User talk:Birdsmight

This is Birdsmight's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome!

Hello, Birdsmight, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Andrew4793 ^t _c 22:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bullamail[edit]

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thanks. TigerShark 19:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I reverted your changes in Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale initially because it looked POV to me. But then I saw that you provided proper references for your edit later :). Thanks! I've gone ahead and converted the link into a reference. If you need help on anything, don't hesitate to ask. I'll try and help out as much as I can - I'm also still learning! --vi5in ^[talk] 15:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Praful Bidwai[edit]

From WP:BLP:

Strongly negative content can be added if it is relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one.; ...insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on guilt by association.

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used...

Please explain how your link to these various obscure critics and random opinion sources satisfy the above. Unless you do, I will be forced to remove them.

If this is central to this individual's notability, you should be able to find "a multitude of reliable third-party references." Note that this would not be necessary if the accusations were less serious. Hornplease 06:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Rosser does not quite count as notable on her own steam; this has been discussed on WP before; the reference you provide is to a polemical website, which is not permissible per policy; and the sole reference to Bidwai is that he is one of the people who writes for a media distribution organisation that Rosser says also sent out anti-IDRF literature. Nowhere near good enough, on those several grounds.

I confess I had not heard of Bhatnagar's periodical; a closer look at it suggests that it is an online periodical; in addition, I looked through a few articles and I find it hard to classify as anything but a 'partisan website'. Finally, it merely mentions Bidwai in passing as one of a group of people who used the term 'genocide' for Gujarat. I really don't think that that counts as 'spreading misinformation' rather than holding a disputable opinion about the scale and nature of the events.

Sourcing criticism of Bidwai that meets wp:blp should not be difficult; surely someone in outlook or india today has criticised him.

Finally, if you have doubts about any of this, please seek another opinion on the BLP noticeboard. Hornplease 08:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A second look at Bhatnagar's website reminds me: wp:blp, as I quote above, says 'material used in self-published website should never be used'. Bhatnagar's website counts as such. Hornplease 08:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use the word 'ban'. I don't want to ban anything, but wp policy enjoins on all of us to determine what meets the bar for inclusion.

Rosser's discussion is on a website called letindiadevelop.com. This is a fairly clear partisan website. Also, as I said, the reference to Bidwai is that he write for SACW, nothing else. This does not meet the bar.

(You raise an interesting point about Fox. Fox News may be partisan, but it doesnt quite qualify as a 'partisan website'. crooksandliars.com or its equivalent on the right might. Fox News is a large news corporation with editorial oversight.)

Partisan groups can be quoted, if their opinions are reported in multiple reliable sources. So if several reliable sources say "Bidwai is an ass, or at least the BJP say so", please include it.

Goldberg wrote a highly notable book that, IIRC, topped the NYT bestseller list. This is automatically notable. (Sadly, that means even Ann Coulter and Moore are notable.)

michaelmoorehatesamerica.com is the website of a notable film.

Finally, please note that if you find somethinig else that is a violation of policy, that is not a justification. In fact, you should remove that :).

Very simply, the onus is on you to find major criticisms that tackle him by name and directly, and are in multiple reliable sources. If Bidwai can get published in RS, then surely his critics can. Hornplease 09:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your points one by one:

Bidwai has made some heavily incendiary remarks against Hindus, targeted at Hindus in a broad sense, that have encouraged violence against Hindus and encouraged discrimination against Hindus. These remarks border on hate speech. That much is clear

Possibly, but you'd have to source that.

Those remarks have provoked a response from certain parties who have been bold enough not to be intimidated by Marxist threats and intimidation tactics

Right. But those responses would have to be reported on in reliable sources.

For the sake of balance in the article, those responses need to be stated on the grounds of quotability and notability. Since Rosser has academic qualifications her criticism is certainly notable enough for mention.

We are not interested in balance per se, which could be subjective. We are interested in the balance of reliable sources.

Several individuals have academic qualifications. That does not make them automatic experts on everything. If Rosser was a tenured academic in South Asian Political Science, or if she was writing in a peer-reviewed journal, then her words would be given due weight.

Rosser does not make ad-hominem attacks against Bidwai, so libel issues don't apply. She is not defaming him, merely criticizing his position.We can talk about Bhatnagar separately (he is, in fact,a prolific contributor to multiple periodicals, and heads io, which is more than an "online publication").Birdsmight 09:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if you feel that the attacks are not ad hominem. The problem is that they are not in a reliable source. They are in a partisan website. Simply put, that is not allowable in this biography. There's no way around it.

I don't see this Bhatnagar website as anything but a self-published website, and a partisan one at that.

wrt your statement "If Bidwai can get published in RS, then surely his critics can". In an ersatz-democracy like India, that is not the case.

Unfortunately we on wikipedia can't do anything about that. There are multiple reliable sources outside India to choose from as well, even if you believe that India does not have a free press.

I'm sorry, but I think that your case has not been made. If you are concerned, take it to the BLP noticeboard. Hornplease 09:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the content of this, it is not sufficiently well sourced, and must go. WP:BLP is not negotiable. Hornplease 09:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say:BLP is not being violated here as there is no defamation of character..

No. BLP is a policy applying to all articles. We do not judge if there is defamation. The policy applies to all articles, whether or not you or I think that defamation is occurring. I have pointed out to you above the multiple way in which your sources violate BLP, regardless of whether you think they are defamatory or not. I must ask you to remove them now, pending finding alternatives. Hornplease 09:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosser does not violate BLP. can you explain how letindiadevelop.com is a reliable source? Hornplease 10:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users[edit]

Hmm it seems like Bullamail (talk · contribs) and Gstar4 (talk · contribs) might be the same person. It could have been just a revert, since the edit was almost identical (some info was added later by Gstar4). There's nothing that can really be done, as I see no clear violation of WP:SOCK involved. Nishkid 64 18:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Birdsmight, with due respect i have full right to edit and diplay what is factually correct with respect to Chittisinghpura massacre. And why are u so much worried.....?

Chill man, learn to accept the truth.Even u know who did it? dont u?

Dude, where am I showing hatred or disrespect to Hindus? I respect Hindus and Hinduism. But the fact the Hindu millitants/terrorists carried out the Chiitisinghpura massacre is very much true. So if u attribute some acts of violents to Muslim or Sikh Millitants, that doesnt make u Anti-Muslim or Anti_sikh. The problem is U cannot digest the fact those terrorists were Hindus.....the whole world knows that.Man u cannot accept the fact even Hindus can be terrorists. Even Bajrang Dal is a Hindu terrorist org....isnt it my dear. i am willing to make the article a bit neutral....but u cannot attribute the acts to Islamic millitants .....when theres die hard evidence by Mr Clinton and the New York Times that Hindu terrorists were behind the attack. And perhaps u wud be knowing better than me if u r part of that ideology

Apparently, Gstar4 has not scrolled down and read the bottom part of the article. It says there that Clinton made an error. Also, if Gstar4 reverts one more time at Chittisinghpura massacre or makes a personal attack, I will block him. Nishkid 64 18:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, but he's not violating 3RR policy there. He's in danger of violating 3RR at Chittisinghpura massacre. Nishkid 64 18:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had checked out the situation before I came to your talk page. I was referring to the fact that he made 3 reverts in the past 24 hours to that article. Another revert, and he's blocked. Nishkid 64 18:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale[edit]

Hello Birdsmight,

I just wanted to say that I appreciate your efforts on this article. Something else you might want to look at is the Khalistan movement article. I originally rewrote both these articles about two years ago. But after that I was deployed to Iraq and I wasn't really able to keep an eye on the article from there. The Khalistan movement article still needs more work. I was wondering if you could keep an eye on it as well? We could perhaps work on both of these articles together; keeping an eye out for POV and such. --vi5in ^[talk] 16:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]