Talk:Direct Action Day/Archive 1

Noakhali

Thousands of hindus were killed and their womenfolk abducted in Noakhali District in 1946-1947. Can someone write an article for wikipedia on that carnage? --Shyamsunder 09:06, 01 October 2006 (UTC)

Did as much as I could so far. More information sources needed. Hkelkar 11:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

More information Needed

I expanded with some stuff I dug up from the library & online. I need more sources. Plus, also need to expand the section on riots etc in Punjab, Bihar and NWFP. Plz help. Hkelkar 11:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Biased and onesided article

This is an absolute travesty of history... which quotes one side of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.67.241 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome to up-date with proper citations and references. In case, you are not registered, it is a good idea to take a user name. It will be more helpful for future. --Bhadani 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Factual errors

The article makes several deliberate factual errors regarding the Muslim League which I have tried to correct and the general tone of the article goes against historical facts... It is sadly based on one sided Indian propaganda and nothing else. Despite my corrections, the article is so skewed that it must have been funded by some extremist Hindu groups in India. Please see below... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teabing-Leigh (talk • contribs) 15:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to use. I am new to Wikipedia .. So I don't know how to contribute:

"Last weekend has seen dreadful riots in Calcutta. The estimates of casualties is 3000 dead and 17000 injured. The Bengal Congress are convinced that all the trouble was deliberately engineered by the Muslim League Ministry, but no satisfactory evidence to that effect has reached me yet. It is said that the decision to have a public holiday on 16th August was the cause of trouble, but I think this is very far-fetched. There was a public holiday in Sind and there was no trouble there. At any rate, whatever the causes of the outbreak, when it started, the Hindus and Sikhs were every bit as fierce as Muslims. The present estimate is that appreciably more Muslims were killed than the Hindus"

Lord Wavell to Pethick Lawrence

The editorial of Blitz, the Congress Mouthpiece... writes:

Meanwhile the Congress Mouthpiece "Blitz" wrote this about the direct action day:

The worst enemies of the Muslim League cannot help envying the leadership of Mr Jinnah. Last week's cataclysmic transformation of the League from the reactionary racket of the Muslim Nawabs, Noons, and Knights into a revolutionary mass organisation dedicated, by word if not be deed, to an anti-Imperialist struggle, compels us to express the sneaking national wish that a diplomat and strategist of Jinnah's proven calibre were at the held of the Indian National Congress. There is no denying the fact that by his latest master-stroke of diplomacy Jinnah has outbid, outwitted and outmaneuvered the British and Congress alike and confounded the common national indictment that the Muslim League is a parasite of British Imperialism

Now why would a Congress Newspaper praise Jinnah if Direct Action Day was all that you are making it out to be...

The fact is that Calcutta was an exception... a well thought out plan by the Congress which sabotaged the League's programme for temporary political gain....

http://www.free-definition.com/Direct-action.html

Direct Action simply means civil disobedience... as Dr. King put it:

"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored."

Now consider H V Hodson's description of the League Programme:

"The working committee followed up by calling on Muslims through out India to observe 16th August as direct action day. On that Day meeting would be held all over the country to explain League's resolution. These meetings and processions passed of- as was manifestly the Central league leaders' intention- without more than commonplace and limited disturbance with one vast and tragic exception... what happened was more than anyone could have foreseen."

(Page 166 'The Great Divide')

Explaining Direct Action Jinnah made it clear that the direct Action will not be in any form but in peaceful form...

"16th August is not for the purpose of resorting to Direct Action in any form or shape, Therefore I enjoin upon the Muslims to carry our the instructions and abide by them strictly and conduct themselves peacefuly and in a disciplined manner."

