Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2)

I think the best solution to this conflict is if all parties talk it out. Those who accuse the other party of incivility are also themselves guilty of incivility. I have requested a mediator to look into it. R adiant _>|< 23:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this RfC valid? Isn't Talk:Rajput a more appropriate place for discussions concerning the content of that particular article? --Ghirlandajo 10:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful; there is little evidence that more than one user tried to resolve the dispute with DAB and failed. But that's hardly the point, because the way the RFC is worded and written, people are going to be unlikely to comment on it anyway. Yes, the logical place would be the talk page, and the logical step would be to ask the MedCom. Radiant_>|< 12:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. --Ghirla | talk 12:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. I saw the debate only recently (I am not a contributor to the article in question) and have been trying to put some order in place thru the respective talk page, and by talking to the individuals (both sides) on their talk pages (It appeared to me as a triangular debate: DAB being the initial third corner). I think there are precedents of individuals trying to resolve this, but I doubt if it worked (Ref: Talk Archives). Agree to flag this to MedCom. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 14:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

charges by sisodia is baseless for he and his freinds are themeselves engaged in editing on many pages without assigning any reason and trying to push their view.specially on kshatriya page these users don't even care their language and are abusive of sort on others.I would ask them to limit their presence on Rajput page and refrain from editing on kshatriya page as these users have blocked the proper views to emerge on kshatriya page pushing their unilateral view that rajpus are kshatriya and being highly intolerant towards other viewpoints. Thanks satyamev jayate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.144.177 (talk • contribs)

Unwillingness to allow statement of alternate POVs

I think it's true that dab formed a third corner to the debate -- as I tried to do, briefly. The problem, it seems to me, is that both the original participants in the debate, the "only Hindus can be Rajputs" and the "I am a Muslim of Rajput lineage", were insisting that their position was TRUE, that any other position was both wrong and offensive, and that their opponents' views should not be included in the article. Both dab and I tried to get both parties to accept formulations of the nature "X believes this and Y believes that" but were ignored. Both sides seem to want to capture the article for their POV and thus "win". I have the impression that the "Muslims of Rajput lineage" would be somewhat more amenable to a "there are different POVs" treatment, but I could be wrong.

I haven't meddled with the article much of late because I feel that I need to do more research in order to be sure of my ground. But I do feel that some firm authority MUST be exercised to get both sides to allow the other to present its position. Zora 21:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

dab is a breath of fresh air against your POVism, it is sad that you can not see how he wishes simply to have a neautral POV.

Brinlarr

The Singhs are both racist and pig headed, dad should be commended for such wonderful forbearance against such abuse. Well done dab. Brinlarr

I think the idea of a Rajput-Muslim or any other non-Hindu hyphenation is a complete farce. Seeing that Muslim posters cannot till to date, voice,

1)resolution of rajput creation myths and islamic ones,

2)what value that hyphenation 'Rajput-Muslim' has, when Islam violates and stands in opposition to the very tenets of Rajput ethos,

3)any shared historicity with hindu-rajputs,

4)significant contributions made by so called Rajput-Muslims to overall Indian heritage,

...all these call for stating the obvious, that Rajput-Muslim is an oxymoron.

One is either a Rajput, or a Muslim(though he comes from a Rajput line).

To say all this, is NOT a "hindu" view, much less a "hindutva" view! (like Dbachmann obfuscates the matter), but plain and straightforward understanding of the word Rajput. 61.247.243.87 18:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Suryabandhu[reply]

why do you guys discuss Rajput issues here, and attack me on Talk:Rajput? This page is about my behaviour. Talk:Rajput is about Rajputs. Why is this so difficult? Cannot you stay on topic for one minute? dab (ᛏ) 21:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop lying Bachman. You did not help in formatting. If an admin has so much contempt for new users who take a little bit of time in figuring out how to write an RFC I wonder why they have made you an admin. --DPSingh 16:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would have taken a "little time" to learn about Wikipedia before spilling your vitriolic hate all over it. dab (ᛏ) 09:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see hate in your words about hinduism and Indians in general. So take the preaching some where else. As an admin you should encourage new comers but you choose not to.

