Jump to content

Talk:Swami Aseemanand

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

Qualification of unreliable claims of confession

[edit]

The article contains unreliable claims of "confession" extracted under duress prominently. The editor who for some reason wishes to retain this dubious wording has resorted to deleting even the legitimate citations for qualifying the "confession" in the article. I think the deletion of citations by this editor should be examined further. Especially since this article itself is attributing a dubious criminality for an under-trial largely based on a "confession" extracted under duress. WP:CRIME A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Scourgeofgod (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement above as well as your edit summaries display a common fallacy. We don't know that the confession was extract under duress. We only know that he claimed that it was extracted under duress. Or, to put another way, it is his opinion (or rather a claim), not a fact. WP:YESPOV tells you not to report opinions as facts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the opinion of the Judge who recently allowed bail to the accused,apparently since the confession under duress was deemed invalid matter at all? [1][2]or Does the opinion of the same Judge in disregarding the previous testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (used in chargesheeting of the accused by the prosecuting agency(NIA))as many have turned hostile before the Judge matter at all?[3].Does the decision of NIA not to challenge the bail in Supreme court as it can apparently no longer sufficiently justify the charges matter at all?[4]Scourgeofgod (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this malicious deletion of primary citations from the apparently unpalatable opposing POV is clear bias on part of user Kautilya3 which cannot be resolved by any talk on this page unless a neutral arbitrator steps in.Scourgeofgod (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even journalists clearly and prominently mention the rebuttal of any public person accused of any act for the sake of neutrality in their reporting,yet the user Kautilya3 is maliciously scrubbing an encyclopediac article of all opposing POV sources & citations on an under-trial to suit solely his POV.Scourgeofgod (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If a judge has said that the confession was "invalid", you are welcome to add that. But judges' opinions don't influence what we write on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources.
I am afraid it is not clear any more what you are arguing about. You need to calm down and write coherent arguments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/samjhauta-express-blast-swami-aseemanand-bail/1/765811.html
  2. ^ http://www.siasat.com/news/aseemanands-u-turn-puts-nia-probe-dock-251330/
  3. ^ http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/samjhauta-blasts-case-nia/
  4. ^ http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-08-11/news/65452966_1_swami-aseemanand-nia-bail


But judges' opinions don't influence what "we" write on Wikipedia.

  • Who is "we" here? You are not representing Wikipedia any more than iam representing,further your condescending claims of "incoherence" on me mount to nothing. Also I respectfully submit that iam well aware of "common fallacies" in logic as any other informed person.So you may mind your own edits instead of presuming to teach others "logic".Scourgeofgod (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coming to the main impersonal issue raised by you,if the Judge's opinion doesnt matter in the case then whose opinion matters as a "reliable source" to substantiate a particular POV on an under-trial? Should the long defunct but recently revived ultra-leftist magazine Caravan with less than 40,000 circulation(in a country of 1.2 Billion) be taken as the gold-standard? or Should the click bait(now defunct) online news aggregator portals like "Breakingnewsonline.net" be taken as the touchstone? The majority of the current writeup in the article is based on such dubious sources.Scourgeofgod (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me again remind you that the current contention is not my duly sourced appending of qualifying words("extracted under duress") to the word "confession" hitherto bandied about with abandon in the article to attribute criminality on an under-trial.The contention here is your repeated deletion of those citations and the words "extracted under duress" with hand waiving statements claiming that they are irrelevant or unreliable.The burden to justify your repeated scrubbing of opposing POV is on you not me.I didnt try to delete the original POV in which the article was written,in fact i didnt touch it.You are the one who is deleting the all citations pointing to the material evidence that confession was extracted under duress.You better justify your actions. Scourgeofgod (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "we" are the Wikipedia editors editing according to Wikipedia policies. There is no need to put "reliable source" in quotes, it is fully explained at WP:RS which is the most fundamental policy of Wikipedia. It is never too late to read it. If you find there anything about judges' opinions there, please feel free to quote it.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Scourgeofgod: I have reverted your reinstatements because you have not responded in over two days. While the discussion is ongoing, WP:STATUSQUO should remain on the main space.
In December 2010, Aseemanand made a confession in front of a magistrate. In March 2011, he claimed that it was under duress. The two are separate events, and they should be stated separately. There is no way that Wikipedia can know which of them is true and which is false. You might have a personal view, but that cannot be Wikipedia's view. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant citations

[edit]

@Scourgeofgod: You have reinstated a couple of citations that I moved to the external links section. Can you explain why you did so? How do these sources support the content? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the subject a politician?

[edit]

About this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swami_Aseemanand&diff=next&oldid=840527823 --G (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kautilya3, can you please review? --Gian (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The term "politician" in the "far-right politicians" is used in a generic sense, anybody that has strong political views. In that sense, Aseemanand is one of those. His confession may not have been accepted in court, but it is accepted by reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean he has confessed to be a far-right politician? But shouldn't politician group consist of politicians? Why is Modi not there, why is Hardik Patel there, it seems to be a very arbitrary group. It's ambit should be better defined else that category is useless. --Gian (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first step would be read the article on far-right politics. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If editors start deciding if someone is a far-right politician in absence of sources won't that lead to confusion? Someone has to be a "Politician" at least to be called "Far-right Politician". --Gian (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will be removing the category in absence of reliable source. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 06:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swami_Aseemanand&oldid=1252585964"