Talk:Direct Action Day: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:04, 30 March 2007 editThe Kinslayer (talk \| contribs)7,008 edits →Gandhi's autobiography dates till 1928 only ← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:10, 30 March 2007 edit undoKjartan8 (talk \| contribs)135 edits →Gandhi's autobiography dates till 1928 only Next edit →
Line 138:		Line 138:
	::What establishes the reliability of this so-called "book"? is it peer reviewed? Is it written by an academic in a proper university (there are a few in Pakistan as well you know), or some Mullah in the middle of a desert somewhere? The main point here is one of ] and ]. How do we establish reliability? Through reputation, publication lists, peer-review etc. So far, this user has done precisely zero out of the three. ] 12:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)		::What establishes the reliability of this so-called "book"? is it peer reviewed? Is it written by an academic in a proper university (there are a few in Pakistan as well you know), or some Mullah in the middle of a desert somewhere? The main point here is one of ] and ]. How do we establish reliability? Through reputation, publication lists, peer-review etc. So far, this user has done precisely zero out of the three. ] 12:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::The situation with the sources is one that should be left until the RfC has been done, and then sources can be judged based on the neutral 4th parties comments. As for the personal attacks, the point I am trying to make is that if either of you feel the other has made personal attacks against you, then you should report it here: ] and stop just yelling it at each other in the hope someone else will do something about it. I will state now that I will not judge any sources, my interest here is solely limited to ensuring a reasonable outcome for all parties is achieved. Again, this is not a judgement on the article, I just wish to remain as neutral as possible, and the best way to do this is to not get drawn into a debate about the merits or failings of sources and the article. I appreciate you both leaving the article until a comment has been made. ] 13:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)		:::The situation with the sources is one that should be left until the RfC has been done, and then sources can be judged based on the neutral 4th parties comments. As for the personal attacks, the point I am trying to make is that if either of you feel the other has made personal attacks against you, then you should report it here: ] and stop just yelling it at each other in the hope someone else will do something about it. I will state now that I will not judge any sources, my interest here is solely limited to ensuring a reasonable outcome for all parties is achieved. Again, this is not a judgement on the article, I just wish to remain as neutral as possible, and the best way to do this is to not get drawn into a debate about the merits or failings of sources and the article. I appreciate you both leaving the article until a comment has been made. ] 13:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
			::::I have no interest in mud-slinging on webpages devoted to that purpose. Let this sockpuppet master do that if he feels that is how he will get his propaganda across. He will probably be banned soon anyway, given his rampant disregard for wikipedia's methods, after which I will return and discuss with editors who want to make meaningful contribution instead of getting into insulting rants about "Hindu extremists" or what have you. I refuse to assume good faith with Jamaat-e-Islami trolls touting bogus "publications" and misrepresenting legitimate ones to advance what is quite obviously a well-indoctrinated Islamist agenda. ] 13:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

	== RfC ==		== RfC ==

Revision as of 13:10, 30 March 2007

India: Politics Unassessed

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup.

The article makes several deliberate factual errors regarding the Muslim League which I have tried to correct and the general tone of the article goes against historical facts... It is sadly based on one sided Indian propaganda and nothing else. Despite my corrections, the article is so skewed that it must have been funded by some extremist Hindu groups in India.

Please see below...

Biased and onesided article

This is an absolute travesty of history... which quotes one side of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.67.241 (talk • contribs) of 26.03.07

You are most welcome to up-date with proper citations and references. In case, you are not registered, it is a good idea to take a user name. It will be more helpful for future. --Bhadani 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to use. I am new to Misplaced Pages .. So I don't know how to contribute:

"Last weekend has seen dreadful riots in Calcutta. The estimates of casualties is 3000 dead and 17000 injured. The Bengal Congress are convinced that all the trouble was deliberately engineered by the Muslim League Ministry, but no satisfactory evidence to that effect has reached me yet. It is said that the decision to have a public holiday on 16th August was the cause of trouble, but I think this is very far-fetched. There was a public holiday in Sind and there was no trouble there. At any rate, whatever the causes of the outbreak, when it started, the Hindus and Sikhs were every bit as fierce as Muslims. The present estimate is that appreciably more Muslims were killed than the Hindus"

