Talk:Dalit Voice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
	This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.

	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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Hatred of Hindus 2 NPOV violation. 3 Wereldwijd 4 New version 5 Category:Anti-semitic publications 6 Holocaust denial

[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)

[edit] New version

I have rewritten substantially, taking out all the weasel-wording but keeping in the references that show DV taking positions that many will think of as extreme. How long will these changes survive? Any chance of discussion on this talk page before reversion? I live in hope. Itsmejudith 17:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Now after the reversion wars I am going to go through it again, checking that each reference is appropriate and summarised correctly. Please remember WP's NPOV policies and that we have to let the facts speak for themselves. I am going to try extremely hard not to let my own POV influence the article. I hope that other editors will do the same. This is not easy territory. Itsmejudith 13:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Anti-semitic publications

The comments below have been copied from Wikipedia: WikiProject Judaism: Egfrank 13:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Input is needed on the article Dalit Voice. Users whitewashing the antisemitic website want to remove the cat Category:Antisemitic publications from the article. Specifically, conflict exists between this version [1] and this version[2]. A glance at the talk page shows a propensity of the article to attract fanatics, so extra pairs of eyes would serve the article well. Yitzhak Hudas 11:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My edits are the ones that the above user is talking about ... I take strong exception to the accusation of "whitewashing", which has no place in Wikipedia. I first came across this article through participation in the Wikification WikiProject. I'm no expert on Indian politics but it's clear that the publication it deals with is associated with some extreme-minority points of view, some of which are to my reading antisemitic. That's only my reading though, and the article needs to follow WP policies and just describe the views of the publication in neutral terms, quoting only reliable sources. It would indeed be very good to get more editors involved, which is why I just tagged it for an expert in Indian politics. Since there is also a dimension of antisemitism, I'm going to leave a message on the Antisemitism talk page too. I'm losing patience in edit-warring over the article and certainly have no wish to WP:Own it. Itsmejudith 11:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh and of course I am emphatically NOT involved with whitewashing the page on antisemitism. Itsmejudith 11:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The following comment is taken from both Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism and the talk page of User:Itsmejudith. Egfrank 13:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC):

Judith - any magazine that praises Hitler is almost by definition an anti-semitic publication - I really don't see how it could be otherwise. The minute one crosses the line from ideology to endorsement of subjugation or extermination campaigns and those who promote them(be it the extermination of Jews, Hutus or Darfurians), one has crossed the line from justice to hate. Best Egfrank 12:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The following comment is taken from the talk page of User:Egfrank: Egfrank 13:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Egfrank. Thanks very much for your comment on my talk page. Of course I agree that praising Hitler is blatant and outrageous antisemitism. This isn't really at issue on the Dalit Voice page. Wikipedia policy is that we should let the facts speak for themselves and use reliable sources; that's all that I am trying to do. Luckily there are a couple of good external sources that have described the views of the magazine and these should continue to form the main framework for the article. What emerges from these and from looking at issues of the magazine is that it has a complex mix of non-mainstream views. Antisemitic themes recur, so do Afrocentric ones, but the most common themes probably relate to Indian politics. That's why I don't think it's appropriate to simply describe it as "antisemitic" in the lead. Please get back to me if I can explain more fully. Itsmejudith 13:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What follows originates on this page: Egfrank 13:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think User:Yitzhak Hudas is upset about the removal from Category:Antisemitic publications. I can understand your concern about placing the "antisemitic" line in the lead paragraph - it doesn't seem like anti-semitism is its focus - its anti a *lot* of things, Jews being only one of them. On the other hand, it seems pretty obvious that it belongs in Category:Antisemitic publications and possibly a few other anti-categories, assuming they exist. What is your reason for excluding it from Category:Antisemitic publications? Egfrank 13:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply that it is easy to push POV by allotting articles to categories, (as well as by adding "See also"s). These sorts of edits are exempt from the requirements for rigorous sourcing. I'd prefer if the encyclopedia were pruned of such categories. I don't have such strong views about this one as about the "pseudohistory" category that this editor and others have continually added. Itsmejudith 13:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you that categorization can become a form of POV, but in this case the claim to antisemitism is sourced and so far, at least, we don't have any sources disputing the claim. So it seems we have an uncontested "fact". Perhaps you might consider reintroducing Category:Antisemitic publications. As for the other categories, if they don't have sources, the categorization should probably wait until the sources exist. As for your philosophical discomfort with such categories, you might want to consider WP:CFD (Categories for discussion). Best, Egfrank 17:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. I'm impressed with your hard work finding sources. Egfrank 17:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I heartily second (and third!) Egfrank's remarks. Tomer^talk 19:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

And fourth, I guess. Yitzhak Hudas 20:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading the article it is patently obvious the racist nutcases that write this (the magazine) have no liking for Jews. I have viewed related things like dalitstan and have noted their affinity with Lashkar-e-Toiba and other groups, who are also anti-Semitic. There is no reason to pretend this group is anything else but racist and bigoted, and the specific targets of their vitriol should be noted.Bakaman 23:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust denial

There is evidence of holocaust denial in the magazine. Look at 25(1) for example. Unfortunately, I can't find the volume and issue of the linked article that's the source for the support of Ahmadinejad's position. I'd like to stress again that I have no problem with including material that illustrates antisemitic positions taken by the magazine. However, I am still - like other editors who have posted on this talk page before - concerned about the overall balance of the article. It is by no means an easy task to summarise the positions taken by this magazine. I have found an article, for example, alleging that M.K. Gandhi was "a nazi". That this contradicts other articles that attempt to exonerate nazism of all charges does not seem to bother the magazine's editors. However, it does mean that we either remove some of the existing viewpoints attributed to the magazine, however well sourced, or we keep trawling through it in order to add more about specifically Indian politics. For example, I found a long article alleging that a major higher education institution had a "Brahmin monopoly". If we are going to reflect the magazine's views accurately then much more weight must be given to that kind of material. Itsmejudith 17:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)