--DPSingh 16:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that Dab is indulging in POV pushing. I have known Dab for a long time, and I scarcely believe that he has his own personal agenda. What I see here is the age old problem we have on wikipedia: The refusal of Indian editors (specifically new wikipedians) to accept that experts on Indian history need not necessarily be Indian citizens. I condem this myopic and xenophobic attitude, and request the petitioners to get more familiar with the wikisystem. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the only pov I am pushing is WP policy (viz., Npov). Extremist povs have a place on WP, but extremist editors should not, at least not if they show as little restraint as this crew. When I have time, I will take this to RFAr to clear the air for the reasonable editors at the Rajput article. dab (ᛏ) 13:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nichalp,

Dbachmann is also at fault. It is easy to dismiss this as Extremist POVs and Extremist editors, but the Pakistanis are not innocent and instead all of you are giving them a free hand to do what they want.

A fair number of us who are involved are NOT PAKISTANI. Zora 08:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty obvious. Dbachmann should also have Khurram and his gang present proper sources and references. All these guys keep harping on origins from here and there, however they never cite any sources or evidence. And the reason why it has become this nasty is because Dbachmann should accept he has made an error in judgement.

You made the comment: "The refusal of Indian editors (specifically new wikipedians) to accept that experts on Indian history need not necessarily be Indian citizens."

Good for you, that was such an insulting comment, since I for one had teachers such as Dr. Joseph T. O'Connell, Dr. Diane Eck, Dr. M. Israel, Dr. Paulina Mazumder (a Welsh professor married to an Indian), Dr. Mcleod as my professors, to name a few when I was a student of South Asian studies.

You also stated:

"I condem this myopic and xenophobic attitude, and request the petitioners to get more familiar with the wikisystem."

I would have to simply reply that although I did not petition this, I do understand and support it since I can see a huge amount of injustice being done without admins accepting that they made had made an error judgement. You should be careful in your accusations of having people having "myopic and xenophobic attitude", the intolerance seems to be towards Hindus, and by having this intolerance you would allow Anti-Hindu chauvanists to simply write their POVs without any valid references or citations. That is just plain wrong.

Gorkhali 08:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quote from DBachmann on Wisesabre's talk:

"your presence is sorely needed here. I don't expect you get many Hindu trolls on ur:, but they really seem to flock to en:. Ultimately, they will end up at WP:RFAr if they go on like this. Their behaviour is more than enough for the arbcom to ban them, but somebody has to take the time for an arbitration case. I am committed to restoring a sane working environment at en:, where Hindus, Muslims and "whiteboys" can work together in peace. dab (ᛏ) 10:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)"

Hindu trolls, that is just beautiful, thanks buddy, you really know how to make people feel welcome. You'd be surprised that many people can work together, but by allowing Khurram and Wisesabre and the lot to have a free hand, you are committing an injustice. It also shows that you feel you will get a better article from those chaps simply because they have been polite to you and stroked your bruised ego. This is where you are making the mistake and you are not being impartial. Khurram and Wisesabre are still discussing whether they should try and find references and from where? Its amazing that only now they have realised that perhaps they should also provide evidence, but you didn't wait, you simply (along with your friends) went on a Hindu-Bashing trip, that was just great.

Gorkhali 10:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Khurram's Talk:

bro i cant cite any refernces because first of all my university library does not hosts any book on these sort of topics, secondly Punjab public library is not going to issue me any books (they dont issue to under graduates).thirdly I myself is not much intersted in Rajputi. That is why im Counting on You. I assure you that im not going to edit Rajput article again and I wont indulge my self in any edit war there, other then if you request. I totally Agree with you Wisesabre 18:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

So he can't cite sources...that's just great, and meanwhile the rest of us have to scramble around digging up old references from University days only to be bashed. But ofcourse DBachmann takes his side of the arguements.

