Talk:2002 Gujarat riots/Archive 1

message: Talk:2002 Gujarat violence/revision
----
Dear anonymous user under IP numbers 64.171.186.75 and 128.107.253.42, i hope you accept my integration of the two versions of this page as NPOV. 
i suggest you do not remove references to external sources such as to Justice Iyer's report. i've left in your description of Iyer as a Marxist, and if it's true that some of the events in the report are false, maybe you should add a link to a web page showing very specifically which events are false, or else briefly put one or two sentences describing clearly and unambiguously which events are false.
The idea of wikipedia is more information to solve point of view disputes, not less information.
You may disagree on whether or not the Sangh Parivar was systematically responsible for the killings, but you can show this by adding a counterclaim, not by removing the information!
thanks
Boud 11:24, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

message: I've restored the version stripped of unproven allegations. Neutrality is not the same as posting 25,000 points of view because someone wants it there. Neutrality is about sensibly posting verified information.
I am not sure why you have to choose Marxist sources selectively and post them here. You are not even consistent in your claims. On one hand, you claim that those killed in the train were 'allegedly Hindus' while on the other you assert that they were 'kar sevaks.' Clearly, this amounts to obfuscation and propaganda. Imagine a person writing up the page on Poland using the words alleged to describe Polish claims of German atrocities while asserting in no uncertain terms the atrocities of Polish people on Lithuania and their anti-semitism being the greatest of all anti-semites. At least the latter points are true.
The points I've posted have been verified.
1) No one carries petrol bombs to 'spontaneously' throw them at the train.
2) The train carried Hindus and was burnt by Muslims. The chief accused was an officebearer of Congress(I).
3) The Indian Marxist media happily gloated that the Hindus deserved it.
4) Riots broke out. Like all riots, people on both sides were killed. 
5) The Marxist "investigation" was not authorised by anyone. It was a self-appointed "investigation." Why choose one self-appointed body over another self-appointed body? In fact, there are hundreds of vested interest groups with dozens of theories. It is only a substandard researcher who will present them as facts. A scientific minded person will weed out such points.
6) Arundhati Roy, a supporter of Marxists apologised for writing up fictitious events in her article.
7) The tea vendor and dragging of a girl into the train appeared with the phone number of the witness in it. Why don't you call up the phone number and check out for yourself? Good journalists did that and found that the person mentioned felt harassed by the flood of phone calls.
----
To: User:LibertarianAnarchist and User:Ark30inf.
We clearly have an NPOV dispute, and i'd like to solve this constructively. 
What is verification? As far as wikipedia is concerned, it can only be references to other sources, either internal wikipedia, external electronic, or external non-electronic
The points of information i included, and which you and have removed, were backed up by link to an external electronic document. You may claim that the document is "unverified" and written by Marxists, but i don't see how that justifies not including it.
You state that you have a list of points which are "verified", but you provide no links of any sort. You should be able to provide information to at least the following:
2) The train carried Hindus and was burnt by Muslims. The chief accused was an officebearer of Congress(I). 
:name of the chief accused, since the fact of someone being accused in court is not itself libellous
3) The Indian Marxist media happily gloated that the Hindus deserved it.
:a few links to specific Indian Marxist media articles which have these sort of statements
6) Arundhati Roy, a supporter of Marxists apologised for writing up fictitious events in her article.
:a link to Arundhati Roy's apology
Neutrality is not the same as posting 25,000 points of view, Why choose one self-appointed body over another self-appointed body? In fact, there are hundreds of vested interest groups with dozens of theories.
:i really suggest you read about NPOV. 
i'm reverting to what i perceive as an NPOV version, but replacing alleged by mostly - while many people in India identify themselves as either Hindu or Muslim, it's unrealistic to claim that any large group is so homogeneous that everybody agrees with or desires such a label.
Boud 10:27, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Boud 

message: Boud,
You seem to be either ignorant (VR Krishna Iyer was a Communist Minister and Communist Party candidate for PResident of India) or seem to have some grudge against India and Hindus that you have been spreading lies as facts.
If you are ignorant of Krishna Iyer being a Communist, you are not qualified to contribute to t Wikipedia. The aim of an encyclopedia is to spread information, not ignorance. Admit it, you are clueless about India. Even 10 year old kids in India know who Krishna Iyer is.
You have also been going around Wikipedia posting hateful stuff against Hindus and Indians most of which is nothing but propaganda on mailing lists of hatemongers.
I am willing to get into a constructive discussion with you, but you seem to be motivated by hatred.
----
Dear User:LibertarianAnarchist and User:Ark30inf - the point of wikipedia is not to debate the personal knowledge and ignorance of Boud. If i present disputed knowledge as fact, then someone from wikipedia should tell me to read about NPOV and simply correct the wording to show that what i claim as fact is in fact only one point of view.
Boud 12:13, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boud, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that Krishna Iyer is a Communist 

message: Please continue to respect the guidelines above while editing 
I have removed the notices on the mediation process and have left the article as it had been before the process began, other than adding in the material from the revision, as it meets the guidelines laid out for the process, and because only one person did any editing to the the revision, and it was not enough for a stand-alone article. This is not an invitation for another edit war -- it is my sincere hope that the article will stabilize and that the fact that people respected the mediation process and did not contribute to the revision is an indication that the current version is a workable article, even if imperfect. Therefore I would ask all to continue to follow the above guidelines for editing while working on this article. With thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен  14:28, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: End of mediation process

message: ===Update as of 15 Nov 2003===
Well, the three-day period has passed, and only one person has worked on the revised article -- someone who hadn't been involved previosly BTW. I'm going to leave the pages as they are for the weekend, and see what happens until Monday.... Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен  17:06, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  more 

message: Well, the three-day period has passed, and only one person has worked on the revised article -- someone who hadn't been involved previosly BTW. I'm going to leave the pages as they are for the weekend, and see what happens until Monday.... Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен  17:06, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Update as of 15 Nov 2003