Talk:2002 Gujarat riots/2006 revision

Here is the essence of the editing guidelines:


 * Editing


 * 1. Sign all posts to the talk page.
 * 2. Avoid characterizing the politics, motives, POV, or objectivity of material added to the article. Simple explain what you disagree with and why you disagree based on accuracy or that it disagrees with your point of view and then explain briefly what yours is.
 * 3. Avoid extrapolation of the above, e.g., "X supports Y, so if X says ___, it must be…"
 * 4. Work from the assumption for the five-day period that no one has a monopoly on the truth, even if one is certain that facts or evidence is 100 percent clear.


 * Talk pages


 * 1. Refrain from personal attacks.
 * 2. Refrain from characterizing the politics, motives, POV, or objectivity of other contributors.

Specific Incidents?
Ehsan Jaffery is an important incident and Kausar, Bilkis is not? They give a face and a name to the gory tales of Gujarat. Kausar Bano epitomizes the depravity of the riots, shes not a "specific incident", Does anyone disagree?
 * Yes, I do. There are many such incidents like Kausar and Bilkis, and need not be prominently featured. Jaffry is a public figure and counts for more. One of the problems with the original article was it's length, and paraphrasing is needed. Who can give a face and a name of the 80 million Hindus murdered by muslims over the course of 500 years, or the millions of kashmiri Pandits ethnically cleansed by them?Netaji 08:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Goodness me; two wrongs do not make a right alright, if Mughals and Mongols looted and plundered the petty Indian states, it was not out of intention of genocide. Nothing like a state orchestrated genocide of this inhumane nature has taken place. Even Nazis or Serbs were not so savage as what mobs perpetrated in case of Bilkis and Kausar. Kashmir and Kashmiri Pandit issues are owing to center's apathy, not collusion.User:Geek1975
 * What a steaming pile of revisionist bullshit! Countless historians like Will Durant and Sergei Trikolovich have firmly established, from muslim sources, that their intent in India has always been the total and complete genocide of the Hindu population. The destruction of our society and culture, and the complete annihiliation of all of our heritage. Muslim scholars note with glee of their intention to murer all Hindus ever since their invasions began. The death toll in Holocaust and Bosnia numbered in the millions. Here in Gujarat it was <1000. hardly a 'genocide', unless you are another anti-Hindu., or are on some sort of sick drug. The total and savage ethnic cleansing of the kashmiri Pandits has been the greatest atrocity in recent Indian history, and comparable with the expulsion of Jews from Spain in the middle ages in it's barbarity.Netaji 10:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah an erudite living for cause of Hindutava???!! "Hardly a genocide... some tens of thousand Gujarati Muslims lose life and limb and NHRC goes on record to claim that many bodies were "taken care of" the state machinery to keep the toll low and you have the sensibility and sensitivity of saying it was hardly a genocide... yeah perhaps if Serbs can go on killing Albanians then perhaps Gujarat riots were very justified... I am appaled at your efforts for justification. --12:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe in your planet, not here. Even your unofficial (*cough liberalist *cough) death toll caps in the lower thousands. Tens of thousands? Why not just go to a cave in Waziristan and replace the dialysis machine of the chap who wants this kind of revisionism? Oh, and SIGN YOUR POSTS WITH 4 TILDES!Netaji 16:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, 800 terrorist sympathizers do not count as innocent civilians. Forget that 250+ Hindus died too? That just means the Hindus crushed the Muslims in the riots, nothing more. Tens of thousands? what a jokeBakaman Bakatalk 14:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Netaji
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)

BCorr requested that editors refrain from characterizing the objectivity of other editors. BhaiSaab talk 05:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

POV issues
Changing * "This was not purely a Hindu - Muslim riot.It was a very well planned carnage of a whole community" to * This was not purely a Hindu - Muslim riot surely changes the meaning completely.Why was this revision done? TerryJ-Ho 09:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Because you make it seen like Modi was like Hitler.Bakaman Bakatalk 21:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Planned carnage" is a biased statement. Bakaman Bakatalk 22:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not if referred by independent sources TerryJ-Ho 00:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

