Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-10 Udit Raj

Mediation Case: 2006-10-10 Udit Raj
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Muggle1982 06:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Udit Raj" page
 * Where is the issue taking place?

Me, Hkelkar, Bakasuprman
 * Who's involved?

The Udit Raj page, prior to my initial edit, was basically a list of "accusations" by people opposed to religious conversion in India. There was little about Udit Raj himself except this list of accusations. This would be like having a Bill Clinton page that is entirely about Republican accusations against him.
 * What's going on?

To provide a fuller picture of a popular Indian leader, I added more about Udit Raj, and the social group he represents, as well as some history behind the "controversy" surrounding him, supported by links from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

My factually correct, substantiated edit was repeatedly undone by 2 or 3 individuals - Hkelkar and Baksuprman among them, who kept reverting 7 or 8 times to the older version, which I thought was not permitted.

Despite knowing the rules, and trying to tell *me* about them, they still undo my edit and revert to the old page - on a daily basis.
 * Please see my response in the discussion section below.Hkelkar 11:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ''What would you like to change about that?

I would like any sourced edits I make to be left in, not removed and reverted repeatedly.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?



Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.


 * A great example of teamwork is on the article Narendra Modi, which was cleaned-up from a trashy state. IMO, the solution is simply to stick with WP fundamentals - WP:POINT, WP:NPOV and WP:RS:


 * 1) No sites in references or external links of a propaganda/interest group, i.e. HVK, Dalistan, MilliGazete, Ambedkar.org, etc. Use only "Times of India," "Hindustan Times," and other newspapers, and scholarly sources such as editorials, research papers, especially those available through Google Scholar.
 * 2) Agree that Udit Raj is a controversial socio-political leader, which is all that should be said. No "hailed by Dalit, human rights groups" or "assailed by Hindutva groups." It may seem obvious to include these generalizations, but you cannot stereotype his critics even as you try not to stereotype Udit Raj.
 * 3) Without emotion or assertiveness, state the facts. For example - "Claiming that upper caste Hindus are doing nothing to fight caste-based discrimination and untouchability, Udit Raj advocates conversion to Buddhism as a means for SC/ST/OBCs to fight discrimination. However, several Hindu organizations, scholars and some in the media claim Udit Raj is exploiting a sensitive social issue for political purposes and encouraging divisions in Hindu society."
 * 4) Please see Narendra Modi for an example to emulate. Rama's arrow  05:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not against this at all. The Muggle1982 guy has flown the coop after he got blocked and his sock got indefbanned so it's just me now.Please continue with further suggestions.I request you make edits to a version of the article in my user page User:Hkelkar/uditraj so that I can get a clearer idea of your suggestions. Thanks.Hkelkar 05:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you remove the references/links to Al Jazeera, Swami Agnivesh, Milli Gazette, Hindu American Foundation - these are of questionable nature and quite likely POV-pushing. The other refs are ok, but you need more like them. Rama's arrow  05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add by Hkelkar:I agree with this editor that BLP and other such rules must be followed. I have not removed any of his sourced edits (point of fact I have expanded on them) except the ones that are irrelevant to Raj and essentially involve racist attacks on Hindus on the part of the editor. He has essentially alleged that upper caste Hindus are attacking Dalits. Regardless of the truth of this allegation (the allegation is patently false), it is irrelevant to Raj. Plus, the Human-Rights Watch ref that he cites refers to Hindu-Muslim violence and has absolutely nothing to do woth the issue at hand. Thus, I removed it per WP:V.


 * This editor has, point of fact, vandalized my sourced edits and replaced them with references that do not involve the subject of the article in any way. Plus, I point to figures similar to Udit Raj, such as Louis Farrakhan as precedent for my edits. Louis Farrakhan is also regarded in America as a "popular leader" by many people. Nonetheless, wikipedia does not whitewash anti-semitic and racist comments made by Farrakhan.In the same vein, I argue that Muggle not whitewash anti-Hindu polemics and attacks from Udit Raj and merely state them without taking a position on the subject (as he has). I have provided references that establish that Raj made anti-Hindu comments to his audience that were received with hostility and I have provided reliable sources from non-partisan news agencies that list criticism of the figure. I have also qualified that Hindu groups have criticized him (qualification of potentially partisan sources per WP:RS). He, on the other hand, sourced partisan websites such as "Coalition against Communalism" without qualification (refs that don;t even mention Raj).


 * None of my edits are a violation of WP:BLP and all of it satisfy WP:Reliable Sources and WP:V. I urge the mediators to take all this into consideration and please discuss edits with all involved parties.Thanks.Hkelkar 10:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Details:

This diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Udit_Raj&diff=80591983&oldid=80571363


 * The following edits of Muggle are unnacceptable per wikipedia policy:

n behalf of India's untouchables, who following the movement of intellectual and activist Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, also call themselves "dalit" or "broken people". Although untouchability is outlawed by the Indian constitution, its practice, as well as discrimination, hate-crimes and violence against Dalits are common among people of all religions in India, but more among those of the majority Hindu community


 * Have nothing to do with Udit Raj and merely serve as a tool to bash Hindus by the user. There is ample information regarding this in the relevant wikipedia artifles and the reader may simply click on the links to them from the Udit Raj article.

Dr. Ambedkar led the first mass conversion of Dalits to Buddhism, because after decades of comparative religious study, he considered Buddhism to be the most egalitarian, modern, dogma-free and universal religion.


 * Again, a paean to Ambedkar that has nothing to do with Udit Raj (and the association is completely unsourced to boot).

Christian organizations often work among Dalits, both as service, and to proselytize. More importantly for Dalits perhaps, these groups often have the financial resources to enable Dalit empowerment and education.


 * Bah! Christian Fundamentalists have done nothing to empower Dalits other than turn them to violence against Hindus in the name of the Bible. There is absolutely NO source to qualify his outrageous claim (no non-partisan one anyway). Point of fact MY RELIABLE Source (per WP:RS) in the article indicates the exact opposite, the Raj has done little to "Emancipate the Dalits".

Hindu nationalist groups


 * Again, a partisan leftist mouthpeice that does not qualify WP:RS.

social protest for Dalits. In a country


 * See above. Partisan and unreliable source per WP:RS unless stated with qualification.

He has organized other conversion events including one at Chennai on Dec. 6, 2002. These conversion ceremonies, needless to say, aroused the ire of Hindu nationalist groups.


 * More obvious POV. I have reworded to reduce bias.

However, progressive Hindu activists, like Swami Agnivesh applaud the mass movement led by Mr Udit Raj, as an urgent and necessary cry for social justice.


 * POV. Takes position on subject.I will reword shortly.

While Hindu priests might object that this tars them all with the same brush, Dalit protest has always expressed itself as protest against religious orthodoxy. Dalit Muslims have spearheaded protest against the ulema or clergy, and Dalit Christians frequently speak out against racism and casteism in the church hierarchy


 * Completely unsourced and so removed per WP:RS.Hkelkar 10:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Hkelkar, I've given the text a copy edit and made some changes. If any of these have gone too far, then obviously just revert them. Otherwise, given that Muggle1982 is no longer editing, should we close this case? Addhoc 10:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)