User talk:PelleSmith/Archive 1

Eliade
Do point out your reasons on the talk page (and tell me how you think the section you removed should be reformulated, if it should be present at all), do address the issue of what the IP keeps doing when moving stuff relevant to Eliade's pre-Guardist nationalism to the section about "controversy", and do express a view on the mention of Ornea being Jewish as equivalent to the mention of Sebastian being one. Please. Dahn 16:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:
G'day! I hope you have read all my other arguments on that page, and not just that one paragraph.

Criticism sections are commentary and opinionated. We aren't here for discussion, or commentary, or a nice little critique of something. We're here for a neutral encylopedia.

Commentary, opinion, disccusion, all of that—can be kept on blogs and the tabloids, not here. michael talk 13:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Eliade stuff
Hi, By the time I am writing this, points 2 and 3 are no longer relevant: the users enforcing the problems were found to be respectively a well-known vandal under an alias and a troll operating from a proxy IP. To clear up some leftover details: the question of Ornea's Jewishness is a non sequitur, since the man presented data and not (or generally not) his opinions, and an assumptions that he had certain opinions because he was Jewish would also indicate that, since his opinions would be debatable from that perspective, all Jews feel a stringent need to lie about Eliade; on the other issue, I have recently added a section on the talk page, entitled "What the contoversy is about" (Italics as used there).

On the main issue (point 1): I was first and foremost perplexed as to why it would have to be considered "original research". As I have said, all of that information is ascribed unquestionalble sources, starting with Eliade himself. The conclusions have been drawn into public debate (or at least they have been so in Romania, where these implications of his intimacy with Guardism was discussed by several leading intellectuals in ca.1997, with Ornea and Volovici as uncontested sources); please, don't assume that they are obscure personal opinions if not present in Western debates on Eliade (in fact, I think that more and more of more recent Western sources have made mention of these facts, despite the determination of Romanian revisionists to keep them well hid). Eliade's point limps to the level where Holocaust revisionism limps in regard to reality, and to a level where anyone (not just Ornea) can use Occam's razor on them. As to what they would indicate to the reader: I know what they indicate to me, and I know that the text I wrote was neutral in comparison to that (all it said is that he made inaccurate statements). Furthermore, I have not included what Ornea cites simply because I did not want to clog and render even more ill-proportioned the text of the article (but I have indicated them on the talk page).

A note on my general attitude: I am quite annoyed I had to spend so much time and energy on this article. I find Eliade to be not a trivial cultural figure, but a mediocre writer and researcher; I do not agree with any of his visions on life or culture. However, I do not attack him for any of the opinions he had (including fascist ones), although I believe they should be made known. Now, I cannot understand why Eliade's supportrs did not expose his entire biography (for comparison, even though I admire Panait Istrati, I did not shy away from indicating that he had turned towards a brand of post-fascist nationalism in his later years, and I will happily include more mention of that if I find bibliography for it). I have tried to make at least one section of the article exhaustive, and have constantly appealed to people to include more information on his other activities (although I do not respect them much myself, I will stress again that they are not trivial). Dahn 14:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you agree that these are factual, then please indicate an un-biased rewrite and its place in the text. I had "united" the information because: a. it has an obvious common element ("Eliade's version of events" - which you had called on me to include earlier); b. Ornea himself "unites" it - given that his writing lists them after portioning deatiled information (they tend to form part of his conclusion for each section of the controversy, but he splits the controversy about Eliade into several chapters). Dahn 14:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sign my name?
You checked the history, went all the way to my talk page and made *two* edits to remind me to sign? In the future, using might save you a wee bit of time :p  --  Karafias   Talk &bull; Contributions 20:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiIslam
Hi PelleS, I read what you wrote about WikiIslam.org:
 * Speaking of Islamophobia, there is evidently even a wiki run by Islamophobes under the pretense of uncensored dialogue about Islam. The wiki is WikiIslam.org. Also, Islamophobia may not be "a global issue", in Dev's words, but it certainly is an important one within countries that have a large impact on world affairs (US and Western Europe). This makes it a "globally significant" issue nonetheless.PelleSmith 13:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC) - Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam"

