User:MDP23/Desk: Difference between revisions

< User:MDP23 Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:09, 6 October 2006 editHkelkar (talk \| contribs)7,279 edits →Tipu Sultan Affair ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 13:31, 20 April 2020 edit undoSotiale (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,121 editsm Sotiale moved page User:Martinp23/Desk to User:MDP23/Desk: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Martinp23" to "MDP23"
(22 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 2:		Line 2:

	<big>''']'''</big>		<big>''']'''</big>


	Please only leave comments below this copy-paste from the case page. (ie below the horizontal line)



	'''Wikipedian filing request:'''
	<!-- Do not change anything here. -->
	* {{user\|Hkelkar}}

	'''Other Wikipedians this pertains to:'''
	<!-- Follow STEP 3 below -->
	* {{user\|BhaiSaab}}
	* {{user\|Naziakhanum}}
	* {{user\|Mujeerkhan}}
	* {{user\|Mysorebhai}}

	'''Misplaced Pages pages this pertains to:'''
	<!-- Follow STEP 4 below -->
	* {{article\|Tipu Sultan}}
	* {{article\|Talk:Tipu Sultan}}
	* {{article\|User_talk:Hkelkar}}
	==Questions:==
	<!-- Follow STEP 5 below -->

	'''Have you read the ]?'''
	*Answer:Yes

	'''How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)'''
	*Answer: content dispute

	'''What methods of ] have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.'''
	*Answer:Discussion in Talk Page has failed despite my position being wholly or partially supported by several users. Bogus complaints and personal attacks have resulted.See my talk page ] or ].

	'''What do you expect to get from ]?'''
	*Answer: Some objective perspective as to the edit war presently going on and hopefully more experienced users could convince the fundamentalist (IMHO) elements from keeping their jingiosm off wikipedia and/or provide a solution acceptable to all.Personally I am happy to cooperate with any objective mediators.

	==Summary:==
	<!-- Follow the instructions for STEP 6 below -->
	The issue is as follows. ] was the name of a Mohammedian ruler in the Kingdom of ] in Southern ] in the 18th Century.Muslims in India generally regard him as a saint and have a kind of ] syndrome when it comes to the figure, as well as a ]. He is regarded as a "patriot" for resisting (but ultimately failing to prevent) British colonial incursions into the area. However, historians such as ] and others have raised issues with him. There are claims that he inflicted massive genocides on Hindus in the region, as well as his contempt for the local language (]) which he actively tried to suppress and relpace with the more Semitic language ]. As of this moment, I have written the section as objectively as I can, listing the other side of the debate (previously, the Goel & PCN Raja side was mentioned only briefly and ridiculed, together with apparent "refutations" of the claims of genocide with no citations or sources whatsoever).However, the users I have listed as (of the other side) have formed an informal cabal and have been mass-reverting to the POV & OR version, making ethnic/religious attacks (I have been called a "Hindu Fundamentalist" which is amusing as I am not even a Hindu) in the Talk page. Further POV in the article is where he is mentioned as a "Patriot","Linguist" and a "Freedom Fighter" (in the latest version as of now). This is not written in a neutral narrative and maintained as fact despite the points that:
	:He couldn't be a "patriot" of anything as India as a nation did not exist back then (he was the monarch of a tiny and relatively insignificant kingdom and his loyalties lay exclusively to his lineage/tribe/kingdom and loyalty to a kingdom is hardly "patriotic"). However, he is generally regarded as a "patriot" though the article does not use that narrative.
	:It is mentioned that he is a "Linguist" based on a single sentence in a partisan website. Yet, no linguistic works are cited. It is true that he was bilingual, perhaps even trilingual. However, many people of nobility spoke multiple languages in India and none of them are regarded as "Linguists".If he was a "scholar of language" then surely his works would have been documented.None of those (I think nonexistent) works are cited though.
	:The term "Freedom Fighter" (mentioned/that was mentioned) is equally laughable as there was no "Freedom" to fight for. India was divided into kingdoms, principalities, military dictatorships and Islamic theocracies.Opposition to the colonialist British does not constitute "Fighting for Freedom" as Tipu only cared for his kingdom and his authoritarian rule over the region.He is "regarded" (irrationally) as a "Freedom Fighter" but again, the narrative is not neutral.

	I have made corrections as of now but the users may revert as no resolution has been achieved in the talk page.Muslim (presumably) users have even asserted that because Tipu is regarded as a "saint" he should be respected on wikipedia. I have responded that his "sainthood" (bear in mind that no Islamic cleric has declared him a saint or any Mohammedian equivalent) is irrelevant to his status on wikipedia and our edits need to remain neutral and scholarly.No coherent response.

	Furthermore, there is a contemporary controversy concerning him that has been deleted completely by the Mohammedian editors (still is as of the latest version at this time). The version where this was entered is .

	I believe that this edit is completely neutral and non-partisan but it was removed by the cabal and more insults made both in my user page and talk page.

	I also believe that claims that he "fathered" or "originated" modern rocketry are absurdly exaggerated and his involvement with rockets (actually firecrackers) should be toned down and narrative neutralized.

	<strike>
	'''ADD''':] has extended the olive branch, so to speak, and seems to be the most reasonable one of the lot. He is receptive to mediation as stated in the talk page.</strike>


	'''UPDATE''':] tried to create a POV-fork AMA request at ] (presently a candidate for speedy deletion).I have copy-pasted his version of the summary (itself a copy-paste + POV'ised job of my original request).His version is below:

	Mujeerkhan Asserts:
	<!-- Follow the instructions for STEP 6 below -->
	The issue is as follows. ] was the name of a Indian ruler in the Kingdom of ] in Southern ] in the 18th Century.He is regarded as a "patriot" for resisting (but ultimately failing to prevent) British colonial incursions into the area. Some users have made
	making ethnic/religious attacks against me and user ] ( as discussed in in the article) who has made statements like ] which has links to terrorism, I tired to explain that this reference was ] which i can say its similar to ] but worth to be referred and ] which is clearly indian website on human rights in India and when i tried to link this references to his references like ] and ] which both spread fundamentalist, extremist ideas that leads to communal hatred in india and when i tried to say that if the references stated by the other user is fundamentalist then why not yours, he said " Remove my verifiable edits and that is vandalism" and user ] was against this idea.He also said that "entire countries in the muslim world that massacre non-muslims and spread hate against them" and user ] warned him in this regard and ]"The fact remains that every single thing that I said was correct" .
	When i tired to make corrections in the articles which where edited by other/previous users which was not related to the "conflict" of the article, he remarked my efforts as "rubbish" and user ] tired to explain her remarks were not answered by ].
	For time there was a good discussion between both of us and suddenly he again showed his colours.
	when ] tried to put up facts ] again said "nationalist/religious jingoism hard at work"

	His other comments were

	"but here we have a particularly nasty breed of localized Islamist tribalism at work"
	"mohammedian" term is a direct insult to muslims as they are followers of ] and regard ] as a messenger.
	"fundamentalist nutbags reverted it anyway"

	All these show he has acted in a racial, extremist, immoral, uncivil, hurting other relegious sentiments.



	Talk page. in the article is where he is mentioned as a "Patriot","Linguist" and a "Freedom Fighter" .
	:He was a "linguist" ](he was the monarch of a vast area of land and relatively significant kingdom)]
	:he is a "patriot" ] is a indian post website which clearly shows and says "Tipu Sultan patriot" this was termed as partisan by ]
	:The term "Freedom Fighter" ] clearly depicts him as the first freedom fighter of india.

	All these terms were argued when there was credible evidence that linked the above terms to tipu. But at present this is not shown in the article as some user has edited them

	Lastly, i had also given credible information on rocketry where tipu is mentioned as "perfected" for serious purposes ] which is an indian defence website and The ] ] remarks on tipu ]

	This is from a leading indian newspaper which says tipu "fathered" rocketry ], indian newspaper where the ] ] wanted to know how tipu built the rocket ] , indian newspaper ]

	On the issue of relegious tolerance and anti kannada there were a number of articles, website which were credible were also disapproved by other members which are mentioned and discussed ]
	I tired to "turn away" from some time but to no avail, i tried to warn him of edits which amounted to more than 3-4 a day. tried to negiotiate matters with him and also conflits between him and other members.
	If you have a clear look in the discussion you can find out that a reasonable members were against his ideas. There is a user ] who is a sock puppet of ] as claimed by ]

	Inspite of all the proff, articles which I/users have put forth were rejected by ] all the above inspite that the articles are from defence, newspapers, government website. The picture clearly shows that he wants to run the article on his own terms despite other members appeals.Also he does not take positive points from a point of view but insist to make rather all statements on negative terms.
	<Mujeerkhan>




	----



	'''''Any discussion below here please'''''


	::Hi. Good luck on your researching this topic and I hope to hear from you soon. I'll put this page in my watchlist.] 22:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


	::Some more information backing the persecution of Hindus by Tipu Sultan theory:


	::I believe that TerryJ-Ho is a partisan and not entirely reliable editor regarding this matter, given several intensely ] views that he has expressed time and again on his talk page (the first few posts themselves) on ]. He has made similar accusations against Hindus before in ] before and has been rather adequately refuted, after which he resorted to a rather memorable temper tantrum .
	(plus, I recall seeing a post by him where he demanded that sources that declare themselves to be partisan and ] be cited without qualification on the grounds that an ] position is acceptable per his view). He has also made numerous pejorative remarks against Hindu women and Hindu children throughout wikipedia.

	If you look at the references he cites, many of them are partisan. For instance, Bharat-Rakshak.com is a military site. The Indian Military is under mandate of being politically correct towards Indian Muslims, many of whom are Fundamentalists. The btconnect site is written by Dr."Sheik" Ali (the partisanship is, of course, quite obvious here).

	The other references he sites are irrelevant to the dispute here and are clearly an attempt to color your perspective on what is a complex issue (read ] carefully concerning this textbook business that he cites, for a slightly better perspective regarding false allegations made against the RSS by the organisation ], an ] front operating out of Pakistan with links to terrorist organizations and a lobby group that has associations with the Communist Party of India, many of whose leaders such as Prakash Karat officially support and endorse Islamic terrorism).

	The references he does cite that do pertain to the subject of the article do not support his views and, again, are meant as a smokescreen to try to muddle the issue.

	Bear in mind that I take no position regarding this controversy. I do not contest, for instance, that he was a POPULAR leader (among Muslims and some relatively uninformed Hindus, at least). I do not contest that sourced information be kept. I do not contest the academic and non-partisan references that TerryJ-Ho cites above so long as they are relevant to the persecution dispute. TerryJ-Ho cites references that show that Tipu Sultan was a capable leader in order to use the faulty argument that his capability is proof of his tolerance. By that logic ], and extremely capable leader with many achievements, would also be tolerant (forgive me for evoking Godwin's Law here, but I can't think of a better example right now). My dispute is not over capability, but over tolerance, and descriptions of attitudes that were impossible for that time per my reasoning in the Talk Page (btw if I was a "Hindu Fascist" then I would not make the argument that patriotism was impossible in the 17th century I would insist on it). I do contest the POV edits that take a position regarding the controversy that existed/exist/constantyl reverted.

	I merely ask that both sides of the debate be represented in due proportionm, particularly the recent controversy regarding Tipu Sultan (I posted a diff of that edit on the AMA page itself). TerryJ-Ho wants to whitewash the issue completely, which is against the wikipedia policy of ]. Also, ], offers a scholarly perspective on the persecution theory (This is a non-partisan web site, not affiliated to any Hindu nationalist organization). Goel is a highly notable scholar in India who had peer-reviewed publications and has authored numerous books. He is a controversial scholar, but so are ], ] and others frequently sourced on wikipedia (TerryJ-Ho did a ] violation on Pipes on ] but was instantly reverted and admonished by an admin) but the notability of these scholars supercedes the controversies surrounding them.] 02:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

	::Plus, here are some additional refs:

	"Annual reports of the Portuguese Franciscans in India, 1713-1833" by Achilles Meersman P238.

	{{cquote\|This persecution began roughly with the accession of Tippu Sultan to the throne in 1782, rached its clímax in 1787 and continued up to 1792}}

	"The Colors of Violence: Cultural Identities, Religion, and Conflict" by Sudhir Kakar P17

	{{cquote\|To illustrate this, let me take the earlier example of Tipu Sultan, who
	destroyed some Hindu temples and persecuted certain Hindu groups.}}

	Now bear in mind that this book opposes Hindu Nationalism and is critical of it in general

	"Kerala Under Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan" by C. K. Kareem (A Muslim, no less!) P 187
	{{cquote\|Tipu Sultan's practice to correspond only in says "it is probably about this
	time, that he issued an edict for the destruction of all the Hindu temples"}}

	"The Protected Princes of India" by William Lee-Warner (Page 71)

	http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC00185953&id=GciCSpe1OOMC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=The+Protected+Princes+of+India


	{{cquote\|Upon the restoration of Peace with the British, Tippu turned his attention on the ]s, and his acts soon revealed the bigotry of the man.His destruction of Hindu temples and his forced conversion to the faith of Islam of 100,000 people, affforded a marked contrast to the toleration and conciliatory temper which his father had wisely exhibited}}


	I ask that these also be cited.] 02:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)






	===Tipu Sultan Affair===
	Some items that I think pertain to this case

	In India, the collapse of the Mughal empire created a power vacuum that was filled by the East India Company. Its administrative and military machine gradually reshaped the subcontinent to suit British priorities. After the defeat of Tipu Sultan in 1799, British control of the subcontinent was assured. With this, the character of the European presence in Asia changed and rigid assumptions of ‘East' and ‘West' began to replace the more fluid boundaries between different cultures. ...against these all articles Kelakar has chosen the preferred media of Islam bashers and the Hindu fascist organisation ] er ..supported site ]. In short Kelakar is presenting an alternate and in many ways personal point of view that hardly finds mention in reputed and responsible history books. ] 00:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

	::I believe that TerryJ-Ho is a partisan and not entirely reliable editor regarding this matter, given several intensely ] views that he has expressed time and again on his talk page (the first few posts themselves) on ]. He has made similar accusations against Hindus before in ] before and has been rather adequately refuted, after which he resorted to a rather memorable temper tantrum .
	* Do you think your's being the last statement on that page means you have won the argument.Somehow I am reminded of the exact words Subhash uses in similar situations..(Tamper Tantrums)...Did you have same nuresery and secondary school teachers too? - Bad joke but I find too many coincidences] 17:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
	(plus, I recall seeing a post by him where he demanded that sources that declare themselves to be partisan and ] be cited without qualification on the grounds that an ] position is acceptable per his view)

	* Please cite evidence for the above ] 17:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

	. He has also made numerous pejorative remarks against Hindu women and Hindu children throughout wikipedia.

	If you look at the references he cites, many of them are partisan. For instance, Bharat-Rakshak.com is a military site. The Indian Military is under mandate of being politically correct towards Indian Muslims, many of whom are Fundamentalists. The btconnect site is written by Dr."Sheik" Ali (the partisanship is, of course, quite obvious here).

	The other references he sites are irrelevant to the dispute here and are clearly an attempt to color your perspective on what is a complex issue (read ] carefully concerning this textbook business that he cites, for a slightly better perspective regarding false allegations made against the RSS by the organisation ], an ] front operating out of Pakistan with links to terrorist organizations and a lobby group that has associations with the Communist Party of India, many of whose leaders such as Prakash Karat officially support and endorse Islamic terrorism).

	* So should we now not say you are explicitly defaming an orgainsation without proof ..What evidence is there that they have terrorist links?? or where has Prakash Karat endorsed Islamist terrorism.
	:His blog, for once, where he routinely praises Osama bin Laden.] 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

	They all are relevent as they put into perspective Kalekar's position.]
	::Yes, defamation of users who post scholarly edits is a standard tactic of Islamist wikipedians.] 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

	The references he does cite that do pertain to the subject of the article do not support his views and, again, are meant as a smokescreen to try to muddle the issue.

	Bear in mind that I take no position regarding this controversy. I do not contest, for instance, that he was a POPULAR leader (among Muslims and some relatively uninformed Hindus, at least)
	*Indian government and the British too..Isn't it?]
	::What does that even mean?] 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
	. I do not contest that sourced information be kept. I do not contest the academic and non-partisan references that TerryJ-Ho cites above so long as they are relevant to the persecution dispute.

	* Yes, many of them have referred to the injustice and Hindu killing speak and shown the proper perspective] 17:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
	::As well as Muslim killings from ] to 9/11 and the Mumbai Bombings, which can be seen in any major newspaper.
	::Anyway, the relevance to this debate is... what exactly?] 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

	TerryJ-Ho cites references that show that Tipu Sultan was a capable leader in order to use the faulty argument that his capability is proof of his tolerance. By that logic ], and extremely capable leader with many achievements, would also be tolerant (forgive me for evoking Godwin's Law here, but I can't think of a better example right now). My dispute is not over capability, but over tolerance, and descriptions of attitudes that were impossible for that time per my reasoning in the Talk Page (btw if I was a "Hindu Fascist" then I would not make the argument that patriotism was impossible in the 17th century I would insist on it). I do contest the POV edits that take a position regarding the controversy that existed/exist/constantyl reverted.

	I merely ask that both sides of the debate be represented in due proportionm, particularly the recent controversy regarding Tipu Sultan (I posted a diff of that edit on the AMA page itself).

	Yes, there are always two sides of an issue but then depends on how strong is the other side and who are the other sides themselves..Do they have an agenda..What is that agenda..not all miniscule and niche view can be cited specially if they come from orgainsations and people with hard views and agenda...] 17:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
	Yes the sources I cited (Western, Muslim, Scholarly) are all "Hindu Bastards", right? Paranoia seems to be another trait of Islamofascists it seems.] 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


	TerryJ-Ho wants to whitewash the issue completely, which is against the wikipedia policy of ]. Also, ], offers a scholarly perspective on the persecution theory (This is a non-partisan web site, not affiliated to any Hindu nationalist organization). Goel is a highly notable scholar in India who had peer-reviewed publications and has authored numerous books. He is a controversial scholar, but so are ], ] and others frequently sourced on wikipedia (TerryJ-Ho did a ] violation on Pipes on ] but was instantly reverted and admonished by an admin) but the notability of these scholars supercedes the controversies surrounding them.] 02:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

	::Plus, here are some additional refs:

	"Annual reports of the Portuguese Franciscans in India, 1713-1833" by Achilles Meersman P238.

	{{cquote\|This persecution began roughly with the accession of Tippu Sultan to the throne in 1782, rached its clímax in 1787 and continued up to 1792}}

	"The Colors of Violence: Cultural Identities, Religion, and Conflict" by Sudhir Kakar P17

	{{cquote\|To illustrate this, let me take the earlier example of Tipu Sultan, who
	destroyed some Hindu temples and persecuted certain Hindu groups.}}

	Now bear in mind that this book opposes Hindu Nationalism and is critical of it in general

	"Kerala Under Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan" by C. K. Kareem (A Muslim, no less!) P 187
	{{cquote\|Tipu Sultan's practice to correspond only in says "it is probably about this
	time, that he issued an edict for the destruction of all the Hindu temples"}}

	"The Protected Princes of India" by William Lee-Warner (Page 71)

	http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC00185953&id=GciCSpe1OOMC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=The+Protected+Princes+of+India


	{{cquote\|Upon the restoration of Peace with the British, Tippu turned his attention on the ]s, and his acts soon revealed the bigotry of the man.His destruction of Hindu temples and his forced conversion to the faith of Islam of 100,000 people, affforded a marked contrast to the toleration and conciliatory temper which his father had wisely exhibited}}


	I ask that these also be cited.] 02:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

	* Thanks a lot ] 17:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

	The above ip is from TerryJ-Ho.] 21:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

	Plus, I belive his unscholarly, partisan (and, frankly, rather sick) views are quite self-evident from his posts above.] 21:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:31, 20 April 2020

Welcome to my AMA desk - this is where I will discuss individual AMA cases (which will then be archived on completion).

Archives of past cases