TerryJ-Ho 00:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC) I don't think it challenges good faith. I am not accusing YOU of anything, I merely stated that a whole bunch of orgs were created for Modi-bashing as it has become fashionable for anti-Hindus to call Modi names, and pretend the BJP would perform a genocide to get votes. Bakaman Bakatalk 00:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please give me a list of the sources that you will agree with and I will cite them.TerryJ-Ho 00:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Modi has been compared to Nero by Indian Supreme Court - if not Hitler - by Human Rights organisations - both within India and outside.TerryJ-Ho 00:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not call online volunteers an independent organization. They have a "hit-list" of all BJP actions calling it some conspiracy. Its as if the BJP blew up women and children as an excuse to kill a couple hundred Muslims. Hindu people have better ways/reasons (Aurangzeb, Pakistan, Terrorists) to get revenge on their enemies than bomb a train themselves like some nutcases have stated. Many anti-Hindu organizations also created "sockpuppets" to fake a consensus on Modi's behavior.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What if that is true?TerryJ-Ho 00:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your second point challenges good faith.You have also not elaborated the sockpuppetry charge
 * Respect every users good faith, not only me.Most if not all of these organisations are long established.check -HRW,Amnesty,PUCL
 * Again - Could you name some sources that you would not challenge?TerryJ-Ho 01:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Official and Unofficial
When BJP itself has been charged with the state sponsored pogroms - how can it be trusted to be neutral in its descriptions and statistics. In this whole issue there are two parties - Right Wing Hindus led by the Sangh Parivar supported Gujarat Administration, and the common Muslims - One could have said the reporting from Muslims would be tainted but so far there has been no Muslim source used in the article. TerryJ-Ho 17:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hindu mobs retaliated after the attack and human rights groups say that about 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, died in the weeks of fighting. But the government puts the toll at half that.
 * hrw does, and we have established that they are a questionable lot.Netaji 08:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Gujarat government who provided the stats itself was involved in organising the riots.So their stats are not to be trusted62.189.60.30

Catch up
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)

Need to follow Wiki Guidelines
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)
 * 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)

Online volunteers+BJP conspiracy
Thanks. Also onlinevolunteers.org does nothing on its website but call everything a BJP conspiracy.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What if that is?TerryJ-Ho 00:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Plese do not push POV on wikipedia. The statements that "its a conspiracy" are put forth by such independent orgs as al-qaeda, Simi, Christian missionaires, and the CPIM. Not mainstream news or common sense.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there is no scope for these names on this article.Onlinevolunteers is not owned by these groups.Please refrain from diverting attention.TerryJ-Ho 00:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Its anti-BJP. It has an agenda other than OBJECTIVE NEWS-GIVING.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there should be a total ban on the term Anti-Hindu or Anti-Semitic Anti-BJP anti-Blah.. at least on these edits.These are the terms behind which people without any arguments are hiding.

There are reliable sources stating that the government was involved in this. See. BhaiSaab talk 01:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The BJP is a Hindu Nationalist party. What TerryJHo is doing is finding unreliable partisan sources, and then writing dubious stories of policemen raping women and stuff. I can make such allegations too maybe that aliens blew the train up to divide the human race, does that make them true? No. Allegations must be stated as allegations. The gov't is alleged to be complicit, nothing has (or will) be proven showing the BJP started or finished the riots. Moral support is not really involvement, otherwise Pakistan and al-Qaeda also were involved in these riots. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * NC TerryJ-Ho 01:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * NC? Bakaman Bakatalk 01:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What TerryJHo is doing is finding unreliable partisan sources?TerryJ-Ho 02:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Instead of asking questions and finding POV orgs, first explain what NC means.Bakaman Bakatalk 14:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No comments - I feel the text "What TerryJHo is doing is finding unreliable partisan sources?and then writing dubious stories of policemen raping women and stuff." bordering on personal attack violating the general and specific guidelines for this article.TerryJ-Ho 12:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I merely stated your actions. And the policemen rape stories are dubious as is onlinevolunteers.org . Bakaman Bakatalk 21:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No these are not my actions.These are your explanations of my actions and they are personal attack.By the way why are they dubious?Did you do a field trip in Gujarat to investigate or did Bharatvani ,Panchjanya and Organiser - Sangh Parivar the patent holders of your truth write on them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryJ-Ho (talk • contribs) 01:07, 17 August 2006