Gorkhali 10:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Wisesabre's Talk:

Re categoty I think Pakistani wikipedians is much better . Since there are a lot of Pakistanis out there who arnt in Pakistan , they are Pakistani Wpedians & Wpedians in xxxxcountry . We have similar categories for India & Israel too . Farhansher 21:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Saqib my brother. I am back from Christmas break and although I haven't been on the Rajput article I think it might be where I left it. I know the amount of anxiety that some users create on that page as I, myself, am a victim of it. I just have one suggestion to make. If we, all Muslim Rajputs, provide with the references from the published work, and there are many, I think we will have a better chance of floating the truth on the topic. What do you say? The same we shall do for reverting the edits. What do you say bro?

خرم Khurram 17:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you my dear bro. You know for the book issuing problem, you can search the online libraries. Some libraries have books present online and that may help. www.netlibrary.com is such a source although I do not know if they carry any book on Indian/Pakistani content. One question though bro. What is your real name? Is it Saqib or Saif Allah?

خرم Khurram 19:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

So now they decide that perhaps they should provide evidence and cite some sources, so up until now they were simply spewing whatever they wish and Dbachmann and his lot were willing to accept those POVs and not tkae into account that the "Hindu trolls" were perhaps citing references that could be checked up on.

Just goes to show you what can happen if you have a bias. Very disappointing.

Gorkhali 10:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZORA writes in the middle of my message above:

A fair number of us who are involved are NOT PAKISTANI. Zora 08:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you Zora, I know you are not and you have stated that in the past before, but that is not the issue, hell I'm not Pakistani either nor am I full Indian so does that satisfy your curiosity on what my nationality is, perhaps you would like to know I was born in Canada, are you happy now?

The issue is a matter of injustice and if you took the time to read everything I wrote with a cool head, perhaps you'll see that a big error and injustice has been committed here. Is it that all of you are too proud to admit when you have made a mistake? Throughout the whole edit war, you guys waged a war against "Hindu Nationalist" POVs without asking the Pakistanis to provide their references. Instead of having any knowledge on the issue, I recall how you first replied to my messages and I never insulted you once, you simply when on this warpath without thinking for once what you were really arguing about.

Gorkhali 10:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Hindu Troll

Dear Zora,

After seeing how I was treated in the beginning of the edit war on Rajputs and by your quick judgments of my comments both in the past and presently, I really don't expect to get any kind of justice here. It seems that in your frustrations and Dab's frustrations, both of you have overlooked what was really going on.

I have read through some of your conversations with Dab and Khurram and its pretty insulting. In all my years of inter-religious forums or working with different religions during medical relief programs, only here do I see so much contempt for Hindus.

Without having Khurram, Raja or Wisesabre cite any references, you allowed them to take open field against Rajputs. Enough articles, books, papers are out there that Shivraj would look more sane, believe it or not, than any of the guys who were arguing him. Shivraj and his group may not be tame or know how to write an academic impartial article, but they know the truth, the same truth that was recorded by Islamic historians for centuries. And yet, when Khurram and his group casually brushed off the references and historical accounts, both from an Islamic and Hindu perspective, none of you had a problem with that.

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps yopu and your friends have made an error in judgment? I recall that when you first arrived in the debate you immediately stated that Communalism had no place in Wikipedia, and I totally agree, so why is the hatred geared towards Hindus?

A full analysis of the debate will show that Khurram, Wisesabre and Raja had a complete disregard for references and citations, casually brushing everything off as if they had a University education on the topic and had read every book. And now in their Talk pages you see that they are deciding on where to find sources since they had none from the beginning but were just riding the Anti-Hindu wave, and that is Communalism, a very light shade of it, but Communalism none the less.

