![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Ilaiah and his likes should read Russell's "Why I am Not a Christian" and follow his rational outlook but not hatred-driven agendas.
The following account was deleted from "Discussion". I restore it.
Every religion has serious limitations. Brahmanism/Hinduism no doubt has institutionalized caste and took in its fold everyone but never exterminated races/tribes/languages, in short, human diversity. Extermination of human diversity is exactly what Semitic religions did, for whom Ilaiah is a great advocate. Examples abound: Red Indians of North America, Aborigines of Australia, Mayan, Incan and other civilizations in South america. All this was done with Sword in one hand and a cross in the other. Europeans colonized Americas and shipped Africans like cattle to slave for them. Racism in USA is all pervading even today in spite of Lincoln and King. Ilaiah wants the same religion in India in the name of Dalit emanicipation.
Survival of thousand and one primitive tribes in India till today with their languages intact is an example of Hindu tolerance and all-encompassing accomodation. Semetic religions are destroying their identity, culture, traditions, livelihood and languages in India since the advent of British. They succeeded in North East, Bastar, Orissa, Kerala, Tamil Nadu etc. It is matter of few decades that all these tribes and their languages, which survived for millennia vanish.
What is needed is reform. Post-independent India has taken provides constitutional safeguards and affirmative actions, which everyone supports. Caste is slowly crumbling down. The change in Hindu mindset is all pervasive. Opposition in mind and soul does persist but it will evaporate with time. It certainly takes time. Inspite of all this, if someone wants to change his millennia old culture, customs, way of living, traditions, food habits, nomenclature, language etc., he is welcome to do so in free India. But one must refrain from heaping hatred and scorn over ancestral roots.
Hatred towards one's own mother simply because she looks ugly is what Ilaiah does. He must avoid that.
All the links seem to be anti-Hindu.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Bakasuprman (
talk •
contribs) .
Holy---+---Warrior
09:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[removed as per
WP:BLP
See diff by
Hornplease
07:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Bakaman Bakatalk 21:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Outside view, per Hw's request for block review. Holywarrior does seem to have a point that the quotations were chosen selectively to give the article a partisan bias: if the man did say "I hate Hinduism", it is certainly fair to report that, however, you should allow for other quotes that put his position into some context. Also, his position should be discussed, as opposed to presenting a list of out-of-context quotes (
wikiquote is for that). I agree that this is a matter of a content dispute, and not straightforward defamation per
WP:BLP, so that reverts should not be considered 3RR-exempt. However, both parties are obliged to seek for a compromise acceptable to all good-faith editors, within WP policy. Editors that happen to be in a majority (and thus able to win revert wars) are charged in particular with making a good faith effort towards compromise.
(ᛎ)
qɐp
13:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
"In fact, I have proposed a scheme whereby the caste system can be eliminated. I said that Brahmin priests had gone to tribal societies and divided them into castes. Now, Hindutva proponents want India to become a unified Hindu nation. In that case, they should send Brahmin priestly teams to tribal areas, Dalitwadas and OBCwadas and these priests should live with the people, eat their food and integrate them into religion. I am not suggesting a division in society. In fact, I am proposing unity on an equal basis." HW 09:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Discuss here if you are not happy with my change. nids (♂) 11:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
ref: http://www.countercurrents.org/dalit-anand080603.htm
Archive of article on Himal Magazine
I am reminded of a meeting at Urdu Hall on Maqdoom Marg in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. It was 1997, a year after Kancha Ilaiah had written Why I am Not a Hindu: A Sudra Critique of Hindutva Philosophy, Culture and Political Economy. The book raised a furious debate in academic, intellectual and political circles and went into a quick reprint. The Urdu Hall meeting was a discussion of the book by ‘progressive writers’. A sizable number of Muslims were in attendance. ‘Hindus’, in fact, were in a minority at the meeting. (Hyderabad has a tradition of secular-liberal and left-oriented Muslims – that is, it has more than its share of articulate Saeed Naqvis and a Muslim intelligentsia that is tired of Asghar Ali Engineer’s Quran-centric ‘secularism’.) Most speakers reviewing the book came down heavily on Ilaiah for “attacking everything in Hinduism”.Some senior Muslim speakers felt his attack on Hindu scriptures, especially the vedas and the Gita, was simply unacceptable and even scandalous. Here was a scholar who was looking for some solidarity not from a group of mullahs or brahmins, but ‘secular’ writers and thinkers. All he got was their ire, and refusal to engage with ‘anti-Hindu vitriol’.
