Talk:Salwa Judum/Archives/2014/May

References added

I added a coupla references and removed the unreferenced tag Vikram boo! 12:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please use NPOV and refs.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased and needs to be rewritten entirely. 21 November 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.1.178 (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes i agree,it seems like naxalite propaganda....```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renaissance89man (talk • contribs) 03:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I dont know how to work the software to add info to this, I was roped into the Binayak Sen movement a few years ago. It may sound like Naxal propaganda, but the fact is the Naxals are still finding willing recruits, indicating the larger populace (us)do not have a complete picture. I did talk to eye witnesses, one of who was an 80yr old woman too frail to lift a gun. I haven't been able to corroborate the stories of the sources with hard fact though.

Since this may be controversial issue for many, reading Wikipedia:Controversial articles, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, might help maintain right balance and avoiding controversy. Thanks! --Ekabhishek (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Noted Vandalism WP:Vandalism, removal of text and adding inflammatory comments without suitable references without consideration to WP:NPOV by various users, (see history)though thankfully BOTS had removed most of them.

Please do not add any random stuff without suitable/ verifiable references, and avoid libelious statements. Thanks! --Ekabhishek (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

this article reads like marxist propaganda

Needs to be rewritten pretty much entirely. Until then, reader beware! --86.135.181.189 (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no way that an organisation like Salwa Judum be presented with complete neutrality. 0police (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalisms, lies and rapidly changing any edits - who are doing these?

Any kind of edits in this page is being rapidly changed back by one user Mehrunnisa. This is totally unacceptable, specially so, when the user is providing false information. This page by this users version is heavily dependent upon government reports and NHRC report. The Salwa Judum is a government made, funded, sourced private militia. Do you expect to see anything anti-government in a government report? The NHRC report does not talk about police atrocities, because the committee is made of police!! You need third party reports to know what is going on. Isn't the conflict of interest pretty apparent? It further goes to say PUCL is a maoist affiliated organisation. This is as blatant a lie there can be! PUCL is a human rights organisation, its vice president Binayak Sen was in prison exactly because of this lie. Twenty four nobel laureates, the amnesty international, people all around the world poured down their protests. The state had no proof, I repeat, not a single proof to tie Binayak Sen to the maoists, and yet they kept him detained for a year!!! How fair do you think these reports are by this very government? I suspect these edits are done government agents, trying to control free information even on the internet.

Vinter-light (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The users "Barakabless", "Agarbatti", "Vinter-light" have following the same pattern of deleting large chunks of text and references. This leads me to suspect that they are the same person.

The NHRC is not a committee is made of police as the user Vinter-light alleges. Check the facts before making libelous allegations.

http://nhrc.nic.in/FAQ.htm

The National Human Rights Commission is an expression of India's concern for the protection and promotion of human rights. It came into being in October,1993.

Is the Commission Autonomous?

Yes, the autonomy of the Commission derives, inter-alia, from the method of appointing its Chairperson and Members, their fixity of tenure, and statutory guarantees thereto, the status they have been accorded andthe manner in which the staff responsible to the Commission - including its investigative agency - will be appointed and conduct themselves. The financial autonomy of the Commission is spelt out in Section 32 of the Act.

The Chairperson and Members of the Commission are appointed by the President on the basis of recommendations of a Committee comprising the Prime Minister as the Chairperson, the Speaker of Lok Sabha, the Home Minister, the leaders of the opposition in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha as Members.

Now the same user Barakabless", "Agarbatti", "Vinter-light" should stop making baseless allegations and stop converting this page into an maoist propaganda piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehrrunissa (talk • contribs) 14:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mehrunnisa,

No, I am not agarbatti or barakabless. This again goes to show that you are doing this singlehandedly, i.e., anyone who changes "your" version, you are destroying it.

NHRC has a police wing. "The Director General (Investigation) of the NHRC, perhaps inevitably, constituted a team consisting of three officers of the Indian Police Service (IPS) and other lesser police functionaries under his supervision." (http://www.epw.in/uploads/articles/12988.pdf) - I had provided this link, which you actually deleted.

Vinter-light (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Vinter-light you keep making baseless allegations again. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is an independent commission with quasi-legal powers. Just because the commission reports goes against the group you support does not entitle you to cast suspicions on it.

Going by your conduct the users agarbatti or barakabless are your sock puppets who have vandalized other wiki pages related to maoists. --Mehrrunissa (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mehrunnisa,

You are making accusations based upon nothing. In contrary, I have provided reference to what I claim. EPW is one of the most revered journals in India. The NHRC has a legal wing, a judicial wing, a police wing. The one that's report you forward is the one with the police wing. Please read the reference. What is even more funny is even from the NHRC report, you take portions that suit your agenda, completely ignoring others, i.e.where the NHRC has disapproved of Salwa Judum like state sponsored militia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinter-light (talk • contribs) 20:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

First things first, stop calling me dear, i am not your dear. I dont want to be called dear by a person who goes around deleting text and references without any reason. Once again you make allegations against NHRC without any proof. And stop using your sock puppet to delete my references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salwa_Judum&diff=319319028&oldid=319269104 Revision as of 22:51, 11 October 2009 (edit) (undo) Agarbatti (talk | contribs)

Thankfully Jeff has reverted the page back to an neutral POV. --Mehrrunissa (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mehrunnisa,

I think you need to calm down and read before you jump. I mentioned three times the reference where the truth about NHRC is mentioned. I have no idea what a sockpuppet is. I think the admins can access IP addresses, I request them to check if I am any of the others who made the edits. If not, I hope dear Mehrunnisa would not shy off from a public apology.