Press Release Jinnah 14th August 1946

Statement from Jinnah on the 17 August 1946, next day after the Calcutta Killings:

“I condemn the violence and sympathise with the victims. It was contrary to what the working Committee (of ML) said that some people have acted against the directives (sic)”.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Teabing-Leigh (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

REVERTED Ktrjan's edits

They were not edits... simply an attempt to take out sourced information. The article is WP:POV as is .... but by taking out the balance it was an attempt to distort history. I will continue to monitor this and Ktrjan does this again, I will report him to the moderators. 202.163.67.241 06:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits were rent with original research, unverified claims and misrepresentations. Please stop this. Kjartan8 06:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Kjartan, my quotes were directly out of published works like Stanley Wolpert's Jinnah of Pakistan, Gandhi's Passion and Mansergh's edited Transfer of Power Papers. There ARE no misrepresentations in what I have quoted... but most of the article consists of propaganda sources quoted by yourself. Have the decency to accept the facts and STOP VANDALIZING. Teabing-Leigh 07:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Wolpert did not say "This quote however does not find favor with Jinnah's biographers". That is Original research and you have been reported for violating wikipedia regulations. Kjartan8 07:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Wolpert quotes the speech in his book "Jinnah of Pakistan" and somehow the biographer misses this pertinent invented quote. User:Teabing-Leigh|Teabing-Leigh]] 07:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's still Original research

More false statements exposed:

1.Diagram caption put by you not verified by source.(Dead and wounded after the 'Direct Action Day' which developed into pitched battles as Hindu mobs were let loose on the Muslims,Calcutta in 1946, the year before independence)Kjartan8 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

2.Undue weight (WP:UNDUE) given to one ref entered twice (Wavell to Pethick Lawrence, August 21, 1946, Mansergh, Transfer of Power, Vol. VIII, P.274) Kjartan8 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no undue weight. This source is important to counter the onesided unsourced information being added by you. Teabing-Leigh 07:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not add anything to the article. Information was already there that you removed. Stating the same thing twice in bolded letters (which you have done) is undue weight.Kjartan8 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

3.Deletion of the Muriel Lester source without advancing reason Kjartan8 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Where and WHEN was this deleted. I can't help it if you claim something THAT did not happen Teabing-Leigh 07:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been removed right now. You removed it because you want to remove good entries and replace them with deliberate falsifications. Kjartan8 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

and many more... Kjartan8 07:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No ... there aren't any other deletions only sourced addtions. Teabing-Leigh 07:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are. Kjartan8 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Gandhi's autobiography dates till 1928 only

Kjartan8 has taken to quoting Gandhi's autobiography which covers events upto 1928. He is putting as a source for events in 1946. Teabing-Leigh 07:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Prove it. Kjartan8 07:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Prove what. Gandhi's Autobiography "My experiments with the truth" covers only the period up to 1928. You are clearly making up sources as you go along and vandalising others' work for things that you do. Teabing-Leigh 07:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Assumption of bad faith is a violation of wikipedia regulations. I will add this to my complaint against you. Kjartan8 07:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been watching this article for many weeks and I have seen nothing but vandalism. YLH 07:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously a Sock puppet Kjartan8 07:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Using the same the computer does not make anyone a sock puppet. YLH 07:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. Reported you also. Kjartan8 07:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Using a different account on the same computer to bypass 3RR IS sock-puppetry. The Kinslayer 08:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't spin it. If YLH uses the same computer and reverts something from his account that is NOT sock puppetry. Teabing-Leigh 09:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of resolving this, can you both please refrain from making ANY further edits to the article until the Request for Commentary has been answered. This is not an endorsement of the current version, rather it is a step towards making the issue less cloudy. Appropriate actions can be taken in response to the commentary after it has been given. If this civil, good-faith request is not respected, then I will be seeking to get the paged locked to all editors until such time a compromise can be made. The Kinslayer 10:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Kjartan has nominated "Dawn" one of the oldest and most respectable newspapers in Pakistan as a "propaganda biased sourcE"... when most of his sources fail the test. Teabing-Leigh 10:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And he says the same thing about your sources. This is not going to be resolved while you both revert each others tags, so I suggest you both go find other articles to (non-controversially) edit while we wait for the Request for Comment to be processed. Is there anything unreasonable with this request? And if so, please state why it's unreasonable. The Kinslayer 10:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

