She sounds like an activist who will interpret anything neutral as taking a position against, and who's lost so much perspective that a single person's statement is taken as the official word.
Allow me to disagree. I joined this mailing list in order to learn about what to post and how to word articles and also to bring to the attention of someone who can do something about the problems I've been facing.
I too was under the impression that the aim of Wikipedia was to present things in an encyclopediac fashion. Admittedly, it is difficult to achieve this on issues such as partial-birth abortion. However, when Wikipedia allows allegations ragrding verifiable events (especially the allegations of political oppnents) to be posted as a legitimate point of view, the credibility of Wikipedia takes a beating.
On issues which are not points of view, why not let the verifiable facts speak for themselves? Follow the old dictum of "show, don't tell."
In particular, I've been having problems regarding contributions I've made on India. I've tried to stick to verifiable facts and present things in an encyclopedic manner, but there seem to be 3 members who keep watch on what I'm posting and revert it to their version which carries nothing but what can be classified as propaganda of the Communist Party of India(Marxist). These people add allegations by this party as a part of an article.
Initially, I was told that representing all points of views was considered neutral on Wikipedia and I believed it, even though I was startled that it could be the case. I would have liked to see a version which presented issues without jingoism in an encyclopedic manner. In any case, I accepted the claim that if an issue has N views, all N views are represented on Wikipedia. However, when I posted a point of view they didn't like, it was removed by them!
They've been posting opinions as facts and there is another strategy they follow. If I have anything positive to say about India, they come up with "some people think this, others claim that" kind of article to obfuscate the issue. If there is something negative, they gleefully make assertions. I am sorry to say that if this is what neutrality is about, Wikipedia will not have any credibility.
I am open to minute scrutiny of my contributions and removal of points which are unacceptable (in fact, when someone pointed out some flaws in my version, I accepted them and removed them since I wanted to make it better.) For the record, my id is LibertarianAnarchist and you may check out my posts and subject them to scrutiny by someone who is really neutral and knowledgeable.
I agree that controversial positions are tough to decide on, but revising history by writing fiction and their own allegations and then armtwisting me by claiming that it is controversial since they have a particular point of view?
I hope Wikipedia will not become a Hindu/India hating site.
Thanks, A sincere contributor
_______________________________________________ No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding. Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com
libertarian wrote:
I too was under the impression that the aim of Wikipedia was to present things in an encyclopediac fashion.
It is!
However, when Wikipedia allows allegations ragrding verifiable events (especially the allegations of political oppnents) to be posted as a legitimate point of view, the credibility of Wikipedia takes a beating.
What do you mean about 'allows'? If you see a problem, edit it.
In particular, I've been having problems regarding contributions I've made on India. I've tried to stick to verifiable facts and present things in an encyclopedic manner, but there seem to be 3 members who keep watch on what I'm posting and revert it to their version which carries nothing but what can be classified as propaganda of the Communist Party of India(Marxist). These people add allegations by this party as a part of an article.
Can you give an exact reference, including references to diffs of reversions?
In any case, I accepted the claim that if an issue has N views, all N views are represented on Wikipedia. However, when I posted a point of view they didn't like, it was removed by them!
I have not looked at your edits, but one key that you should keep in mind of course is that in case of controversy, Wikipedia should not assert multiple points of view, but merely describe those points of view.
It sounds like you do understand that, so perhaps if you can give us some specific references to review, that would be helpful.
--Jimbo
From: Jimmy Wales> libertarian wrote:
I too was under the impression that the aim of Wikipedia was to present things in an encyclopediac fashion.
It is!
However, when Wikipedia allows allegations ragrding verifiable
events
(especially the allegations of political oppnents) to be posted as a legitimate point of view, the credibility of Wikipedia takes a beating.
What do you mean about 'allows'? If you see a problem, edit it.
<snip>
Can you give an exact reference, including references to diffs of reversions?
<snip>
It sounds like you do understand that, so perhaps if you can give us some specific references to review, that would be helpful.
Jimbo: if you're going to give this kind of advice to other people, you really should follow it yourself. You've been complaining that the Sheldon Rampton entry is biased and is a perfect example of a problem entry, but have given no specific examples or references or made any edits.
Hypocrisy, even if unintentional, does not become you.
--tc
The Cunctator wrote:
Jimbo: if you're going to give this kind of advice to other people, you really should follow it yourself. You've been complaining that the Sheldon Rampton entry is biased and is a perfect example of a problem entry, but have given no specific examples or references or made any edits.
You're mistaken. I did give specific examples and references to specific edits. I gave the exact time and date of an edit by Ed Poor, for example. Please check the archives before making accusations like this.
I don't edit as a general rule, and I doubt if this is the best place for me to start! :-)
But I want to repeat one more time... I'm not complaining about that specific entry. Sheldon brought the entry up and asked what was wrong with his editing it. I thought it was good to explain just what problems I had with people engaging in the practice of autobiography. I would not have brought it up out of the blue indepedent of the context of that conversation, because I don't think it's so bad that it's really worthy of indepedent comment.
