User talk:Lkadvani

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Survey

I am conducting a survey to understand if Koenraad Elst could be cited as a valid non biased source for the 2002 Gujarat violence,Babri Masjid and Ram Janmabhoomi articles.My personal opinion is that he represents Hindutva ideology and hence quotes from him will creep in bias in these articles.Since it is a Socio-religious issue.I will appreciate views from users of all religious - non religious followings.
Can we include Koenraad Elst's comments as a valid NPOV factual/news source?
Please highlight with your comments on why we should and why we should not? Concise and responding to these questions.I will only allow the first para of your responses hare.

  • Answer here. ~~~~
  • Big..No..No ..He is not a first hand information source for Gujarat..while Aid Agencies,News agencies,HR organisations,Police,Government comments will have weight
They do have more weight in the article than Elst. I have only mentioned him briefly.

Given that his propaganda is consistently used by Sangh Parivar - Hindu Supremacist organisations,including his observation is not unlike including extreme Muslim view say of Shahi Imam.Subhash is right when he compares Elst with Pipes.You can immediately guess the discourse will not be charitable to Muslims in any respects.For Subhash,You can be Hitler even if you are christian.So there is no point in dragging Elst's religion in this perspective. Rushdie 00:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I made his religious views clear because if I didn't you would have tried to muddy the issue yourself...
Opinion is irrelevant. Preferring opinions of anonymous wikipedians over scholarly claims is original research, which is not allowed on wikipedia. Unless a professional indologist or related scholar publicly criticizes Elst, his perspective counts and basic contention by Elst stays. I have reduced his prominence in the article on the legitimate grounds that he is new to the discipline.Netaji 00:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes from me. He is not a Hindu. He has repeatedly professed his devotion to Christianity (see his article).


"I am still part of the Catholic community, meaning that my children go to a Catholic school, I am a member of the Christian-Democratic trade-union, cultural foundation and so on. I have also retained my sympathy for the causes of Catholic nations, like Quebec's sovereignty and the Irish cause, and I can still argue the Catholic point against Protestantism or refute the allegation that the Inquisition killed millions of people or that Pope Pius XII was a Nazi collaborator. I still think highly of the Catholic social teachings and occasionally reread passages from Saint Thomas Aquinas. And I would still feel at home in the company of a Lievens or a Rasschaert, or their successors. Nevertheless, I am no longer a Roman Catholic. I am a secular humanist with an active interest in religions, particularly Taoism and Hinduism, and keeping a close watch on the variegated Pagan revival in Europe"

Therefore, he is not biased in favor of any Hindu ideology. His sholarship and degrees are beyond reproach. Plus, he has devoted much time to communalism studies in India , has actually spent a considerable amount of tim ein the country and experiencing the society, and consequently has a firm and thorough understanding of the culture. He is presently a running contender for the prestigious Kluge Chair. Many secular fundamentalists oppose him, but his analyses are logical and scholarly, whereas his critics engage in shouting matches and ad-Hominem attacks without providing any scholarly backing and are politically motivated against him.

In addition, he has collaborated with esteemed colleague Prof. Ramesh Rao on various research papers related to Indian history and Indian politics. His scholarly input is as undeniable as any other scholar's on the relevant areas of study.

Also, Elst has written many books praising people who have been consistent critics of mainstream Hinduism, such as "Dr. Ambedkar - A True Aryan (1993)". Ambedkar was a partisan critic of Hinduism and the treatment of Dalits by Hindus, and Elst has written a treatise in his defense.

He has also published about multiculturalism, language policy issues, ancient Chinese history and philosophy, comparative religion, and the Aryan invasion debate. Dr. Elst became a well-known author on Indian politics in the 1990s. He also met the Hindu writer Sita Ram Goel in India, and was influenced by his writings.

While he does speak consistently in favor of Hindus, he has done so with a level of scholarly objectivity (though consistently) and has often criticised the Sangh Parivar when he felt they needed criticism. The only way by which he can be refuted is if any established bias can be proven, either through financial or ideological links to Hindus in India, and no such link has been established, for none exist.

If there are any questions or doubts, I will contact Dr Elst himself and he can (if he wishes) defend his position here. Netaji 23:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Whether or not he is a Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Jew is irrelevant to him being considered a reliable, NPOV source of opinion. In particular, I observe that he finished his doctoral degree only very recently from Louvain; and further, that he does not appear to serve in any current academic position. His books seem to be published by Voice of Dharma press, which according to its website publishes only authors sympathetic to Hindutva; I cannot find any details on its website as to whether it is supported financially by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, but the website does refer to Guruji Golwalkar as "our" Guruji.
The collaborator you mention, Ramesh Rao, is in fact a professor, if an Associate Professor without tenure of Communication at Truman State University, which is not really a major school. His degree was not in Indic studies or in political science or religious studies but in communication, from Michigan State University.
At the very least, Dr. Elst is very very far from being a mainstream, respected analyst, who deserves long block quotes in controversial articles. It is also possible he is biased, as his publication history suggests. None of the papers available at his website have been published in major peer-reviewed journals, so I am unsure how his "contribution" can be considered as "undeniable" as "any other scholars".

