias? You have proved nothing and maligned a reliable source like the New York Times. I am now officially justified at my assertion that you are a troll. Kjartan8 15:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sock master's side

message: This space reserved for requested comment. The Kinslayer 09:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: The peace seems to have broken. I've rv'd to TKS version and protected it William M. Connolley 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It usually isn't... --Onorem 16:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that Kjartan admitted above that he did NOT verify the source before actually claiming that verification failed.  Please note this pertinent point which proves that this current position is as is WRONG. Teabing-Leigh 16:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protected 

message: → In re: user .
Rapidsurfer is continously taking off tags without justification.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egopearl (talk • contribs) 13:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism by RapidSurfer

message: Numerous textbooks attest to the fact that this day turn into a slaughterfest. The references are provided in the article.Bakaman 20:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: hindus killed