In your opinion, what would make this Wiki accepted by more people? The fact is that Muslims edit out anything that is unfavourable to Islam, even if they are facts. As a former member of the faith who was born into it (and thus, I cannot be labeled as an "Islamophobe"), I understand this very well. WikiIslam was created so people could have their say on Islam without fear of censorship. There's a plan to include muslim opinions on the wiki in the future, but at the least, muslim content would be separate from the main website content and labeled clearly - would that solve the problem of the website appearing "Islamophobic"?. Anyway WikiIslam functions more as a collaborative wiki for people writing against Islam - we have enough pro-Islam websites.

I'm interested in hearing what your opinion is on WikiIslam, and how we can make the website better, while:
 * 1) not allowing censorship of negative facts of Islam (this is something that cannot be compromised)
 * 2) not wanting to appear as "Islamophobic".

The first point is much more important and so if that means failing to adhere to the 2nd, so be it. I wonder if you can suggest any way of WikiIslam appearing more objective and less 'Islamophobic'. This will help http://www.WikiIslam.org gain a liberal audience. If you have any other suggestions as well, I would be eager to hear them.--Matt57 13:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm honored that you would approach me in this manner to seek advice about making the website seem less "Islamophobic". Thanks for that.  However, I don't know how much I could help you because the very premise of the site seems to stem from an anger towards Islam.


 * 1) The first problem is that you have a disingenuous disclaimer: "Welcome to WikiIslam.org, which anyone can edit. Here you can safely state the facts about Islam without fear of censorship, NPOV or political correctness." Yet, as you write yourself, "Anyway WikiIslam functions more as a collaborative wiki for people writing against Islam - we have enough pro-Islam websites."  I have no problem with a website that has a specific agenda (or and ideological inclination), and if you think there are too many "pro-Islam sites" then you are more than welcome to add your own flavor to the world wide web, but why not be honest about it?  Why couch the site in ideas about freedom from censorship?
 * 2) This leads to a second problem in regards to the claims made by WikiIslam. Can anyone really edit it?  If a "pro-Islamic" editor started filling up your pages with quotes and information that was favorable to Islam (but not "false") would it be left on the site?  Would your site, dedicated to letting people write about the negative aspects of Islam, tolerate the diffusion of its agenda with that kind of information?  Does it have to?  No it doesn't, but be honest (and see #1).
 * 3) Actually this is really all one big point. If you honestly claimed to be a site dedicated to expose those things that "are negative about Islam" and only that then I would perhaps disagree with some of your claims, and I would most probably have a low opinion of your agenda, but I wouldn't think what you were doing was so disgraceful, because after all we are all welcome to our opinions in a free society.
 * 4) So really where I would start is with the masquarade, which is insulting and just makes those who disagree with you even angrier. Don't lie or pretend to be simply freely telling the "truth" about Islam when you are only telling one very specific side of the story.  That's my one point diffused accross four for some odd reason.PelleSmith 17:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Pelle, thanks for responding. I was trying to understand where you're coming from. You're right, right now we are not clear about our mission to not let Muslims mix up content with our viewpoint. I'm making an faq which will be linked on the main page and attempts to make it more clear who is allowed to edit. By "anyone can edit", I meant any internet user can edit it. I dont mean that Muslims can edit and censor the truth (as we see it). By "no fear of censorship", I am talking to people like us who feel censored by Muslims on Wikipedia. I cannot tell you how valuable this Wiki is being for our mission to let the truth (as we see it) be known, e.g. this page is a jewel - you would never see this great work on Wikipedia. Thats precisely my point.
 * So one thing is clear, our first strategy is to provide editors of our kind the freedom to say what they want. As you say your biggest complaint is that we're not being honest about this (we want to be and so I'm asking you) - (1) do you have any suggestions of how we can be honest and clear any doubts? Would the FAQ be enough? Even though I'm not clear about these things, I know for sure that WikiIslam was very much needed. This is the first community driven website for "truths" about Islam, so its a first naturally and very important.
 * (2) Can you suggest anything to make you and other people like you feel better about this wiki? Would our future plan of letting them edit, but keep the content labeled and separete work? Under no cimcumstances will the Muslim content be allowed to be mixed with the main content otherwise it will become the same situation as in WikiPedia where there is a constant tussle between the editors working on controversial material with widely differing opinions. This drives anyone crazy who wants to say the plain facts (as they see) about Islam but have it edited out after 15 seconds by a Muslim. This is where our Wiki comes in. --Matt57 00:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The faq is a step in the right direction but it is still missleading. WikiIslam is in fact censored, and you half admit this by saying that edits "critical" of Islam won't be censored on grounds of politcal correctness while "pro-Islamic" content will be immediatedly edited and the user will be banned from further editing.  The problem is, who decides what is "pro-Islamic" content, and what is "critical" content?  Who decides to ban a user?  On what grounds?  Wikipedia, while clearly not perfect, has made an attempt to use guidlines and procedures that allow these types of decisions to go through democratic processes.  Clearly a tyranny of the majority is always possible in such a case, and I wont pretend that the Wikipedia system is always "just".  However, you are admitting in your faq that there is some kind of unofficial system in place to censor content on an ideological basis.  This creates an obvious and glaring conflict between your false disclaimers about freedom from censorship and the reality behind the site.  I also don't know where the faq fits in, but the website still has the same ridiculous description on its opening page.