You may be benefitted from this [2].Thanx. HW 09:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I know nothing about the topics being discussed here, but since I came across this "debate" I think I should chime in. The site itself, CounterSource, since it will publish articles written by anyone who choose to send them anything I don't believe should count as a valid source since it is is open to being simply the rantings and personal opinions of anyone who cares to make them. However, the site claims that the original source for said article is Himal Magazine which upon research is a perfectly respectable magazine with a good deal of valid journalism consideration to it which if the article is indeed from there then it seems fine. Ben W Bell talk 10:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
where this article:
http://www.countercurrents.org/comm-ketkar011104.htm
From countercurrents is referenced, and it is assumed on good faith that it is a legitimate archive of an Indian Express article (Indian express is a newspaper in India). The justification here is the same as there. Hkelkar 11:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The page is protected. People have been doing at least three reverts, perhaps four if I checked the tricky ones. Please discuss. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I've unprotected. I don't think that the mediation means that it must be locked. Blnguyen | rant-line 06:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I should have checked to see that it stuck. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 22:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Right from the viewpoint of trying to put an end to this edit war lets see what we can calmly discuss regarding this. I'll take the issues one point at a time. One of the lines of contention is this.
He is a major ideological figure in the movement that calls itself Anti-Brahmanism and claims to be a movement for the empowerment of the Dalits , but is often labelled as anti-Hindu dubious – discuss by his critics, both Hindu and Muslim [1].
Right. Is there a source for this movement calling itself Anti-Brahamism? I think this should be sourced since it is one of the main points of contention. Ben W Bell talk 11:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/reviews/hock.html
Now, these anti-Hindu forces are exploiting the AIT to the hilt, infusing crank racism in vast doses into India's body politic. Read e.g. Kancha Ilaiah's book Why I Am Not a Hindu (Calcutta 1996), sponsored by the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, with its anti-Brahmin cartoons: move the hairlocks of the Brahmin villains from the back of the head to just in front of their ears, and you get exact replicas of the anti-Semitic cartoons from the Nazi paper Der Stürmer.
Hkelkar 11:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It does appear to me (and do bear in mind I know next to nothing about Hinduism, Brahmans and the religious ins and outs involved) that the quoted passage from the story (which if it is a correct translation I do feel personally is from a reasonable source) that at this meeting even his own peers were indeed accusing him of being anti-Hindu. If this is the case then perhaps it is reasonable to include such a mention (though possibly not so high up the article), this is of course presuming the wording of "anti-Hindu vitriol" isn't an embellishment by the author. I don't think we can say that his movement is anti-Brahamism though. Ben W Bell talk 13:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"HAF Appreciates Congressional Hearing on Dalit Rights; Concerned by Biases"
On http://www.hinduamericanfoundation.org/newsletter/10-14-2005/newsletter.htm
Hkelkar 13:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Fine, I think there are views in the Hindu community that Kancha Ilaiah is anti-Hindu. There does seem to be resources to support these claims (what the sources are matter that much, very little is neutral in this world of ours) and it has happened on more than one occassion. To my mind anti-Hindu is fair enough to be mentioned using those sources, but the anti-Brahmanism needs to go. Can both sides agree on this point? It is reasonable is someone has been accused of something by many people for it to be mentioned as it simply gives more information and allows a reader to make their own mind up. Ben W Bell talk 13:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't have the time to do any work last night. Reaing comments that the two parties involved in this dispute have made on other pages I'd just like to point out two things. 1) I'm not actually a member of the Wikipedia mediation team, I'm just offering my services as a neutral third party, 2) I am actually an admin so I do have the power to unprotect the article when necessary. Right. I've read through the WP:BLP yesterday afternoon and Jimbo Wales is quite clear on defamination of living persons. Now we need to decide if this item is actually defamatory or not. Has this person ever described themselves as anti-Hindu? Have we any other sources of others accusing him of being anti-Hindu (I think the sources seem to support this but in light of JWales directives we'd need more sources to keep this in there)? Ben W Bell talk 08:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I gave a reference for "white supremacist," which was the chapter from his book in which he talks at length about the superiority of the white race over the black race. He's also on record saying that blacks revert to their "genotype" whenever they are not exposed to white culture. It is not libel to call someone a white supremacist when he quite openly is one. It is not inherently demeaning to call someone a white supremacist either.
