Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop

Hkelkar and Bakaman, I think only arbitrators can place proposals on this page. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, then let the Arbitrators delete the posts and I won't mind.Hkelkar 05:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, check the top you will see that anyone may make and comment on proposals. Such comments are sometimes useful to the arbitrators. Be nice though, as the arbitrators really do read everything in the case, and you don't want to make yourself look bad. Thatcher131 05:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Copied/Continued from project space

Not sure what 'mirror' means here. Any reasonable person would want to remove the damage that Kelkar and Bakasuprman have done to most articles they have edited, but does that mean that all such accounts can be treated like they are puppets? Hornplease 18:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Mirror" can be taken to mean "to imitate." BhaiSaab ^talk 18:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I find allegations of "the damage caused to most articles" laughable. Also considering I am one of the more prolific non-admin Indian editors, the charges are quite baseless. Hornplease had an issue with nearly every category I created with the word "Hindu" in it, and always tried to empty the categories as fast as I had created them. Any editor in Hornplease's words is taken to mean "any editor who subscribes to my world-view that is magnetically repelled by Hindu editors". I still fail to understand why. Many users have similar POV's to other users, though many editors dont show it.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry for the implied allegation, Baka which I should not have levelled at you without providing supportive evidence, which I have not done at this time. However, a logical inconsistency: you can be simultaneously one of the most 'prolific' non-admin editors and the cause of considerable damage. (In fact the more damage, the more prolific, surely. Edit counts dont have quality assurance built in.) Also, if you wish to level a formal allegation that I took unreasonable issue with every category you created, please do so, and I will respond. Otherwise the statement is meaningless and irrelevant. I am obviously not 'repelled' by Hindu editors. To begin with, I have no way of knowing the religion of anyone whose work I observe on WP. Nirav and Strikeit and Lost and Sir Nick might be Hindu, or might not. I dont really know (OK, perhaps I do in Nirav's case) and I dont really care.

About your last sentence, Baka: that's the tragedy, isnt it? Many people have POVs, most people dont show it in their edits. You and HK and BSaab are here because you do. Hornplease 07:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That goes for you as well as your actions in Brinda Karat and Pseudo-secularism would show.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack by TwoHorned

TwoHorned (talk · contribs)

The user has been warned for personal attacks on his talk page (he has altered these warnings which hides this, but is still clearly seen).

TwoHorned has attacked User:CltFn on this page: [1]

• He says:
  • Since this user has made contributions only on extremely controversal topics (see his contributions [226] which are almost 100% oriented into nasty islamophobic entries), I'm wondering what kind of farce is intented to mean his barnstar for contribution to islamic articles in Wikipedia.[2] --02:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussions moved from workshop page

Dude,Read from the very first Taylor and Francis Paper -

Ethnic and Racial Studies

  Publisher:   Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group  
  Issue:   Volume 23, Number 3 / May 1, 2000  
  Pages:   442 - 466  
  URL:   Linking Options  
  DOI:   10.1080/014198700328944  

The public face of Hindu nationalism

Parita Mukta

Abstract:

This article maps some of the salient ways in which the tenets of Hindu nationalism are being disseminated and made acceptable within British politics and within the core of social living among various communities in Britain. It examines specific institutional sites through which a politicized Hindutva community is forged: the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (UK), the vernacular press, and the Swaminarayan temple in north London. It argues that the “familiar-familial” space occupied by religious preachers draws large numbers of believers into the Hindutva fold. The article demonstrates the role of the vernacular press in constructing an articulate political community in Britain which silences criticisms of Hindu nationalist aggression in India. It draws out the connections between violence against religious minorities in India with the assertion of a global Hindu pride, and argues that the latter is founded upon a curious anti-racist and anti-imperialist discourse. It concludes that the intellectual project of the Hindu right is to shift the basis of ethical judgements, insert the trope of “Hindu hurt” within British politics and reconfigure the nature of political identities.

Note - that Hinduism and Hindutva are two different things - one a religion and other an ideology MerryJ-Ho 16:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes. Those filthy dung worshipping Hindooos!What else are the notorious Hindooos up to I wonder?Hkelkar 16:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a soapbox for spreading one-sided perorations along the likes of Abu Hamza al-Masri. Hkelkar 19:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And since we are throwing around articles how about (Rewriting Islamic History),

“ Perhaps the most serious flaws in most books are distortions resulting from a combination of omission and commission. This is particularly true of the coverage of Islamic history and Muslims' treatment of Jews in the world history texts. The increased attention given to Islam is one change made to recent editions. Its prominence is now at least equal to that of Judaism and Christianity and, in some books, surpasses them. The significance of Islam to world history is not in doubt. What is historically inaccurate, however, is the portrayal of Muslims as paragons of tolerance, particularly regarding Jews.