Qualify all sources

 * Reported bias in all sources must be qualified. Human Rights Watch is a questionable org that has been accused of anti-semitism and Islamist bias. Ney York Times is a liberal newspaper and has been accused of liberal bias. Arundhati Roy has been accused of anti-Americanism, anti-Hinduism and marxist Bias. koenraad Elst has been accused of pro-Hindutva bias, Balbir Punj is a BJP member and so has a partisan bias. All these sources, when quoted, must be qualified accordingly.Netaji 20:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all - the New York Times is a very reliable source and there is no need to qualify sources as long as they are reliable. Unless you can show that a specific report was biased or not trustworthy by using another reliable source, qualifying the source may be original research on your part. BhaiSaab talk 21:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nein mein freund. Read the wikipedia article on NYT itself. Many sources have accused the grey lady of systematic liberal bias in all it's articles (every single one). That includes Gujarat riot articles, which are liberal, anti-India and anti-Hindu. It is highly necessary to say "Liberal Newspaper New York Times" as well as "Controvertial organization Human Rights Watch", just like saying "Hindutva Supporter Koenraad Elst" or "Hindu Scholar Sita Ram Goel" or whatever.Netaji 23:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Who is "the grey lady" and can you provide sources that have made these accusations? BhaiSaab talk 00:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please look at New York Times. Grey lady is used there and NYT is regarded in the US as a "ultra-liberal" newspaper. Conservatives do not even read it, they read LA Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at the article. Although I see accusations of a liberal bias, exactly what impact does that have to coverage of 2002 Gujarat violence? How do you know that a newspaper with liberal bias would tend to favor one side over the other in this article? Also, Bcorr has requested that we "avoid characterizing the politics, motives, POV, or objectivity of material added to the article." BhaiSaab talk 00:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not fair. What if somebody went to articles on Jewish texts and started to quote anti-semitic websites that defame Jewish beliefs by quoting texts out of context? It is not fair to not qualify them, right? It needs to be qualified that neo-nazi/radical Islamist websites are anti-semitic. Likewise, if HRW has been accused of Islamist anti-semitism (they have), it needs to be mentioned that they have a systematic Islamist bias. Same with NYT, which has a systematic liberal bias, and needs appropriate qualification.
 * If you insist that sources are not to be qualified, then I am within the bounds of legitimacy to post links from fsiusa.org and hinduunity.org presenting their reports on the Gujarat riots without qualifying their bias, right? Fine, I'll do that also then.Netaji 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That would breach guidelines. See Reliable_sources. I suggest you take this up with Bcorr. BhaiSaab talk 00:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That only applies to "widely recognized extremist and terrorist groups" (read the literature). Last time I checked, neither fsiusa nor Elst were declared terrorists by any government org. Neither is HinduUnity or fsiusa recognized as terrorists. I agree that they are partisan, but so is hrw and NYT. HRW is "widely recognized" by Anti-Defamation League, Honest Reporting, NGO Monitor, the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), Abraham Cooper, Anne Bayefsky, Gerald Steinberg, Isi Leibler, Shimon Peres, Ariel Sharon, Uitzhak Rabin and Ana Palacio as anti-semitic and having an Islamist bias and therefore partisan also.Netaji 01:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It does not only apply to "extremist and terrorist groups." Hindu Unity takes an obvious religious stance; it is not a reliable source. BhaiSaab talk 01:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fsiusa does not. Doesn't have a manifesto of religiosity like al-Qaeda or LeT or whoever. It has been alleged of partisanship just like NYT. If fsiusa has to be quoted with qualification so must NYT. Btw just fyi, NYT has also published some anti-Islamic articles "bashing" the Taliban.Netaji 01:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what fsiusa is. My other comments were just about the Hindu Unity website. I don't care if NYT has published articles bashing the Taliban; that does not indicate that they are "anti-Islamic." BhaiSaab talk 01:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * fsiusa is a source.Well, CAIR people said that the Taliban were a "model Islamic state" and "anointed by Allah to spread his glorious word throughout Afghanistan" (got it from a quote on CNN from a CAIR lawyer), so criticizing them is anti-Islamic, right? NYT