You always reply to me as if I am an idiot, and perhaps you will never bother to read my profile to understand who I am and where am I coming from. Perhaps I know more about this topic than the whole group combined. And yet, you found it important to state to me that you were not Pakistani, believe me, I already knew that. However, you assume that I am responding and writing in such tones because I have some "problem" with Pakistanis, that is not true, but I do have a problem when people are trying to spread false information and simply hijack articles for their own political agenda.

Rajput: A member of any of several powerful Hindu landowning and military lineages inhabiting northern and central India.

Rajput: member of high Hindu caste: a member of one group of the Kshatriya caste, the second of the four Hindu castes Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © & (P)2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Rajput /raajpoot/ noun a member of a Hindu military caste. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/rajput?view=uk

Gorkhali 11:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

all I am asking is that people explicitly recognize Wikipedia policy, and make an effort to stay on topic, taking personal issues to personal talkpages if they must. Yes, Muslims must cite their sources just like Hindus. If the Hindus had just insisted that the Muslims cite their academic sources or shut up, we would have gotten somewhere. Instead they decided to troll the talkpage in droves, chanting battle hymns and what not. Thus, we never even got to the point of nailing down what exactly the "Muslim side" was claiming. The "Hindu side" can make policy work for them just like everyone else. If you disagree with some statement, insist on precise attribution, but don't embark on lengthy essays to the effect that you just know because it's in your blood. If the "Muslim side" had misbehaved to the extent the "Hindu side" has, I would have addressed them exactly alike, and if they had shown similar contempt towards policy, I would have ended up exactly as curt with them. I do hope for your constructive collaboration, asking for precise attribution of statements you think problematic, and being prepared to be asked the same for your own statements. If you can do that, I will consider you an excellent and most welcome editor on Rajput or any article. dab (ᛏ) 22:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Outside View-Dab: Pros and Cons

Dab can be hot-headed, sometimes irreverant (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiva#the_name and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raj2004&oldid=8299780#sri_rudram but at times is quick to apologize. He has flaws as we all do. He sometimes relies too much on Western sources when he argued about the meaning of Vishnu; the meaning known in the Hindu community is all-pervading one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vishnu#etymology and for his apology.

I can't comment on the Rajput issue as I am not knowledgeable about the subject. But I think both sides should try to compromise. Sometimes his comments are constructive as in Rudram when he distinguished correctly between interpretation and actual language (i.e., translation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raj2004#sri_rudram He can be correct as well when pointing out Devanagri is relatively recent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vishnu#Devanagari.2Fpronunciation But He can be slanted towards a Western point of view but when appropriate he can counterbalance other views. It was interesting to know other meanings of Vishnu although very minor. Perhaps at times, his view should be pointed out as a minority point of view. In another example of Western bias, he paints Vishnu solely as a minor deity as shown in the Vedas when there are other points of view that states the opposite. At least he tries when challenged by appropriate sources as in Vishnu etymology.

Dab, I think you do constructive work but please be a little more sensitive. Religion and ethnicity are hot topics. I think you also have to look at Indian sources, not just Western sources. For example, Monier-Williams, although respected, may be biased.see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vishnu#God_vs._god In the 19th century, many Western scholars were anti-Hindu given the times. Look at both sources. I don't know if Dab is anti-Hindu but I know at times he is misguided or perhaps naieve about Monier-William's lack of neutrality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vishnu#God_vs._god Even if he's not anti-Hindu, some of his comments may be construed as derogatory and would NOT be tolerated by a Christian or a Muslim. I think he may think he can get away with Hindu wikipedians because he perceives them as more passive than a Muslim or a Christian.

Also sometimes, please don't characterize anything that may challenge your point of view as Hinduvta. some comments in certain cases can be legitimate. Dab, please be polite as you can.

The good thing about Wikiepdia is collobration. Hopefully, we can learn something new.