From the second this message goes live, if so much as a mis-spelling in this article is edited, I will revert it as vandalism. Find other articles to edit. Presumably you both have this article on your watchlists, so you will know when the RfC has been answered. Until then, just forget about this article. Find something more constructive and less controversial to do with your time. The Kinslayer 11:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes alright. I will stop editing since I want to cooperate. But I can point by point prove that T-Leigh's edits are original research (obvious from his comments up above), mis-attributed and , in many cases, outright false or based on partisan propaganda sources from militant Pakistan government. In the interests of fairness, non-academic sources (news media, papers etc.) can be forgone because there is chance for media bias from both sides. Kjartan8 11:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Kjartan is a probably a jingoistic Indian nationalist- as evidenced by his "militant Pakistan government" and "Dawn as a Pakistani propaganda website" claims. He is not interested in creating a balanced article. Furthermore, unlike his one sided "Why I am a Hindu" or other such propaganda sources, Stanley Wolpert, Mansergh, Ayesha Jalal and Sharif ul Mujahid cannot be considered "propaganda sources" nor was to the best of my knowledge Viscount Wavell ever associated with the "militant Pakistan government". These personal attacks are absolutely unnecessary and make it abundantly clear who stands where on the question of objectivity. 202.163.67.241 12:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may Teabing, it does not give you permission to act in the same manner. There are various places you can report his beavious, or he can report your behaviour, if you genuinely believe he is making personal attacks. The way I'm seeing it, we have a pro-indian trying to put his POV on this article, and we have someone opposed to him trying to put his POV on the article. The Kinslayer 12:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that I never made a direct personal attack on him as such, but he just made one more on me. Still, who knows what Deobandi madrassa teaches these things. In any case, I have reported this user for gross abuse of wikipedia, two sets of 3rr violations, sock puppetting and numerous other cases. Now the time has come to wait until the authorities to clean up the garbage. To continue, I have Stanley Wolpert's books that are "referenced" by this user. I do not know which madrassa releases the versions of Wolpert's books cited here, but the present edits do not accurately reflect Wolpert's work, not to mention the numerous original research and weasel words like "Most historians agree" (really? Where in the references do they say so? Only 3 references show that only 3 "historians agree", and I can easily show that at least two are falsely cited by this person), and "This quote however does not find favor with Jinnah's biographers". Really, is it necessary to treat trolls such as this with any credibility at all?Kjartan8 12:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Kjartan, You personal attacks continue. I didn't know Rutgers University is now a Deobandi Madrassa... but I do know that Deobandis historically came into prominence because of their association with Gandhi and the Congress Party... calling as they did, Jinnah a non-believer. So you abusive personal attack falls flat on its face as usual. 202.163.67.241 13:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC) PS: There is an easier way to settle this... bring any world renowned Historian/academic (not photojournalists) who actually claims that this is a Jinnah quote. Amazingly none of Jinnah's western biographers - Stanley Wolpert, Ian Bryant Wells, Patrick French, Hector Bolitho... or even Indians like H M Seervai etc mention this. Yours is a biased ONE sided source. I am merely pointing out that it is disputed. You may or may not agree with it but it is disputed. 202.163.67.241 13:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to read WP:NOR a bit better. If a quote is reliably attributed, that's all that matters. All else is inference. Kjartan8 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Kinslayer leaving aside your hatred for me.... please see this below:

http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/bengal_india_history/tuker_calcutta_riot.html

C.D.L. tanks with strong searchlights joined the troops at dusk and the eerie flickering of their lights as they passed from street to street playing on the dead and on the devastation in which they died, made a Dore's Inferno of Calcutta.

In the early hours of the 18th, the 1/3rd Gurkhas moved into the Dock area. From then onwards the area of military domination of the city was increased. Static guards took over from police guards and a party of troops under Major Littleboy, the Assistant Provost-Marshal, did valuable work in the rescue organisation for displaced and needy persons. Outside the 'military' areas, the situation worsened hourly. Buses and taxis were charging about loaded with Sikhs and Hindus armed with swords, iron bars and firearms.