I would also like to know more about wiki policies, from the guidelines it is not clear why only a certain edition is being restored and all other edits are being reverted, even after proper references are given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinter-light (talk • contribs) 06:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Quit calling me dear and making baseless allegations against Human Rights commissions and you are the one who must make an apology for vandalising three wiki pages by deleting texts and references. --Mehrrunissa (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalising of this page by sockpuppets

Today all day long there has been vandalising attempts on the following 3 wiki pages,

   * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite
   * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India_(Maoist)
   * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salwa_Judum

The users "Barakabless", "Agarbatti", "Vinter-light" have following the same pattern of deleting large chunks of text and references. This leads me to suspect that they are the same person.

I need help to stop these vandalising attempt. Please tell me how can to stop these users from such attempts. The user Barakabless even deleted the revision done by XLinkBot and falsely accuse me of vandalising when i am reverting back the page to it's previous state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salwa_Judum&action=history Barakabless (talk | contribs) (20,956 bytes) (Undid revision 319222653 by XLinkBot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehrrunissa (talk • contribs) 14:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Also see An end to an unending war in India, a detailed account by Al Jazeera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.137.205 (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeff : Permission needed to revert

Per WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM: no known direction for this thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jeff since now it's clear that the vandalising was done by one user and his sock puppets, i request your permission to add the text and references that were deleted from the "Naxalite" and "Naxalite Maoist Insurgency" "Communist Party of India (Maoist)" wiki pages by barakabless, agarbatti and vinter-light. Please allow me to revert them back to their original state which had a neutral POV and also these pages need protection from future vandalising attempts. So need your advise on future course of action. . --Mehrrunissa (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Regarding the edits edits to Salwa Judum by barakbless's sock puppet User:Oftenhurry, [1], I should point out that the primary source used by the Maoist sock master User:Oftenhurry is a far-left Indian named Ramchandran Guha who writes for a publication named "countercurrents.org", where they also claim that a secret conspiracy of Jews and Hindus was behind the Mumbai Terror Attacks[2][3]. This guy is, by no means, a reliable source on anything.Cheers.Keysvolume (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Since this net of lies is so wide and intricate, it would be draining on me to point out the discrepancies. Let me just quote this line from Wiki entry on Ramchandra Guha "The US magazine Foreign Policy named him as one of the top 100 public intellectuals in the world in May 2008.[4] In the poll that followed, Guha was placed 44th. Padma Bhushan for 2009, India's third highest civilian award[5]." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramchandra_Guha. It is funny how this Keysvolume is going about claiming that I am sockpuppet of some other user, when he has nothing to back it up. It is ironical that none of the Wiki admins are pointing that out either. Slandering seems to be the way to get around here. Oftenhurry (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC) The sockmaster needs to see WP:POINT, and that wikipedia is not a reliable source for wikipedia. Ramchandran Guha belongs to a core group of New Anti-Semites of the third world left who recycle the allegations Neo-Nazi and militant Islamist conspiracy theories. He is not a reliable source for anything.Keysvolume (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC) What rubbish! Please substantiate your claims. You can go around and throw slanders at anybody? Are you trying to say that he did not receive the Padma Bhushan? He was not 44th on the list of 100 world intellectuals? Ofcourse you cannot deny this, since these are public records! So you come up with whatever your imagination let you. Wikipedia is not a reliable source is evident by editors like you! Oftenhurry (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Constructive discussions only.

If you wish to continue the discussion about the recent changes, do so here or start a new section without the blatant violations of WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM. Thanks. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I was working on the history of Salwa Judum, and I found the article in Wikipedia to have many grave inaccuracies. I am pointing these out, please correct them as soon as possible. In this critique, I have either used the sources mentioned in the article itself (though I found those sources to be one-sided and biased), or articles that are well-authenticated, including those from the government of India. In light of these arguments, I suggest that the page me marked controversial till the article is corrected or re-written.

I also suggest that the history of this page and the discussion to it be investigated. Just a few days ago, the text edited by the same editor who has edited the current version had a somewhat different introduction, which had even greater inaccuracies, and had made the reference of a “Hindu Indian Nation” in the second paragraph. This was on Oct 12th. In the next few days, the introduction was corrected to reflect the reality by another user, and that user referred to an article by the esteemed Indian journalist Ramchandra Guha. The current editors, in the talk page, immediately slammed this revered journalist who has won international acclaim and recognition, by marking him an anti-Semite and a far-left wing author. However, strangely enough, they have deleted those criticisms from the current talk page (a review of the recent edits to the talk page or yesterdays version of talk page would show what happened), and in a bizarre twist have started the new introduction (which was posted today) by referring to an article by Ramchandra Guha, the very author they tried their utmost to discredit.

I believe that vilifying certain people and then removing those comments from the talk page is against the guidelines of Wikipedia. I request that all the discussion in the talk page be restored, as long as the language used did not violate any Wikipedia norms, as this is a debated topic.

Before I mention the refutation, I suggest that the picture of the tribal with bow and arrow be removed and instead a Salwa Judum member with a .303 be shown. As is mentioned in the article (The development of the SPO’s section) that the Salwa Judum members were “given general weapon handling training, mostly .303 rifles”. This also explains how the Judum was so effective in committing the brutalities as is outlined below.

Now for my refutation of the current article as it stands in 10 PM PST Sunday Oct 18th. The article starts with a reference to an article by Ramchadra Guha that was written in 2006 (Ref 1). In that article, he states that “The first press reports on Salwa Judum were complimentary. “, but then he says that “Later reports about Salwa Judum were more ambiguous.” In the remaining article, Mahendra Karma is interviewed, but then he is the leader of Salwa Judum. So there is a one-sided aspect about the conflict in the interview. However, in 2007, by when the atrocities committed by Salwa Judum had been brought to light, Ramchandra Guha wrote another article. This was published in June 2007 in the Nation magazine (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070716/guha/2). In it, he wrote “While the state claimed Salwa Judum to be a success, other reports suggested that its activists were a law unto themselves, burning villages deemed insufficiently sympathetic to them and abusing their women.” He also commented about the atrocious conditions in the camps, and why people move there. “While some tribals came voluntarily, many others came out of fear of the administration and the goons commissioned to work with it. Whether refugee or displacee, they live in primitive conditions--in tents made of plastic sheets strung up on bamboo poles, open on three sides to the elements.” And he follows that by “Worse, the residents of the camps have been given no means of livelihood.” Next, he even writes about a visit to a village burnt by the Judum “In one hamlet we photographed ten homes burned by a Salwa Judum mob." , and a meeting with a woman who had been abused “a tribal woman demonstrated the humiliations she was subjected to."

