Jump to content

Talk:Graham Staines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

revert to previous

[edit]

Revert edit [[1]] done by User:Bakasuprman, it seems a POV'd malicious edit with no documentation. --Kathanar 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had reverted a POV'd edit, but it was undone [[2]] by another user who seems to be a fan of User:Bakasuprman's biased editing. --Kathanar 22:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Assume Good Faith. Such incivil comments are not appreciated. Rumpelstiltskin223 22:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: Rumpelstiltskin223 Please do not promote a POV and untruths, especially since it has no back up or doc for it. The wording shows maliciousness, what "forcible conversions" have been proven? This man and his children were murdered, do you understand that? Children were murdered in this incident! Aren't you ashamed of yourself for trying to twist this article? Do some deep thinking, reassess your priorities and think is it worth it just to promote your agenda. I will return later to avoid a 3RR which is what you are close to doing.--Kathanar 22:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. This sort of comment is a Personal attack. Rumpelstiltskin223 22:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not twist the situation, there is no personal attack against you, this seem to be an attempt to add fuel to the fire. Your actions on the other hand do bear questioning, do reconsider them. Thanks--Kathanar 22:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Hindu extremists have been proven either. I'm not ashamed that I took the blame away from an innocent group, when it was only Dara Singh and Mahendra Hembram. The children being burned has nothing to do with Graham Staines himself, he's still a reviled figure in Orissa, and this incident merely heightened conflict between Christians and adivasis and proved the Sangh correct about conversions. Children? there are children killed by the NLFT,in the name of Jesus. Merely trying to emotionally blackmail us isnt going to make us like Graham Staines. When Hindus die, you dont seem to care, so why should we care now?[3]Bakaman 22:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think hindu fanatics are mentioned in a few articles, I'll look to cite those. Your other claims (reviled figure?) have no doc. either, so it seems you just like to throw out claims. You on the other have not cited the POV'd term "forcible" which as User:Aldux has mentioned is a strong claim, if not a untruth. This action in itself has shown your non-interest in making a clean accurate article. Also the use of the statement "When Hindus die, etc., etc." is such a obvious ploy it does not even bear responding too, as we are discussing this article any other subject is irrelevant, though harm against any group, especially children is a heinous thing, and anyone trying to devalue that has obviously some serious self-evaluation to do.--Kathanar 01:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such hateful remarks coming from a user clearly questions as to who is the "fanatic". A clear ploy by partisan groups to deflect attention from atrocities against one community by vilifying them is a typical and obvious propaganda tactic that is being repeated on wikipedia by Christian missionary sympathizers who are spreading hate in India and abroad. Wikipedia is a source of information, not a soapbox for hate-speech and you need to learn this quickly.Rumpelstiltskin223 01:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice and wordy, User:Rumpelstiltskin223good advice, Might I suggest you apply it to yourself and your views, as it might provide better use that way, regards--Kathanar 01:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, to both, please calm down, I must say that all this could be said in a far friendlier manner. Assuming, that the others pov is propaganda and hate-speech is not the best way to collaborate. After all, what is propaganda changes from the prospective of the observer; for this we don't search the truth in wikipedia, but only verifiability.--Aldux 02:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I can add a few words, to start with, Kathanar, really, assume good faith; you must always start thinking that even if you disagree with an editor, he also is striving to write a better article. Also, a friendly attitude makes it easier to collaborate with other editors, even if these have different povs than yours. Passing to the content, I've removed "forcible"; this is a strong claim, and as WP:RS teaches, especially strong claims need strong sourcing. Cheers to all,--Aldux 23:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank User:Aldux I appreciate the stepping in, good faith needs to go both ways, if that were the case User:Bakasuprman wouldn't need to make those POV'd edits and insert the term "forcible". I will take your advice from this experience and will probably seek your guidance more in the future, as I'm sure there is no end to this type of behavior. Thanks again--Kathanar 01:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathanar, remember that you must always assume good faith, even if does NOT go both ways. If you always start assuming good faith, it will be easier that even the most suspicious do the same. Also remember that every single editor in wikipedia, me and you included, have a pov, and this is perfectly legitimate. If you object to some edits, simply discuss calmly why you feel they violate policy, discuss on wording, and remember that unsourced additions can under WP:V be removed, and that even if sourced it must respect WP:RS. And remember you can add alternative povs (obviously, these too must respect WP:V and WP:RS).--Aldux 02:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has article lost focus?

[edit]

I am new to the discussion of this article, but it seems that most of the article is about local tensions and allegations. Very little of the article is about Staines, who is the official topic of the article. I suggest that almost all of the "Subsequent events" section be deleted. I know some people have worked hard to write this section, but it seems odd that an article about a person has the longest section about events after his death. What do others think?Pete unseth (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately his death and the subsequent events gave him the unique identity he now has, thus forming an integral part about him. Had it not for the murder and subsequent events he would have been known in those villages where he worked, but not on a national or international level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kijacob (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Graham Staines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Graham Staines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Effective Change of Source

[edit]

The Supreme Court's initial statement with regards to Dara Singh's case had a citation which redirected to a dead URL. I initially added a dead link tag. Upon searching through Supreme Court records, which had shifted to a different source, I obtained the document and also added an extra line for the context of the statement. AB1908 (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Staines&oldid=1214461514"