From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
- If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
- If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
| Stub |
This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) |
More information about this article...
|
|
|
|
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject India because it uses a stub template.
- If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WP India}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
- If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WP India}} template, removing {{WP India}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
|
"just one opinion" - yes, or it could be all of them. Saying "what one commentator" implies oters didn't, which we don't know. Hence my wording. If you have anything to say, please let me know. I'd rather you did it here instead of your customary editwarring. Hornplease 20:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- pot, kettle, black you know the drill. Out defaming Hindu groups again I see. How does thug entail anything NPOV? Its a totally loaded word along the lines of extremist and others, see WP:WTA.Bakaman 20:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Please let me know what your precise response is to the point I have raised, as your opinion on other matters is irrelevant. Since WTA discusses words we avoid, not our sources, and certainly not the only reliable source we've found,I presume your objection is now answered? Hornplease 21:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Hornplease 21:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I noticed you havent stopped edit warring. Just as you have accused me of edit-warring, you too are being accused of it. Thug is a loaded word, hardly neutral in any manner. As always I suppose policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:LIBEL are suddenly non-applicable when the subject is a Hindu nationalist group?Bakaman 00:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Don't be silly, I changed it since you hadnt responded.
- NPOV requires us to represent a spectrum of informed views. You are yet to find a source that indicates that Reddy's killers were not, in fact, thuggish in nature. I am not certain what your objection is under NPOV. In any case, removing the words would require us to not quote the article, which seems to be counter-productive. As I said:find another source, or NPOV is irrelevant. Hornplease 05:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I think NPOV is perfectly relevant in this case. You do not decide article content, under WP:OWN nor is discussion something you set the agenda for. Merely noting he was killed by sympathizers of the Jana Sangh would be neutral and factual.Bakaman 00:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- He was also, apparently, killed by thugs. Both things are true, and appear to be relevant to his manner of death. NPOV is irrelevant till you demonstrate that there exists alternative major point of view.Hornplease 00:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- A thug is a member of a defunct Indian cult called the thuggee. I really dont see the problem with the wording, when it says he was murdered by Jan Sangh sympathizers. That gets the point across, is neutral and is factual.Bakaman 01:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