Since articles by R. Guha are being referred to, it might be best to get his latest viewpoints when more facts have come to light.
The next two references are by the newspaper Pioneer. This newspaper is not one of India’s well known and reliable news source like the Hindu or the Hindutan Times or the Times of India. This newspaper is also edited by Chandan Mitra, who is the member of the upper house of parliament in India (the Rajya Sabha) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3613884.stm), and also is a well known BJP supporter (http://friendsofbjp.org/2009/05/30/chandan-mitra-interview/). The BJP party is the ruling party in the Chattisgarh state, so this newspaper can hardly be deemed impartial and be used as a reference. The BJP is also well-known to be a pro-Hindu party(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/Proud-to-be-Hindu-BJP/articleshow/801754.cms). This makes the neutrality of the references from newspapers like Pioneer even more questionable. Curiously, this very same Wikipedia article in that was there on Oct 12th Oct also had a reference to a “Hindu Indian nation”. India is a secular nation. That line has now been removed, but it indicates that the people who have written it could have pro-Hindu / pro-BJP leanings, and hence are not neutral.

The article states that “Naxalite forces had come to power in parts of the Indian state of Chhattisgarh by claiming to wage a "people's war" against the Indian state allegedly in favor of neglected tribal minorities in the region.” The Government of India's own Official Committee (led by D. Bandyopadhyay) to explore the Maoist insurgency admits that the Maoist movement purportedly supports the rights of the tribals and the villagers in the region and that made it popular and strong. See http://planningcommission.gov.in/reports/publications/rep_dce.pdf.

The next paragraph has the line “with its formation the state witnessed a marked rise in success against Naxalite action”, and also has a reference news article in support (Ref # 4). This is an absurd statement and is false. If you follow the link to the news article, you will see that the news article talks about the Cobra battalion going to Bastar. The Cobra is a specially trained unit within the Indian military that is specialized in counter insurgency operations. They are not a part of the Salwa Judum. The only mention of Salwa Judum in that article is that “The Bastar region, in the southern part of Chhattisgarh, has emerged as the epicentre of Maoist activists with the rebels stepping up violence in the region since June 2005 following the launch of anti-Naxalite movement Salwa Judum by the locals which enjoys the support of the state Government.” It does nowhere mention that the Salwa Judum was successful in putting down the Maoists, and there are many reports that indicate that on the contrary Maoists have been strengthened if anything by the actions of the Salwa Judum. Hence the claim that there was a “marked rise in success against Naxalite action” is unsubstantiated. If the Salwa Judum was indeed so successful against the Maoists, how is it that it is subsequently stated that “as a result in 2008, Chhattisgarh along with neighboring Jharkhand accounted for over 65% of the total naxal violence in the country”? Does not the fact that the Chattisgarh state accounts for a large majority of the Naxal violence in the country indicate that the Salwa Judum, in fact made this movement stronger three years after it started operating, and hence failed in its objective of “success against Naxalite action”? The subsequent statements try to indicate that Naxalism was fading in Chattisgarh, thanks to the Salwa Judum. On the contrary, the Naxal movement is getting stronger in Chattisgarh, in part due to the actions of Salwa Judum. A recent article shows the increased strength of Maoists in the region. (http://ibnlive.in.com/news/more-naxal-attacks-feared-in-chhattisgarh/96985-3.html - "They are striking now as per their will and we have lost an SP rank officer in a Maoist attack for the first time," a senior official at the state police headquarters in Raipur told IANS.) In the next paragraph, there is a comparison of the Naxalites and the Taliban. The Taliban is an insurgency operation that is also directed against the foreign forces in Afghanistan. There are no foreign forces in the region inside India. The Taliban are well-known to have repressive policies against women. On the other hand, women are also part of the Maoist movement and there are women commanders of their battalions. They enjoy equal status as men, something that certainly is very unlike the Taliban. Merely drawing parallels with other insurgency operations in the world which people are familiar with gives incorrect impressions. If a parallel is made, it should have enough justification. It is true that the Maoists impose their own laws in parts of their control; but that can be expressed without applying such incongruent adjectives. The Salwa Judum, incidentally also imposes its own diktats. This can be seen (strangely enough) in a reference cited in the Salwa Judum Wikipedia article! Ref # 29 (The Adivasis of Chhattisgarh: Victims of the Naxalite Movement and Salwa Judum Campaign. New Delhi: Asian Centre for Human Rights. 2006. p. 42. ISBN 81-88987-14-X. http://www.achrweb.org/reports/india/Chattis0106.pdf. Retrieved 2009-05-31.) Pg 39 para 2 begins “Members of the Salwa Judum are involved in illegal checking of all vehicles passing through their area, levying of illegal tax like the Naxalites from the drivers or occupants of the vehicles.” Is not then the Salwa Judum like the “Taliban”?

There is a reference to the Jan Jagran Abhijan. The real story behind the Jan Jagaran Abhiyan of 1991 is given in detail in the famous report: http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Human-rights/2006/salwa_judum.pdf . This shows, among other things, that the leader of the Salwa Judum, Mahendra Karma, was also somewhat like a petty thief.