 * In a related issue, I would stay away from this phrase "political correctness". While many people disfavor the attitude behind blind adherence to a "politically correct" beleif system, most people of a liberal frame of mind (in the United States at least) see public denouncements of "political correctness" as a guise for conservative bigotry.  This is just a matter of identification, but as such it is a reality.  The same person may actually think that "political correctness" is bad while seeing those decrying it publically as closet bigots (despite the hypocracy).  However you can thank the likes of Rush Limbaugh and others here in the States for the vitality of this anti-political correctness = conservative bigotry identification.  So unless you like this identification for WikiIslam I would not use the aweful catch phrase "political correctness".


 * As I have already stated, you are not going to win over someone like myself, however you can get a bit more respect by being openly honest. Yet be careful.  Just because I will respect you for it, doesn't mean it is the most practical way to go about presenting yourself.  That's all I have to say.PelleSmith 12:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Pelle, we're not afraid to declare that we only allow content which is critical of Islam - I've said that in the FAQ as well which is linked now on the main page. At this point in the project, its more critical for Infidels to be able to edit the wiki in "safety" from Muslim edits. For now I'm pleased with what we are doing. When we are about to run out of content to add to the website, we might think of letting Muslims put their opinions like I said, in a marked seperate section as "Muslim opinion". If that makes us conservative bigots, well so be it. Like I said, I'm a former member of the faith and so that term doesnt apply to people like me. We'll think about giving Muslims room on our website at some point though I doubt they will come. Thanks for your opinion though, it was nice hearing from you. I will remember this as we want to have as wide as an audience as possible, without sacrificying the truth of the website which is and will remain the first priority. --Matt57 04:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I just happend to look at this conversation. I won't comment on everything but I want to say one thing to Matt so that he doesn't keep shooting himself in the foot. Matt, here's a friendly tip: you are not helping your argument that you are not biased against islam by stating that you are an ex-member of the faith. Ex-members of religions are some of the people MOST likely to be biased against the religion they left. The fact that you are an ex-member doesn't constitute conclusive evidence that you are biased against islam, of course, but I certainly wouldn't use it as evidence that you are not biased. 17:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan 05:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work
I appreciate your changes in . the John Esposito article. Good work! --- ابراهيم 12:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