Lord Wavell to Pethick Lawrence

The editorial of Blitz, the Congress Mouthpiece... writes::

Meanwhile the Congress Mouthpiece "Blitz" wrote this about the direct action day:

The worst enemies of the Muslim League cannot help envying the leadership of Mr Jinnah. Last week's cataclysmic transformation of the League from the reactionary racket of the Muslim Nawabs, Noons, and Knights into a revolutionary mass organisation dedicated, by word if not be deed, to an anti-Imperialist struggle, compels us to express the sneaking national wish that a diplomat and strategist of Jinnah's proven calibre were at the held of the Indian National Congress. There is no denying the fact that by his latest master-stroke of diplomacy Jinnah has outbid, outwitted and outmaneuvered the British and Congress alike and confounded the common national indictment that the Muslim League is a parasite of British Imperialism

Now why would a Congress Newspaper praise Jinnah if Direct Action Day was all that you are making it out to be...

The fact is that Calcutta was an exception... a well thought out plan by the Congress which sabotaged the League's programme for temporary political gain....

http://www.free-definition.com/Direct-action.html

Direct Action simply means civil disobedience... as Dr. King put it:

"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored."

Now consider H V Hodson's description of the League Programme:

"The working committee followed up by calling on Muslims through out India to observe 16th August as direct action day. On that Day meeting would be held all over the country to explain League's resolution. These meetings and processions passed of- as was manifestly the Central league leaders' intention- without more than commonplace and limited disturbance with one vast and tragic exception... what happened was more than anyone could have foreseen."

(Page 166 'The Great Divide')

Explaining Direct Action Jinnah made it clear that the direct Action will not be in any form but in peaceful form...

"16th August is not for the purpose of resorting to Direct Action in any form or shape, Therefore I enjoin upon the Muslims to carry our the instructions and abide by them strictly and conduct themselves peacefuly and in a disciplined manner."

Press Release Jinnah 14th August 1946

Statement from Jinnah on the 17 August 1946, next day after the Calcutta Killings:

“I condemn the violence and sympathise with the victims. It was contrary to what the working Committee (of ML) said that some people have acted against the directives (sic)”.

Noakhali

Thousands of Hindus were killed and their womenfolk abducted in Noakhali Districtin 1946-1947.Can someone write an article for wikipedia on that carnage .--Shyamsunder 09:06, 01 October 2006 (UTC)

Did as much as I could so far. More information sources needed.Hkelkar 11:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

More information Needed

I expanded with some stuff I dug up from the library & online. I need more sources. Plus, also need to expand the section on riots etc in Punjab, Bihar and NWFP.Plz help.Hkelkar 11:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

REVERTED Ktrjan's edits

They were not edits... simply an attempt to take out sourced information. The article is WP:POV as is .... but by taking out the balance it was an attempt to distort history. I will continue to monitor this and Ktrjan does this again, I will report him to the moderators. 202.163.67.241 06:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits were rent with original research, unverified claims and misrepresentations. Please stop this. Kjartan8 06:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Kjartan, my quotes were directly out of published works like Stanley Wolpert's Jinnah of Pakistan, Gandhi's Passion and Mansergh's edited Transfer of Power Papers. There ARE no misrepresentations in what I have quoted... but most of the article consists of propaganda sources quoted by yourself. Have the decency to accept the facts and STOP VANDALIZING. Teabing-Leigh 07:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Wolpert did not say "This quote however does not find favor with Jinnah's biographers". That is Original research and you have been reported for violating wikipedia regulations. Kjartan8 07:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Wolpert quotes the speech in his book "Jinnah of Pakistan" and somehow the biographer misses this pertinent invented quote. User:Teabing-Leigh|Teabing-Leigh]] 07:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's still Original research

More false statements exposed:

1.Diagram caption put by you not verified by source.(Dead and wounded after the 'Direct Action Day' which developed into pitched battles as Hindu mobs were let loose on the Muslims,Calcutta in 1946, the year before independence)Kjartan8 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

2.Undue weight (WP:UNDUE) given to one ref entered twice (Wavell to Pethick Lawrence, August 21, 1946, Mansergh, Transfer of Power, Vol. VIII, P.274) Kjartan8 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no undue weight. This source is important to counter the onesided unsourced information being added by you. Teabing-Leigh 07:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not add anything to the article. Information was already there that you removed. Stating the same thing twice in bolded letters (which you have done) is undue weight.Kjartan8 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

3.Deletion of the Muriel Lester source without advancing reason Kjartan8 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Where and WHEN was this deleted. I can't help it if you claim something THAT did not happen Teabing-Leigh 07:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been removed right now. You removed it because you want to remove good entries and replace them with deliberate falsifications. Kjartan8 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

and many more... Kjartan8 07:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No ... there aren't any other deletions only sourced addtions.Teabing-Leigh 07:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are. Kjartan8 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Gandhi's autobiography dates till 1928 only

Kjartan8 has taken to quoting Gandhi's autobiography which covers events upto 1928. He is putting as a source for events in 1946. Teabing-Leigh 07:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Prove it. Kjartan8 07:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Prove what. Gandhi's Autobiography "My experiments with the truth" covers only the period up to 1928. You are clearly making up sources as you go along and vandalising others' work for things that you do. Teabing-Leigh 07:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Assumption of bad faith is a violation of wikipedia regulations. I will add this to my complaint against you. Kjartan8 07:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been watching this article for many weeks and I have seen nothing but vandalism. YLH 07:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously a Sock puppet Kjartan8 07:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Using the same the computer does not make anyone a sock puppet. YLH 07:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. Reported you also. Kjartan8 07:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Using a different account on the same computer to bypass 3RR IS sock-puppetry. The Kinslayer 08:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't spin it. If YLH uses the same computer and reverts something from his account that is NOT sock puppetry. Teabing-Leigh 09:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of resolving this, can you both please refrain from making ANY further edits to the article until the Request for Commentary has been answered. This is not an endorsement of the current version, rather it is a step towards making the issue less cloudy. Appropriate actions can be taken in response to the commentary after it has been given. If this civil, good-faith request is not respected, then I will be seeking to get the paged locked to all editors until such time a compromise can be made. The Kinslayer 10:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Kjartan has nominated "Dawn" one of the oldest and most respectable newspapers in Pakistan as a "propaganda biased sourcE"... when most of his sources fail the test. Teabing-Leigh 10:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And he says the same thing about your sources. This is not going to be resolved while you both revert each others tags, so I suggest you both go find other articles to (non-controversially) edit while we wait for the Request for Comment to be processed. Is there anything unreasonable with this request? And if so, please state why it's unreasonable. The Kinslayer 10:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