The following sentences describe the rise of Salwa Judum, and shows how there was a prior movement against the Naxalites which collapsed before the current movement which the state government supported. It is interesting see why there is no mention why the government “supported” the second anti-Naxalite “revolution” and not the first one. It has been suggested that other vested interests, like mining interests, were involved. The Salwa Judum was officially formed the day after the Chattisgarh government signed a Memorandum of Understanding (Mou) with the behemoth of India mining, the Tata steel company, for setting up a 10 thousand crore Rupees (several billion dollars) worth steel plant in the state. Since the Naxalite movement was viewed as a potential impediment to the development and functioning of the mining interests, the state had a strong motivation in crushing the Naxal movement after signing the Mou. This was not there earlier. There is no mention of this possibility in the paragraph, and all that is mentioned is the mysterious volte-face done by the Chattisgarh state government during the second time there was an anti-Naxalite movement. During the second phase, the support by the state government was also in terms of personnel (apart from the logistics), as shown in the NHCRC report. The state police and the military would actually accompany the Salwa Judum members when they went on their “anti-Naxalite” operations in different villages. The article goes on to say that the villagers had to flee “fearing Naxalite action”. There is no mention that it was in fact the terror of the Salwa Judum that made them flee. There are many documented evidences of this. Here are some links. http://aidindia.org/main/content/view/748/394/ (Regadatta villagers loose harvest due to Judum attack) http://www.otherindia.org/dev/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=15&Itemid=58 (atrocities by Salwa Judum) http://www.tehelka.com/story_main41.asp?filename=Ne070209coverstory.asp (on the Singaram killings by Salwa Judum) All of these show how villagers were terrorized and killed by the Salwa Judum, and had to flee their homes. Detailed evidence for these atrocities exist. Strangely enough there is a brief mention of the Salwa Judum atrocities in the line (“Human Rights Watch reported atrocities at both ends”), but not another word about what happened on this “end”. It is a fact that the Supreme Court ruled that the state cannot arm common people based on the while perusing the Action Taken Report (ATR) filed by the Chhatisgarh government on the recommendations made by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). (http://www.zeenews.com/nation/2009-02-05/504970news.html) The NHCRC report (Ref # 29) of the article also has an instance of the Saalwa Judum brutality. (The Adivasis of Chhattisgarh: Victims of the Naxalite Movement and Salwa Judum Campaign. New Delhi: Asian Centre for Human Rights. 2006. p. 42. ISBN 81-88987-14-X. http://www.achrweb.org/reports/india/Chattis0106.pdf. Retrieved 2009-05-31.) Pg 39 - “On 8 August 2005, the Salwa Judum cadres accompanied by the police and paramilitary forces allegedly attacked Kotrapal village and killed three innocent peasants and raped four women.” This very document has many more such instances of atrocities by the Judum. What a refutation of one’s own claims of being a movement that helps innocent peasants fight the Naxal movement! Perhaps putting an end to the lives of the poor villagers is one way to their misery. The Chattisgarh gaovernment has also now admitted the Salwa Judum was responsible for human rights abuses. (Ref #39 http://www.thehindu.com/2008/12/16/stories/2008121659190500.htm The Chhattisgarh Government has admitted in the Supreme Court that Salwa Judum and security forces had burnt houses and looted property and compensation has been ordered to the families of the victims of these atrocities.) The next statement says “As on 4 March 2006 , a total of 45,958 Adivasi villagers from 644 villages in 6 blocks of Dantewada district have come under Salwa Judum programme, showing the popularity of the movement. Intelligence agencies strongly support the movement as front line of defence against naxalites.” What is not mentioned that these people were forced into the camps. The report of the naxal conflict monitor, which is an initiative of the Asian Center of human rights, states “While majority have been brought to the Salwa Judum camps by force, many joined the camps because of the inducements provided.” http://www.achrweb.org/ncm/salwa-judums.htm The report also goes on to say what these inducements are. These are the recruitment of the people as Special Police Officers (SPO’s) and Rs 1500 and free ration. However, minor girls are also recruited as SPO’s in these camps, as stated in the report. That is a clear violation of human rights. These camps have atrocious conditions. There is widespread allegations of human rights abuses, including the sexual abuse of women and the recruitment of children as Salwa Judum SPO’s (special police officers). This from the report of the National Commission for Women in India. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/minors-turning-combatants-in-salwa-judum-camps-says-ncw-report/19040/ This video shows the horrendous state of the Salwa Judum camps. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3961678725848974726# There is also rampant corruption in the camps. No wonder the Salwa Judum cadres live in fear of their lives in the police stations. http://refugeewatchonline.blogspot.com/2008/03/reports-from-marraiguda-salwa-judum_05.html Killings have also taken place in the camps like in Matwada. http://www.otherindia.org/dev/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=15&Itemid=58&limitstart=5 Again, the next paragraph says how Salwa Judum was disappearing. It does not state any reason why this phenomenon was on the wane. If it was supposedly that popular and effective as indicated earlier in the article, it should have grown and achieved greater strength, by any logical reasoning. Perhaps the atrocities were too much even for the common people? In the next section titled “Development of Special Police Officers (SPOs) “ it is not even mentioned that Salwa Judum trains minor in the camps to become SPO’s. In a bizarre way, in the very reference given in support of the statement “In 2008, there were 23 Salwa Judum camps in Bijapur and Dantewara districts of Bastar region where almost 50,000 tribals from over 600 villages had settled” – that is Reference # 21, it is stated “Hearing plea against Salwa Judum, SC says State cannot arm civilians to kill”. While the reference does not even seem relevant to the sentence, it certainly does not cast the camps in a good light. (From the same reference #21 “The petitioners also alleged that conditions in the Judum camps were bad and people involved in the movement should be allowed to return to the forests in view of the approaching sowing season.”) Also, there evidence is presented in support of the statement that the salary of a SPO was Rs 3300 with the govt. of India contributing Rs 1800. This is an absurd and patent lie. The government of India never paid a single Rupee to the salary of any SPO. That would have conferred legitimacy to the Salwa Judum. The state gave the Rs 1500, and that was their salary. In the next (controversy) section, there is some mention of the Salwa Judum atrocities (only links to them), but they are trated as aberrations, and not the norm. Then there is the unsupported strange statement “Some human rights organizations affliated to Maoist such as the People's Union for Civil Liberties”. There has never been any evidence that would suggest that any such links exist; this is slander of the worst kind. This allegation of being “affliated” to the Maoists was made without any basis whatsoever. Again, the article quotes the NHCRC report saying that it was a “spontaneous movement”. However, it does not state that the Naxalite movement could also have been a “spontaneous movement”, and being spontaneous does not make it legitimate. Spontaneous or not, the fact that why the state supported a movement that promoted violence was not justified. This article does indeed detail the state support, given that it mentions the Rs 1500 given to the Salwa Judum SPO’s as a salary.