Raj2004 00:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [[1]] for detailed comments about Dabs lack of neutrality. In the comments, he is commended for excellent edits in some articles but is also clearly biased in others. In the Michael Witzel page he has argued consistently against adding critical links or criticism against witzel - he also defends user:witzel when he aribitrarily deletes all criticism added to the page. --Pranathi 20:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with the statements against User:Dbachmann. He repeatedly misuses his privileges as administrator, lacks completely the required neutrality. He writes absolutely non-neutral remarks into articles, where he has absolutely no idea about the subject. He is extrermely arrogant and behaves absolutely uncivilized. He tries repeatedly to operate with a small clique. He and people like himself should be completely barred from any activity in the wikipedia. antifinnugor 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Antifinnugor rather showed that your description here fits your pattern of editing better than his. — mark ✎ 11:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Antifinnugor has been sanctioned by ArbCom, partially on evidence brought up by Bishonen and Dbachmann (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Antifinnugor and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Antifinnugor/Evidence) and has only two contributions in the last eleven months: to this RFC on Dbachmann and the "RFC" on Bishonen. Geogre 15:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raj is correct. Dab has alot to offer, and has many clear skills and ability to cite references. He is not however neutral, culturally sensitive, or open minded. His ability to understand that his sources present a particular POV, rather than the absolute truth has been a problem here and elsewhere. His ability to cite sources and his insight into issues and languages is quite valuable however. The answer is for him to be more aware of NPOV, particularly in the sense of giving attention and respect to a wide variety of different positions on an issue. One source alone will not do. Also, he must be more respectful of those who are believers. It is clear he is not hindu, and that is because of his indifference and irreverence. Those are traits which would be best replaced with respect and modesty. Sam Spade 06:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through much of the material here and on the articles in question. not only does Dbachman abuse his power he then uses a disturbing technique found here on Wikipedia in which admins not involved are brought in to bully adn defend the other admin, regardless of the fact whether he was wrong or not- please see the case of User:Ed Poor where the same names like Slimvirgin and Willmcw/Will Beback come to the aid of someone who was eventually stripped of his admin abilities, and these very admins were still supporting him, with no regard to the fact that he had broken the rules of wikipedia. The same situation is presenting itself here, and i hope that with the recent fundraising drive finished more reliable admins can come and mete out proper justice against this admin's abuse of power.Jonah Ayers 21:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- where, pray, did I abuse any powers? I issued two blocks, one of 30 minutes, and one of 45 minutes, in both cases to remind disruptive editors of policy. FireFox blocked DPS for a week for a PA (calling someone a son of a pig), and reajusted the block to 100 hours after I pointed out that this was rather harsh. Yet nobody is rfcing FireFox for that. Justly, because DPS has long crossed the line of good faith. How on earth, then, can I be abusing my privileges by blocking this user for 45 minutes?? I think you have to decide what this rfc is about. My general behaviour as an editor, where the only thing I care about are reputable sources no matter if eastern or western, but they need to be verifiable. Or my actions as an admin, which in this case were restricted to taking pains to impress WP:5P on people, and issuing a total of 75 minutes' blocking for blatant obstinance, and after this semi-trollish RfC was filed, I stepped down immediately, no more admin involvement. I argue that my record as an admin is spotless, and I object to your comparisons. Regarding my qualities as an editor, I'll let pass the criticisms of Sam and Raj, and yes, I am not here to be "culturally sensitive". I believe that this is an encyclopedia, and that you have to put up your sources or shut up. As Raj points out, if I am proven wrong, I am very quick to apologize. This has happened, but it has happened a precious few times over my 20,000 edits, because in most cases, I am certain of my sources. Yes, I am neutral and open minded, Sam, in the sense that I am neutral and open towards being shown mainstream scholarly consensus. Scholarly as in "academic". If you don't care about academia, I will appear biased to you: biased towards encyclopedicity. This is, however, not the issue of this RfC, which is apparently about my misuse of privileges, viz. the 75 minutes blocking time, see above. I can't believe Antifinnugor decided to show up here. Imho, this shows this RfC in a perfect light. Review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Antifinnugor/Evidence for an impression of the BS people have to put up with on Wikipedia, and why I have little patience with users who care only about their nationalism and nothing about wikiquette or policy. As for Raj's assumption that I am singling out Hindus: I don't. Again, see Antifinnugor, and I was also involved with Macedonian nationalists, and religious fundamentalists of other persuasions. I have a lot of respect for religion, and I take pleasure in documenting the most outrageous claims by all sorts of religious traditions. The moment where the fun stops is when editors try to misrepresent religion as history, and I do not care if these editors are Christians or Hindus or whatever. I am as a rule polite to new editors, and to any editors who shows minimal good faith and civility, even if I don't think they have a clue what they are on about. I see no reason to remain particularly polite, however, after I have been told I am "talking out of my arse" and similar niceties. dab (ᛏ) 20:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, I know the issue of the RFC had to do with your alleged missuse of privileges. I only wrote this commentary to defend some of your good work,but you should take some constructive criticism as we all do. I was wrong when I was not open -minded about other meanings of Vishnu and apologized as you did . I understand your concerns. Many people are difficult to work with. I see your frustations with Antifinnugor. But sometimes, you should be careful about how you word things. (i.e., questioning the meaning of Siva by commenting in a sarcastic manner or being facetious: "That's completely arbitrary. It can also be interpreted as "One who smiles a lot, and likes yellow butterflies" with the same justification." from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiva#the_name and commenting on the meaning of ship-vista in Rudram