On Eliade
Hi, Pelle. Thanks for taking the trouble to clean up the bibliography, but I have a better proposal. For starters, the section on "Critical works about Eliade" is pointless - if we need it as a hopeful guide that some wikipedians will actually look for the books to quote and expand the article, we could just copy the list to the talk page; I have not seen a similar section in any featured articles. As for Eliade's works: that list is huge and repetitive - somebody has introduced published editions of collected stories that have one or two novellas not featured in other collections - imagine what it would mean doing the same for an author just a bit more prolific than Eliade...; the entire list is available in both external links and references - in fact, it was largely copypasted from there; we should begin work on a section about Eliade "The fiction writer", which could sketch his most important works - on some of them, we could also start separate articles in the future. In case we still need a list after agreeing on these points, we could at least trim it down to "selected works". Dahn 13:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point about the critical literature, and agree (although, personally, I avoid using this system, I can live with it).
 * I'm currently exploring the idea of a section on his writings, and have the following to work with as of yet:


 * Ornea's mention of a dispute between Eliade and conservative writers of his time over the allegedly "pornographic character" of some of his novellas
 * Handoca's interviews with Eliade's contemporaries and peers
 * Ribas' short overall assessement of his writing
 * one of the works I have used as a reference for other articles makes an interesting mention of Eliade having been impressed with the Griviţa Strike of 1933, and about it being the inspiration for one of his writings (will look it up in detail)
 * Unfortunately, the works on Romanian literature in my bookcase do not deal with Eliade in the least (although, interstingly, I do own an obscure book of his that was published in 1929 or 1930, I did not take an interest in his literary work - it is not really my cup of tea); the syntheses of Romanian literature tend to ignore him - not surprisingly, perhaps, since the two major writers who could have dealt with Eliade before 1990 are George Călinescu and Tudor Vianu (both of whom made the choices directly opposite to Eliade's).
 * I'll do my best to come up with at least the skeleton of a text over the following days. Dahn 14:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have one more question. You have stated on the article's talk page that you considered the main problem of the text to be insufficient detail in several areas (and we agree that, without rants and eulogies, the other sections would still become significantly large[er]). However, you have also indicated that expansion is the main problem with the current text. Based on that, I would like to know what other weaknesses you think the article has, so that we may overcome them (I have not reverted or rephrased your previous edits,and have invited you to continue editing the text if you think certain phrasings are objectionable).

The main point here would be to come up with a version of the current text that nobody could delete partialy or entirely, as has happened in the past; the basis for such vandalism is, I'm afraid, conected with certain cliches that Romanian revisionists profit from - a pattern has surfaced on the talk page, indicating that Western users who ignore these aspects of his life are tolerant of text carving and detail shadowing (despite the fact that even Western sources have made ample mention of these aspects). I am especially intrigued by the user who has said that "the information covered in the article should necessarily be deleted for it may have a place in wikipedia, but not here, at least not all of it"...

