Jump to content

Talk:Nandigram

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

History of Nandigram

[edit]

Nandigram has a history of struggle against colonial rule of British raj and for tebhaga. A short description of that history would be very nice. There is a book, "Nandigramer Sangrami Itihas" in Bangla by local historian Kanailal Das, which may be a helpful resource. 203.197.118.97 07:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Shamik Sarkar (shamiksarkar@gmail.com)[reply]

t there does seem to be some Naxalite involvement, eg the use of fire bombs and guns.--Conjoiner 20:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


== CMIP RAJ AT NANDIGRAM == Today on 20th April'08 again Mamta Banerjee get hited by CPIM CADERS Including POLICE CADERS of CPIM, CULPRIT of this RAJ is Buddhadeb Bhattachariya. Its the most shameful event In India and across World. Debashis Chakraborty has been appointed in Nandigram as Officer in Charge (OC) in Nandigram. Who has a very bad history in Administration, CPIM Caders will kill everybody in Bengal, they will not leave anybody.


It is the CPM and speculative media reports that claim the involvement of the TMC. No unbiased first-hand reports point to the involvement of TMC. Naxalite involvement and its extent is also debatable. --Panchhee 05:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biases

[edit]

The following are the reasons for several biases in this section:-

  • The CPI(M) statements are being relied upon too much. They are the ones who have been accused.
  • Non-political and independent reports (many available on the net) are not being used.
  • Some mainstream print media like ABP/Telegraph and The Hindu(chief editor N.Ram) are known for their pro-industry and pro-CPM sympathies

Editors please look into this Panchhee 05:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying is that any CPM source or source with perceived CPM sympathies should not be used. However, Wikipedia is committed to a neutral point of view in which all views are represented. Please feel free to include reports critical of the CPM as well as those that support its position.--Conjoiner 17:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I am saying is, please fairly represent the views of the independent media, whether it is pro or against CPM. And dont rely upon news media with CPI(M) sympathies when asserting facts. -- Panchhee 02:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Quality and Non-NPOV Issues With This Article

[edit]

This article has so many problems associated with its tone, style and lack of neutrality, in my opinion, it's going to require a major rewrite of the material by a disinterested outside specialist to even come close to meeting basic policy requirements on Wikipedia. Please do not remove the templates I have added until these issues are resolved. Thank you. Deconstructhis 22:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried this on two occasions, putting in a lot of effort to ensure neutrality. But within a couple of days, one side or the other have deleted my edits and used this article and associated articles as a blog. There is no commitment on either side of the argument for a debate or a sincere attempt at a neutral point of view.--Conjoiner 00:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that this situation has been going on for a long time and the result is that instead of an actual encyclopedia article that conforms to Wikipedia policy, it seems we have instead, a collection of inflamatory rhetoric being posted by *all* sides of the debate for their own particular purposes. In my opinion in its current state, the bulk of this material (especially the section designated "politics") is completely useless as an encyclopedia article within the context of the Wikipedia project. All material included in any article must consist of properly cited information from reputably published mainstream sources, no original research is allowed and under no circumstances should Wikipedia policies insisting on a neutral point of view be violated. Thank you. Deconstructhis 03:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In fact, if you take any section of the article that has been written by an anon IP, you will find it has been plagiarised from a blog, eg this [1] is largely taken from a blog by the Communist leader Prakash Karat: [2]. Anti-communist contributors to this article have done much the same. I suggest semi-protection of this article and the one on the Nandigram dispute, which also contains unencyclopaedic material and terms, eg "carnage", "barbaric". I understand that this is an emotive subject, but standards must be upheld and I don't have the time or patience to rewrite such articles if my changes are unilaterally deleted by a non-user.--Conjoiner 14:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

who the hell r u to comment with such authority? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.1.102 (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article will give a better idea and a look from leftists side which is lacking here just like mainstream anti-communist media. http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20071221503204400.htm comment posted by 203.13.168.1

NPOV Again Not Being Respected

[edit]

Once again non-neutral inflammatory rhetoric appears to be creeping its way back into the article. Perhaps it would be useful, if material was first placed here on the discussion page for review and agreement by other editors and then if a consensus is reached, it can be transferred to the "main" page. I can easily see how this article is, once again, going to degrade into a completely 'unencyclopedic' condition, if this trend is not corrected. Please attempt to adhere to Wikipedia's policy regarding maintaining a neutral point of view when adding material and also please keep in mind that any material that is not supported by a citation from a reputable mainstream previously published source can be removed at any time. thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute details

[edit]

The details of the Nandigram dispute should be placed in the relevant article. There is no point duplicating efforts, which complicate the editing of this controversial issue.--Conjoiner (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editings by some vandals

[edit]

Some pro CPI(M) propoganda is being carried out by some vandals with no user names. This is not allowed in Wiki I presume. So I fixed them--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cosmetic tasks on this page again...This ain't a result of any political affiliation, but because of the large amount of controversy that I saw about this issue and the wiki editing war on this. Hope that I will be able to help wiki better.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have bifurcated the disputed section into two. The first section has been retained as Politics and the second section has been named Conflict - where the dispute can be discussed. Doxa 08:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckraju (talk • contribs)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nandigram. 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) 02:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nandigram&oldid=1201751992"