In the same vein, I can easily show from Ilaiah's books that he has made polemical attacks against Hindus (all Hindus, not just Brahmins, though he has singled them out on occasion). While I agree that that is not sufficient reason to say that he is an anti-Hindu on wikipedia, if a substantial number of people call him anti-Hindu (as the reference shows), is it not justifiable to say that those who criticize him have called him an anti-Hindu", or, at least "Some of his critics refer to his statements as anti-Hindu vitriol (word for word from the article)"? Hkelkar 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/reviews/hock.html
Now, these anti-Hindu forces are exploiting the AIT to the hilt, infusing crank racism in vast doses into India's body politic. Read e.g. Kancha Ilaiah's book Why I Am Not a Hindu (Calcutta 1996), sponsored by the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, with its anti-Brahmin cartoons: move the hairlocks of the Brahmin villains from the back of the head to just in front of their ears, and you get exact replicas of the anti-Semitic cartoons from the Nazi paper Der Stürmer.
Elst states Ialiah's book as an example of "anti-Hindu forces". he also mentions anti-Brahman in the sentence. Hkelkar 08:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Now while the next reference probably does not merit inclusion into wikipedia, it shows that a sifficient number of people are willing to take accountability of calling him anti-Hindu: http://www.india-forum.com/articles/66/1/Hindus-fight-discrimination-in-California-textbooks---3 Quote from TFA:
Note: Most people are unaware that all fronts calling themselves ‘Dalit’ are actually created and maintained by fundamentalist Christian missionaries. For example, Dalit Freedom Network [DFN] is an umbrella of most rabidly Hindu-hating ‘Dalit’ activists like Udit Raj and Kancha Ilaiah. If you call their toll-free number 1-866-921-1333, a Caucasian American will answer the call from Colorado. Ask for their contact information in India, and she will direct you to the All India Christian Council [AICC]!
Hkelkar 08:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
"Some of his critics refer to his statements as anti-Hindu vitriol". Here, we are not labelling him an anti-Hindu. Merely some of his statements. Statements are not people and so BLP does not apply. Hkelkar 09:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it is reasonable and fair to say that some of his critics accuse him of being anti-Hindu. I'm not convinced this does violate WP:BLP now reading again as it isn't making defamatory accusations directly at him but including views and opinions of his critics. Valid criticism is okay and isn't a direct attack. It's a bit like the difference between saying "George Bush is anti-Muslim" and "George Bush's critics have accused him of being anti-Muslim", two completely different things. In my mind I think the anti-Hindu thing can stay but needs the wording altered to make it clear that he hasn't labelled himself as this (to my knowledge) but many of his critics have. Reasonable? Ben W Bell talk 09:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a minor observation from a drive-by editor, but I keep seeing "his critics", which to me implies that all of his critics hold a certain view. That could be giving undue weight to a minority opinion, as well as drawing a conclusion (OR). It may need to be qualified in some way, such as "one of his critics", "several critics", "most critics", as appropriate. Sources for it should be qualified too, ie., if it is an op-ed, the article should identify it as such. Crockspot 14:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
On a second note to User:Ben W Bell, do you feel it's ok to expand on the anti-Hindu statement by mentioning the specific incident mentioned in the magazine article, or do you feel that merely making the "critics call him anti-Hindu [citation][citation][citation]" is enough? Please tell me what you think. Thanks. Hkelkar 16:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I declare that I won't be directly involved in editing this article, my activities wd be limited to talk page only(if needed).Since community has chosen to protect the controversial version of the page i leave the fate of page and its repercussion to be handled by them(perhaps they are capable).I will also see to it different standards are not applied to different pages.People advocating this version sd not shy away in asserting on other pages too.Thanks. HW 16:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought we'd agreeed to remove this from the intro on the grounds that there wasn't actually any references to the group calling itself Anti-Brahmanism? Ben W Bell talk 07:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I gave the reason in the edit summary, but since this seems like such a contentious issue, i'll expand on that here: the article said "you get 'exact replicas...'". While this is literally taken from the source given, it is misleading. Here's the relevant text from the reference:
