Talk:Nandigram violence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TMC not part of struggle[edit]

Trinamul congress is not involved in the resistance apart from expressing support (albeit strongly) for the people's organisation. Please keep it out as far as possible as its mention wrongly projects a war between TMC and CPM. There are a lot of politically unbiased sources that this article can rely upon. TMC is the main opposition party in West Bengal. Panchhee 02:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the TMC is involved. Mamata Bannerjee has been directly involved in the protests against industrialisation and land confiscation in Nandigram and Singur. Whether Trinamool is actually involved in shooting or bombing is unproven, but there does seem to be some Naxalite involvement, eg the use of fire bombs and guns.--Conjoiner 20:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is the CPM and speculative media reports that claim the involvement of the TMC. No unbiased first-hand reports point to the involvement of TMC. Naxalite involvement and its extent is also debatable. --Panchhee 05:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I agree to Panchhee. True that the movement is not politically biased. However, the contributions of TMC, SUCI and other organizations involved cannot be ignored.--Sekharlk (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mamta Banerjee was very much involved in the local protest, and one can contest if the protest was started by her or she lent her support to other organizations. But the results of the elections do explain that because of this moment, Mamta could come to power. Earth061992 (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not composed by BJP agents[edit]

The sentence "Composed by an BJP Agent" displayed above the article has been deleted. I don't think that this article has been composed by BJP agent while Maoists and Jamiatul Ulema-e-Hind are also opposing Nandigram land grab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.147.185 (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Maoists involved in the movement of Nandigram.--Sekharlk (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biases[edit]

The following are the reasons for several biases in this section:-

  • The CPI(M) statements are being relied upon too much. They are the ones who have been accused.
  • Non-political and independent reports (many available on the net) are not being used.
  • Some mainstream print media like ABP/Telegraph and The Hindu(chief editor N.Ram) are known for their pro-industry and pro-CPM sympathies

Editors please look into this Panchhee 05:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying is that any CPM source or source with perceived CPM sympathies should not be used. However, Wikipedia is committed to a neutral point of view in which all views are represented. Please feel free to include reports critical of the CPM as well as those that support its position.--Conjoiner 17:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I am saying is, please fairly represent the views of the independent media, whether it is pro or against CPM. And dont rely upon news media with CPI(M) sympathies when asserting facts. -- Panchhee 02:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But surely it is your viewpoint that the CPM is wrong. The media also holds an anti-CPM bias, particularly the Statesman. I'm not saying I want one or the other view represented more strongly - as you can see in my edits, I have maintained the substantive arguments against the CPM while removing emotive language. But eliminating all statements made in the CPM's defence simply because of those who are making them is not the way to establish a neutral point of view. I fully understand how people may be upset about these killings, particularly those living in West Bengal. However, I think any Wikipedia article on this issue should be seen as neutral. This will, in the end, help serve those who tragically died far better than an anti-CPM article, which readers will simply interpret as propaganda.--Conjoiner 11:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

I've initiated a massive cleanup, especially on the second bit. There were a ton of youtube links, blog links, partisan links and so on, as well as some commentary, OR and what not. Anything that people disagree with, it would be best to not revert wholesale, but undo specific edits, or, best of all, discuss it here first. Hornplease 10:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On studying it further, it seems that most of those were introduced by banned user Hkelkar, so people please think twice before reverting. Hornplease 13:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was

  • Standard Wikipedia naming convention is to use the word massacre to name articles on massacres, followed on most articles (such as Lattimer massacre, Dili massacre, Acteal massacre, Aguas Blancas massacre, Candelária massacre, Jallianwala Bagh massacre, Andijan massacre and countless others: see List of massacres). Therefore this article, which describes (according to the state) the attack of armed police on mostly unarmed protesters or (according to the opposition) the combined attack of police and party workers on non-participating civilians in their homes and specifically targeted opposition political workers, should be named Nandigram massacre. Loom91 11:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isnt standard procedure. By Naming Conventions (events), this is not an appropriate title. Hornplease 16:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave a vast list of previous examples above. The exceptions are far less numerous. Please illustrate why you consider this rename to be against standard procedure. Loom91 06:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dates in intro[edit]

The intro needs dates. When did the Bengal government decide to allow the chemical plant? When did the villagers take over control of the area? AxelBoldt 18:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Key information missing[edit]

Some key information is missing from the article.