The grammatically incorrect statement “In its report released in 2007, the Committee Against Violence On Women (CAVOW), linked significant increase in incidences of violence against women in Chhattisgarh's Dantewara district to Maoist, and called for a review of the Government's counter-insurgency strategy” refers to the article “Report recommends withdrawal of Salwa Judum” http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/19/stories/2007011905501300.htm

The reference goes against the very statement! It states “In a report `Salwa Judum and Violence on Women in Dantewara', the group has documented cases of violence and abuse against women in the State. The report, submitted to the National Commission for Women, highlights the atrocities perpetrated by the Salwa Judum activists.” The article then goes on to claim “Later In September 2009 the government of India defended the Chhattisgarh government’s Salwa Judum strategy of arming tribals to attack Maoist insurgents and their sympathizers. “I think the Salwa Judum was a genuine people’s movement and the naxalites were frightened by it. But thanks to NGOs and other extraneous elements, it was undermined and completely destroyed.”[40]”. However, if one reads the reference #40 (http://www.thehindu.com/2009/09/24/stories/2009092450140100.htm) one can see that this statement was made by “sources” present in the Prime Minister’s aircraft. The government of India has never formally made any statement of this nature. It is an egrgious lie when statements by unknown “sources” is stated to be something the government actually has said. Also, it begs wonder to imagine why a “spontaneous” peoples’ movement could be made to disappear because of a few NGO’s and “other extraneous” elements. Lastly, it is mentioned in the effects that the Salwa Judum movement has encouraged similar movements in other states. The tone of the paragraph suggests it is a positive outcome. That too after the legality of arming the common people has been discredited by the Supreme Court. Not to mention the horrific atrocities that was committed by the Salwa Judum in the first place. Jahangir_Salim (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read the instructions before making {{editprotected}} requests; the changes proposed must be either uncontroversial or supported by consensus, and be described completely and specifically.  Skomorokh, barbarian  11:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I agree, I should have been more specific.

So that we can arrive at a consensus, I will ask for the corrections based on references already made in the article. Since the current editor has used these references, it could be considered common ground. I will use references based on articles written by authors whose other articles have been cited in the current article.

These are the itemized edits that I suggest should be made.

Change #1.

• The first line “Salwa Judum (meaning "Peace March" in Gondi language) is an anti-Naxalite movement in Chhattisgarh, India, which started in 2005 as a people's resistance movement against the naxalites, a far-left movement in some states in rural India that is designated by India as a terrorist organization on account of their violent Maoist activities in the state[1]”

Reference 1 is an article by Ramchandra Guha written in 2006.(http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060627/asp/opinion/story_6402011.asp)

I suggest this line should read Salwa Judum (meaning "Purification hunt" in Gondi language) is a state sponsored and supported anti-Naxalite movement in Chhattisgarh, India, which started in 2005. [1] “ For the reference, we can use the petition signed by Ramchandra Guha, who is the author of the current article used for reference #1. This petition (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?231861) was written shortly after Mr. Guha wrote the article. The petition has the line “From what we have seen, Salwa Judum is not the "spontaneous peoples’ movement" it is made out to be. It appears to be fully sponsored and supported by various government agencies.”

Change #2.

• Please remove the sentences “The Salwa Judum movement later received bi-partisan support from both the opposition and ruling parties.[1][2] A few years later the state government adopted the salwa judum movement in order to restore democratic rule to the regions where the naxalites had established themselves by force[3].”

These are largely based on references from the Pioneer newspaper. This newspaper is not one of India’s well known and reliable news source like The Hindu , Hindustan Times, Indian Express or the Times of India. Incidentally, this newspaper is also edited by Chandan Mitra, who is the member of the upper house of parliament in India (the Rajya Sabha) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3613884.stm), and also is a well known BJP supporter (http://friendsofbjp.org/2009/05/30/chandan-mitra-interview/). The BJP party is the ruling party in the Chattisgarh state, so this newspaper can hardly be deemed impartial and be used as a reference. To maintain neutrality, only reports from unbiased news sources should be included.

Change #3.

• Please modify the sentence “Naxalite forces had come to power in parts of the Indian state of Chhattisgarh by claiming to wage a "people's war" against the Indian state allegedly in favor of neglected tribal minorities in the region.” By dropping the words claiming and allegedly, or remove this sentence altogether. They give an impression that this movement does not have the supports of the grassroots, when this is not the case. The Government of India's own Official Committee (led by D. Bandyopadhyay) to explore the Maoist insurgency admits that the Maoist movement purportedly supports the rights of the tribals and the villagers in the region and that made it popular and strong. See http://planningcommission.gov.in/reports/publications/rep_dce.pdf. Since this a government source, it could be considered reliable.

Change #4.

• Please delete the sentence “They have been heavily criticized for violent revolutionary activities and vicious campaigns of terrorism, including forced sterilization and cannibalism[4].” There is no evidence provided for the supposed “sterilization”. Also, the reference given is biased. This report about “cannibalism” depends on the statement by a police officer over the phone. This officer is a functionary of the state which officially supported the Salwa Judum and was fighting the Naxalites. Also, this incident was not verified by an independent body or the press or any human right’s organization. Change #5.

