Jump to content

Talk:Belagavi border dispute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Belgaum border dispute)

Discussions archived

[edit]

This talkpage had become huge - I have created an archive. Please continue doing this whenever it goes over 30-40KB and goes static for a few days. Thanks. Achitnis 15:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Belgaum and Marathi people" section

[edit]

This whole section is based on two references which mention only two small villages(kangrali khurd and yallur). These cannot be taken as being representative of Belgaum district or even Belgaum city. Not only is this section unsupported by the sources it cites, it is also unencyclopedic. Unless somebody cites better sources and rewrites it, I shall be removing the section or rewriting it myself. Sarvagnya 18:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "thakerey warns kannadigas"(sic) section

[edit]

I have removed this section twice and will continue to do so(if it is added) because

  • it is an unabashed troll of a section written in bellicose tone
  • it adds no value to the article
  • and importantly, Thackerey is a persona non grata with no locus standi in the issue. He is neither an elected member of the Karnataka Legislature or even the BCC nor is he a party to the dispute in the Supreme Court. For that matter, he is not even an elected member of the Maharashtra legislature! His so called 'warnings' mean nothing and doesnt scare anybody. He is known to keep 'warning' anybody and everybody every now and then in his party pamphlet Saamna. At best his party's 'moral' support of MES can be mentioned somewhere in the article. Sarvagnya 18:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful while removing content. Some references that were also used elsewhere in the article were removed during your edit. I have restored the same.
- Max 19:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to "Background" section

[edit]

Max, my edits to background section were not accidental.

"But, in 1956, the Belgaum district was incorporated into the newly formed Mysore state (now Karnataka) with the passage of the States Reorganisation Act, which reorganised India's states along linguistic and administrative lines[1], despite having a large Marathi-speaking population [2]; about three-fourths of the total population.[3]"

In the above paragraph, there is a problem with

  • despite having a large Marathi-speaking population [4];

The "despite having large M population" is not NPOV and suggests that the decision of the states reorganisation commission to include belgaum in Ktaka was WRONG and seeks to make a case for MH's claims. The subtle fact is that not even MH contests the actions of the States Reorganisation Committee anymore. The case in SC that has been filed by MH seeks the transfer of Belgaum to MH on the grounds of its opinion that Marathis are being tortured in Belgaum, NOT BECAUSE the states reorganisation committee committed a mistake.

Also I have added a citation which shows that the States Reorganisation Committee also considered Administrative factors during reorganisation, NOT JUST linguistic factors. So the phrase "...despite having a large Marathi population..." is a red herring and undermines the above said fact about the states reorg commission's methods.

And in any case, "...despite a large population..." is weasel. What does it mean? Is it supposed to mean that the Marathi population is the ONLY large population in Belgaum??

  • about three-fourths of the total population.[5]"

I have already explained my reasons for removing this portion before in my edit summaries. This line is a blatant lie and a red herring. The citation given pertains to present figures(supposedly), NOT the figures for 1956(which is what the paragraph starts off dealing with).

