User talk:Achitnis/Belgaum draft

Note

Hi, I see you're attempting to rewrite this section of the Belgaum article. Only thing is, note that Maharashtra's suit in Supreme Court has nothing to do with either linguistic demographics or even Mahajan commission. The suit does not contend that Marathi people outnumber Kannadigas and hence Belgaum city should be a part of MH. The suit pleads that Marathi speaking people are being oppressed in Belgaum city and hence Belgaum city should be part of MH where MH feels that the interests of Marathi speakers of Bel City would be protected better. Please reword your draft to reflect this.

Also point out that it was for the first time in K's history that the legislature was being held outside Bangalore. And hence, there is also a historic angle to this and not just political. Also K is the only third state after J-K and MH to have a session outside the state capitals. Sarvagnya 23:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that one can do, without propagating any political views. Do you have a citation for the reason stated (oppression). Will edit. Let me know what you think.

Achitnis 07:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Feeling of insecurity(sic), 'Atrocities', 'cultural' genocide(sic) Sarvagnya 12:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

ROTFL - I have lived and been associated with Belgaum for three and a half decades, am a Maharashtrian, and have never felt insecure in Belgaum. :)

IAC, for now, until we can stop this continuous vandalisation of the main article, I doubt that it makes much sense for me to edit anything there. If the dispute is moved to a separate article, the references can be used there. Achitnis 12:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

ROTFL:In the interest of sanity on Wikipedia, as a Maharashtrian yourself, can you please try explaining it to Mahawiki. He is all over the Wikipedia with this nonsense. Sarvagnya 12:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I know, I saw the edits. Sad, but reminds me of my dad - single-minded, nevermind that he is wrong about the approach (I am not judging the dispute itself, I leave that to the politicians).

But I am determined to clean up this article about Belgaum. This is the 21st century, and if someone still believes in this world of globalization that anyone gives a damn about what is written about a border dispute in a wikipedia entry, he needs help. I am going to take this to arbitration if needed, and I am quite sure he knows that in arbitration, only the wikipedia rules are considered - and under those, his unbelievably biased and inconsiderate stand is unsustainable. Achitnis 12:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

make sure u dont make it pro-Karnataka

Dear user, If u r rewording border section take extra care to keep it neutral and free of any biases.There are many people here to push their state's POV.Make sure ur not making this section pro-Karnataka.Morever Maharashtrians outnumber kannada speakers in Belgaum.I will provide u the citation.Mahajan commission dismissed Maharashtra's demand over Belgaum because of 'administrive reasons'.It seem to agree that Maharashtrians outnumber kannada speakers in Belgaon. Mahawiki 03:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Rationale

Guys, I am trying to de-politicize the Belgaum page, not to have more of the same. By putting in any kind of political information (which we could easily just link to externally), we are just inviting more political debate on a page that isn't meant for such stuff.

I am a Maharashtrian, I live in Bangalore (but am a registered voter in Belgaum), and I honestly believe we should curb our urge to make viewpoints of politicians and other interested parties (on both sides of the dispute) the major part of an encyclopedia article.

I have been associated with Belgaum VERY CLOSELY for 35 years, my father has a school in his name in Tilakwadi, I have built "killas" during Diwali, and I have known a Belgaum that is very different from the picture that is being painted in the current article. During a recent visit to belgaum, I met people who actually complained about the state of the article about Belgaum on Wikipedia and how it is just being used as a propaganda vehicle, and I thoroughly agree.

For now, I want to just replace that ghastly Border Problem and Latest Developments article with this "stub" I have proposed. Worst case situation, I am going to propose a "Belgaum Border Dispute" article, and just place a link to that in the main article. Then the politicians can go have their slugfest there, and I won't interfere.

Achitnis 06:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

An article devoted solely to the dispute(on the lines of the Kaveri_River_Water_Dispute is certainly 'notable' by WP standards and infact, I did even think of creating it. But then, seeing how easy it is for some people to go off on a tangent, I held back and didnt/havent created it(yet). But I am certainly for having the article. Sarvagnya 11:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Let them go off on a tangent on *that* article. I don't really care - politicians will always do that. I am bothered about an article about my hometown that has 31% dedicated to a border dispute issue! Do we need an admin to sanctify this, or can we do it ourselves? Achitnis 12:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Try explaining it to Mahawiki. I've endured and continue to endure far more than my share of his nonsense. Sarvagnya 12:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why dont u brief it,Mr Chitnis?I am sure u can frame it and include important points from both parties?Are u ignoring me or u just want to carry our anti-Maharashtra propoganda.BTW I am amused that ur on Belgaon page after so long where we had a bloodshed few days before?Why dont u tell Mr.Chitnis abour ur hatred against Maharashtra?I think u ppl are friends in need so friends indeed!In no ways any Kannada POV will tolerated there?

Mahawiki 13:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)