Talk:Direct Action Day/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

content issues

Nobody is editing for Hkelkar, Pahari Sahib. However, even if Hkelkar agreed with this content, you are wrong on the content and engaging in vandalism. I edited this page before Hkelkar, edited it a bit while Hkelkar was here, and am editing it post-Hkelkar.

Stanley Wolpert is a well regarded expert on Indian history, his books meet WP:RS

Hindus were not let loose like dogs. Both groups killed each other in this orgy of violence.

The Hindu is a reliable source, do not remove reliable sources, that's called vandalism

A primary source is fine if quoted, and not interpreted in the article, per WP:RS

Scholarly journals are reliable sources, removing them constitutes vandalism.

{{reflist}} is the correct formatting

Category:1946 riots is also a useful category, since this was a riot in 1946

I am no Hkelkar proxy, and since you seem to know Hkelkar well, you should know there is no proof linking me to Hkelkar in any way (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Proposed_decision#Lack_of_evidence). Any more of these spurious accusations and I will report you for these dastardly personal attacks.Bakaman 17:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Spurious allegations? - you reverted the article without giving a reason - as did 70.112.2.88, both of you reverted to the version by Ghanadar galpa / Hkelkar, removing POV tags and making significant revisions to text, without discussion, given this context it is not a "dastardly personal attack" - how is it even a 'personal attack'? (never mind dastardly), to suggest that you appear "to be a proxy of User:Hkelkar". On closer inspection, you appear to be a seasoned editor and one that has already been accused of being involved with Hkelkar (which I only just found out thanks to what you posted above) - perhaps you are the one who is threading on thin ice here not me?

Pahari Sahib (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So instead of dealing with content, you are engaging in wikilawyering. If I wanted to be like you, I could accuse you of making edits like Nadirali/Siddiqui/Szhaider/Unre4L, who have edited this page in a similar manner in the past. Unlike you or Hkelkar, I have actually (gasp?) utilized the talkpage for good faith discussion. As stated above, I edited this page before Hkelkar, and have edited numerous other pages dealing with Islamism in 20th century Bengal, which this clearly falls under. That is why I was interested in how to improve this mishmash of text, but it seems you are more interested in Hkelkarphobia. Bakaman 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

To respond to your points above, nowhere in the text did it state Hindus were" let loose like dogs", I do agree however that "Both groups killed each other in this orgy of violence." I do agree that the The Hindu is a reliable source, - however so is the Dawn which you removed, so I could based on what you said about me - also accuse you of removing reliable sources and engaging in vandalism. I undid User:Ghanadar galpa revision, you consider this vandalism? I also undid 70.112.2.88 revision as this reverted the text back to Ghandar (aka Hkelkar) - and appeared to be a sock. After this however you undid my revision, reverting back to Hkelkar's version - no reason was given for this, - and also removing referenced text, when I said that your edit "appears to be a proxy of User:Hkelkar" - I had no idea that you had even been accused of being his meatpuppet.

It has to be said, that neither version of the text was perfect, but the version you reverted to had much bigger issues, it is interesting that you mention Stanley Wolpert, one example of the problem with your revision is the change made to the following para

“

Some authors have claimed that most of the victims were Hindus[1]. However certain others claim that that "appreciably more Muslims were killed than Hindus". On Pages 286-287 of Jinnah of Pakistan, OUP, 1993 edition Stanley Wolpert. The rioting reduced on the 22nd of the same month"

”

was changed to

“

Most of the victims were Hindus"

”

The text needs to be balanced, I have no interested in trying to present a history of angelic Muslims and bad Hindus, mobs of both communities were engaged in violence, but the edit I have shown above is clearly unbalanced

And also the following

“

There are several views on the exact cause of the direct action day riots. According to the Hindu and Sikh intelligentsia, riots, instigated by members of the Muslim League in the city, were the consequence of the declaration by the Muslim League that Muslims throughout the subcontinent were to 'suspend all business' to support their demand for an independent Pakistan. The Muslims believed that the Congress Party was behind the violence in an effort to undermine the fragile cross-communal Muslim League ministry in Bengal.

”

was changed to

“

The riots, instigated by members of the Muslim League in the city, were the consequence of the declaration by the Muslim League that Muslims throughout the subcontinent were to 'suspend all business' to support their demand for an independent Pakistan.

”

Given all this, how can you accuse me of wikilawyering?, Also you accused me of editing this page in a similar manner to "Nadirali/Siddiqui/Szhaider/Unre4L", this appears to me to be an attempt to muddy the waters - of the four only Siddiqui has edited the page and made just one edit, changing Indian subcontinent to South Asia. So really you cannot accuse me of editing like them, whereas I was, given the misuse of sources, I believe justified in the comparision I made, If you accuse of me of being interested in "Hkelkarphobia", perhaps I could respond and accuse you of being interested in "Hkelkarphilia"?

Oh yes one more thing, yes reflist is the correct formatting as I have done here - which you then removed (and then re-added). I agree that Category:1946 riots is a useful cat, and I concede that it was an oversight not to have added it back in.

And finally, our edits do not necessarily have to be in opposition to each other, but I will oppose any attempt to try and make the article unbalanced. In fact to bury the hatchet, I will leave the page alone for now, perhaps you can see that maybe I do have a point in what I have written - and hopefully perhaps take corrective action to the issues I have highlighted

Thanks

Pahari Sahib (talk) 09:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) I agree completely, our edits are not completely in opposition. It was only removal of certain letters that were treated as primary sources, and what appeared to be removal of text from poorly quoted sources that caught my eye. This page isn't much more than a mishmash of quotes, and I will of course try to procure the sources to get a better look. The content seems to be relatively contentious, but the second "misrepresentation" is a mainstream view. Most texts agree that Jinnah called for DAD, so staying it was started by Muslims is not actually incorrect.Bakaman 23:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually my argument was not that side x started/sparked the violence instead of side y, it was in response to a massive change in this contentious topic, but otherwise I am in agreement. Pahari Sahib (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)