“ | ...move the hairlocks of the Brahmin villains from the back of the head to just in front of their ears, and you get exact replicas of the anti-Semitic cartoons from the Nazi paper Der Stürmer. | ” |
So, while the words "exact replicas" are there, that's not quite what the quote means. I therefore changed it to "nearly 'replicas of'". -- Storkk 12:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
There is significant WP:NPOV#Undue weight going on in this article. That said, nothing appears defaming and requires immediate action. The discussion hasn't been editing for 10 days, and will be archived. Electrawn 02:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I have removed some of the See also links for a few reasons. A) Some of the links are already linked within the article, when this is the case they shouldn't be included in the See also B) a couple of them I removed I couldn't see how they were directly relevant to the person in questions, if they are not directly connected and related then they shouldn't be in see alsos, it's not a list of other things you may be interested in. Ben W Bell talk 15:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Ben I'm glad you remove some of the ridiculous see also links on the page that User:HKelkar introduced, and I was polite enough to not contest, but I don't know why you removed Indian caste system? If you're not aware, this is the whole system that Kancha Ilaiah if fighting against and will give a reader a better overview of how it works. Thanks-- Kathanar 15:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This article already links to Indian Caste System, so a 'see also' link is unnecessary. — goethean ॐ 16:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Please note where in article is the a link to Indian caste system, thank you -- Kathanar 17:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Ilaiah and his likes should read Russell's "Why I am Not a Christian" and follow his rational outlook but not hatred-driven agendas.
The following account was deleted from "Discussion". I restore it.
Every religion has serious limitations. Brahmanism/Hinduism no doubt has institutionalized caste and took in its fold everyone but never exterminated races/tribes/languages, in short, human diversity. Extermination of human diversity is exactly what Semitic religions did, for whom Ilaiah is a great advocate. Examples abound: Red Indians of North America, Aborigines of Australia, Mayan, Incan and other civilizations in South america. All this was done with Sword in one hand and a cross in the other. Europeans colonized Americas and shipped Africans like cattle to slave for them. Racism in USA is all pervading even today in spite of Lincoln and King. Ilaiah wants the same religion in India in the name of Dalit emanicipation.
Survival of thousand and one primitive tribes in India till today with their languages intact is an example of Hindu tolerance and all-encompassing accomodation. Semetic religions are destroying their identity, culture, traditions, livelihood and languages in India since the advent of British. They succeeded in North East, Bastar, Orissa, Kerala, Tamil Nadu etc. It is matter of few decades that all these tribes and their languages, which survived for millennia vanish.
What is needed is reform. Post-independent India has taken provides constitutional safeguards and affirmative actions, which everyone supports. Caste is slowly crumbling down. The change in Hindu mindset is all pervasive. Opposition in mind and soul does persist but it will evaporate with time. It certainly takes time. Inspite of all this, if someone wants to change his millennia old culture, customs, way of living, traditions, food habits, nomenclature, language etc., he is welcome to do so in free India. But one must refrain from heaping hatred and scorn over ancestral roots.
Hatred towards one's own mother simply because she looks ugly is what Ilaiah does. He must avoid that.
All the links seem to be anti-Hindu.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Bakasuprman (
talk •
contribs) .