From the second this message goes live, if so much as a mis-spelling in this article is edited, I will revert it as vandalism. Find other articles to edit. Presumably you both have this article on your watchlists, so you will know when the RfC has been answered. Until then, just forget about this article. Find something more constructive and less controversial to do with your time. The Kinslayer 11:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes alright. I will stop editing since I want to cooperate. But I can point by point prove that T-Leigh's edits are original research (obvious from his comments up above), mis-attributed and , in many cases, outright false or based on partisan propaganda sources from militant Pakistan government. In the interests of fairness, non-academic sources (news media, papers etc.) can be forgone because there is chance for media bias from both sides. Kjartan8 11:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Kjartan is a probably a jingoistic Indian nationalist- as evidenced by his "militant Pakistan government" and "Dawn as a Pakistani propaganda website" claims. He is not interested in creating a balanced article. Furthermore, unlike his one sided "Why I am a Hindu" or other such propaganda sources, Stanley Wolpert, Mansergh, Ayesha Jalal and Sharif ul Mujahid cannot be considered "propaganda sources" nor was to the best of my knowledge Viscount Wavell ever associated with the "militant Pakistan government". These personal attacks are absolutely unnecessary and make it abundantly clear who stands where on the question of objectivity. 202.163.67.241 12:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may Teabing, it does not give you permission to act in the same manner. There are various places you can report his beavious, or he can report your behaviour, if you genuinely believe he is making personal attacks. The way I'm seeing it, we have a pro-indian trying to put his POV on this article, and we have someone opposed to him trying to put his POV on the article. The Kinslayer 12:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that I never made a direct personal attack on him as such, but he just made one more on me. Still, who knows what Deobandi madrassa teaches these things. In any case, I have reported this user for gross abuse of wikipedia, two sets of 3rr violations, sock puppetting and numerous other cases. Now the time has come to wait until the authorities to clean up the garbage. To continue, I have Stanley Wolpert's books that are "referenced" by this user. I do not know which madrassa releases the versions of Wolpert's books cited here, but the present edits do not accurately reflect Wolpert's work, not to mention the numerous original research and weasel words like "Most historians agree" (really? Where in the references do they say so? Only 3 references show that only 3 "historians agree", and I can easily show that at least two are falsely cited by this person), and "This quote however does not find favor with Jinnah's biographers". Really, is it necessary to treat trolls such as this with any credibility at all?Kjartan8 12:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Kinslayer leaving aside your hatred for me.... please see this below:

http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/bengal_india_history/tuker_calcutta_riot.html

C.D.L. tanks with strong searchlights joined the troops at dusk and the eerie flickering of their lights as they passed from street to street playing on the dead and on the devastation in which they died, made a Dore's Inferno of Calcutta.

In the early hours of the 18th, the 1/3rd Gurkhas moved into the Dock area. From then onwards the area of military domination of the city was increased. Static guards took over from police guards and a party of troops under Major Littleboy, the Assistant Provost-Marshal, did valuable work in the rescue organisation for displaced and needy persons. Outside the 'military' areas, the situation worsened hourly. Buses and taxis were charging about loaded with Sikhs and Hindus armed with swords, iron bars and firearms.

.... This is the book I quoted. You can find this quote there and in the book. Yet this is being cited as "failed verification". You see Kjartan is playing a rather interesting game here to forward his POV. He knows that all my sources are valid... but he is deliberately creating an issue where there exists none. 202.163.67.241 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What establishes the reliability of this so-called "book"? is it peer reviewed? Is it written by an academic in a proper university (there are a few in Pakistan as well you know), or some Mullah in the middle of a desert somewhere? The main point here is one of attribution and reliable Sources. How do we establish reliability? Through reputation, publication lists, peer-review etc. So far, this user has done precisely zero out of the three. Kjartan8 12:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The situation with the sources is one that should be left until the RfC has been done, and then sources can be judged based on the neutral 4th parties comments. As for the personal attacks, the point I am trying to make is that if either of you feel the other has made personal attacks against you, then you should report it here: WP:ANI and stop just yelling it at each other in the hope someone else will do something about it. I will state now that I will not judge any sources, my interest here is solely limited to ensuring a reasonable outcome for all parties is achieved. Again, this is not a judgement on the article, I just wish to remain as neutral as possible, and the best way to do this is to not get drawn into a debate about the merits or failings of sources and the article. I appreciate you both leaving the article until a comment has been made. The Kinslayer 13:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in mud-slinging on webpages devoted to that purpose. Let this sockpuppet master do that if he feels that is how he will get his propaganda across. He will probably be banned soon anyway, given his rampant disregard for wikipedia's methods, after which I will return and discuss with editors who want to make meaningful contribution instead of getting into insulting rants about "Hindu extremists" or what have you. I refuse to assume good faith with Jamaat-e-Islami trolls touting bogus "publications" and misrepresenting legitimate ones to advance what is quite obviously a well-indoctrinated Islamist agenda. Kjartan8 13:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC

This space reserved for requested comment. The Kinslayer 09:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories: