Talk:Dalit Voice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Hatred of Hindus

This page was promoting hatred towards dalits , therefore I have made it neutral. If it is reverted , then it means Wikipedia promotes hatred.--Anirudh777 10:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

BULL. This article now paints V.T. as some kind of hateful person. he is not. The Dalit Voice is not a ethnic cleansing hate site. I am changing it. And you can take your silly 'if you don't agree with me then you are evil' logic and shove it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC) <** Above users have been indefblocked for racial attacks **>

VT is definitely an anti-Hindu and an anti-Semite and is exposed accordingly. Dalit voice is a terrorist propaganda rag, also antisemitic and anti-Hindu.Hkelkar 02:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

WTF.How does it matter if he is anit-this anti-that.Everyone is against something.Do we mention that in all articles.Also,how the ... did kelkar conclude the paper indulges in "terrorist "(something used with utmost care) propaganda above.

Yes, and yes.Hkelkar 23:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Expand:Of course you are correct that everybody is anti-something.However, DV is a hate group, which is different from just being anti-something.Plus, there are articles on DV that clearly glorify Hitler and Nazi Germany and claim that the vilification of Hitler is part of an "Evil Jewish Conspiracy", making the site an anti-Semitic one. Their anti-Hindu attitudes are well-known, obviously.Hkelkar 00:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Also , more importantly in the 'support' section , the author claims that it is supported by western fringe scholars etc.

1.He fails to mention the support it enjoys amongst dalits/obcs. 2.How did he conclude about the support base of the paper,did the author of the article carry out a survey himself or is it hearsay?

While wikipedia is not allowed to conduct original research, others certainly are. We have but to report it unbiasedly :).Hkelkar 00:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That only answers 2 not 1 ,btw is an author of article in wikipedia considered as "wikipedia" since you have gloated that wikipedia is not allowed to conduct research.Also ,the author's claim in the support section which is sourced from "14" is wrongly quoted.Elst doesnt use the word "fringe" , he just says western scholars.So the auhor himself might be reminded of the rules that he is trying to remind me of.This seems more like an exercise at political correctness rather than factual accuracy,because the author uses the article to bash VT but similar claims in the discussion section are discouraged,rather replied in a threatening mode,maybe wiki should make rules for that too.

The first part of your reply, at least, appears to be a valid point. This article has no one author but several (my contribution is minimal actually).I will check into the reference and make any corrections to inaccuracies.The article does not take any position on the subject of VT or DV or anyon, just reports on it.Hkelkar 04:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

you still havent answered 1. wiki rules might allow the author/s to quote from the dalit voice itself which the article is about and DV does claim that it has a large support base amongst dalit and obc masses and that its translated into various local languages(obviously without readers you wouldnt translate,would you?).

Well according to Dalit Voice they are a "premier magazine" for the Dalit Masses. Would you like that put in?See below.Hkelkar 07:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply: LOL.well I would say its playing with words on the part of DV.But still the author can mention what DV claims by stating clearly that its their claim.-Agni/Dinesh.

Also,the word 'fringe' has been used the in the first line of article as well,sourcing it incorrectly,again from the same article by Elst where he didnt seem to use it.

Are you suggesting that an anti-semitic publication is mainstream among Dalits? Isn't that like levelling an accusation that Dalits are anti-semites? Seems rather baseless.Hkelkar 07:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

how am i alleging something when its said by DV itself.I am assuming your above reply was regarding the word "fringe".Instead of tweaking the language(like saying I am accusing instead of realising its what DV says), you should rather understand that for DV to be popular amongst dalits/obcs as DV itself claims,the audience dont have to be anti-semitic or anything,as they are not the ones demanding the content,but its other way round.IF A implies B, B doesnt necessarily imply A.Basic logic. - Agni

I am reluctant to make edits that seem anti-Dalit so erred a bit on the side of P.C. I have no interest in provoking edit wars and being accused of attacking minorities (such things happen a lot on wikipedia)

However, perhaps we should say that:

Dalit Voice and it's chief editor VT Rajshekhar regard their publication as a widely circulated journal in the Dalit community

Thus qualifying that the periodical is widely read only according to them and their supporters.Hkelkar 07:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that Okay by you?Hkelkar 07:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Then we should as well say in the "support" section that Elst et al,regard DV as enjoying support amongst whatever mentioned there,as this is sourced from Elst's work ,following the same paradigm as above. - Agni(I dont know how many people are actually talking here).

Actually the information is not based directly from Elst, but independently fact-checked by me and a Dutch colleague of mine in my University, who translated from an old copy of Wereldwijd.Hkelkar 21:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply : This is more interesting,since you said that wikipedia(which you used to refer to the author of the article) is not allowed to conduct independant research.(1)Either this research is invalid as reference in wikipedia or your reference to the author of the article as "wikipedia"(implying part of wiki) is wrong.Either case I have absolutely no issues as long as the independant research is cited in the article,to cross check.(2)On the lighter side,I would be interested in going through the research and the methodology adopted.(3) What is wereldwijd(is that polish/dutch etc)

Let me also ammend that the following authoritative publication on antisemitism regard DV's ideologies as fringe NOT mainstream:

Poliakov, Léon (1994). Histoire de l’antisémitisme 1945-93 Paris.

Quote from P395:

The phenomenon of anti-Semitism in a vocal though marginal and unrepresentative section of the Dalit movement is attributed somewhat patronizingly to the “mental confusion among India’s poor Dalits

Which it states with reference to Rajshekhar and his views expressed on DV.Hkelkar 07:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Notice the words "marginal" and "unrepresentative" (i.e fringe) in the quote above.Hkelkar 07:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV violation.

"It has been criticised as a hate site and has been accused of promoting ethnic cleansing and hate-speech."

This line was removed because it contains and UNCITED use of POV using the weaseling tactic "it has been criticised" that is not permitted in Wikipedia. It has been criticised by who? Until NOW, I have not heard of the site being called a hate site. I do not see anything promoting ethinic cleansing. Feel FREE to quote the site's ethnic cleansing comments in this article. Till then... --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

V.T. is really a hateful person. He shows the current caste system (and problems with that system) as an excuse to vilify Brahmins. In addition, he believes by destroying Brahmins he can achieve the social justice and harmony in India.

Can I remind everyone here that the encyclopedia cannot say anything EITHER to promote this point or view OR to discredit it. It must remain absolutely neutral. I hope when I have time soon to make some edits in order to achieve this. I hope we will all be able to keep clear heads, assume good faith and keep our personal views at a distance. Thanks. Itsmejudith 09:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly.Hkelkar 09:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wereldwijd

This statement will just have to come out because this publication is not notable. It isn't in the British Library, which it would be if it had an ISSN. I can't find it in google. And the references to it are too far out of date. So what if a few people writing in some minor publication expressed support for this guy many years ago? Not worth recording in the encyclopedia. Itsmejudith 13:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)