  • The reason for the violent opposition.
  • Role of a major religious organization, which was very important.
  • Groups on both sides were involved in armed militancy. That has not been clearly stated.

--Vikramsingh (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other forgotten atrocities[edit]

The killings in West Bengal have ignited anew the apparently lost memories of Sainbari incident in 1969, and a long list of other atrocities — Panskura, Nanoor, Chhoto Angaria, Garbeta, Ghatal, Goghat, Khanakul, Keshpur and Singur. Each of these places has a gory tale to tell.--Shyamsunder 21:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that most major Indian parties have gory tales. Anti-Christian violence has been conducted by the Sangh Parivar[1], of which the BJP is a constituent. I look forward to reading the articles you plan to write about every incident of Hindutva terror.--Conjoiner (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Also plan to write about Communist terror in India in more detail. That should bring out the CPM thugs on wikipedia fairly quickly though.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "CPM thugs on wikipedia ": Please stop insulting other editors at once. This will not help you to put forth your versions of articles, only will make you blocked from editing. `'Míkka>t 17:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect passage[edit]

I cut out "The Marxists' armed supporters have been blamed for violence in Nandigram and the Communists are being isolated politically as a result of these acts. The Communist Party of India has also been dubbed the 'Red Brigade]]". The Communist Marxist regime of the state has been accused of spreading revisionism and propaganda as a ploy to whitewash their role in the violence[2]"

based on the following:

  • The BBC link doesn't mention 'revisionism'.
  • The BBC link mentions propaganda once, in the wording "The Marxists allege that their political opponents are trying to use events in Nandigram as a "massive propaganda ploy" in the run-up to state village council elections next year."
  • 'Red Brigade' is a term that has been in use for quite a while in Indian politics. It is used as a euphemism for the left in elections. The usage has no relation with the Italian organization.

--Soman (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your changes. Revisionism can also mean many things, and in the context of Marxism means something completely different to the historical revisionism associated with Nazism. It is misleading to use this word in this article. As I stated before, Red Brigade is an Italian militant organisation with absolutely no association with the CPI(M), so it is wierd to link to it.--Conjoiner (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing reportage[edit]

I think that sections such as this should be removed as they are merely reportage, rather than necessary to the article:

A 62-year-old retired schoolteacher who assaulted by CPM supporters told, "A group of people stormed into my house at 8 am and asked for my son. They started beating me up, saying 'why haven't I taken part in our rallies', and threatened to burn my house."

This article could be filled with various eye-witness accounts from both sides of the argument, without adding to the reader's understanding.--Conjoiner (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm sure that anything that exposes the CPM's shenanigans is "unencyclopedic".Ghanadar galpa (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eye-witness accounts are not necessary or particularly edifying. Please feel welcome to reference a human rights report.--Conjoiner (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edit reflects a broad pattern depicted by not one but numerous eyewitnesses. Do you really want me to get them all and cite them?That will indict the Indian socialists even further. Please don't wikilawyer. Communist politburo tactics only work up to a point.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible for you to engage in a civil debate? Perhaps it would be good if you read an encyclopaedia and noted the style of writing. Reportage is not required, even if you wish to give the anti-CPM account of events.--Conjoiner (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be good if you read wikipedia articles for this Crown Heights Riot, Religious violence in India.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd feel the same if reportage was included in other articles. For me, the most important thing is to write the main points concisely and impartially, without elaborating with unnecessary detail that does not add anything to the article.--Conjoiner (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added panchayat election results[edit]

Added the results of the 2008 panchayat elections that conclusively showed the verdict of the people in this troubled area.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

When eventually someone comes 'round to do an encyclopaedic re-write, they might note that we are fortunate to have access to Martha Nussbaum discussing the events in Dissent magazine here. --Relata refero (disp.) 16:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly misinformed in many parts. Trips (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most reliable source we have on the subject at this point, so your personal opinion is meaningless. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not forget the UNESCO report, that's about as authoritative as it gets. Loom91 (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REWORK[edit]

This article is heavily lacking the facts, and some important portions like the incidents of january-february 2007 were left. Although background information provided, is a good work indeed, but somehow it also needs a brief elaboratio. I am doing what needful can be done, to improve the standard of this article, Plz. discuss and make a general consesus on this page before reverting.

-Viplovecomm (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nandigram violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nandigram violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nandigram_violence&oldid=1195400282"