[WikiEN-l] Communist paper apologises but Wikipedia endorses the malicious claim!

[libertarian]

> organisation of which a member assassinated Mahatma Gandhi
>
> and
> 
> the organisation that killed Gandhi

Well, what do you know, this guy wasn't even a member of the
organnization. He was an ex-member of both the Congress Party
and RSS when he assassinated Gandhi.
Why pick on one unless your aim is to make an indirect assertion?

> I do not have adequate background in the matter to take a position 
> about which is correct, but I can be sensitive to the wording 
> change.

When the allegations were first made, the Govt investigated the
organization and cleared it.

> The gratuitous references to communists and Marxists do not help 
> anyone to understand the complex and highly distressing events in 
> Gujarat. The Communists of India are not a unified group. Communist 
> has become a collective term for several splinter parties... so 
> which of them is relevant here? When you mention "communist" in 
> relation to Indian events to people who are totally unfamiliar with 
> Indian politics, you will find yourself appealing to prejudices 
> that have more to do with communism as it has developed in other 
> countries.
>
> The reference to communists is a straw man argument. 

Unfortunately for you, Communists in India are one of the dominant
political groups and control the English media and until recently
controlled the academia (i.e, authoring school textbooks). This
is a FACT. Just as you have Republican Party and Democratic Party
in USA, we have many parties in India and Communists are very
influential.
They've also indulged in sustained propaganda.

As you can see from the discussions on the talk page as well as on
the email list, it is I who has attempted to enter into a discussion
and present facts and evidence. Did it ever strike you that the other
side never did that?

Why do you think I brought it up here on the list for redressal?
It is because I am confident that if neutral and objective people
look at the issue, they will find that I am correct.

> It is based on the presumption that others will see anything 
> associated with communists as necessarily bad. If the reader can be 
> made to associate the views of one Gujarati faction with the 
> communists, then it will imply the conclusion that anything 
> associated with that faction is also bad. This is a very dishonest 
> way of debating.

Come on, I presented facts. I pointed out the lies. I gave links.
And I made the point about Communists in India only to explain why
the opposing view which I had proven to be factually inaccurate
existed. It is a fact that Communists indulged in propaganda soon
after the riots.
Imagine calling the riots in Cincinnatti as a Govt sponsored
"pogrom."

You term me dishonest when I am the one who has taken the trouble of
presenting facts and looking at things in a logical manner.

> Those of us outside of India who take the trouble to somewhat 
> inform ourselves about India, will feel cheated if we need to 
> plough through endless streams of biased propaganda from either 
> side.

I don't take sides. I want facts presented. Not crude allegations.

> Let statements be evaluated on the basis of what is said rather 
> than who said it. The senseless violence in Gujarat needs to be 
> explained in terms of Gujarati events, and not by reference to a 
> newspaper from West Bengal or a politician from Kerala.

Right. Which is what I was asking. Go read it again and you will
find that it is just a string of allegations. When it is convenient,
there is no assertion that Hindus were the ones who were burnt, but
just a few lines later, you find an assertion that they were Hindus 
and they provoked the crowd into dousing the train with petrol and
burning it! All in 3 minutes.

Doesn't that strike you as something wrong?

Presentation of fiction and carrying out of propaganda is
unacceptable. All sources used are Marxist in nature. Sadly, this
is a FACT. You may consider it as a strawman argument, but if you 
make an allegation, surely the burden of proof is on YOU, not me.
If you cannot prove an allegation, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia
just because your political masters made the allegation.

-libertarian

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com