Talk:G. T. Nanavati

A fact from G. T. Nanavati appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 September 2006. The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that Justice 1984 Anti-Sikh riots? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/September.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles India: Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance). This article was last assessed in May 2012.

• http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050812/nanavati.htm

I am reverting baka's removal of my expansion of a section which he carried out with the edit summary "rm OR". Its not OR. Its directly from the rediff.com link you provided. For the 100th time overall and the second[1] time today, Baka, at least try to read the links that you provide, if you dont want to appear a little inept. Hornplease 05:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are talking aboput the Sikh riots in that train of thought. Congrats on misrepresenting the links.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disqualified under

. Plese explain how articles like "Bush Wants A Bloodbath In Baghdad", "Reflections On Our Inner Bush: Corporate Monkeys In Our National House Of Mirrors ", and "Rise Up Against the Empire", indicate any sort of accurate and objective newsgiving. None. That's where "Pointy-headed academic argument" ends up in: Garbage dumps like countercurrents.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even the organiser is more quotable than countercurrents.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countercurrents exists to reprint articles available elsewhere. This is why I suggest you do a little homework on things before making accusations. The writer of the piece reprinted by countercurrents is Asghar Ali Engineer, a leading Gujarati Muslim. More to the point, the citation is not of an opinion piece. I can provide the Indian Express date of the statements by BJ Dewan, but that would not be available to everyone online.Hornplease 02:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - "Secular perspective" - Sounds quite partisan to me per

]

This is also the third time that you have attempted to sarcastically quote something from my rather minimal userpage back at me. Please note that I am very patient, but you are only adding to a history of anger and disruptiveness that will come back to bite you if you ever get into trouble like Subhash's. Hornplease 02:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I dont appreciate veiled threats. Nor do I appreciate users that I have little respect for talking down to me.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats for the double standards. Why quote Asghar Ali Engineer only, thats selectively quoting, and both Engineerji and countercurrents are partisan anyway. Koenraad Elst debunked Engineerji here.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baka, you're incredible. I dont quote Engineer, I quote a retired CJ of the Gijarat High Court and Nanavati himself and link to an article by Engineer that cites those quotes. Could this be different in some way from citing Elst's opinion on an academic question? Without 'talking down' to you, I suggest you think about that for a moment, and also consider that this is something that you could have worked out for yourself without writing a confrontational reply. You are the only editor I come across who regularly forces people to write these explanatory notes even after having been around for a few months.

Note, if you disagree with my having done this, then you could have written in reply: "Hornplease, I dont think the article linked to is satisfactory because either Engineer may have lied about the Gujarat CJ and Nanavati's clarification, or countercurrents may have misrepresented AAE's piece." Which would have been really rather petty, but at least sensible. To accuse me of insulting you, of double standards, of veiled threats instead of keeping the conversation civil, only leads to delay in improving the article, and doesnt enhance anyone's impression of your ept-ness much.

What you call the 'veiled threat' I made was, I suppose, the statement that you wish to avoid having a history of confrontation if you wish to edit contentious articles. Ask Nirav if you dont believe me; he's been around for a while, and was pretty confrontational when he first came along, and it didnt help him one bit. I mentioned Subhash because I would have thought that having seen that Subhash's anger got him into trouble would have caused you to be careful about it yourself. I am not 'reporting' you to someone, or taking you to ANI or RfC or anything. I never have done something like that to an editor on WP. Is that enough of a non-threat to satisfy you? However, someone else might, in which case people will look over your history, and it wont be pretty.Hornplease 07:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if you think that the article that you linked is Elst 'debunking' Engineer, my count of your misrepresented citations goes up by one more.—The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs

) .

The countercurrents article is written by Engineer, and you quoted from there.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a reply to the points I raised above? Try reading them again. Hornplease 21:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its still not a reliable source. Why has no real news source quoted BJ Dewan? why only a leftist,

anti-Hindu, "Secular" newspaper? While my quotes are from reputable sources, somehow you can only support your POV in newspapers quoted by SIMI, CPI(M) and associates, not mainstream media.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

"Quoted by SIMI"? Is that the best you can do? And isnt frontline leftist, anti-Hindu and secular? It might be best if you got over this and back to filling out the article.Hornplease 21:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frontline? I dont recall Frontline having any place in this discussion. A nice example of irrelevancy. Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really irrelevant. I meant that your objections were a little wide-ranging, including such things as Frontline. You perhaps meant 'straw man argument', however.