User talk:Wikiality123

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Kaveri River

You have added the word "...but has not met the monthly quota" for which you have provided the pdf as reference. Can you please tell me the page number in the pdf that states your claim. Thanks. Sarvagnya 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The PDF article from Bradford university will tell you that there is a monthly ration precribed in the interim order (page 20) and the article you have provided from rediff.com by Mr.Shenoy tells us that this wasnt met during specified months. There can be many rational explanation that can be given to the same, including calling those months as distress months for Karnataka (which I can not personally oppose- I'm not a policy maker). But leaving emotions outside wikipedia the plain fact that Karnataka didnt meet the interim orders SHOULD BE specified. If you still think that would be unfair on Karnataka you can please add on a further sentence Karnataka had explained its stance that those months are drought-periods, but Tamil Nadu had refused to accept it on the context of the interim order. I believe we can find references for this and makes the argument pretty much balanced.Wikiality123 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That a monthly ration was prescribed is not news to anybody. I think even the article(the wikipedia article I mean) mentions that.

As for these monthly rations not being met, it is just what Tamil Nadu alleged/alleges and they complained about this to the tribunal also. But, the tribunal waved it away. For NPOV, where there is disagreement between K and TN's versions, we will have to go by the tribunal's version.

Nowhere has the tribunal said that Karnataka didnt meet the monthly rations. If it has, please show me. Even if it has, that would be true only of the couple of distress years in the last 16 years. You cannot pass off Tamil Nadu's allegations as if it was undisputed fact. You cannot also pass off exceptions as if it was the rule. Thanks. Sarvagnya 21:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty much common sense when you look at the news and the turn of events that the problem sores in summer and TN running to Supreme court and the Prime Minister, political remarks, tension and in the end compliance after a while. As I mentioned earlier I am neither for TN nor K'taka on this issue. Krishna himself has accepted that he had defied the CRA ruling ([1]) (see para 11 and 19 in particular Wikiality123 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)). Once again please work on making wikipedia neutral not as a single state propaganda. The statement you have made about K'taka releasing the said yearly quota contradicts the fact being that the monthly ration wasnt meant, as per Krishna's word by itself. Wikiality123 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Again regarding taking TN govt's words for granted- I do not take any of the alegations as valid untill and unless its proven or accepted by a neutral third party. There are loads of alegations made my TN on K'taka, which I neither endorse nor disagree.

Further to the points listed above neither can the statment stating K'taka has complied with the orders would be accurate nor completely branding K'taka to have disragarded the orders. A more neutral way of stating it is what am asking you to do over there. Wikiality123 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

TN says : Ktaka did not follow the monthly rationing scheme.

Tribunal disagrees.

In the light of the tribunal's disagreement, TN's allegation remains just that. An allegation. TN's POV. It is not fact. Like you say there are countless allegations and counter allegations by both states. We cant present them as 'fact'. Which part of this logic do u not understand? Sarvagnya 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

* I think we are missing the point. K'taka by its Cheif Minister's words has indeed defied the CRA ruling. This can be presented as fact since all parties agree on this 'fact'.Wikiality123 23:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reservation in India

Nice to know that you wish to contribute for improving Reservations in India article. I could not contribute much in recent months for this article. Lot of unsourced statements have been inserted in recent days. In my opinion. Pro/Anti reservation arguments and Tamilnadu sections needs revamp. Other sections in my opinion don't have POV statements. If you have any specific issues with other sections, please indicate to me. You can probaly take Pro/Anti reservation arguments section for editing which has lot of personal opinions which is not backed by statistics.I suggest you to put note in Talk pages about statements you feel is not backed by statistics or not shared by expert opinions and then remove the same after few days. Then probably we can come to Tamilnadu section. I am tied up with urgent project assignment and not able to concentrate on wiki for the last few days. Will assist you in bringing neutrality once I finish some urgent tasks. Almost all charts in the article have been prepared by me. If you need more clarifications on those charts please feel free to ask me. --Indianstar 15:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I also favour removing contents about Anti brahmanism which is not relevant to the subject. I agree with you that core theme of Tamilnadu subject can be retained in the main article and other contents can be moved to separate article.--Indianstar 05:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed statements about Anti Brahmanism and multi level counter points. Asked for citations for few points. You can also ask citations for points which are not verifiable. Please mark statements which you consider as POV in Talk pages. We can discuss and either remove or modify those points. --Indianstar 06:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)