--Jimbo
Libertarian wrote:
In particular, I've been having problems regarding contributions I've made on India. I've tried to stick to verifiable facts and present things in an encyclopedic manner, but there seem to be 3 members who keep watch on what I'm posting and revert it to their version which carries nothing but what can be classified as propaganda of the Communist Party of India(Marxist). These people add allegations by this party as a part of an article.
I'm all ready to jump in and give those folks hell, but from looking at the article, "India" I find no record of any user Libertarian or of any widespread reversions. Could you give more detail with some references to specific articles, edits, information, etc?
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
Libertarian wrote:
In particular, I've been having problems regarding contributions I've made on India. I've tried to stick to verifiable facts and present things in an encyclopedic manner, but there seem to be 3 members who keep watch on what I'm posting and revert it to their version which carries nothing but what can be classified as propaganda of the Communist Party of India(Marxist). These people add allegations by this party as a part of an article.
I'm all ready to jump in and give those folks hell, but from looking at the article, "India" I find no record of any user Libertarian or of any widespread reversions. Could you give more detail with some references to specific articles, edits, information, etc?
Our new friend [[User:LibertarianAnarchist]] seems to have more on his mind than Communism. The polarized POV's in India over the Hindu/Muslim divide can be as vicious and blind as any of our classical POV debates. The communism/capitalism divide is fairly mild by comparison. One of the problem articles is [[ 2002 Gujarat violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence ]].
Our friends contributions included
In February 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002 , 58 train passengers, including Hindus returning from a pilgrimage to Ayodhya, were burnt alive by a mob of fundamentalist Muslims who surrounded the train near Godhra http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Godhra&action=edit , Gujarat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarat and set it alight after dousing it in petrol.
As news of this gruesome incident spread across the state of Gujarat, scores of people were killed in communal rioting that took place in the days that followed. Gujarat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarat .
The official toll from the riots is pegged at around 800, while India's leftist and Marxist groups claim over 2000 people died, a figure considered extravagant by others. These groups further claim that the incident was a one-sided "pogrom" against Muslims that was unleashed by Hindus.
Although precise statistics of the violence are unavailable and subject to much controversy, it is now known that a significant number of Muslims as well as Hindus were killed in the rioting that followed the carnage at Godhra.
This was replaced by
In February and March 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002 , about 58 people (apparently mostly Hindus) died in a train fire in Godhra http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Godhra&action=edit , Gujarat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarat .
Following this, many people were killed in incidents in the following days and weeks throughout Gujarat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarat .
Expressions such "burnt alive by a mob", "gruesome incident" and "one-sided pogrom" can inflame passions as well as railway cars.
The "communist" angle on this relates to the appointment of [[V. R. Krishna Iyer]] to investigate the incident. Iyer is a retired justice of the Supreme Court of India, who was previously a cabinet minister in the 1957 Communist Party state government in Kerala state. By all appearances he has considerable personal credibility that extends beyond any political affiliation that he may have had. The strongest complaints come from those who felt that his report did not support their POV. The reference to his communism appears to be a largely irrelevent straw man argument.
The politics of India is a subject with which most of us are particularly unfamiliar. At least in North America we tend not to hear very much about what happens there despite the fact that India is the second most populous country in the world. It is difficult for most of us to know whether or not anything about it is neutrally written. For the article in question, the adjectives employed are the most revealing.
Ec
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 05:45:09AM -0700, Fred Bauder wrote:
Libertarian wrote:
In particular, I've been having problems regarding contributions I've made on India. I've tried to stick to verifiable facts and present things in an encyclopedic manner, but there seem to be 3 members
I'm one of them ([User:Arvindn]). The others (that I remember) are Wik, VeryVerily, Jiang, Boud.
The articles in question are [[2002 Gujarat violence]], [[Bharatiya Janata Party]], [[Racism]], [[Genocide]] and a couple of others.
The person making the allegations has 3 usernames LibertarianAnarchist, Democrate2003 and Conradx. I'll call them LA for short. The above articles are the only ones LA has ever edited.
Now lets do some fact checking:
* LA has no idea of what NPOV is. LA simply deletes/replaces any criticism of [[Sangh Parivar]] that they don't agree with (in several articles). The articles merely *reported* criticism and thus *attributed* POVs. LA removed [[Sangh Parivar]] from a "list of allegedly racist organizations", even though it as been widely alleged to be racist.
* LA is an Indian version of a holocaust denier. [[2002 Gujarat violence]] is about an alleged state sponsored genocide of about a 1000 Muslims. LA's version of the article managed to make the victims look like the agressors!
* LA's "encyclopedic manner" reads like a religious rant. This has already been noted by Ec.
* The communism part is completely irrelevant. LA reflexively accuses anyone who disagrees with them of being a communist. This seems to be the only argument LA has ever made to justify their edits.