That said, I would like to know if, on principle, you accept and endorse the relevancy of my edits overall, and if you would view their removal as vandalism. Thanks. Dahn 14:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I will need an answer, you know. I have referenced the text, and I ask that you reject all moves to have it deleted, unless you question the source itself. State your point clearly, please. Dahn 19:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, but you have not answered my question. I would thank you to do so. Dahn 19:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what kind of answer you are looking for. Referenced text should not be deleated unless better material is available, or unless the facts presented are not necessary for the sake of concise presentation.  Any deletion of referenced text that cannot be justified is vandalism.  Justification can, especially in the case of keeping an entry short, come from discussion and agreement on the talk page.  That said, a "referenced" statement can easily be misleading in its wording, or can many times for the sake of such things as NPOV be worded in a much better manner.  This leads me to the fact that I will not give blanket approval or endoresement to any one editors every edit.  However, in the case of this particular entry I whole heartly believe your edits have been in good faith and should remain on the page unless a justifiable alternative is given.  It is no secret that we don't completely agree on how much material concerning Eliade's early life, and his connections to Romanian fascism should be on the page, but that is a matter much better worked out as more material actually starts getting onto the page.  As the page stands now, unjustified deletions of referenced material, provided by Dahn is vandalism.  The material is about Eliade's life, and as such needs to stand up to the scrutiny of factual accuracy and relevance.  Although I recognize the idea behind recent deletions, in terms of "relevance" I do not believe they have been justified because until the article is fleshed out and more concise ways are presented to deal with Eliade's life and politics then Dahn's edits are as good as it gets.PelleSmith 19:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is that we have previously agreed to expand the text and render portions of the text more explicit; in fact, if I remember correctly, you have specifically asked me to do so.
 * The text I have added, as I have pointed out, does not take a unilateral view of his life (I will repeat this: I have mentioned hs entire scope of his activities, and the anbigous attitude towards fascism - as succintly as possible); if one does ignore the fact that, for much of his life, he was, as he himself said, merely a writer and lecturer, then one has the opportunity to actually find out about from wikipedia - instead of asking for the partial deletion of accurate text. That is why I cannot accept a discussion about how much the 1920s and 1930s should occupy in the article - I have condensed the text already, and I have rendered exhaustive a section that specifically deals with the controversy (as I believe any section dealing with a controversy should be).
 * I have also pointed out that abundantly detailed sections are the least of concern on wikipedia - I have provided examples of featured articles that are considerably larger than this one. In that case, if the current text on Eliade's political convictions is to remain the same, we should have no concern about "POV" and/or format. Expanding other sections of the text is what was proposed, this is what I thought we were debating. Consequently, I was asking you not for "blanket approval", but for support of the general mechanism.
 * The question of "misleading in wording" is itself misleading. I have already tired myself saying this: most of the sections on Eliade's politics are in Eliade's own words - I have refrained myself from paraphrasing them for this precise reason. It is a pretty serious accusation to imply that I have been falsifying text, and I hope you were not pointing that way; if you were having doubts about my wording in the text, I have asked you to voice them (you may note that I have not reverted your previous interventions in this sense, and that I have asked you to rephrase that which you still thought was problematic). Because, you see, it looks to me that you are placing a blanket suspicion on a version of the text.
 * Basically, your answer is: I endorse that which I cannot yet change. I thank you for taking the time, but I believe it missed the point. I would appreciate a reply that takes this one into consideration. Dahn 20:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you're being too sensitive. I endorse that which does not need to be changed.  I do not assume that I need to change anything at this moment.  However, if something does need to be changed in the future, then so be it--it will be suggested, discussed and maybe changed.  I don't want to go on the record saying that any changes to your edits are vandalism.  No one is perfect.  I know that's not what you want.  Here if you want to quote me:


 * Dahn's edits to the Mircea Eliade page have been good edits, presenting referenced materials, and have contributed to the entry as a whole. In fleshing out segments of Eliade's life they provde the readers with valuable information.  This, of course does not mean that the entry is complete, which it by no means is, but by adding referenced biographical material Dahn has taken the entry in a good direction.  The future may prove the need to edit some of his material to a more essential mass (not deleting information wholesale or changing the edits but condensing them).PelleSmith 20:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Dahn 20:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

On the u vs.o issue: I initailly thought you were making a mistake, and then I noticed that he had, indeed, "changed". I'm asking admins to look into it. Thanks. Dahn 20:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * PelleSmith, thank you for having called my attention to that inadvertence (Timor/Timur). I had involuntary opened a second account, which I deleted now.


 * Of course, little dahn has already tried to exploit this error of mine denouncing me again as a villain sockpuppeteer. This is one of his tactical weapons in order to get rid of inconvenient adversaries. Unlike others, who have their ennemies in the real life, he invents them on the WP. As dahn's own statements clearily show, in the case of Eliade he thinks he leads a battle against the machinations of Romanian nationalists who are regrettably backed by ignorant Westerners. Against this monstrous alliance, he, dahn, has to stay alone, like a crusader of post modern objectivity and political correctness. Is there any spark of hope for you PelleSmith, to become his Sancho Panza ?!