Hornplease 00:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If Koenraad Elst is biased, then Witzel, Thapar, etc. are also biased.

  • Exactly...If Koenraad Elst is considered too biased to be cited, then we should go around calling a whole load of others biased. Dr. Elst may have a sympathy with Hindus, after exploring their history and their way of life for so long, but he is a Christian and thus can't be called some wierd Hindutva-propagator. He has written about Christianity, he has written about modern issues, he has written about ancient migrations. I found a site in which he was nominated for the prestigious Kluge Chair in Countries and Cultures of South Asia in Washington DC. I don't think Wikipedia should censor his articles in such a way. Again, I have mentioned this before, but I have used some of his articles in articles and they have come under no dispute. He is, after all, simply an academic with an opinion, and all academics have opinions. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Elaborate Responses[edit]

Hornplease is wrong on some counts. His publications are not all from Dharma press.Here is one that he has coauthored with reknown scholar Daniel Pipes here by Transaction Publishers, not Indian or Hindu. So he HAS worked in the mainstream. His quotes are not taken from hindu or hindutva sources, so they are non-partisan (at least, no more or less than journalists who do not have scholarly qualifications).
Plus, he has been featured in the Brussels Journal[1] and has numerous interviews in Indian media. Thus, he is well known in Indian media and scholarly circles and, unless an accredited scholar says otherwise, we have to assume good faith and regard the scholarly quality of his writings as valid. He even has a column in the Kashmir Herald here. He is featured as an expert on South Asian studies at allexperts.com (do a search).
If he refers to Golwalker as 'our' Guruji does that make him biased? If a scholar refers to Martin Luther as Reverend Martin Luther he isn't automatically regarded as partisan to protestant Christianity is he? This is an example of double standards applied to scholarship of Indian studies on your part.
If you want, I can whittle down his quote to a couple of sentences, or mention it in the third person. Elst still offers a scholarly perspective on the issue and must be mentioned in order to maintain a neutral stance and not a biased one that is loaded against Hindus, as user LKadvani has done (bear in mind that LKAdvani has made enough nasty attacks against Hindus in various talk pages to make his anti-Hindu bias eminently obvious).Netaji 02:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, Subhash. Daniel Pipes, while controversial, is definitely a recognised scholar. However the amazon link you sent me to is not of a co-authored book ,but of am out-of-print edition of a book by Pipes to which Elst has written an afterword; this does not count as a collaboration. I would like to see a few publications by Elst in peer-reviewed journals before he is counted as an authority. The Brussels Journal, which I have read on occasion, does not really count, as it is a weblog rather than a journal.
I meant that the Voice of Dharma website, which publishes Elst's books, refers to Golwalkar as 'our' Guruji. That indicated to my mind some connection with the RSS, and thus a possible source of bias.
I agree that all quotes that are opinion should be whittled down, and in particular quotes from non-mainstream, possibly biased observers with no special information should be avoided. I think if you look around a bit more you m ight find an opinion quote from someone who meets these requirements and paraphrase it in such a way that your point is made.
Finally, although he may be well-known in scholarly circles, we do not have to assume good faith as far as he is concerned; as there are neutral standards for such things, such as publications in p-r journals, citations in scholarly works, and so on, he has to meet the standards to be acclaimed as a scholar worth quoting. Regardless of possible bias, he doesnt yet make it on those grounds, though he may in the future. Hornplease 05:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Nonetheless, you have no way of establishing that they didn't collaborate. If you go to Daniel Pipes's website he mentioned Koenraad Elst a couple of times in a way suggesting an involved academic collaboration. Since Indian studies is ITSELF a backwater subject in academia there is no way for US to objectively evaluate a scholar on the subject other than by his promonence (unless YOU or anybody reading this post is a professional Indologist of repute), and Elst has become very prominent in recent years thanks to his prolific writings, much like Daniel Pipes has through his high-traffic website (where he mentions Elst). If you want to defame Elst, get a professional indologist to claim HERE (or in a publication) that Elst is unknown in academia, and I will contact Elst by phone and PAY for it out of my own pocket and get him to come here and defend himself. Until you can get your scholar(s), neither you nor I can judge him, because we are not familiar with the abstruse criterion for academic prominence in a relatively obscure subject like South Asian studies.
What I will (and have) compromised on is that I have removed the blockquotes and made the Elst criticism smaller, but it MUST stay as a defense of the Gujarat administration, which it IS. While you may disagree with his argument because of a possible deep-seated hatred for Hindus, you cannot deny the MERITS of his arguments IN ON ITSELF BASED ON HIS PREMISES. IF you can, then please write an equally exhaustive article dissecting his and I'll forward it to Elst and ask him for his opinion. Please don't think I won't do this. I will use all the resources offerred by my University if need be.Netaji 06:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
For someone who recommends a "biased party" cannot be taken as an expert [2] Netaji is sure following the right opposite approach above.