Max, I request you to remove these lines yourself, since I am afraid that I might be working too close to a 3rr vio. Sarvagnya 20:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some re-wording and added some more info from Frontline. I've kept the other references. Let the reader decide whether or not to read them. I think they're from reliable sources (The Economic Times and Financial Express) that have been quoted on many other Wikipedia articles, so there's no need to remove them summarily.
As for your first point about "despite having a large population", I have replaced it with the line about relative majority, which would be considered more politically correct.
I agree with your second point about the population not being indicative of the population in 1956 and have removed it accordingly. However, since it is sourced from Financial Express, which can be counted as a reliable source, the information may be used in the correct context elsewhere. The point whether it's a "blatant lie" is not relevant because it does not matter what your opinion or mine is.
Anyway, this whole article is peppered with such language, where one paragraph seemingly favours Maharashtra and the next leans towards Karnataka. Also, do not take this as a personal attack, but since you've brought up the topics of subtlety, weasel words, NPOV and red herrings, it would be nice to see you apply these principles with the same rigour in some of the articles such as Kaveri River Water Dispute and Unification of Karnataka too. You know, practice what you preach and all that jazz :-).
Adios,
- Max 22:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Max, I havent interacted much with you, but my interactions had been cordial until now when you decided to throw in some sarcasm(your closing comments, will come back to that) presumably because you're not Aing enough GF.
  • As for 'relative majority', while it is a better rewording of what was there, it still is not NPOV. Also saying that MH's demands were not formally considered is ncorrect. The Mahajan commission itself was constituted at MH's behest. The four man committee which went against MH was also an 'official' committee. Just because all these went against MH, doesnt mean their demands werent even 'considered'.
  • As for Kaveri disputes article, it was for a reason that I had the {underconstruction} tag for a long time and before removing it, I myself solicited feedback from many editors(most of them tamilian) on their talk pages. Except Arvind I dont remember if anybody else responded. The only response I got was from a bad faith editor from whom I was trying not to engage those days and another from a vandal. Arvind said that he would take a look at it and make some additions. But even he said that on the face of it he found the article to be 'well written'. After that, I got into other things and forgot about that article. I am sure it can do with some copyediting. But if you can find any blatantly deliberate red herrings of the "despite a large population; 3/4th of the population" kind on that article, please let me know on my talk page or on the article talk page. I will certainly fix it. I will anyway be doing a cpedit of that article soon.
  • As for Unification of Karnataka, that article is all of one week old and certainly in need of many rounds of cpedit. Yet I feel it is in much better shape than the average WP article that is one week old.
  • And in any case, if you have any concerns about those articles, raise it on the respective talk pages and dont shoot your mouth off here.
  • And do me another favour. Please fix the opening lines of the article to mention that MH no longer claims Belgaum on linguistic grounds. The case in SC is on the grounds that there are 'supposed' atrocities being carried out on Marathis in Belgaum. I had fixed it but Mr.'Sarvabhaum' has been removing it repeatedly. And curiously, your eyes also dont seem to catch such removal of content.
Adios, Sarvagnya 23:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

. Wonder what your reaction would have been to such accusations even when using reliable sources. Talking of reliable sources, can you point out a single 'non-reliable' source I've used on the two articles you mentioned? Also take a look at the history of this article(from the days when it was a part of Belgaum) and you will notice how this article went downhill once I walked away from it. Do a comparison of this article 'before' I walked away and how it ended up like 'after' I walked away and you will realise that you need to A a little more GF in my case. Sarvagnya 23:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another quick comment on Rel sources: I never contested the fact that Fin Exp and Econ Times were RSs. At the same time, I reject any arguments from anybody that Deccan Herald is not a reliable source. Just because a certain Mr.Mahawiki throws a fit at every source that doesnt parrot his POV, doesnt mean we follow suit and brand such reputed sources as 'biased' or 'unreliable'.
  • Just like FE and ET, DH also has been cited on numerous articles and is a newspaper of repute and long standing. Also, I reject Pudari and Tarun Bharat as partisan. We cannot start quoting such blatantly partisan stuff or else the day is not far away when someone starts quoting from a 'Hai Bangalore' or something like that.
  • This issue has been followed closely by the English media and there is no need to use vernacular media. Vernacular media can at best be used in "External links". TOI is an english newspaper from MH and DH is from Ktaka and both can be used.
  • Over the coming days, I propose to remove more uncited info and red herrings. Sarvagnya 00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pl dont remove cited info or pass a judgement. it is a fact that marathis outnumber kannads in belgaum.