is a radical secular liberal fundamentalist rag, "widely regarded" as such even by many muslim orgs like CAIR and should be qualified as such. Plus, NYT wrote very positive articles about Abdul Rahman (you know, the bloke who converted to Christianity from Islam). This is ultimate haraam in Islam and all apostates are to be killed immediately according to your beliefs. Thus, NYT has published an article that attacks Islamic beliefs and so is anti-Islamic. See? Why are you quoting an anti-Islamic source? That is just plain wrong and offensive to muslim sensibilites. Boo-hoo! Boo-hoo!Sniff!Netaji 01:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with all the statements of CAIR, and I would appreciate it if you stopped assuming to know all of my personal beliefs. I will continue to use NYT articles here, considering WP:RS states "Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia." BhaiSaab talk 02:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the organizer also has a team of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers and managers, as does fsiusa and so are likely to be reliable by the same criterion. Bear in mind that if your goal is to manufacture an anti-Hindu article with exclusive citations from anti-India orgs like hrw and NYT then readers who are aware of this liberalism will not regard the article with any degree of legitimacy.Netaji 02:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A while ago you said NYT is anti-Islamic, and now you're saying its anti-Hindu. Which one is it? If it's both, then it's probably neutral regarding these incidents. "Readers who are aware of this liberalism" have no bearing on the use of NYT in this article, since, by guidelines, NYT is perfectably acceptable to use. Also please "refrain from characterizing the politics, motives, POV, or objectivity of other contributors." BhaiSaab talk 02:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * NYT is liberal ie anti-faith ie anti-all-faiths ie anti-Hindu, anti-Islamic, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian anti-Buddhist etc.Netaji 03:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well then it should be perfectly neutral when it comes to this article. BhaiSaab talk 03:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Liberal means pro-"oppressed". Since the Muslims are "oppressed" in India, the NY Times is duty bound to support them. Also, they hate conservatives like Bush and Shri Narendra Modi.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The New York Times is not bound to support anyone. BhaiSaab talk 04:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure they are. The Grey lady was formed by a liberal claque. They are paid to be liberal.Netaji 04:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Columnists can have whatever views they want. Celia Dugger is on Hinduunity's hit list, so she is a documented anti-Hindu. She has also been reported on Hindumediawatch.com for her anti-Hindu views. Since you said you have access to NYT files, find a competent columnist (Friedman and the like is good).Bakaman Bakatalk 04:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hindu Unity's listing of her is hardly a reason to not use her articles. Checking the archives, she was the main commentator on this violence for the New York Times. BhaiSaab talk 04:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nein mein freund, it was Ramesh Rao.Netaji 18:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then why aren't her articles in my archives? BhaiSaab talk 18:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Her? Rao is a dude, Janaab!I have cited sources. See 'em.Netaji 18:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake. BhaiSaab talk 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu Sources

 * 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)
 * I have reinstated part of his edit aftr some paraphrasing.Netaji 06:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Please refrain from making personal attacks. BhaiSaab talk 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Was this a personal attack? I'm sorry if you thought so.Netaji 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are well aware that you insinuated that I was anti-Semitic and/or anti-Hindu. BhaiSaab talk 18:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 <sub style="color:blue;">Bakatalk  18:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Exactly, anti-semitism is a recurrently featured in those views. Very sad.Netaji 19:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Anywho let's drop this issue for now.Netaji 19:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Media Coverage of the Riots

 * 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)

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

Checking in on how things are going...
As I have said to a few individuals, I appreciate that you are all working on the revision and I'm glad my suggestions seem to be helpful.