also the following links [3] and [4] show him to be only on hindu and hinduism extremist POV related websites. Haphar 18:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Your first link is to an anti-Hindu hate site. It caricaturizes Hindus in much the same way as www.jewwatch.com treats Jews.Netaji 01:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Noam Chomsky is almost exclusively featured on Palestinian and other muslim terrorist sites (at least, in a favorable way). Does that make him biased? Muslims have no problem touting Chonsky's anti-Israel hatred. Countercurrents makes claims that are established by authorities on the subject (ADL and AJC) as anti-semitic. No established authority has established any of Elsts claims as extremist. That is merely your opinion, and the opinion of some editorialists. Find a legitimate scholarly criticism of Elst, then talk.Netaji 22:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that SACW, while I would not quote them for NPOV purposes, are hardly an anti-Hindu hate site. That is, however, hardly here nor there. You claim that I cannot deny the merits of his arguments. Very simply, I would point out that unless Elst is a major, recognised scholar of political science, Indology, religious studies, Indian policy affairs, or anything related at all, we cannot quote his arguments, regardless of their merits, as it comes down to reporting original research. What we have to do is report the arguments made by all sides. The problem is if we quote Elst, we are claiming that "here is a major, NPOV, scholar" and that is simply not backed up by the facts.
About his collaboration with Pipes, I can see that he did not cowrite the book. You claim he is mentioned on Pipes site 'in a way' that suggests collaboration. I dont think that counts as enough.
Your point about Indian studies being an 'academic backwater' is something I think might or might not be true. Nevertheless, backwater or not, there are neutral methods of judging value. Tenure at major universities, positions in the social science citation index, publications in peer-reviewed journals. All these are possibilities. Elst does not satisfy any of them. I have looked for a comprehensive record of his publications, in the hope that I missed some (I have been guilty of this in the past) but I have not found any; the lists that are available definitely do not satisfy this level of neutrality. Compare this discussion with the equally contentious discussion on the Subhash Chandra Bose page (the real guy) about whether he was a fascist sympathiser or not and note how both sides there are quoting people who are scholars of Indian studies or subcontinental history and satisfy this criterion. I am sure with a bit of searching you'll come up with someone who can be quoted.
Hence we dont need a high-prifle Indologist to come here and declare Elst pointless because we 'cant understand' the 'abstruse' criteria for academic prominence. We can. Tenure, peer-reviewed publications, books by major academic/university presses, high rank in the citation index. Elst has none.
Pipes, by way of comparison, high-traffic website or not, has published in Foreign Policy and major international relations journals, and was a professor at UPenn. That means he meets the criteria. A high-traffic website alone does not. Would Matt Drudge be considered a worthy, quotable source? Whoever writes the Daily Kos? I think not. Neither is Elst.
Hornplease 05:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
If you are serious about dealing with Elst (and not just engaging in childish character assassination) then I can contact Elst and ask him to defend himself here if he wishes.Netaji 19:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Please feel free to contact Elst, put the above arguments to him, and ask if he has any response, or further information that would enable him to meet these criteria. It would probably be better if you expressed whatever arguments he makes, as he would be in a potentially unpleasant position having to defend himself.
Note also that this hardly counts as character assassination. I am saying nothing about Dr. Elst's personality or erudition, merely that he cannot be quoted at length, or without qualification.
Hornplease 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Space for Subhas Bose below[edit]

Hi Subhash .I dedicate the space below to you.

Hi, it's me again[edit]

Regarding your stance against RSS, I'd like you to read this article in a Christian website about a CHRISTIAN PRIEST's thesis on RSS:

RSS

Tell me what you think. This dude is a crosspugger, not a Hindu, so he can't be biased in favor os RSS, can he?Netaji 02:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you know how to read French , you may like to consult [5]- this Christian site dubs RSS as anti-Christian.

France, eh? This is the same France that surrendered to Germany at the drop of a hat? The same France that is reportedly the most racist and anti-semitic country in Western Europe? The same France as the Dreyfuss Affair? The same France where neo-nazi gangs deface Jewish graves every day? The same France that broadcasts Palestinian propaganda? The same France that touts hate-speech against Israel, calling it "Isra-Heil" and such? The same France whose president ran around India, begging bowl in hand, desperately asking help from desi politicians against America and her war on terror, and got laughed at and told to get lost? The same France that caricaturizes Jews in newspapers? The same France that bans muslim women from wearing Hijab? The same France where muslims rioted nationwide just a few months ago? Riiiight. "France". Sure! They're sooooo objective and reliable, with their 'crosses of Lorainne' tatooed on their hairy bums.Netaji 23:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Another interesting article on your beloved missionaries hereNetaji 01:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Mind your language[edit]

