Talk:Dilip D'Souza
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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.
|
[edit] Dilip's questionable articles and social affiliations
Hello, would like to talk about these, if anyone may so care to discuss.
- Dilip's article "My country, right or wrong". The probable context of this article is his research on a book on Kashmir and patriotism. It was a trial baloon that went horribly off course. Though the inspiration was the overthrow of Saddam and Hitler (Hitler was not a dictator, he was an elected chancellor), using the bulk of Dilips writings as the context, it is very likely that he was obliqely starting a thought-experiment whether such a proposition would be valid in an Indian senario. Though one is free to have such thoughts, it should be with the caveat that such ideas are indeed, seditious/treasonous.
- AID, inspite of all the work it has done for Tsunami etc, is not an up and up, 'clean' organisation. It has an agenda, and such should also be mentioned.
- Same goes with the agenda of the track-2 group Dilip belongs to. That group has publically declared that it will discuss the Kashmir issue with the following options: independence, accession to Pakistan, to de jure recognition of the current status quo. The idea of accession to Pakistan and independence(sic) are fissiparous and considered seditious by the Government of India. This should also be mentioned.
[edit] POV stuff
- Just been looking more closely at the language here. For now, I've looked only at the Affiliations section. Lets remember this is Wikipedia, not a place to dispense opinion. Neutrality, neutrality is the word here.
- Clear you don't like Dillip's writings and PIPFPD and AID, dat's fine, no prob. But "this group has a questionable agenda" is POV. Some think so, some don't, and the section should be written like that.
- Looked at PIPFPD site where you got the quote which you called "following solutions". There is small but vital difference between what it says and the way you characterize it. They don't call them "solutions", they say "approaches to the dispute". Even if you think the difference doesnt matter (I think it does), at least your quote should be of full sentence, as now.
- It's not "these" (i.e. all three listed approaches) that are at odds with the GoI views. You say, above, that only the first two are "fissiparous and considered seditious" by GoI. Language in article should be like that, stating precisely what some believe is anti-national. Also that others don't believe it is anti-national just to recognize that there are multiple appriaches/views to the dispute.
- AID: Tried looking at your cited page, link doesn't work. Therefore removed the line about communist organizations etcetera. In any case, presuming you find the correct link, "AID has been involved in several controversies" and "dubious funding" are POV. As with PIPFPD, please write it something like "Some have criticized AID for association with communist organization and for their sorces of funding."
- Will have similar corrections, in same vein, to other sections in this page later.
- Let's remember about living peoples bios: 'Editors should remove any negative material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source.[1]
Thanks. Hey19 09:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