Phew, long reply, Sarvagnya! Thanks. Get ready for my (even longer) reply.
  • About relative majority: The line states that the Government of Bombay cited "relative majority" i.e. it attributes the statement to an entity and does not present it has a hard fact. Plus, the given Frontline article and many others refer to the phrase relative majority. There's really not much to argue about here. The "request was not formally considered" part applies only to the appeal to the Zonal Council for re-demarcation and not the the Mahajan commission, as mentioned in the article.
  • About Kaveri and Unification: Ah, I merely mentioned those articles because they have been created by you, and they use weasel words by the dozen and are quite laden with POV (the talk page of Kaveri dispute has examples of POV-ridden statements, plus it is tagged for non-neutrality). My point was simply that if you really cared about NPOV and encyclopaedic protocol, you wouldn't have written such statements in articles created by you in the first place (which is why A-ing GF about you also becomes a difficult. More on this later). That's all. I won't "shoot my mouth off" as you so politely advised me about these articles on this talk page.
  • About fixing the opening line: Where does it say that MH does not claim Belgaum on linguistic lines anymore? Isn't that your inference? Historically, that has been the cornerstone of MH's arguments. Almost every cited reference article mentions that. The recent petition in the SC probably highlights "oppression of Marathi people" and whatnot but that is in addition to the traditional demands. The crux of the claim still lies in MH's argument that there is a Marathi majority in Belgaum. And yes, I saw your "supposed" atrocities (with supposed in quotes) line and it most certainly needed to be reworded or removed. Are you suggesting that putting a word in quotes and making it sound sarcastic makes it NPOV?
  • About the Frontline citation: Why're you telling me about Mahawiki? I am not him and I do not object to using Frontline as a citation. Whatever happened between you and Mahawiki is history.
  • As for your claim that "the article went downhill because I was away", I really don't know what to say. You have asked me to AGF, but again, A-ing GF becomes difficult since it was you who added the line "...rejected the claim in no uncertain terms". Be honest. If you care about NPOV, why were the italicized words, which indicate an opinion, added? Did you not think that these statements would be contested?
  • About DH: You really swear by DH don't you? :-) Let me repeat some of my earlier arguments on the Belgaum talk page. I never said DH was not reliable. But here's the fact: DH is a regional newspaper published in English. And it is most definitely partisan. It's published from the stables of The Printers, a publishing house in Bangalore. It caters to a English-speaking Karnataka audience. Heck, their own website states that they're "proud of their regional moorings". Their articles on the border dispute are rife with a pro-Karanatka bias (and understandbly so, else who would buy their paper?). Now it is fine to quote DH (it has been cited in other non-controversial WP articles too, I know) in an article about, say, the K'taka Vidhan Sabha elections or something. But in a contentious issue like this, DH is as good (or bad, whatever) as a regional vernacular newspaper. It's just that it is in English, and this technicality works to your advantage. You have said that Mahawiki opposed DH because it did not favour his POV. But, let me turn that around and ask you, aren't you all for DH because it favours your POV? Anyway, I do not appreciate Mahawiki's tactless methods of protest, but I am also against you saying that DH is non-biased JUST because it is in English. Please think about the mentioned facts about DH before defending it. DH and vernacular links both are fine as references, as long as their biased shadows do not fall on the article.
  • ToI, by the way, is not a pro-Maharashtra newspaper although it has its HQ in Bombay. It is a national daily, which is published from several cities.
  • About A-ing GF: Dear Sarvagnya, I do not wish to get into a war of words with you. God knows you've had your hands full with that already. Looking at the fights you've had/are having with other editors (count Mahawiki out), the way you're editing articles and the way you contemptously dismiss anything contrary to your opinion is unsettling. You must evaluate the reasons why you're on Wikipedia. Is it to genuinely promote knowledge by adhering to encyclopaedic principles, or to write opinionated statements like "The one sided nature of the so-called agreement was there for everyone to see" and "In other words, it was made clear once again that British (and hence Madras) interests came first and every effort would be made to safegaurd the same" (from the Kaveri dispute page, mentioning it here only to make a point)? You are a good writer and I admire your loyalty to your region, my friend, but given the history, you clearly have a great emotional attachment to these issues. A-ing GF, then, is a somewhat difficult ask.
My apologies for the extremely long reply. Next time I hope I can be brief.
-Max 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

To the unsigned editor (59.95.36.228): Did you even read through this talk page before making an edit? The "three-fourths of the population" line was removed because the source apparently reflects the current situation, not that in 1956 (from the source: "three-fourths of the population speaks Marathi", which is in present tense) and hence was misleading. You may add that info elsewhere, but I'm sure Sarvagnya will have to say something about that :-)
Max 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The population during the Mahajan commission was even more than it is today. The figures are elaborated in that article. You cant deny the fact that Belgaum had and has Marathi majority. Sarvabhaum 16:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been given a totally 'new' [n one sided] direction since the time i went through it a couple of years ago.Citing from present day newspapers would hardly lend credence to the topic. Anybody who has compared two newspapers from two different states about a common topic can realise that. Instead of having a one sided point of view or complaining each other of bias, i would suggest referring of better material;say official materials like the Gazetteer. Going through the Bombay Gazetteer by Venkataramgo Katti,1892[AES Publishers] would be a good step.ie if you seek the truth only and not any propaganda!!good luck Tej smiles (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relative majority/three-fourth of population

[edit]

Dear Max - "Relative majority"? Where? In Belgaum city? In Belgaum district? And while you point out that the frontline and other articles use the term, did you also notice that they use it within 'quotes'? As for "three-fourth of the population", I will maintain that it is a blatant lie until you can provide me a link to atleast a reliable source that cites official census figures if not the census figures themselves(say, from a Govt. of India website).