.... This is the book I quoted. You can find this quote there and in the book. Yet this is being cited as "failed verification". You see Kjartan is playing a rather interesting game here to forward his POV. He knows that all my sources are valid... but he is deliberately creating an issue where there exists none. 202.163.67.241 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What establishes the reliability of this so-called "book"? is it peer reviewed? Is it written by an academic in a proper university (there are a few in Pakistan as well you know), or some Mullah in the middle of a desert somewhere? The main point here is one of attribution and reliable Sources. How do we establish reliability? Through reputation, publication lists, peer-review etc. So far, this user has done precisely zero out of the three. Kjartan8 12:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

... Sir Francis Tuker was the Governor of Bengal. Your claim that it "failed verification" is clearly a lie and you know it. Yet you continue to claim failed verification for it. This is what the problem is. 202.163.67.241 13:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How do we know that the reference is real and not fake? It has no reliability since it is not peer-reviewed or academic in nature, but some random website. That is the question. Kjartan8 13:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The situation with the sources is one that should be left until the RfC has been done, and then sources can be judged based on the neutral 4th parties comments. As for the personal attacks, the point I am trying to make is that if either of you feel the other has made personal attacks against you, then you should report it here: WP:ANI and stop just yelling it at each other in the hope someone else will do something about it. I will state now that I will not judge any sources, my interest here is solely limited to ensuring a reasonable outcome for all parties is achieved. Again, this is not a judgement on the article, I just wish to remain as neutral as possible, and the best way to do this is to not get drawn into a debate about the merits or failings of sources and the article. I appreciate you both leaving the article until a comment has been made. The Kinslayer 13:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in mud-slinging on webpages devoted to that purpose. Let this sockpuppet master do that if he feels that is how he will get his propaganda across. He will probably be banned soon anyway, given his rampant disregard for wikipedia's methods, after which I will return and discuss with editors who want to make meaningful contribution instead of getting into insulting rants about "Hindu extremists" or what have you. I refuse to assume good faith with Jamaat-e-Islami trolls touting bogus "publications" and misrepresenting legitimate ones to advance what is quite obviously a well-indoctrinated Islamist agenda. Kjartan8 13:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm now reporting you Kjartan, I warned the pair of you, but it seems that only Teabing is prepared to make the effort. The Kinslayer 13:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Response is posted here [1] Kjartan8 13:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Also I must add that Kjartan's attempt to brush me with "Islamist" colors is rather indicative of his inability to argue civilly. I am a secularist and a non-Muslim. My agenda is hardly Islamist... historical accuracy... especially when the subject of inquiry are people like Jinnah and Gandhi and Suhrawardy who weren't Islamists by any stretch of imagination either.... how can one accuse me of being an Islamist. I suppose this is to play on the Islamophobia that is prevalent in the world. 202.163.67.241 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As a Non-Muslim I take umbrage to the fact that I am being painted with the same brush as Jamaat-e-Islami by Kjartan. Probably he doesn't know that the religious alliance was as anti-Jinnah and anti-Pakistan in 1947 as he is today. So he is way out of his depth right now.202.163.67.241 14:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps you should know that "Hindu extremist groups" were as pro-Jinnah and anti-India as they are today (you know about Advani's recent eulogy of Jinnah?). They wanted the same thing Jinnah did, get the Muslims out of India; I guess a nut is a nut no matter what his religion. Hindu extremists could not have been happier with Partition or Pakistan, for it gave them the excuse they needed to make innocent Muslims look bad. So you are way out of your depth right now with your knee-jerk accusations. 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again. Advani's eulogy is his departure from extremism. He was actually nominated in an FIR to assassinate Jinnah in 1947. So you need to get your facts straight. The reason why Hindu extremists killed Gandhi was because Gandhi in January 1948 for making conciliatory gestures to Jinnah and Pakistan. Furthermore... you should know that Hindu extremist leader VD Savarkar actually wanted Muslims to live under Hindu domination or be driven out of even those parts of India that are now Pakistan. So your claim that Hindu extremists wanted Partition is not based on history... and if you read H M Seervai's "Partition of India Legend and Reality... you would know that Nehru and Patel insisted on partition even after Jinnah had agreed to unity with Cabinet Mission Plan.202.163.67.241 16:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lie

T-Leigh has been caught in a blatant lie: He edits: "According to most historians [22], [23], [24], [25], no evidence was found of Muslim League's involvement in the riots. Infact evidence to the contrary was found of Congress' involvement in the rioting:

‘On August 21, Wavell informed Pethick Lawrence that “the present estimate” of casualties was 3000 dead and 17,000 injured. Congress was convinced that all the trouble was deliberately engineered by the Muslim League ministry but the Viceroy had as yet seen no “satisfactory evidence to that effect.” The latest estimate of casualties was that “appreciably more Muslims than Hindus were killed" in the "Noakhali massacre" section, whereas the reference cited does not refer to Noakhali, but Calcutta earlier. It is a misrepresentation meant to malign Hindus and attempt to muddy the incident. All references source exclusive Muslim league involvement in the Noakhali massacre, no congress involvement is stated in the reference. Congress involvement is alleged only in the Calcutta riots. Now tell me why I should assume good faith with him anymore? Kjartan8 13:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, I have had enough. From now on I'm not involved in this at all. You can both spend the next year reverting each other on this article for all I care. Don't bother posting yet another apology on my page Kjartan, it's gonna fall on deaf ears. The Kinslayer 13:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

List of falsifications by T-Leigh

1. Source "Stanley Wolpert Jinnah of Pakistan Page 287", and others are wrongly attributed to the Noakhali incident, whereas the sources actually refer to the Calcutta riots. Thus, statement above may pertain to the Calcutta riots section, not the Noakhali massacre section, where it was placed as a propaganda tactic meant to confuse the reader
2. "This quote however does not find favor with Jinnah's biographers" is Original research as none of the cited sources say this explicitly, It is an inference drawn by T-Leigh and is thus against wikipedia regulations.
3. "Hindu underworld targetted Muslim League processions": This claim is entirely made up with no sources to support it. Kjartan8 13:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal

1. While I see your point about Noakhali massacre, please see that the article is about direct action day in Calcutta. Hence your entire comment is irrelevant. My source is discussing what happened in Calcutta. Since Direct Action Day refers to 16th August 1946 all over India.... and the Noakhali issue is of later date. And there too one should also talk about Bihar state violence where 30 000 Muslims were butchered.

If you can find a reliable source for that number (other than some madrassa leaflet) then fine. The article talks about Direct Action day and all the consequences of it, including Noakhali, Comilla and other riots. By my knowledge, anti-Muslim riots in Punjab were worse than Bihar, and that should be included. I will look into that, of course.Kjartan8 14:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought we agree on Noakhali. What's the matter now? Addicted to the revert button? Kjartan8 14:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No we did not.

No need to resort to personal attacks.... the article's title is Direct Action Day. First you need to take out "failed verification" off of Sir Francis Tuker's quotation and accept that you were wrong in that. That way you may reassure people here of wp:good faith. 202.163.67.241 14:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The verification has failed.The website has no acadmic accountability. Find one. If the information is real then it should be available from a reliable academic source other than some random website. Kjartan8 14:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No. It is there in Sir Francis Tuker's book. I have seen it which is why I have quoted. The Website just proves that it is indeed there in the book. Why must you continue to insist that you are right when you know you are wrong. As for academic credibility...90% of your sources HAVE no academic credibility.202.163.67.241 14:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please.I have not cited any extra sources. They were already there in the article. I can verify most of them as correct, of course. Please provide a precise reference for the Tucker book. ISBN, title, page number and I will verify it, also, provide quotes/excerpts from the book. I'm sure you can't support the web page, because the "web page" is a pile of blooming rubbish, that's why.Kjartan8 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So you admit that YOU did not actually verify before putting up the "failed verification" tag. I will give you the exact ISBN number in a minute. But I am also going to report you for this claim. 202.163.67.241 14:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I imply refuse to assume good faith with an obvious sock master and troll. The verification is failed because the source is not reliable and thus not verifiable. Kjartan8 14:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As evidenced by the facts here, people should be questioning your good faith. One could do the same thign with your sources. Thanks for admitting that YOU did not even try and verify the book. Here is the information for the book. Hardcover Publisher: Cassell (1950) ASIN: B000O9HVYK ... it is easily verifiable and I have provided a perfectly reliable link to an excerpt of the same. 202.163.67.241 14:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not the one using sock puppets. Your so-called ASIN number does not show up on worldcat. What is the full title of the book and the ISBN number please.Kjartan8 14:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

2. No biographer of Jinnah has ever mentioned the said quote yu are attributing to him through a biased source. No historian as either. Yet I did not take it out. I merely balanced it out.

The cited source did. That is enough. Kjartan8 14:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And I was willing to keep the cited source - biased as it is- provided the other side of the story is heard. But you keep raising "failed verification alert unnecessarily. 202.163.67.241 14:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Because verification is failed. Kjartan8 14:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No it did not fail.

Waaaah!Mommy mommy, it did nto fail! Is that the best you can do? Kjartan8 14:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

More personal attacks because you can't prove your claims. 202.163.67.241 14:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

3. The list of your falsifications runs long.

Yeah, right. Kjartan8 14:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You thought you could get away with citing one sided sources and making an article on Direct Action Day without proper balance. Well you were mistaken. 202.163.67.241 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort. I never cited anything that wasn't there already. I chanced across your malicious nonsense on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gandhi's_racism and followed you here where you continue espousing hatred for Hindus and Indians. Kjartan8 14:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So you admit you have an agenda... btw that malicious nonsense was Gandhi's own collected works. But you have a problem admittin the facts. So it is ok. 202.163.67.241 14:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that why it will be deleted with massive consensus? Your agenda is rather obvious. Kjartan8 15:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

4. Kindly stop the personal attacks now. WP:CIVIL202.163.67.241 14:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Calling me a "Hindu extremist" and "Indian Nationalist" is not a personal attack Mr sock master? Kjartan8 14:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My comment about Hindu extremists was in general and made before YOU got involved. As for an Indian nationalist... your blanket denunciation of everything Pakistani as militant, evil and Madrassa blah blah is clearly indicative of your jingoistic agenda. 202.163.67.241 14:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you know I am not an Afghanistani? They don't like Pakistanis either (they blame Pakistan for the Mujahiddeen, Taliban) I could be a Balochi separatist, or a former member of the Mukti Bahini in Bangladesh. they have no great love for Pakistan either. I could be an Iranian spy, or a Saudi Sheikh, or some Southern Baptist. Kjartan8 14:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an Afghanistani. They are Afghans. There is no such thing as Balochi... they are Baloch or Baluch. Neither elements are too interested in distorting history of the Calcutta massacre of Muslims.... their problems are with Pakistani establishment and nothing else.202.163.67.241 14:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Also.... Let me say this, I am going to give you a source regarding Hindu underworld's involvement very soon ... 202.163.67.241 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't, because there was no "Hindu underworld" in Calcutta. There was (and still is) a Muslim one. "Hindu underworld" is a propaganda accusation made in Pakistan, and has no credibility anywhere else. Kjartan8 14:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Issues of misrepresentation in detail

Original research

The original research issue regarding "balancing out Jinnah" will be discussed here. concerns this claim "This quote however does not find favor with Jinnah's biographers" The main issue is balance is orrelevant in wikipedia. WP:NOR is WP:NOR. Your "balancing out" is a synthesis of sources that YOU made, not the authors you cite. This constitutes original research and is againtst wikipedia regulations. Wikipedia regulations precede over all issues of balance. Kjartan8 15:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tucker

We discuss the tucker issue here to avoid confusion. Are you talking about this book [2]? Kjartan8 15:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tuker ... not Tucker.

False caption for picture

Your edits to the caption picture says:"Dead and wounded after the 'Direct Action Day' which developed into pitched battles as Hindu mobs[not in citation given] were let loose on the Muslims,Calcutta in 1946, the year before independence". before that, it said "Dead and wounded after the 'Direct Action Day' which developed into pitched battles between Hindus and Muslims in Calcuta in 1946, the year before independence". The source for the picture says [3]"Dead and wounded after the 'Direct Action Day' which developed into pitched battles between Hindus and Muslims in Calcuta in 1946, the year before independence.". I have exposed another lie from you. Kjartan8 15:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What lie... when the caption is already there. It is a biased source nonetheless. 202.163.67.241 15:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is your proof of that? "My madrassa said so" again? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good reason.Kjartan8 15:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

More personal attacks again? I could respond in kind but I will not. 202.163.67.241 16:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of a "Hindu Underworld" in Calcutta

Sure there is an "underworld" in Calcutta, just as there is on ein every major city in the world, but what evidence do you have to offer that they are "Hindus"? For all you know, they could be athiests. In the absense of specific and reliable attribution, the term is an ethnic slur and I demand that it be removed immediately else it will be recorded as a racist remark from you. Kjartan8 15:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Racist" is when a certain Mahatma calls all black people savages. Please get your facts straight.202.163.67.241 16:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of "biased sources", "dubious remarks etc"

Allegations of biased sources will be discussed here:

My side

1. "There are several views on the exact cause of the direct action day riots" - No source provided for this specific claim. Original research in the absense of sources

Given that I have quoted so many sources that oppose your point of view... this is a logical conclusion drawn from secondary sources quoted by both of us. 202.163.67.241 15:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That does not even make any sense. Kjartan8 15:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So ... you are saying that the sources I have quoted and the sources you've quoted are one and them same thing? If not then the above statement is true. 202.163.67.241 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

1. "According to the Hindu and Sikh intelligentsia" - Says who? Who says only Hindu and Sikh intelligentsia were providing that perspective? Where is the source that makes this allegation?
2. more follows

All your quotes that follow are mostly from Hindu and Sikh partisan leaders. So what does one say?202.163.67.241 15:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You haven't proved that at all. I could just as easily argue that "The Dawn" is some leaflet thrown out by a gun-weilding imam in NWFP somewhere. And "PN Benjamin" sounds like a Hindu/Sikh name to you? For your information, "Benjamin" comes from the old testament of the Bible (ie Jewish or Christian)Kjartan8 15:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am adding a reference for this. As for your claim about Dawn Newspaper.... not so. People are not stupid

Quite correct. People are not stupid. I am counting on non-stupid people getting rid of the troll here.Kjartan8 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sock master's side

"#[4] Reason:They are "Kafir"?" Kjartan8 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't resort to personal attacks. My religion or anyone else's religion is NOT an issue here. 202.163.67.241 15:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"#[5] Reason: Benjamin is a Christian?" Kjartan8 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Again ... religion is not an issue .... Indian nationalist chauvinism is however.202.163.67.241 15:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the proof of "bias"? "My madrassa said so" doesn't count. Kjartan8 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Where was the proof of bias when you pooh poohed a renowned historian writing in Dawn one of the oldest newspapers in South Asia... And stop the personal attacks.202.163.67.241 15:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What renowned historian is that? Kjartan8 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Gandhi, Rajmohan (1985). Eight Lives: A Study of the Hindu-Muslim Encounter. SUNY Press. Reason: it's published by "America the great satan"?

Don't twist it. Whose grandson is Raj Mohan Gandhi? 202.163.67.241 15:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's biased then why did a reputable publisher publish it? Kjartan8 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

General Pervez Musharraf's Memoirs have been published by Simon&Schuster... I suppose you accept his view of the Kargil War then ... you should if you really believe what you said above.202.163.67.241 15:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

He does make some valid points about Kargil. I happen to like Musharraf a lot actually.Please stay on topic and try not to troll anymore. Kjartan8 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually whatever valid points he makes have been contradicted by General Zinni and Bill Clinton. So there you have it... a "reputable" publisher publishing a one sided badly written memoir by a third world military dictator. 202.163.67.241 16:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Tsugitaka, Sato (2000). Muslim societies. Routledge, 129. Reason: Another "Great Satan"Kjartan8 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"#Batabyal, Rakesh (2005). Communalism in Bengal : From Famine to Noakhali, 1943-47. Sage Publishers, New-Delhi. Reason: He's a Bengali Hindu, so "naturally" a liar?"Kjartan8 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you claim earlier that Dawn Newspaper was Pakistani propaganda website because it was PAKISTANI? In reality however... his being a Bengali Hindu makes him a party in the Calcutta massacre.

Ah, so now we have a racist on our hands. I thought Islamists condemned racism. Guess I was wrong. Kjartan8 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Its not about racism. Furthermore your insistence on calling me an Islamist... even though I am not even a Muslim ... let alone an Islamic minded Muslim is just amazing. Not everyone who disagrees with POV is an Islamist. Have you ever thought why Jinnah, who your own leaders called the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity, turned against you guys-when he was hardly a Muslim? So stop abusing me for simply standing up for the facts.202.163.67.241 16:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

1. "Members of the Indian National Congress, including Mohandas Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru responded negatively to the riots and expressed shock" tagged as "Dubious". Reason: They are Hindus so they can't express anything but joy?Kjartan8 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Sumit Sarkar, Patel a close colleague of Gandhi and Nehru gloated openly because a larger number of Muslims were killed than Hindus in Calcutta... Since More Muslims died than Hindus... your point doesn't make sense. 202.163.67.241 15:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, "My madrassa says so" is not a valid reason. Find a reliable source. Kjartan8 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Desist from personal attacks. Mansergh's Transfer of Power has been quoted to this VERY end in the article. 202.163.67.241 15:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Often, members of the Muslim mob who slaughtered the Hindus would forcibly marry the widows after converting them to Islam at point of weapon. tagged "Not in citation given" despite the fact that a simple click shows the NYT article where it states [6]""What to do?" was the mantra he muttered daily that November as he walked barefoot through the blood-soaked mud of Noakhali District's scorched villages in Eastern Bengal's anguished Delta. He had gone there in response to his old Quaker friend Muriel Lester's personal plea, made after she had met Hindu widows who had watched their husbands butchered by Muslims. Before their husbands could be cremated, those widows were dragged off to be "converted" and "married" to the same killers. "These women had a dead look," Muriel wrote him, a look of "utter blankness." Gandhi soon saw worse things in Noakhali. Believing as he did that "Truth is God," he could not understand how so much he thought true about India turned out to be so violently false.". So STANLEY WOLPERT is also the great satan now is he?

Nope... Wolpert is merely quoting within "" "" what Muriel claimed to have seen. It is NOT Wolpert's claim. It is not what you claimed. 202.163.67.241 15:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So where is the bias? Kjartan8 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep track of the issue. It was "failed verification" as with most of your quotes. Stanley Wolpert did not conclude or claim any such thing. You did from Wolpert's mere reproduction of Muriel's point of view.... 202.163.67.241 15:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is that a "biased source" s you tagged it? Where is Muriel's bias? You have proved nothing and maligned a reliable source like the New York Times. I am now officially justified at my assertion that you are a troll. Kjartan8 15:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Abusing me will not solve anything. Go and see what the TAG really says... it is NOT bias. It is about the citation. Your citation is inaccurate. 202.163.67.241 16:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC

This space reserved for requested comment. The Kinslayer 09:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Article protected

The peace seems to have broken. I've rv'd to TKS version and protected it William M. Connolley 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The version you've protected is the one with the most ridiculously one sided edits by Kjartan. This is hardly fair. Teabing-Leigh 16:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It usually isn't... --Onorem 16:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is that Kjartan admitted above that he did NOT verify the source before actually claiming that verification failed. Please note this pertinent point which proves that this current position is as is WRONG. Teabing-Leigh 16:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Quoting above

"Please.I have not cited any extra sources. They were already there in the article. I can verify most of them as correct, of course. Please provide a precise reference for the Tucker book. ISBN, title, page number and I will verify it, also, provide quotes/excerpts from the book. I'm sure you can't support the web page, because the "web page" is a pile of blooming rubbish, that's why.Kjartan8 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)"

"So you admit that YOU did not actually verify before putting up the "failed verification" tag. I will give you the exact ISBN number in a minute. But I am also going to report you for this claim. 202.163.67.241 14:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)"

Teabing-Leigh 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If an edit war has to be stopped... it should be atleast mid way. Teabing-Leigh 17:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Verification tags put up Kjartan are without any justification. I have in my hands the book by Sir Francis Tuker that quotes the said piece as is. Teabing-Leigh 17:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops... My mistake. This wrong version is only half wrong ;) .... Have a nice one. Teabing-Leigh 17:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by RapidSurfer

→ In re: user Rapidsurfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Rapidsurfer is continously taking off tags without justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egopearl (talk • contribs) 13:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

hindus killed

Numerous textbooks attest to the fact that this day turn into a slaughterfest. The references are provided in the article.Bakaman 20:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)