Don Peretz, a Middle East scholar who should know better, wrote in the regional studies text, The Middle Fast (Houghton Mifflin, 1990), that Muslim conquests in the 7th Century were welcomed by Jews because they were offered religious toleration. As proof of this toleration, he said Jews were appointed to high positions. Wallbank and Schrier's Living World History says that conquered peoples "were generally treated with leniency" by Muslims. Several books cite Maimonides as an example of how Jews flourished under Islam.

In Global Insights, Hantula et al. refer to dhimmas, which they define as "non-Muslims who lived under Islamic rule." The authors say dhimmas did not have to serve in the army, but did pay poll taxes. Many Jews, they add, became famous court physicians. The authors acknowledge that "during certain periods of Islamic rule, non-Muslims in some areas were restricted in their activities and in the way they dressed," but they imply this was justified because it "generally happened when there was an invasion by foreigners toward whom local non-Muslims were sympathetic."

World History-Patterns of Civilization (Prentice Hall, 1990) by Benton Beers is one of the few books that hints that life was not so ideal, noting that Islam protected Jews "in theory if not always in practice." Farah and Karls put it differently, writing that Jews were "treated better under Muslim rule than they had been before" but did not have all the advantages Muslims did. While Jewish communities in Islamic countries fared better overall than those in Christian lands in Europe, Jews were no strangers to persecution and humiliation among the Arabs. As historian Bernard Lewis has written: "The Golden Age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy with Islam" ("The Pro-Islamic Jews," Judaism, Fall 1968, p. 401).

Jews were generally viewed with contempt by their Muslim neighbors; peaceful coexistence between the two groups involved the subordination and degradation of the Jews. Jews did thrive culturally and economically at certain times, but their position was never secure and changes in the political and social climate would often lead to harassment, violence and death.

”

Hkelkar 19:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Another one Silencing Critics of Textbooks' Portrayal of Islam:

“ ...the attack on critics of American textbooks' deferential portrait of Islam ”

.

“ For example, I looked at the textbook descriptions of jihad, sharia, Arabic slavery, and the treatment of women, and compared them with what well-respected scholarship said. I found there were great variations. There were obvious fabrications, whitewash, airbrushing--call it what you will. When I pointed these variations out in the 2003 report Islam in the Textbooks, and explained that it had taken place because CIE had intimidated publishers, then I came under attack.The Council on Islamic Education has been as aggressive as any single group in getting its particular view of history into U.S. textbooks..... ”

Hkelkar 20:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• My "throwing around" the research article was to prove that Hindutvavadis agenda applies to minorities in plural in India as a reply to Bakasuprman's claim that ":::All minorities? I dont recall Hindu's ever having problems with Donyi-Polo, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists (Dalai Lama kind, not the political Buddhists), Jews, Sufis, St. Thomas Christians, and the like.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC). MerryJ-Ho
• What are you trying prove from your citing of the Jewish (probably Zionist) website and a columnist's site? MerryJ-Ho 22:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

MerryJ-Ho 10:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Zionist??Yes, The Jewish Virtual Library (a Reliable Source per wikipedia standards) is "Zionist". Talk about rabid paranoia!Plus, my other link (ednews.org) is hardly that of a "columnist" but also a Reliable Source.Hindus have never had any problems with Indian Jews or the Bahaii. The only anti-semitism in India comes from the Islamic Lashkar-e-Toiba and the poisonous distortions of leftist writers like Vijay Prashad. Hkelkar 22:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line is that TerryJ-Ho's exclusive attacks on Hindu users is a sign of his systematic pov. The claims by Terry and others of Hindu fascism and history rewriting are also very pov. Ome must make clear that this are also claims that are identical from a Marxist and/or Islamist pov, and represent a certain pov, and one side in a debate, not the truth. In making such claims, Terry is not being neutral, he is being partisan. See this, for instance. Hkelkar 22:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And finally, regarding your "paper" above, it should be made aware that several instances of academic bias against Hindus and Jews have been unearthed in the academia in the west. A panel at Stanford, conducted jointly by the Hindu American Foundation and the American Jewish Committee, supported by Prof. Arnold Eisen , Prof. Ramdas Lamb, have revealed several instances of academic hostility and prejudices against Hindus. Poisonous diatribes like that little paper of TerryJ-Ho's above only proves their point.Hkelkar 23:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well of course there's a movement to rewrite history among Hindutva. Look at P.N. Oak's works. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

More pots calling kettles black:

School Books That Teach Children To Hate in Pakistan:

The Menace of Sectarian Education,Pakistan's NW Province Makes Quran Lessons Compulsory - From the Wall Street Journal

The subtle subversion:Islamic Fundamentalism and Brainwashing in Pakistan (news today)

Pakistani social studies textbooks creating havoc:

Hkelkar 19:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Of note relative to this case

Please see this WP:AN posting. (→Netscott) 00:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

moved from workshop

(moved from workshop section, in response to the proposed ban on Bakaasuprman) Oppose Bakaman is willing to talk with those who disagree with him—including myself—rather than at them, which cannot be said for many, if not most, of his comrades.
CiteCop 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)