As for me, I have this. Note the 1991 census figures cited at the end of the article and if you do the math, you would agree that "three-fourth of the population" is just a whimsical fabrication of some journalist's vivid imagination.

And dont tell me Deccan Herald is partisan. Infact, some of the articles by Frontline/Hindu make a better case for Karnataka than even DH. And if I really loved DH so much, I could have found more articles from DH to use not just here but also on the Kaveri disputes page. Just take a look at a sample of articles,
DH:[6],[7],[8] FL/Hindu:[9],[10],[11], and tell me what makes you think DH is partisan. DH is no lottery for me. Infact, if you notice the articles I've edited, you'll see that I use DH mostly when I cant find other sources. Infact, it is no secret that DH is not even my favourite newspaper. Tarun bharat and Pudari, notwithstanding the circulation figures you claim for them, are no better or worse than the average tabloid in content(atleast from the evidence I've seen so far). Also if Tarun Bharat has even half the circulation claimed, it probably just makes an indirect statement that MH's claims of 'insecurity', 'oppression', 'genocide' etc., needs to be treated with the contempt it deserves.


And btw, the 2006 developments section, imo is a joke. I request you to remove it or atleast rewrite it. Or I will rewrite when I find time. But I will be very busy this coming month and infact will soon be going on a wikibreak. So I count on you to retain some sanity on this article esp., when SPAs and ips seem to be back with a vengeance.

Thats all for now. Will write about your other concerns on your talk page when I find time. Sarvagnya 17:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pl share some jokes which u found on 2006 developments? Once again stop blanking information supported by quotes.Sarvabhaum 18:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop blanking the data. References are provided for everything. Sarvabhaum 06:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

[edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "MahajanCommision" :
    • {{cite news | url = http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=VE9JQkcvMjAwNi8xMC8wNCNBcjAwNDAx&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom | title = Tracing the History of Battle for Belgaum | publisher = The Times of India | date = 2006-10-04 | accessdate = 2006-10-04}}
    • {{cite web | url = http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=VE9JQkcvMjAwNi8xMC8wNCNBcjAwNDAx&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom | title = Tracing the History of Battle for Belgaum | publisher = The Times of India | date = 2006-10-04 | accessdate = 2006-10-04}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New heading 'Historical reference' added

[edit]

As an endeavour to make the topic well researched, the new heading 'Historical reference' has been added. This should rest to peace a lot of arguments raised till now about the dispute. If anybody finds the info not to his taste, he should go through the given reference rather than editing it out which'll be not a right thing to do in the light of wiki policies. The reference being a Gazetteer and that too of the Bombay presidency should speak for itself and also be available to concerned parties (I doubt though if Karnataka groups will find it).

Tej smiles (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Swapnil may care to add reasons before undoing the abovesaid 'Historical reference' section. One cant remove the material just because the matter doesnt suit his taste. @ Tej, good information.

Spartacusk (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical section seems to be in the eye of storm!! well if the excerpt frm the Gazetteer isnt valid 4 Wikipedia then what is... your day to day Tarun bharat fanciful reports? [even the Gazetteer is the 'Bombay Gazetteer'!!!].. why not discuss it out here rather than removing smethng that hurts ur interests..

Spartacusk (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heading changed

[edit]

'Historical reference' is now 'Boundary Commission's Decision'

Tej smiles (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[quote] But, in 1956, the Belgaum district was incorporated into the newly formed Mysore state (now Karnataka) with the passage of the States Reorganisation Act, which reorganised India's states along linguistic and administrative lines, despite having a large Marathi-speaking population[2]; about three-fourths (20lakh) of the then total population.[3] [/quote]

Population of Belgaum is around 6 lakh in 2000s. It's incorrect to say there was 20lakh Marathi speaking population then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chetan tg (talk • contribs) 19:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tej smiles, Good work. Thank you.

~rAGU (talk)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Belgaum border dispute. 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 09:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Belgaum border dispute. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 14:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 external links on Belgaum border dispute. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 07:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Belgaum border dispute. 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) 09:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article name is wrong ?

[edit]

Lokmat refering it as ' Maharashtra Karnataka border conflict', 'Belgaon conflict' or 'Belgaon dispute'. In maharashtra Belgavi called as 'Belgaon' and is its real name. I suggest to change its name or make a redirect by the title, I above mentioned. Source - [ https://www.lokmat.com/maharashtra/police-lathicharge-silent-cycle-rally-belgaum-black-days-today-border-dispute/] Success think (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Belagavi_border_dispute&oldid=1199783014"