You seem to be very proud of your language skills but perhaps you need to learn respect of people who are different to you.Have another look at the Statue of Liberty and remind yourself what it stands for and who gifted it to the US..Look back at your country and ponder why you are not there.. Rushdie 00:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Practice what you preach, or shall I point out the number of minorities ethnically cleansed by your people from Iran, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Sudan...? Plus, the French are the racists and xenophobes. They have no respect for any other cultures. They have no respect for Islam either. They banned muslim girls from wearing Hijabs in schools. This is allowed in both USA and in India, even in communal Gujarat.Alcohol is not sold or circulated in Gujarat, which agrees with Islamic law.1
I am not there in India because the pseudosecular fundamentalists have made it nearly impossible to get a good higher education in India. I am a refugee from the socialist cabal.

Netaji 00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

After studying in a college ( IIT) made by the Psuedo secular government of his and subsidised by the socialist cabal of the( as he says ) "stinkhole country". Which got him the admissio in his curent course in the first place. Talk about gratitude. Haphar 19:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Both of you, please remember WP:NPA. Neither of you is adding to the discussion here at all by quarrelling about your antecedents. Hornplease 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat Violence[edit]

don't fsck the article up with garbage information that you can't back up with refs. I'm watching you very closely bub.Netaji 23:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Watchdog.Keep on watching. Lkadvani 00:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars are unproductive. Please discuss changes with me in the article's talk page in future and I will do the same. Too many eits and the article may get protected, and then we're both fscked.Netaji 01:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this article should be protected.It is not my or your own private property to write n'importe quoi.

Merci Lkadvani 01:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What you're doing is engaging in selective quoting and introducing bias as part of a systematic attack on Hindus. What I have done is added facts to place your POV in the right context, is all. The fact remains that Gujarat is like Bosnia only in the dream world of Osama bin-laden's abortion clinic and pot-smoking jizzporium, not on planet Earth, which is where Wikipedia is located.

I agree that this article is neither of our private properties. So what? Shall I request protection? Or can we agree to discuss changes in the talk page before editing the article?Netaji 01:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, for your holier than thou approach.Any independent observer can identify my edits as moderate and balanced.I have used international organisations,Humanitarian organisations and credited news providers as my sources and as far as possible sticked to their tone rather than putting in vagueness and wordings that circumvent the real incidents for which Gujarat riots issue is known.If you had a free leeway - all articles will be what Koenraad Elst says.If one goes at your edits - you have intervened solely to remove any blames on the RSS,VHP,Bajrang Dal - for you the NPOV means HPOV - Hindu point of view.You claim in some of your posts that these organisatiosn are harmless and even Narendra Modi is harmless - there was no case against him - see what Freontline had to say -Although his collusion in the carnage is common knowledge, why has he not been punished for it? Simple. No one dared file a case against him until now. [6].Now you will say ad Hominem - that this is a biased secular source,Isnt it ?

Pity - that you are being allowed to waste other user's efforts.You pretend to know of Sikh history better than the Sikhs too.. Lkadvani 05:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What you have done, my dear fellow, is take selective quotes from said organizations (all of whom have an axe to grind against global ethnic minorities) and quote them out of context DELIBERATELY. Many of these 'secular humanitarian orgs' are propaganda fronts for muslim countries (notice their poor coverage of genocides in muslim countries like Sudan). Plus, with the women's org thing, you went so far as to enter a quote that YOU KNEW was factually WRONG, yet you did it anyway (only a fool compares Gujarat to Bosnia). All this points to a consistently anti-Hindu stance. "Humanitarian" organizations, yeah right. These are the same 'Humanitarian' organizations that once condemned Zionism as racism and passed around cartoons depicting Jews as cannibals. Probably doing the same thing to Hindus as we speak. The same 'Humanitarian' organizations with a disproportionate number of Arab Muslims and Left-Wing intellectual snobs who (oddly enough) collude with each other like the Japanese colluded with Hitler.
Frontline is little more than the desi version of the New-York times. Irresponsible liberal journalism with a socialist bias.
What according to you are free and fair media - organiser or Panchjanya?

Lkadvani 11:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I never quoted Panchjanya anywhere as my reference. Don't make stuff up, it makes you look desperate...Netaji 15:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
For YOU, NPOV means anti-India, anti-Hindu, and self-loathing. All I have done is balance the outlook from accredited and scholarly sources. I have not added any information that is factually incorrect or unverifiable. My edits have been to balance out your POV. You can quote as many anti-Hindu sources as you want, and I can balance them out s much as I want.
This balancing is what we normally call as entering Weasel wordings
Weasel 'wordings'??? 'Weasel' is not an adverb.Netaji 15:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Lkadvani 11:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

RSS is a volunteer organization that aims to speak for the global minority of Hindus who are the victims of apartheid in their own homeland from the Islamofascist-sympathetic UPA government, pseudosecular anti-Hindu cabals and terror-propagandists. They are no different from the Jewish B'Nai B'rith. Only anti-hindus choose to paint them as a parochial and communal organization. None of them have any facts, only polemical attacks.
It is the world recognised Human rights Orgs that have stated RSS and other Hindutva orgs as Anti Muslims,Supremacists and Pro Violence.These organisations have stood against the Muslims who have caused problems to Hindus too.Should we not believe them.Then what according to you is a balanced HR organisation that we can quote - Hindu Mahasabha?