• Please remove the italicized part in the sentence “Chhattisgarh state has over the years trained a number of SPOs or 'Special Police Officers', from amongst the tribals, who are part of Salwa Judum in the state, also with its formation the state witnessed a marked rise in success against Naxalite action [4],.” This is untrue. Firstly, the reference (Ref #4) does not support the statement. The article referred to in the reference talks about the Cobra battalion going to Bastar. The Cobra is a specially trained unit within the Indian military that is specialized in counter insurgency operations. They are not a part of the Salwa Judum. The only mention of Salwa Judum in that article is that “The Bastar region, in the southern part of Chhattisgarh, has emerged as the epicenter of Maoist activists with the rebels stepping up violence in the region since June 2005 following the launch of anti-Naxalite movement Salwa Judum by the locals which enjoys the support of the state Government.” So this article does not indicate that Salwa Judum was successful in putting down the Maoists. Secondly, by the state of Chhattisgarh’s own admission, the Maoists have been strengthened by the actions of the Salwa Judum (http://us.rediff.com/news/2008/jun/19guest.htm ends with - Was it an experiment for India Inc to get tribal land vacated or a counter-insurgency strategy gone horribly wrong?). The fact that Salwa Judum made the Maoists stronger is also borne out by the next statement “as a result in 2008, Chhattisgarh along with neighboring Jharkhand accounted for over 65% of the total naxal violence in the country”, which is the majority of the Naxalite violence. Another recent article (Jul 2009) shows the increased strength of Maoists in the region. (http://ibnlive.in.com/news/more-naxal-attacks-feared-in-chhattisgarh/96985-3.html - "They are striking now as per their will and we have lost an SP rank officer in a Maoist attack for the first time," a senior official at the state police headquarters in Raipur told IANS.

Change #6.

• Please remove the italicized part of the sentence “With success of counter-strikes on Naxalite hideouts in south Chhattisgarh, Maoist activities in the bordering districts of Orissa saw a rise in 2008, thus in Feb 2009, the Central government announced its plans for simultaneous, co-ordinated counter-operations in all Maoist extremism-hit states - Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Bihar, UP and West Bengal, to plug all possible escape routes of Naxalites [7].” There is no evidence provided for the above statement, in fact the very opposite has happened, as I showed earlier. Also, the reference given (#7) does not have any mention of this supposed “success”.

Change #7.

• Please remove word “enslaving” in the sentence “Here the Maoist terrorists (Naxalites) have continued to enlarge their base by enslaving the local tribals over the past two decades”

While there is evidence that coercion was involved by the Naxalites in making people join them, for the most part the movement was fuelled by grassroots supports among the poor. This is borne by the government of India’s own report (http://planningcommission.gov.in/reports/publications/rep_dce.pdf). So the generic term of enslavement is misleading. At the same time, Salwa Judum have also been accused of forcing people to join them (Ref 29, the Human Rights Commission report, Page 5 (Majority of the inmates have also been forced to join the camps. )and Page 25 (Whenever a Salwa Judum meeting takes place, people from neighboring villages are forced to attend it. Those who refuse are attacked by the Salwa Judum cadres, the police and the paramilitary forces stationed in the area. Alleged Maoists’ sympathizers are hunted down and handed over to the police or killed. In the course of the Salwa Judum campaign, villages that refused to participate had been burnt, their goods and cattle looted and crops of the villagers were destroyed)) .

Change #8.

• Please remove sentence “they had formed a parallel government like the Taliban in the region” This comparison is incorrect and misleading. Taliban is an insurgency operation that is also directed against the foreign forces in Afghanistan. There are no foreign forces in this region inside India. The Taliban are well-known to have repressive policies against women. On the other hand, women are also part of the Maoist movement and there are women commanders of their battalions. They enjoy equal status as men, something that certainly is very unlike the Taliban.

It is true that the Maoists impose their own laws in parts of their control; but that can be expressed without applying such incongruent adjectives. The Salwa Judum, incidentally also imposes its own diktats. This can be seen in report of the Asian Centre for Human Rights Ref # 29. Pg 39 para 2 begins “Members of the Salwa Judum are involved in illegal checking of all vehicles passing through their area, levying of illegal tax like the Naxalites from the drivers or occupants of the vehicles.” Is not then the Salwa Judum also like the “Taliban”?

Change #9.

• Please remove sentence “The first rebellion against the Naxalites was the 'Jan Jagran Abhiyan” The People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) report shows what the Jan Jagran Abhijan was in reality. It was not a “rebellion”. (http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Human-rights/2006/salwa_judum.pdf)

The method of the Abhiyan was to threaten a village to hand over those most active with the organization, or else face an attack. Such attacks involved looting and sometimes the consumption of grain, poultry and animals, burning of houses and household goods, beating and rapes. Those associating actively with the sanghams (village organizations) were arrested. In case of a surrender, before or after the attack, the surrendered were made part of the Jan Jagran Abhiyan and were required to participate in attacks on other villages.

In this context, I would like to mention that the current article casts a negative light on the PUCL, which is a well-respected civil liberties organization in India. There is a sentence the section “Controversy” that the PUCL is “affliated to Maoist”, whatever that means. This allegation is not founded on any reference. I understand that the current authors might not agree to have a consensus on the PUCL report, but I request that they should bring forth their objections on this respected civil rights organization of India before rejecting their report.

Change #10. • Please remove sentence “So when another uprising occurred against Maoist diktats in 2005” The word “uprising”, like the word “rebellion”, is misplaced. The People’s Union of Civil Liberties again shows who the leaders of the uprising were. They were not the tribals, as in implied in the sentence. The report says “The fact is that the Salwa Judum is being led by sections of local elites, contractors and traders, that it is officially part of anti-naxal initiatives, and that it is being actively supported by state agencies to an unprecedented degree. It.s far from being a .spontaneous. response to Maoist.tyranny. by the local populace at large, as the government is making it out to be.”