 * Now,let's leave this imaginary world. Dear PelleSmith, let me please clear some points on the Eliade issue:


 * I never proposed, endorsed or even tacitly approved the removal of whatever dahn wrote on Eliade; moreover, on the Eliade's talk page I explicitely expressed my allover approval for his edits
 * I don't regard the NPOV tag as a tactical measure aiming at preparing the removal of dahn edits in order to re-balance the article
 * generally, I'm not preparing any coups or edits wars against dahn or whoever else and more generally the image of Eliade in something like wikipedia does not count much
 * principially, removing information is not a good solution to re-balance an encycl text


 * Nevertheless, the article, as it is now, is a caricature, or, like dahn pertinently defined the word, a "distorted rendition". Moreover, the article shifts the emphasis from essential to unessential in a such arbitrary way, that to the large audience it represents disinformation.


 * The aim of any encycl entry is to easy provide essential information. In an article about Bethoveen you don't focus on the fact that he was deaf, very ill, had big pains and a bad character (!) The actual article on Eliade with a 70%-focus on his right-wing preferences is like an article on Mozart with 70% of it treating about Mozart's freemason activities and convictions. It is simply ridiculous ! Focusing on those aspects from the life and activity of a personality which are relevant for his notoriety - this is a very basic principle leaning on elementary common sense. (Why acually, have I to plead for such self-evidences ?)


 * A solution to get out of the actual impasse, would be to respect the standard procedure used in every important article: a main article with sections linking to in-deptharticles. Dahn can create an in-depth article about the ideological preferences of Eliade, while in the main art on Eliade, a more compact section would present the main points.


 * Amusingly, none of us, chevaliers of eliadoloy, dares to approach an inch the only real task: the work and posterity of Eliade. Reproducing in internet fragments from parctically one single book (an obscure Zigu Ornea) about trivia in the life of a great scholar is like the scratch of a mouse at the bottom of a baobab.


 * One more thing, PelleSmith: being myself a Romanian, I think of having a quite good understanding of that sort of compatriots like dahn: consciously or not, they interpret perfect urbanity like yours as a sign of weakness. Look at the way dahn is rushing you on the Eliade matter.


 * Thanks for your time--Timor Stultorum 14:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In short: that is essential information, treated succintly, many of which was present on that page; even if it were not essential, it would still be part of an ideal featured article; moving them to "another article" is outrageous sophistry; calling Ornea "obscure" and implying that his is the only source (when there are three books cited, and when even some external links discuss this at length) is pathetic; the disgusting take on what "kind of Romanian" I am is borderline fascist.
 * Timor/Timur/Azotlichid/Cosma from San Francisco - you have used my personal page to insult me a while back; one of your avatars was banned for vandalism and for being an open proxy; under your current alias, you have launched into an ad hominem diatriabe and trolling. How much more?! Dahn 16:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One final time: I cannot be held at ransom to contribute something I have little expertise on, and I cannot be prosecuted by some vandal for providing truthful and valid content. Dahn 16:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Allow me to ask: how does one "inadvertendly" open a new account?! P-lease. Dahn 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Partial apologies
Read your comment on my page, and partially apologize. Which part? See yourself!! ;-) User:Rursus 15:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but you have now removed my comments from your talk page while not removing the SPAM you put on the talk page of Islam. So I guess that's what you call deaf ears.PelleSmith 04:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism and Caste
Hi Pelle, I noticed your thoughtful comments on the Islam article discussion page. What you said was very reasonable and sophisticated. Please feel free to drop by the Hinduism discussion page anytime, where there are constant controversies lately, and offer your thoughts. Currently there is a vote being held over the best wording for the section on the caste system. If you have any opinion on the matter after reading the discussion, feel free to vote. HeBhagawan 02:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammed, Qu'ran, etc.
I did not have a problem with describing the Qu'ran as a scripture; but I felt that series of revelations provided much more information, and in fact, flowed better in the context of the sentence. Describing Muhammed as "the prophet Muhammed" is inaccurate: he is not a prophet to approximately 5 billion people. I would no more countenence "the prophet Muhammed" than I would "Jesus the Messiah". However, while "Islamic prophet Muhammed" is the appropriate reference, according to the Wikipedia style guide, it looked, frankly, silly to say that in the first paragraph of the article Islam. So I added his full name, which worked much better. I didn't bother to explain myself on the talkpage because you were arguing about the edit for unrelated reasons, namely over "neutrality". I was much more concerned for prose style. Dev920 (Please vote here) 18:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your vote. Hopefully we'll win thsi Sunday and Islam will become a much better article. Dev920 (Please vote here) 19:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Award
The Original Barnstar