"The word that is rendered as "in the form of Vishnu" is shipi-vishta (Dative, shipivishtaya). Here is a dictionary entry: [1]. Besides "'pervaded with rays" it could also mean "bald-headed", "leprous" or "having no prepuce'", but I think we can disount these here."

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raj2004#sri_rudram

These are your words not mine. That's what I mean when I mean to be more culturally sensitive. Additionally, when you bring a point of view that challenges conventional wisdom or norms, even if supported by a reference, please note that it's one point of view. (as you did when challenging the well-established meaning of Vishnu in Hinduism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vishnu#etymology For example, if you stated that Jesus lived in India after the ressurection, even if you cited a reference, that's not the conventional view. It may be a viewpoint but it's not a conventional view)

As for mainstrem conventional sources, that is a debatable point of view. Just because a source is not available in the western world, it doesn't mean it's less credible. You cited Monier Williams for the meaning of Vishnu. A just as equal commentator in the east would be Adi Sankara himself. Remember, I did not assume that you singled out Hindus. I also said," I don't know if Dab is anti-Hindu but I know at times he is misguided or perhaps naieve about Monier-William's lack of neutrality, for example. Dab, at times you have to be open-minded about other sources or question the neutrality of your source as well. Be open to other sources and ask them to provide references, and don't discount them automatically. As Sam Spade once said, NPOV is allowing many points of view so long as it is verifiable.

I do attest that in many of my experiences with you, you have been polite to me. (as regards to your comment, " I am as a rule polite to new editors, and to any editors who shows minimal good faith and civility, even if I don't think they have a clue what they are on about.")

see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raj2004&diff=30457220&oldid=30419001 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raj2004&diff=30331578&oldid=30316723

I do agree that people should not unjustly pick on you as talking nonsense when you do have references and are not clearly making it up. Just be more open minded about other references, even if they are not available in the Western world.

Again, Sam's comments are quite correct: "His ability to understand that his sources present a particular POV, rather than the absolute truth has been a problem here and elsewhere. His ability to cite sources and his insight into issues and languages is quite valuable however. The answer is for him to be more aware of NPOV, particularly in the sense of giving attention and respect to a wide variety of different positions on an issue. One source alone will not do. Also, he must be more respectful of those who are believers'. It is clear he is not hindu, and that is because of his indifference and irreverence. Those are traits which would be best replaced with respect and modest."

Raj2004 02:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]