Again, if the current authors dispute the PUCL report, this correction could wait for the consensus. A consensus can be reached when the current authors list their objections to the PUCL, or give references that show that the Salwa Judum was indeed a movement of the tribals at the grass roots level.

Change #11

• I request a reason be provided why this happened. “this time the government supported it.” It might be relevant to provide the necessary backdrop of the other important event in the state that happened at this time. The Salwa Judum was officially formed the day after the Chattisgarh government signed a Memorandum of Understanding (Mou) with the behemoth of India mining, the Tata steel company, for setting up a 10 thousand crore Rupees worth steel plant in the state. Since the Naxalite movement was viewed as a potential impediment to the development and functioning of the mining interests, the state had a strong motivation in crushing the Naxal movement after signing the Mou. Though no direct connection can be established, this at least provides a possible reason why the state might have supported the movement the second time around. There are articles that explore this connection. Like http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=9457 (Havoc And The Dogs Of War). I understand that this is a reference that consensus might not be reached upon, but I suggest that suggest that a sentence be added in this light “It is not clear why the state supported the movement this time around.” Otherwise, the above statement implies that the state spontaneously supported it while did nothing the first time, something that seems otherwise inexplicable. Change #12

• I request the statement “10,000 villagers from in Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh had to flee home fearing Naxalite action.” Be modified to say “10,000 villagers from in Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh had to flee home fearing Naxalite action and violence by the Salwa Judum.” In support, I cite a statement in Pg 42 of Ref#29, the Human Rights Commission report. The section “9. Deplorable conditions of the Internally Displaced Persons” states “Thousands have fled their villages and abandoned their paddy fields fearing retaliation either by the Naxalites for opposing them or by the Salwa Judum forces, consisting of Adivasi villagers and the security forces, for supporting Naxalites.”

Change #13

• I request the following statement has the italicized portion dropped, as there is no evidence for it. “As on 4 March 2006 , a total of 45,958 Adivasi villagers from 644 villages in 6 blocks of Dantewada district have come under Salwa Judum program, showing the popularity of the movement. Intelligence agencies strongly support the movement as front line of defence against naxalites.”

In support, I cite the article by Ramchandra Guha http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070716/guha/2.

which states ” As a means of saving Bastar from the Maoists, the Salwa Judum and the state administration have uprooted more than 40,000 villagers and placed them in camps along the road” . Most of the villagers who came under the program had to leave their village, but since it was done forcibly, it does not show the popularity of the movement. The report of the naxal conflict monitor, which is an initiative of the Asian Center of human rights, states “While majority have been brought to the Salwa Judum camps by force, many joined the camps because of the inducements provided.” http://www.achrweb.org/ncm/salwa-judums.htm The report also goes on to say what these inducements are. These are the recruitment of the people as Special Police Officers (SPO’s) and Rs 1500 and free ration. However, minor girls are also recruited as SPO’s in these camps, as stated in the report. That is a clear violation of human rights.

And there is no evidence provided for the statement regarding the intelligence agencies. There does not appear to be any report in support.

Change #14

• I request the statement “salary of a SPO was Rs 3300 with the govt. of India contributing Rs 1800.”be provided with a reliable reference from the government of India.

The government of India never gave any salary to the members of Salwa Judum. That would have conferred legitimacy to the Salwa Judum. The state gave the Rs 1500, and that was their salary.

Change #15

• I request the reference #21 be removed from the sentence “In 2008, there were 23 Salwa Judum camps in Bijapur and Dantewara districts of Bastar region where almost 50,000 tribals from over 600 villages had settled”.

The Reference # 21, the article from the Hindu, it titled: “Hearing plea against Salwa Judum, SC says State cannot arm civilians to kill”. While the reference does not even seem relevant to the sentence, it certainly does not cast the camps in a good light. The article states that “The petitioners also alleged that conditions in the Judum camps were bad and people involved in the movement should be allowed to return to the forests in view of the approaching sowing season.”

Change #16

• I request the italicized portion be removed from the following sentence “Some human rights organizations affliated to Maoist such as the People's Union for Civil Liberties”.

There is no evidence for the italicized portion, for it makes an unsupported allegation, it has incorrect spelling, and is grammatically incorrect. What is Maoist? I assume the author intended to use the noun Naxalites (which is a Maoist organization) and not the adjective.

Change #17

• I request the statement “In its report released in 2007, the Committee Against Violence On Women (CAVOW), linked significant increase in incidences of violence against women in Chhattisgarh's Dantewara district to Maoist, and called for a review of the Government's counter-insurgency strategy” be changed to say

“In its report released in 2007, the Committee Against Violence On Women (CAVOW), linked significant increase in incidences of violence against women in Chhattisgarh's Dantewara district by the Salwa Judum, and called for a review of the Government's counter-insurgency strategy”.

The reference given in support, (Ref #36) it titled “Report recommends withdrawal of Salwa Judum “. The article states that “In a report `Salwa Judum and Violence on Women in Dantewara', the group has documented cases of violence and abuse against women in the State. The report, submitted to the National Commission for Women, highlights the atrocities perpetrated by the Salwa Judum activists.” There is no evidence for saying that this is related to “Maoist”, again which is also a grammatical incorrect. The Naxalites, the Maoist group, is not linked to the violence against women in the report.

Change #18

• I request the statement “Later In September 2009 the government of India defended the Chhattisgarh government’s Salwa Judum strategy of arming tribals to attack Maoist insurgents and their sympathizers. “I think the Salwa Judum was a genuine people’s movement and the naxalites were frightened by it. But thanks to NGOs and other extraneous elements, it was undermined and completely destroyed.[40]” be removed.

The reference in question, Ref #40 (http://www.thehindu.com/2009/09/24/stories/2009092450140100.htm) states that the statement originated from “sources” present in the Prime Minister’s aircraft. The government of India has never formally made any statement of this nature. It is incorrect to attribute statements made by unnamed sources as something that the government has officially stated.