Lkadvani 11:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You can quote hrw all you want buddy. I will counterquote.Netaji 15:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Plus, your precious "world renown" Human rights watch isn't so "renown". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch#Criticism
I will include this wikilink once the block has been lifted!!Netaji 01:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Plus, I never claimed to know Sikh history or cripture better than Sikhs. If you will look at the relevant talk page, you will see that KNOWLEDGABLE sikhs like that sukh fellow AGREED with my edits. My edits were based on something called RESEARCH. Granted that, for now, they have been google searches and links to web articles. At present that's all that I have the time to do. I WILL back them up with textual references also when I get some more free time. I DO have a copy of the Guru Granth Sahib which I got from UT library.Netaji 07:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Some human rights orgs also "selectively quote". Many talk about army atocities in Kashmir but fail to discuss the genocide of Kashmiri Pandits. You guys might want to find out which "humans" they give "rights" to. User:Bakasuprman

Please be more specific.

Lkadvani 21:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to add a discussion of the plight of Kashmiri Pandits to the appropriate articles on Kashmir and terrorism in Kashmir. However, it would be advisable to avoid words like 'genocide', which have a specific meaning and lead to unnecessary conflict. Consider the page on the Armenian Genocide, which is frequently at WP:RfC. A bald statements of the facts, which are terrible enough, should be sufficient.
Please note that HRW and others have often discussed that plight, and placed the blame squarely on terrosrist groups: for example, "For centuries, the Kashmiri Hindu community, often called Pandits, shared the Kashmir valley and its distinct culture with the majority Muslim population. The exodus of more than 100,000 in early 1990 was provoked by violent attacks by armed militant groups. Most remain in refugee camps in Delhi and Jammu. For more on this, see Asia Watch, Kashmir Under Siege (May 1991), pp.147-151." from the first page of the 1996 report on Kashmir.
Amnesty's position has been more dubious on the Pandits from the start, but even they have more recently, in their 2004 open letter to the CM of J&K, stated:" The state government promised a dignified return for the estimated 200,000 Kashmiri Pandits who have left the state since the outbreak of the insurgency.(6) The state government failed to protect the Pandit community at a time when it was making efforts to persuade the Pandits to return to their homes. In March 2003, 24 Kashmiri Pandits including 11 women and two children were killed by unidentified gunmen in Nadimarg.(7) Prior to these killings leaders of the Pandit community had met with local authorities and requested additional security as they felt that the level of security was inadequate, but their request had been rejected. Fifty-four people from nine families were living in Nadimarg and had not migrated despite several massacres that had been carried out in the area in the past. Since these killings a further 160 of the estimated 700 Pandit families who continued to live in Kashmir fled due to fears of being targeted. Seven constables of the Jammu and Kashmir police were dismissed from service following an inquiry into the role of the policemen deployed on guard duty at Nadimarg on the day. Investigations have not revealed the individuals responsible for the killings.
"Amnesty International urges the state government to abide by the commitment it made in the Common Minimum Program that it would ensure that religious minorities in the state are able to enjoy all their constitutionally guaranteed rights and that further impartial and independent investigations will be conducted into the killings at Nadimarg with a view to bringing to justice those responsible."
Perhaps your anger, while understandable, is misplaced.
Hornplease 22:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow! Amnesty actually reporting this! I'm pretty sure ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Kashmir is genocide. Religious Clashes (which the Muslims started) where the perpetrators get beat up is not genocide. I'm certain I saw some part of the article where the riots are compared to Bosnia. If they keep this up it will be compared to Rwanda.Bakaman%% 02:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Support from American Neocons[edit]

Hey my Dalit-with-a-Brahmin-nom-de-plume friend. You ought to do a Google search for American neoconservative blogs regarding Godhra riots. There is significant support for Hindus and against Muslims. You know you're fighting a lost cause when the most powerful political groups in America are on the side of Hindus :) .

Nice User Page Bhaiya[edit]

Oh, goody! I'm glad you have kept all this cool Hindu-bashing info from left-wing communist cadres. Also, might want to consult these:

The tragedy here is that you seem like a nice and smart guy. Yet you, like 100 million other 'educated' Indians bury your heads in the sand and turn against your own people like the spawns of Macauley when we try to defend our way of life from the viral element. Try to understand that there is more to the world than Karl Marx, Rabochy Put, the Socialist Politburo of UPA government, and the Islamic Ummah against us "urine-drinking" "wife-burning" "heathen" "sub-human" Hindu "niggers".