Holy---+---Warrior
09:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[removed as per
WP:BLP
See diff by
Hornplease
07:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Bakaman Bakatalk 21:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Outside view, per Hw's request for block review. Holywarrior does seem to have a point that the quotations were chosen selectively to give the article a partisan bias: if the man did say "I hate Hinduism", it is certainly fair to report that, however, you should allow for other quotes that put his position into some context. Also, his position should be discussed, as opposed to presenting a list of out-of-context quotes (
wikiquote is for that). I agree that this is a matter of a content dispute, and not straightforward defamation per
WP:BLP, so that reverts should not be considered 3RR-exempt. However, both parties are obliged to seek for a compromise acceptable to all good-faith editors, within WP policy. Editors that happen to be in a majority (and thus able to win revert wars) are charged in particular with making a good faith effort towards compromise.
(ᛎ)
qɐp
13:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
"In fact, I have proposed a scheme whereby the caste system can be eliminated. I said that Brahmin priests had gone to tribal societies and divided them into castes. Now, Hindutva proponents want India to become a unified Hindu nation. In that case, they should send Brahmin priestly teams to tribal areas, Dalitwadas and OBCwadas and these priests should live with the people, eat their food and integrate them into religion. I am not suggesting a division in society. In fact, I am proposing unity on an equal basis." HW 09:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Discuss here if you are not happy with my change. nids (♂) 11:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
ref: http://www.countercurrents.org/dalit-anand080603.htm
Archive of article on Himal Magazine
I am reminded of a meeting at Urdu Hall on Maqdoom Marg in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. It was 1997, a year after Kancha Ilaiah had written Why I am Not a Hindu: A Sudra Critique of Hindutva Philosophy, Culture and Political Economy. The book raised a furious debate in academic, intellectual and political circles and went into a quick reprint. The Urdu Hall meeting was a discussion of the book by ‘progressive writers’. A sizable number of Muslims were in attendance. ‘Hindus’, in fact, were in a minority at the meeting. (Hyderabad has a tradition of secular-liberal and left-oriented Muslims – that is, it has more than its share of articulate Saeed Naqvis and a Muslim intelligentsia that is tired of Asghar Ali Engineer’s Quran-centric ‘secularism’.) Most speakers reviewing the book came down heavily on Ilaiah for “attacking everything in Hinduism”.Some senior Muslim speakers felt his attack on Hindu scriptures, especially the vedas and the Gita, was simply unacceptable and even scandalous. Here was a scholar who was looking for some solidarity not from a group of mullahs or brahmins, but ‘secular’ writers and thinkers. All he got was their ire, and refusal to engage with ‘anti-Hindu vitriol’.
You may be benefitted from this [2].Thanx. HW 09:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I know nothing about the topics being discussed here, but since I came across this "debate" I think I should chime in. The site itself, CounterSource, since it will publish articles written by anyone who choose to send them anything I don't believe should count as a valid source since it is is open to being simply the rantings and personal opinions of anyone who cares to make them. However, the site claims that the original source for said article is Himal Magazine which upon research is a perfectly respectable magazine with a good deal of valid journalism consideration to it which if the article is indeed from there then it seems fine. Ben W Bell talk 10:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
where this article:
http://www.countercurrents.org/comm-ketkar011104.htm
From countercurrents is referenced, and it is assumed on good faith that it is a legitimate archive of an Indian Express article (Indian express is a newspaper in India). The justification here is the same as there. Hkelkar 11:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The page is protected. People have been doing at least three reverts, perhaps four if I checked the tricky ones. Please discuss. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I've unprotected. I don't think that the mediation means that it must be locked. Blnguyen | rant-line 06:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I should have checked to see that it stuck. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 22:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Right from the viewpoint of trying to put an end to this edit war lets see what we can calmly discuss regarding this. I'll take the issues one point at a time. One of the lines of contention is this.
He is a major ideological figure in the movement that calls itself Anti-Brahmanism and claims to be a movement for the empowerment of the Dalits , but is often labelled as anti-Hindu dubious – discuss by his critics, both Hindu and Muslim [1].