Change #19

• I request the statement “Encouraged by the highly positive results of the movement in the region” be clarified to state what these highly positive results are.

The movement has resulted in many deaths, displacement, escalation of violence in the region, and the strengthening of the Naxalite movement. Is this the success that the author is referring to? If so, can he / she explicitly state it, since it indicates that the government is planning a similar movement in Manipur? Again, there is no reference is given in support of the statement that the government is planning a similar action in Manipur, can one be provided?

Change #20

Lastly, I suggest that the picture of the tribal with bow and arrow be removed and instead a Salwa Judum member with a .303 be shown. As is mentioned in the article (The development of the SPO’s section) that the Salwa Judum members were “given general weapon handling training, mostly .303 rifles”. This also explains how the Judum was so effective in committing the brutalities as is outlined below. They could hardly have been expected to succeed if they used just bows and arrows.

Jahangir Salim (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Need to add more references from neutral sources as suggested. --59.92.237.93 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

External links to videos

I think Jahangir Salim has done an excellent job to provide a very objective point-by-point revision. I would like to add some video links to this. Please go through them and if the community has no objection, I will include them under external links. If anybody would like to raise any objection, please point it out here. video link 1- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3961678725848974726&ei=HqnkStjyAob0lQfv9IGHCQ&q=salwa+judum&hl=en# video link 2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvwBvmSuaKA&feature=player_embedded Thanks, Vinter-light (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Those videos are produced by groups sympathetic to communist outlaws, they present a biased picture of an anti-communist peace group. These videos need to be removed. --Peacemarch (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This Article Needs to be Re-written

This article has been completely vandalized by some users. It does not allow any kind of crticism. It is heavily edited by people whose previous edit history directs towards political motivations and propaganda of a right-wing fascist kind. Most of the references and accompanying text do not match. One user has made random changes of a vindictive nature. For example, if the original statement (and the correct one, based upon the reference provided) says, "the government was responsible for the death of such and such", the user changed the word from government to maoists, keeping the rest of the statement and the references same! There are numerous such instances. When one was pointed out, it was rapidly changed by one of the users belonging to this group. Any opposing view is steamrolled and accusation of sockpuppetry is hurled. Readers please be cautious. Check the reference with the text. Oftenhurry (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediation please!

It is apparent that a slow moving edit war is taking place between various IP’s. This is completely unacceptable and if it continues this page will be semi-protected to stop POV pushing edits! I beg all relevant editors (Inc IP’s!) to come here and discuss the article and any changes they wish to make to it rather than mindlessly reverting all the time. Thank you. --大輔 泉 (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

American I.Ps like 96.224.45.78 and 96.232.27.180 are editing out the black deeds of murders of tribals by maoist terrorists and the resultant revolt by tribal grouping salwa judum against these maoist fanatics who want to turn indian land into their killing fields to quench their blood lust. There is an urgent need to ban such maoist fanatics from wikipedia who are running their propaganda war on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.245.221 (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Protected

I have fully protected this article for two weeks. I encourage all editors to discuss their concerns, and arrive at consensus, or in the alternative to seek dispute resolution. I have no objection to any administrator removing the protection when matters have been settled. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please respond to my 20 points

{{editprotected}} I have posed 20 concerns (see above) with the current article, that have not been responded to. These points outline why the article needs to be unprotected. I have used the same references as in the current article for supporting my concerns. Therefore I feel I that I cannot be accused of using biased references. I also believe I have included a comprehensive set of references. I request the current authors to please respond to these concerns. Also, if the current authors do not respond to my concerns, I would request the page administrator to please unlock the page so that I can put in my edits. The changes I intend to make reflects the concerns I have raised in the 20 points. --Jahangir Salim (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You have already been advised that this template is for use to implement non-controversial and/or agreed-to edits. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But I would like to know if my edits are controversial. My edits are based on the above listed 20 points, which themselves are based on the references cited in the current article. No one has responded to those itemized concerns. Could you please let me know how the points I have raised and the edits I am trying to make based on them are deemed controversial, if there has been no discussion on the concerns? Thanks, Jahangir Salim (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What 20 points? Are those points logical? In the version repeatedly pushed by you, the first line says that Salwa Judum was started one day after Tata's signed an agreement for mining. How is this relevant? Did the Tata's fund Salwa Judum? Or you are trying to prove that Tata, JSW etc. are funding Salwa Judum? That amounts to nothing but stretching sources to meet your objective. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about. Firstly, the version of the article I have given is entirely supported by the 20 points which you have not debated at all. Secondly, I have not trying to prove that Tata are funding Salwa Judum, wonder why you feel this is the case. However, I would liek to mention that the other steel giant, Essar, which also signed an equally large Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Chhattisgarh government around this time, did support some Salwa Judum camps. I mentioned the Tata MOU because the timing seems too much of a coincidence, given that the Tata's and the Essar's wanted their project lands cleared and the area made safe for mining, and Salwa Judum cleared the villages, something which was in line with the fulfilment of those objectives. As these concurred, and as the timings of the MOU signing and the inauguration of the Salwa Judum were almost simultaneous, I feel the mention of the Tata MOU is relevant and in context. Therefore I am reverting to my version, and I request you to address my 20 points before making any changes. Jahangir Salim (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Source: The Other India

The main resource cited for the second paragraph of History section ("According to pro-Maoist sources ..."), a website called The Other India, does not seem to meet credibility criteria. The publisher is unknown, the About Us page does not say anything at all, the contact page has but a single e-mail address, has no presence anywhere else and seems to carry only, well, so-called pro-Naxal pieces. Request re-evaluation. Nshuks7 (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Remove infobox and move photo to top?

The infobox doesn't give any info that can't be given in the lede, and much more usefully. I suggest that we remove the unhelpful infobox (per Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes) and start the article off strong with a good photo to give the reader an immediate visual impression. Thoughts? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, good source on Al Jazeera today: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/2011710144637637841.html . MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)