If my little rant seems polemical, it is with the best of intentions. I really do mean you well. You just need to get with the program here and refrain from bashing your own people in some bizarre orgy of self-loathing that, quite frankly, is beyond the comprehension of my miserable neurons.

Thus Hindu society not only presents itself as a prey to these exclusive, intolerant and imperialist ideologies but also acts as a buffer between them. India is secular because India is Hindu. It can be added as a corollary that India is a democracy also because India is Hindu. If Hindu society permits this free for all any further, the days of Secularism and Democracy in this country are numbered. Let the Hindus unite and save themselves, their democratic polity, their secular state, and their Sanãtana Dharma for a new cycle of civilization, not only for themselves but also the world.

--Sita Ram Goel

Netaji 02:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Argument on 2002 Gujarat violence[edit]

I'm afraid your most recent edit 'boycott of muslims' had absolutely nothing to do with the Gujarat riots and is a completely independent event. Plus, your extract from the supreme court was unnecessarily long because it is already cited and quoted, and I have adequately paraphrased your POV. Please refrain from further anti-Hindu propaganda or we will have a revert war on our hands. Agree upon a compromise and move on.Netaji 23:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. Why are you posting things unrelated to Gujarat on there. The VHP has called for those bandhs for millions of years. Those never amount to anything and therefore should not be on a Wikipedia page.Bakaman%% 23:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting article for you[edit]

here

Thanks for putting unrekated articles everywhere on Wikipedia.It only shows your desperation, while your language already displays that.
This whole para is never cited in any news source,court judgement, parliament discussion in relation to Gujarat riots and is entirely unrelated:

In September 2002, at least 29 people were killed when suspected Islamic fundamentalist gunmen engaged in the Akshardham Temple attack in the city of Gandhinagar in Gujarat. 25 Hindu worshippers were killed 79 people were injured in the attack. The terrorists laid siege to the temple and a military operation executed by the National Security Guard broke the siege and rescued the worshippers. The Pakistani ISI and Islamic terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba were accused of supporting the terrorists[20], but they have denied any role in it.[21][22][23]. again your edit against the International Women's fact finding team who reported that the atrocities were worse than Bosnia included However, the published death tolls in the Bosnian War alone were orders of magnitude higher, totalling 102,622 versus 1046 in these riots. The rape casualties in Bosnia were more than 50,000 [53] [54]entirely your personal POV.You have very convinently hesitated in using the term Bosnian Genocide - which is what the world knows of that event.Why not simply remove "However" and "versus 1046 in these riots." (which are essentially the ways you creep in your PPOV (and using the much lower Gujarat government defined death toll),and "were orders of magnitude higher," read the statement again,

A hundred thousand is 2 orders of magnitude higher than 1000. The Bosnia death toll was therefore, "orders of magnitude higher". It is entirely accurate, my anti-Hindu friend. I'm not as docile as the typical Hindu, that you can walk all over me with your crap. Like I said buddy, I'm watching you very very closely.Netaji 04:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Whatever it is - it is an international observers team - they might have qualitatively or quantitatively found the riots (which are referred in many HR studies as State sponsored genocide) to be worse than Bosnia,It is not my POV but POV of an international observer team who are experts in their field and investigated issues like this before.Indian government has not presented any objections to them so why on earth you should do so.Do you have authority to reject any statement that does not suit your whims..if you are so much concerned - you have the right to demand the observers team who worked on ground in Gujarat as to why they thought so..even more you can file a case against them for defamation.
It's still POV, and wikipedia is not supposed to contain POV statements without qualification. I have qualified it with facts. You may continue to nag about it but it won't change the facts. The facts are the facts. Gujarat cannot be compared to Bosnia except as a cheap publicity stunt from a bunch of hairy-armed liberal closet lesbians. Take it or leave it.Netaji 18:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

An international women's enquiry committee condemned the "large-scale" violence against women belonging to minority community during the Gujarat communal violence and termed Gujarat worse than Bosnia,[52].The published death tolls in the Bosnian genocide alone totalled 102,622. The rape casualties in Bosnia were more than 50,000 [53] [54]