Right. Is there a source for this movement calling itself Anti-Brahamism? I think this should be sourced since it is one of the main points of contention. Ben W Bell talk 11:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/reviews/hock.html
Now, these anti-Hindu forces are exploiting the AIT to the hilt, infusing crank racism in vast doses into India's body politic. Read e.g. Kancha Ilaiah's book Why I Am Not a Hindu (Calcutta 1996), sponsored by the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, with its anti-Brahmin cartoons: move the hairlocks of the Brahmin villains from the back of the head to just in front of their ears, and you get exact replicas of the anti-Semitic cartoons from the Nazi paper Der Stürmer.
Hkelkar 11:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It does appear to me (and do bear in mind I know next to nothing about Hinduism, Brahmans and the religious ins and outs involved) that the quoted passage from the story (which if it is a correct translation I do feel personally is from a reasonable source) that at this meeting even his own peers were indeed accusing him of being anti-Hindu. If this is the case then perhaps it is reasonable to include such a mention (though possibly not so high up the article), this is of course presuming the wording of "anti-Hindu vitriol" isn't an embellishment by the author. I don't think we can say that his movement is anti-Brahamism though. Ben W Bell talk 13:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"HAF Appreciates Congressional Hearing on Dalit Rights; Concerned by Biases"
On http://www.hinduamericanfoundation.org/newsletter/10-14-2005/newsletter.htm
Hkelkar 13:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Fine, I think there are views in the Hindu community that Kancha Ilaiah is anti-Hindu. There does seem to be resources to support these claims (what the sources are matter that much, very little is neutral in this world of ours) and it has happened on more than one occassion. To my mind anti-Hindu is fair enough to be mentioned using those sources, but the anti-Brahmanism needs to go. Can both sides agree on this point? It is reasonable is someone has been accused of something by many people for it to be mentioned as it simply gives more information and allows a reader to make their own mind up. Ben W Bell talk 13:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't have the time to do any work last night. Reaing comments that the two parties involved in this dispute have made on other pages I'd just like to point out two things. 1) I'm not actually a member of the Wikipedia mediation team, I'm just offering my services as a neutral third party, 2) I am actually an admin so I do have the power to unprotect the article when necessary. Right. I've read through the WP:BLP yesterday afternoon and Jimbo Wales is quite clear on defamination of living persons. Now we need to decide if this item is actually defamatory or not. Has this person ever described themselves as anti-Hindu? Have we any other sources of others accusing him of being anti-Hindu (I think the sources seem to support this but in light of JWales directives we'd need more sources to keep this in there)? Ben W Bell talk 08:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I gave a reference for "white supremacist," which was the chapter from his book in which he talks at length about the superiority of the white race over the black race. He's also on record saying that blacks revert to their "genotype" whenever they are not exposed to white culture. It is not libel to call someone a white supremacist when he quite openly is one. It is not inherently demeaning to call someone a white supremacist either.
In the same vein, I can easily show from Ilaiah's books that he has made polemical attacks against Hindus (all Hindus, not just Brahmins, though he has singled them out on occasion). While I agree that that is not sufficient reason to say that he is an anti-Hindu on wikipedia, if a substantial number of people call him anti-Hindu (as the reference shows), is it not justifiable to say that those who criticize him have called him an anti-Hindu", or, at least "Some of his critics refer to his statements as anti-Hindu vitriol (word for word from the article)"? Hkelkar 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/reviews/hock.html
Now, these anti-Hindu forces are exploiting the AIT to the hilt, infusing crank racism in vast doses into India's body politic. Read e.g. Kancha Ilaiah's book Why I Am Not a Hindu (Calcutta 1996), sponsored by the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, with its anti-Brahmin cartoons: move the hairlocks of the Brahmin villains from the back of the head to just in front of their ears, and you get exact replicas of the anti-Semitic cartoons from the Nazi paper Der Stürmer.