I want to make a suggestion that may (or may not) help to defuse some of the tension about this topic:

Perhaps there should be a separate article something like  Differing views of bias regarding the 2002 Gujarat violence ? I know that's a bad title, but perhaps you get the idea...

Does this make any sense?

Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 11:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Undecided, though I am not opposed to the idea - All established media sources except the Hindu right wing and their known supporters are in agreement on the gravity of these incidents - most call them massacre,pogroms or genocide. What if tomorrow supporters of Taleban differed on articles related to them.Will we create another article "Differing views of bias on War in Afghanistan".TerryJ-Ho 12:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. TerryJho, The Pioneer is not a Hindutva supporting newspaper, and most Human rights groups are anti-India anyways. The Muslims are the ones pushing taliban like "reforms" anyways. Characterizing Gujarat as Afghanistan makes no sense, and I request that you stop making racist attacks. Real genocide is the massacre of Kashmiri Pandits by Muslim terrorists and the Marad beach massacre by SIMI and NDF Muslim terrorists. 25% of those killed were Hindus, meaning it was merely a large-scale communal riot. Bakaman <sub style="color:blue;">Bakatalk 18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Tacitly Support - Unfortunately, Ho here has a strong anti-Hindu bias, as can be seen by his POV on the original articla as user Lkadvani. Any newspaper that tries to refute the claims of the liberal cabal is partisan Hindu according to him. The fact is, in most communal incidents in India, Hindus have been the majority victims because muslim terrorists kill more per capita than Hindus. These riots were the release of pent-up tensions from decades of muslim violence and terrorism in Gujarat from Gangsters like Latif.Netaji 18:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

TerryJ-Ho >>These riots were the release of pent-up tensions from decades of muslim violence and terrorism in Gujarat from Gangsters like Latif
 * I have not yet made any remarks out of the subject matter while I see certain authors mentioning gangsters, terrorists,justifying killings based on per capita as if it is a competition, bringing in Israel which is hardly related to the topic.Please read again the guidelines.I request an admin reinforcement of the terms as agreed.
 * OK,we have already mentioned Modi's action reaction theory but this does not mean we should parrot each statement regarding the violence to end with ..Now let us get over it and detail how the pent up emotions actually translated into the killings of innocent Muslims on the road.TerryJ-Ho 20:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: Please dont forget the "-" in my user name.


 * "Human rights groups are anti-India anyways" is too general . Could you qualify which groups and why?TerryJ-Ho 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well Human Rights Watch is definitely anti-Hindu and anti-Semitic also. They have been officially charged with anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is related to anti-Hinduism because the canards are the same (alleged secret conspiracy of Jews/alleged secret conspiracy of Brahmins, alleged usury of Jews/alleged usury of Banias , blood libels against Jews/blood libels against Hindus, disproportionate reporting of alleged human rights violations in Israel/India but neglecting far worse atrocities in muslim countries). Since the vast majority of the muslim world hates Jews and Hindus (except in rare cases when they have even greater enemies, like Iranian Shias supporting Hindus against Indian Sunni muslims, or Saudi Sunnis supporting Israel against Lebanese Shias etc) it is clear that an organization that reports biasedly in favor of them has a bias against both ethnic groups.Netaji 22:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * All the above is rhetoric.I dont see any explanations given only satements..Anti-Hindu x..Anti-Hindu Y..Jews and Shias and Sunnis.On an article on Gujarat what is Lebanon doing??TerryJ-Ho 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of all,All Muslims hate Hindus good..I dont know why I have a Hindu girlfriend thenTerryJ-Ho 01:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Trying to convert by emotional misleading,perhaps? It has been known to happen.Netaji 07:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

please discuss before chopping of vital infos
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 <sub style="color:blue;">Bakatalk  22:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)