(Tip to LA: What you're doing is *so* 1990s. Have you been living in a cave these last few years? Get with the times, man! These days, if someone says something you disagree with you call them a TERRORIST. That's right, its not COMMUNIST anymore. Terrorist is the in-thing now. That's why people kept reverting your edits. Had you called them terrorists, it would have worked!)
P.S: I'm Indian.
Cheers, Arvind
who keep watch on what I'm posting and revert it to their version which carries nothing but what can be classified as propaganda of the Communist Party of India(Marxist). These people add allegations by this party as a part of an article.
I'm all ready to jump in and give those folks hell, but from looking at the article, "India" I find no record of any user Libertarian or of any widespread reversions. Could you give more detail with some references to specific articles, edits, information, etc?
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I note newspaper article LibertarianAnarchist first linked to in the article [[2002 Gujarat violence]] http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/may/13rajeev.htm the following assertion: "The root cause in India is the decision circa 1947 by the Nehruvian Stalinists to impose apartheid against Hindus, by oppressing them in every conceivable way: [with laundry list]"
I gather from this that one of the extreme Hindu Nationalist assertions is the equation of the decisions of the Nehru government with Stalinism. This goes back to the decision by the founders of modern India that is was to be a secular state, not a Hindu state. I note also in the article [[2002 Gujarat violence]] the assertion "The Indian English media, which is largely Communist applauded the burning of Hindus by Muslims and stated that the Hindus asked for it."
The newspaper article contains the following classic example of doubletalk: "And the proximate cause of the ensuing riots in Gujarat, according to the 'intelligentsia', is the alleged nature of the so-called Hindu fundamentalists, a term that is, in passing, an oxymoron: the fundamentals of Hinduism are tolerance and plurality, so a 'Hindu fundamentalist' is a contradiction in terms." So there is no such thing as Hindu fundamentalism, but a few lines down, "The preponderant cause is endemic Islamic fundamentalism...."
So it seems that LibertarianAnarchist, in fact, is an advocate of a Hindu Nationalist Point of View with a decidely fascist tinge to his assertions. So if he has been treated roughly, he has in turn treated others roughly. This notion that Hindus are somehow oppressed in India is reminisence of the Nazi position that Germans thoughout Europe were an oppressed people the rescue of which required heroic actions from the German nation.
That said, I find some portions of LibertarianAnarchist's edit quite acceptable, for example his opening statement, "In February 2002, 58 train passengers, including Hindus returning from a pilgrimage to Ayodhya, were burnt alive by a mob of fundamentalist Muslims who surrounded the train near Godhra, Gujarat and set it alight after dousing it in petrol." His critics would replace this with, "In February and March 2002, about 58 people (apparently mostly Hindus) died in a train fire in Godhra, Gujarat." Neither version matches the report made by the investigation into the matter: http://www.sabrang.com/tribunal/vol2/godhra.html It seems to be the local Muslim population who attacked the train, but they seem to have been extremely provoked. To characterise them as Islamic fundamentalists seems false, as does the denatured language, "In February and March 2002, about 58 people (apparently mostly Hindus) died in a train fire in Godhra, Gujarat." Somehow it must be included that it was Hindu fundamentalists who were attacked with fire by a Muslim mob, not just "there was a fire".
Fred
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 05:45:09AM -0700, Fred Bauder wrote:
Libertarian wrote:
In particular, I've been having problems regarding contributions I've made on India. I've tried to stick to verifiable facts and present things in an encyclopedic manner, but there seem to be 3 members
I'm one of them ([User:Arvindn]). The others (that I remember) are Wik, VeryVerily, Jiang, Boud.
The articles in question are [[2002 Gujarat violence]], [[Bharatiya Janata Party]], [[Racism]], [[Genocide]] and a couple of others.
The person making the allegations has 3 usernames LibertarianAnarchist, Democrate2003 and Conradx. I'll call them LA for short. The above articles are the only ones LA has ever edited.
I wrote:
'That said, I find some portions of LibertarianAnarchist's edit quite acceptable, for example his opening statement, "In February 2002, 58 train passengers, including Hindus returning from a pilgrimage to Ayodhya, were burnt alive by a mob of fundamentalist Muslims who surrounded the train near Godhra, Gujarat and set it alight after dousing it in petrol." His critics would replace this with, "In February and March 2002, about 58 people (apparently mostly Hindus) died in a train fire in Godhra, Gujarat." Neither version matches the report made by the investigation into the matter: http://www.sabrang.com/tribunal/vol2/godhra.html It seems to be the local Muslim population who attacked the train, but they seem to have been extremely provoked. To characterise them as Islamic fundamentalists seems false, as does the denatured language, "In February and March 2002, about 58 people (apparently mostly Hindus) died in a train fire in Godhra, Gujarat." Somehow it must be included that it was Hindu fundamentalists who were attacked with fire by a Muslim mob, not just "there was a fire".'
On closer examination I find the statement, "There was a fire", quite acceptable. It is not at all clear that the fire was anything but an accident.
Fred