Elst states Ialiah's book as an example of "anti-Hindu forces". he also mentions anti-Brahman in the sentence. Hkelkar 08:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Now while the next reference probably does not merit inclusion into wikipedia, it shows that a sifficient number of people are willing to take accountability of calling him anti-Hindu: http://www.india-forum.com/articles/66/1/Hindus-fight-discrimination-in-California-textbooks---3 Quote from TFA:
Note: Most people are unaware that all fronts calling themselves ‘Dalit’ are actually created and maintained by fundamentalist Christian missionaries. For example, Dalit Freedom Network [DFN] is an umbrella of most rabidly Hindu-hating ‘Dalit’ activists like Udit Raj and Kancha Ilaiah. If you call their toll-free number 1-866-921-1333, a Caucasian American will answer the call from Colorado. Ask for their contact information in India, and she will direct you to the All India Christian Council [AICC]!
Hkelkar 08:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
"Some of his critics refer to his statements as anti-Hindu vitriol". Here, we are not labelling him an anti-Hindu. Merely some of his statements. Statements are not people and so BLP does not apply. Hkelkar 09:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it is reasonable and fair to say that some of his critics accuse him of being anti-Hindu. I'm not convinced this does violate WP:BLP now reading again as it isn't making defamatory accusations directly at him but including views and opinions of his critics. Valid criticism is okay and isn't a direct attack. It's a bit like the difference between saying "George Bush is anti-Muslim" and "George Bush's critics have accused him of being anti-Muslim", two completely different things. In my mind I think the anti-Hindu thing can stay but needs the wording altered to make it clear that he hasn't labelled himself as this (to my knowledge) but many of his critics have. Reasonable? Ben W Bell talk 09:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a minor observation from a drive-by editor, but I keep seeing "his critics", which to me implies that all of his critics hold a certain view. That could be giving undue weight to a minority opinion, as well as drawing a conclusion (OR). It may need to be qualified in some way, such as "one of his critics", "several critics", "most critics", as appropriate. Sources for it should be qualified too, ie., if it is an op-ed, the article should identify it as such. Crockspot 14:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
On a second note to User:Ben W Bell, do you feel it's ok to expand on the anti-Hindu statement by mentioning the specific incident mentioned in the magazine article, or do you feel that merely making the "critics call him anti-Hindu [citation][citation][citation]" is enough? Please tell me what you think. Thanks. Hkelkar 16:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I declare that I won't be directly involved in editing this article, my activities wd be limited to talk page only(if needed).Since community has chosen to protect the controversial version of the page i leave the fate of page and its repercussion to be handled by them(perhaps they are capable).I will also see to it different standards are not applied to different pages.People advocating this version sd not shy away in asserting on other pages too.Thanks. HW 16:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought we'd agreeed to remove this from the intro on the grounds that there wasn't actually any references to the group calling itself Anti-Brahmanism? Ben W Bell talk 07:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I gave the reason in the edit summary, but since this seems like such a contentious issue, i'll expand on that here: the article said "you get 'exact replicas...'". While this is literally taken from the source given, it is misleading. Here's the relevant text from the reference:
“ | ...move the hairlocks of the Brahmin villains from the back of the head to just in front of their ears, and you get exact replicas of the anti-Semitic cartoons from the Nazi paper Der Stürmer. | ” |
So, while the words "exact replicas" are there, that's not quite what the quote means. I therefore changed it to "nearly 'replicas of'". -- Storkk 12:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
There is significant WP:NPOV#Undue weight going on in this article. That said, nothing appears defaming and requires immediate action. The discussion hasn't been editing for 10 days, and will be archived. Electrawn 02:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I have removed some of the See also links for a few reasons. A) Some of the links are already linked within the article, when this is the case they shouldn't be included in the See also B) a couple of them I removed I couldn't see how they were directly relevant to the person in questions, if they are not directly connected and related then they shouldn't be in see alsos, it's not a list of other things you may be interested in. Ben W Bell talk 15:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Ben I'm glad you remove some of the ridiculous see also links on the page that User:HKelkar introduced, and I was polite enough to not contest, but I don't know why you removed Indian caste system? If you're not aware, this is the whole system that Kancha Ilaiah if fighting against and will give a reader a better overview of how it works. Thanks-- Kathanar 15:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This article already links to Indian Caste System, so a 'see also' link is unnecessary. — goethean ॐ 16:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Please note where in article is the a link to Indian caste system, thank you -- Kathanar 17:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)