My dear friend, the article says "2002 Gujarat Violence". Akshardham happened in 2002, it was in Gujarat, it was violent. It belongs in this article as a short summary, which I provided. The article does not say "2002 Gujarat Riots" but "2002 Gujarat Violence". GET MY POINT?????
You're just a rabid anti-Hindu trying to load the article against Hindus. You put the crap information of the women's committee there with the POV bias. To compare the Gujarat riots with Bosnia is garbage, pure and simple. I added facts to put the matter in perspective, is all. I did not lie. The casualty figures for Bosnia are accurate. Remove that statement and I'll remove mine. You are exploiting wikipedia to introduce missionary propaganda into the internet. Get a blog or something for that. As long as you edit this article, so will I. I will find information to balance the article in a neutral perspective, whether you like it or not. Hindus are increasingly becoming sick of this sort of thing and we'll fight back tooth and nail if need be.Netaji 04:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Just check your edits and see whose edits are missionary.Your activism on WP is more of deleting contents that are critical of the Sangh Parivar. Much in the same way the Indian Supreme Court observed for Modi administration - members of the Gujarat state administration "were looking elsewhere when…innocent women and children were burning, and were probably deliberating how the perpetrators of the crime can be saved and protected">I dont know how this article came to be known as Gujarat Violence - maybe someone like you migrated the actual entry "Gujarat Riots" ( of which this is a redirect) and "Gujarat Genocide" to a scaled down version.But does this give you licence to add any sort of unrelated violence in Gujarat.Akshardham was a terrorist incident and its place lies in Terrorist incidents or Kashmir Problem as Lashkar e Toiba was the organisation which committed it.

Lkadvani 14:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Check my edit history to see if I did any such thing. I did not. If you have an objection presenting atrocities against Hindus (since you are, after all, an anti-Hindu) then get the title of the article changed. Until you do, all violence (of a communal nature) in Gujarat in 2002 get reported here, whether they are riots or terrorist attacks. So there.Netaji 18:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


Baseless quote spamming[edit]

Do not spam irrelevant stuff from outside wikipedia or I will report you for vandalism.

Please do report but do not remove the discussion page articles especially when they refer to how you use Wikipedia for elaborating your POV's externally and at the same time edit them- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence#Some_neu.28t.29ral_POV.27s_of_User:Subhash_alias_.28Pussyamitra_Sunga.29

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

From here

Find a blog to vent your anti-Hindu hatred.Netaji 22:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As per wikipedia rules, this is your second warning

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Netaji 22:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is your final warning. I will now report you.
Stop hand.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

You have recieved so many warnings not to introduce such tags on user pages as these are considered as Personal Attack.Refrain from using Wikipedia features for your petty ends.Be Civil and quote facts not your grudges on wikipedia.
User Lkadvani has engaged in personal attack first on the 2002 Gujarat Violence Talk page. I am warning him as per wikipedia rules.Netaji 23:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:2002 Gujarat violence[edit]

I have moved the following prose from Talk:2002 Gujarat violence to here. It is irrelevant to the 2002 Gujarat violence and might be offensive to some readers. In future try to avoid extreme POV statements that can be seen as personal attacks abakharev 00:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant in respect of all the edits made by the editor Netaji.If these lines are offensive - they are offensive to me who is against ethno-religious obscurantism.There is no difference between them and the edits on Wikipedia by this author in terms of tone and content.

Lkadvani 06:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

To claim without proof that I said any of these things is offensive to ME and is a personal attack and libelous. Plus, since these posts are on sites off wikipedia whatever anyone may have typed is irrelevant to wikipedia unless they are doing so in a scholarly or journalistic capacity, which this dude (or these dudes), whever he is (they are), is (are) clearly not. Personally I think it is fairly obscurantist (in an ethno-religious way) to present a one-sided article on wikipedia without providing background, pre or post-event, but hey, that's just me!Netaji 06:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Some neu(t)ral POV's of User:Subhash alias (Pussyamitra Sunga)[edit]

My indoctrination

Well, I can tell you something. I am not interested, nor do I care about Islamic doctrine. I only care about the actions of muslims. I grew up a Hindu in a predominantly Muslim area, and the hatred, intolerance, and bigotry of muslims is something that my family sufferred from on a daily basis. Pogroms against Hindus were a common thing in Muslim areas in North India for a long time.

The Muslims and their socialist allies have controlled the Indian media for decades, painting a rosy picture of Islam, all the while subliminally preaching Sharia law through television. They have carried out unspeakable genocides against Hindus since the 12th century, and it was all forgotten and never mentioned in any history book. For half a millenuim, Hindus have been Dhimmis under Islamic rule, and it is never mentioned in any historical texts. They murdered hundreds of thousands of Hindus in Bangladesh not 3 decades ago, and it is a rumour in the eyes of western scholars. Only recently have scholars like Koenraad Elst have been brave enough to point out the truth. Hindus have only recently started to empower themselves against Islam and we hope to liberate our country from them altogether within one generation.

In short, don't lecture about "studying Islam".

WE KNOW WHO THEY ARE. We know what they do. We know how they lie! We know how they kill.

Hindu Rashtra ! Bharat Jago! [8]


How I use Wikipedia to promote personal view In response to Shahzad

Don't tout your terrorist muslim propaganda here. "Sati" (not satya, satya means truth in sanskrit, something a muslim would be too illeterate and stupid to know, obviously...) or widow immolation was abolished by social education of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, a HINDU , not by any damn muslim. Muslims were always to keen on raping their children and their wives, and muslims buried their widows alive with their dead husbands (the lucky ones, the unlucky ones spend their entire lives shunned behind the 'purdah').

