Talk:2002 Gujarat riots/2006 revision

message: I think major changes should wait till sat/sun when Netaji comes back. Otherwise the signors before me all despise Modi, Hindus, Hindutva, and Gujarat to varying degrees. Bakaman Bakatalk 03:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Netaji

message: Last edit
:::Added refernces to the official and unofficial estimates.
::Removed weasel word " also called by certain sections of media as Gujarat Pogroms..." to also called as "Gujarat Pogroms, Gujarat Genocide", also called conveys the same meaning and even Gujarat Violence is a term employed by "certain sections of media"
::There are some formatting errors can someone correct those
::Will they let the edits remain unchanged..let us see..will they discuss let us see..TerryJ-Ho 23:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Catch up

message: Bakaman made this edit in which he said that there should be no original research. I completely agree. We should adhere closely to WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:REF while writing this draft. BhaiSaab talk 00:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Language could be corrected in that edit, however, I feel that covered only a fraction of what the media has reported..Secondly the nature of riots should tell the nature and what else..Read that section now..better remove it if we dont want to discuss.I have spent three hours reading and noting items.Find it difficult to see it removed completely..correct it ..refine it..but dont delete it
TerryJ-Ho 00:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to follow Wiki Guidelines 

message: :The last edit by BhaiSaab was from an anti-Hindu and biased source. It was too long and without appropriate qualification.Netaji 06:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reinstated part of his edit aftr some paraphrasing.Netaji 06:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So The Times and The New York Times are anti-Hindu sources? I don't really know how to respond. BhaiSaab talk 18:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes, sort of. The grey lady does not have a single positive article about India. They are constantly bashing the Hindu population as part of a consistently liberal agenda of defamation, much like they do to Jews in their articles about Israel, for instance. You like that, don't you?Netaji 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from making personal attacks. BhaiSaab talk 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Was this a personal attack? I'm sorry if you thought so.Netaji 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are well aware that you insinuated that I was anti-Semitic and/or anti-Hindu. BhaiSaab talk 18:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Netaji perhaps you should not insinuate anything. The facts are  and here . Anyways even Blnguyen stated "I'm well aware of BhaiSaab's opinions about the Middle East". Lets leave ut at that.Bakaman Bakatalk 18:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing those diffs show is that I'm not particularly fond of the state of Israel and its activities. BhaiSaab talk 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly, anti-semitism is a recurrently featured in those views. Very sad.Netaji 19:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Anywho let's drop this issue for now.Netaji 19:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Hindu Sources

message: :I will shortly add a section titles "Media Coverage of the Riots" where I will detail both sides of the issue ie leftist, racist and anti-Hindu bias vs claims of factual reporting and any counter-arguments provided.Netaji 06:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Media Coverage of the Riots

message: Why are you using a blog as a source? BhaiSaab talk 18:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not an ordinary blog and not an ordinary blogger. Ramesh Rao is a collaborative scholar.Netaji 18:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I'll add a qualification that this is a blog.Netaji 18:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blog as  a source 

message: Stop accusing each other of vandalism. This is a content dispute, pure and simple. Vandalism is a loaded word and it doesn't apply here. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not when the content is unsourced (or the source does not say what the edit does) and the editor persistently reverts to it. That IS vandalism. He appears to have stopped, but he will continue (I know his type).Netaji 11:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith. And as I stated on your talk page, the difference between what Geek1975 said and what the source said is so small that it's hard to see the difference without looking very closely. And honestly, I can see where he got what he is saying. It took me several readings to see your POV on it. I don't believe it's enough to be called vandalism. Just please stop calling each other a vandal. Try to use dispute resolution and settle this calmly. I'm very close to blocking you both to enforce a cooling off period since protecting the main article apparently didn't bring that about. --Woohookitty(meow) 12:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Under normal circumstances, you'd be right. Here, however, I can't assume good faith here as this article is a well-known watering hole for biased anti-Hindu/Fundamentalist muslim elements (they constantly refer to this article on their hate sites and their posts are miraculously synchronized with edits by new users here on this article) so I must assume that a deliberately false edit has a malicious intent behind it. I will have to follow the French justice system of "Guilty until proven innocent" in this case.Netaji 12:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. I wish people wouldn't allow nationalism to rule their actions here. It's poisonous to what we are going for here. If you act on those assumptions, Netaji, you will be blocked. Assuming good faith is a pillar of Wikipedia. It's not something that we can permit to be optional or rescindable. If we allowed users to say "OK that's enough. I'm no longer going to assume good faith" then we'd have chaos. Just can't allow it. There is no excuse for blindly reverting users or refusing to talk to them because of the actions of others. --Woohookitty(meow) 13:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please 

message: User:Bakasuprman has just reverted well sourced facts from the article. I request him to desist from doing so; in case he finds the portion contentious, feel free to discuss it first —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geek1975 (talk • contribs).
:There is no correspondence between geek and myself anymore. This is in response to his hate attack of me  and his vandalism of my user and talk pages.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: please discuss before chopping of vital infos