Please note: This award has nothing to do with the voting on the Hinduism page. I noticed your good work earlier, but I waited to give you this award until after you voted so that it would not appear that I was trying to influence your vote or anything (which one user previously has accused me of doing). HeBhagawan 16:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Some clarification.
"Originally every caste was given equal importance. Later, as time passed, vested interests crept in. Caste, originally determined by the qualities and aptitudes of the individual, was made hereditary by self-interested people in positions of power and authority. As a result, some castes were made superior or "higher" and others inferior or "lower." The caste system gradually expanded to include several sub-castes (jati), along with a class of outcastes and the practice of social discrimination against the and Dalit classes." "Today it is often debated whether the caste system is an integral part of the Hindu religion sanctioned by the scriptures or or is simply an outdated social custom. The caste system is observed today especially among rural and uneducated Hindus; it is not observed as much in large cities, and the government of India has passed several laws attempting to remedy the problem of caste discrimination. " (Pl. ignore link 1,2 & 3 here-in as they are dead or mis-leading).

This is what was removed by me on 7th Nov. 2006 at 18.17. See this [].

I explained my actions on talk page (see this [] as under:

"40) I am showing my presence by removing without discussion. We should discuss. Apologies. I have removed two paragraphs from caste system as I feel it's not in line with the subject of the article. Looks bit foreign. It's result of prejudices. Shudras were considered to be fit for assisting other communities and the very nature of their work made other castes like Brahmins and Vaishyas superior. I think, superiority or inferiority is not supported by Hindu doctrines. Kshatriyas being warriors commanded a special respect. I think, if we exclude this, the article is not going to suffer but help in avoiding controversies, anti-Hindu attacks and help to reduce the size. swadhyayee 12:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)"

My actions and my views are as above. I think, you might have missed the context.

Caste is not a matter of Hindu religion doctrines. It was a social system created by some sages. Like any existence is subject to decay, this system could have been suject to decay and resultant natural perversion, for which the religion can not be held responsible. The article "Hinduism" in my opinion deals with "Hindu religion". Inclusion of perversion of caste system and govt. policies to safeguard the interest of some castes deprived of natural justice due to evils finding an entry into the system was gross wrong in my opinion. I as a Hindu develop strong objections to these sort of irrelevant inclusions in Hinduism which picturise wrong image of Hinduism. Hope you will agree that an article has to be free from irrelevancy, particularly article on religion.

'''The voting sidelined the main issue. I felt necessary to provide you the context.''' With Regards,

swadhyayee 04:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Islam as this week's WP:AID winner
Dev920 15:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent comments.
Thanks for your excellent comments. You must have seen every Hindu editor has agreed that caste system does not have it's roots in Hindu religion nor the oppressions by one caste upon other is.

