Talk:Chowk.com

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

This article has been kept following this VFD debate Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I placed a pov tag on this article. I have been studying chowk.com for some time and it most certainly does NOT present a balanced outlook. It is owned and operated by 2 muslims and the majority of it's contributors are muslims. There is a significant amount of anti-Hindu bias and bile in many of their articles (big surprise). Implicitly describing this website as an "intellectual's haven" is as absurd as referring to Islamic terrorists as "Freedom Fighters". Furthermore, there is very little in the way of intelligent debate in any of their threads. Most of it is blubbering nonsense, dangerous terrorist propaganda and hate-speech against Hindus disguised as scholarship. Whenever a Hindu expresses a dissenting point of view, (s)he is immediately barred from the forum. Ironic that westerners generally show more tolerance for Hindus than these people. You wouldn't characterze a Palestinian Islamist and anti-Israel/anti-semetic website in such a blatantly favorable way, would you? Then why this much latitude to South Asian muslims and their virulent Hindu-Bashing? How is that different from their antisemitism? What are you afraid of, bombs? Call a spade a spade, people. We're supposed to be about the facts, not bleeding-heart Liberal socialist propaganda! User:Subhash Bose

I disagree I know many Muslims who would say the exact opposite!..this article fulfills the basics of an article we can just put a mention that it has been criticized by right wing Hindus and Muslims. --Zak 20:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until somebody does, this NPOV tag needs to stay. The edit needs to be done by a NEUTRAL THIRD PARTY. That means neither you nor me. I have put in a preliminary addendum, but added a "cleanup required" tag for the sake of fairness. Now, show me one article on the website that can be construed as anti-muslim. The anti-Hindu articles are a dime a dozen. Again, I maintain. If wikipedia calls a racist a racist, an anti-semite an anti-semite, then an anti-hindu should be referred to as such, as should an islamophobe. --User:Subhash Bose0612,20 May 2006 CST

My Gods[edit]

This website is the most hateful garbage I have ever seen! I was just reading the articles, and they are all anti-Hindu! The level of hate in these forums against Hindus left my blood cold...
Plus, regarding the recent Israel-Lebanon conflict, it presents a completely one-sides Arab-sympathetiuc view, as do the editorials. They almost make allegations that Israelis drink blood and steal organs from people!
This website is biased and horribly hatemongering, and needs to be represented as such. If you are an objective and unbiased reader than check it out for yourself and bloody well tell me that this site is anything other than a watering hole for Islamofascists and their fetishists!
HornOKplease this is directed at you. Go to chown.com and show me ONE article that is critical os Islam or Pakistan in any way imaginable, and show me ONE article that is favorable to India in any way imaginable, and I will retract my dispute.

Netaji 09:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to find independent reviews of this, rather than google searches. I have left most of the things you added. Hornplease 00:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My only deletes were the google searches. which i dont think belong in the article. Hornplease 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was pretty objective information. What policy of wikipedia does posting google links violate?Netaji 02:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Drawing, or implying, inferences from them violates WP:OR. You might ask an dmin about that.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornplease (talk • contribs)


Hogwash[edit]

Man, such utter hogwash. I KNOW chowk is anything BUT anti-hindu. In fact 90% of its writers are totally secular and most of its readers are so as well. The hate users from BOTH sides sign in and out but are usually thrown out eventually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.69.56.97 (talk • contribs)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chowk.com. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chowk.com&oldid=1206677098"