A muslim wouldn't be a muslim in India if he didn't houst a few drinks (sharaab) every evening and attack Hindus (Hanood-Kush) on the streets. It gave meaning to so many of them... The only thing that muslims brought to India was genocide and paedophilia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raja_Ram_Mohan_Roy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_the_Islamic_world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_the_Islamic_world#Mughal_India


Fortunately, the world is waking up in time and soon all will know the truth... [9]


I should have studied Sanskrit I envy your education in sanskrit (I myself was not offered the priviledge due to my undergrad schooling being in Calcutta, where the communist regime cancelled the Sanskrit curriculla, so I couldn't minor). I am mostly self-taught in Sanskrit myself, with some tutoring from my Hindi teacher (who was an actual Chaturvedi, so I got lucky I guess).[10]

Writing on a Jewish site about Islamic slaughter methods not knowing both are similar and Muslims eat Kosher as an alternative to Halaal

The most revolting are the Islamic slaughtering methods. These customs, which cast a particularly vivid spotlight on the so-called Islamic "Halaal" practices, are so terrible that it is nearly impossible for a civilized person to watch grinning muslim butchers carry out their work, but they must. It is illuminating to see how stubbornly muslims hold to their methods of slaughter and with which casuistry they defend it against the horror of the civilized world. Rarely will people feel more horror than which watching the desperate and horrible death struggle of the slaughtered animals, twitching on the floor while slowly and painfully bleeding to death. Long before the repatriaition of the Ramjanmabhoomi, the RSS fought against muslim slaughter. VHP representatives in parliament repeatedly introduced legislation to abolish this form of animal torture through a ban on Islamic slaughter. Such proposals were always rejected, since the entire muslim and muslim-influenced press ran long articles against them and the so-called Congress parties refused to support Hindutva in its battle against this evil. [11] Lkadvani 20:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reported Lkadvani for vandalism and quoting irrelevant garbage from sites outside wikipedia that have no bearing on this issue at all and make baseless unsubstantiated allegations.Netaji 23:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Quoting one's own writings as garbage.I appreciate your forthrightness.

Lkadvani 23:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

These are not my writings and you can't prove that they are. This is vandalism and it has been reported as such.Netaji 23:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Since Lkadvani has already started this selectively quoted thread, why don't readers see the whole website and judge for themselves:

http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/index.php


Vandalism again[edit]

Dont vandalize other people's posts on the talk page of 2002 Gujarat Violence or I'll report you directly to the admin who made the post.Netaji 05:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Username[edit]

Hello. It has come to my attention that your username is based on a prominent current BJP leader L K Advani. I feel that under WP:USERNAME, this is inappropriate. Could you consider changing it please? Blnguyen | rant-line 07:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The username should be changed.--D-Boy 06:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
My user name is not specifically L.K.Advani or Lal Krishna Advani but Lkadvani.Kadvani surname is different from Advani and clearly discernable for anyone from India.You may refer to the link[12],On the other hand, I did not wish this to be personal but - Username : Subhash Bose with the designation of Netaji is clearly a borrowing from India's freedom movement's one of the greatest Secular Icon from Calcutta/Bengal state in India.Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose

Lkadvani 21:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Subhash Bose was not pseudosecular at least. Both Subhash and Bose are common Bengali names (Bose is a Gotra). I know of at least two people named Subhash Bose. Lot's of users named Ed Smith, who was captain of the Titanic.Netaji 23:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortuantely, you misunderstand the username policy. "Names of well-known living or recently deceased people" are prohibited. This is Foundation-wide policy, wuhich Wikimedia must implement to defray the possibility of the public figure named complaining to us (or suing, etc.) about impersonation and/or libel. It is non-negotiable, and it hits a lot of well meaning users unintentionally, but there's nothing we can do about that. This account wll have to be blocked within a few days. Unfortunately, what you need to do is pick a new, original, username, and ask a bureaucrat, like Essjay or User:Taxman, to change your name for you. They will move all of your contributions to the new name. Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for understanding. Dmcdevit·t 05:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Your request on my talkpage[edit]

I'd really rather not get involved in that. Just ask the user to stop using what you consider an ethnic slur first, since he disagrees on its meaning. Also, when leaving a note on someone's talkpage, it'd be nice if you could put it at the bottom and sign your note (four tildes, ~~~~), instead of nesting it between other comments. Took a bit to find that one. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 20:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You have one week[edit]

I am giving you one week to delete this, after which, if you do not, I will report you for libel.Netaji 01:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat violence[edit]

Please see my proposal at Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#Proposal for informal mediation from Bcorr. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lkadvani&oldid=77620443"