"Four Varnas" are claimed to be created by God. This was division of professions. A person from one Varna can not undertake profession of another Varna was the rule. Varna - Brahmin were supposed to teach, spread religion and carry on rituals of religion. Varna - Vaishya were supposed to do cultivation and mercantile. Varna - Kshatriya was supposed to be police or army to protect socities. Varna - Shudra were supposed to be assisting all socities in providing their material need which included tailors, gold-smiths, shoe-makers, sweepers, disposal of carcasses and so on. Naturally, each this section became one caste. Marriages took place within one's own caste. The Hindu doctrines state all Varnas to be equal and supplementary to each other.

It is seen that people from each Varna has different level of vision and intellect. Vaishyas are seen to be most wise. Brahmins are seen to be inclined to religion spreading. Kshatriya are seen to be hot tempered and laying one's life for protection of weak. Tailors etc. are skilled labour.

May be few hundred years ago with arrival of Britishers, improvised toilets came in existence without sewerage system till then people use to go to areas covered by plants or rocks to relieve them. Even in Indian villages people having no sewerage system go to open area for relieving themselves but the directions for males and females are different. Supposing east is meant for women, no man would go in that direction of the village. In such case, west would be declared for use of males. This is strictly observed. People used to get up before sun-rise and finish their call of nature in dark.

With making of improvised toilets, the cleaning & disposal work became domain of Harijans earlier known as Dedha or Bhangi. This was done manually without much help of gears. Obviously, the caste involved in daily Puja (worshiping of God) kept a distance with these castes and such distance so created was seen as oppression and real oppression did also take place locally. The degree of oppressions were different region wise.

Even today, there is a definite share of cultivation ear-marked for this caste by any cultivator.

Each Varna was supposed to supplement each other.

What HeBhagawan is trying to do is attach social prejudices result of individual or local thinking and likes-dislikes to Hinduism. The oppressions take place because of money power, influence and muscle power. Our religion never suggest or support these oppressions.

I asked them repeatedly what is the axis (central point) of this article but none of them answers. If central point of this article is religion, the social injustice resultant of individual or local prejudices should not have a place here.

What one (editor) has to say is what one (religion) is. His attempts on Wikipedia will create mis-understandings in the minds of foreigners and increase their prejudices against Hindus.

Any best theory can not be expected to be practised best. The better the practice of religious theory, the better the harmony in society.

Unfortunately, HeBhagawan is not open to understand other views and act as author of the article than a contributor of a free software.

If you would care to see that he approached Priyanath on Priyanath's talk page after the voting where the controversial things were removed at the time of vote, to include text with controversial matters contrary to the voting; You will see the attitude of HeBhagawan.

Being a Hindu and having knowledge of my religion, I find the attitude of HeBhagawan un-becoming.

Apologies for the long post.

swadhyayee 04:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Islam criticism
Regarding my "insinuations" that you would remove the criticism section and claim "modern hysteria" as a reason - my comments were not aimed at you. They derived from a general frustration that anything negative placed on Islam is usually removed and proclaimed Islamophobic and variants thereof. I know they mean well, but they don't get that, here, WP:NPOV trumps religious devotion. If I have advertently upset you, I apologise. Regarding the criticism format, the simple answer is I don't know. I would dispute, however, that questionable actions taken by Middle Eastern Muslims could not be called "Islam". The terrorist tapes that currently circulate feature large amounts of Qu'ranic quotation, and Saudi Arabia's constitution is based upon the Qu'ran. There is an argument to be made, I feel, that many of these so-called fundementalists are actually, in their own bizarre way, trying to be "good" Muslims. Whether this is authentic Islam or not is debatable, but it is A form of Islam. But, you did not leave a message to discuss Middle Eastern politics. The criticism section as it stands was created by me as a condensed version of the historical and modern criticisms found in Criticism of Islam - I thus have no real opinion on whether such criticism should be theological, historical, or practical in nature. What would you yourself suggest? Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 21:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Woops
Check the Islam talk page again for the answer to your "Who are you" question. :) BhaiSaab talk 22:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)