Talk:Dilip D'Souza

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


Dilip's questionable articles and social affiliations[edit]

Hello, would like to talk about these, if anyone may so care to discuss.

  • Dilip's article "My country, right or wrong". The probable context of this article is his research on a book on Kashmir and patriotism. It was a trial baloon that went horribly off course. Though the inspiration was the overthrow of Saddam and Hitler (Hitler was not a dictator, he was an elected chancellor), using the bulk of Dilips writings as the context, it is very likely that he was obliqely starting a thought-experiment whether such a proposition would be valid in an Indian senario. Though one is free to have such thoughts, it should be with the caveat that such ideas are indeed, seditious/treasonous.
  • AID, inspite of all the work it has done for Tsunami etc, is not an up and up, 'clean' organisation. It has an agenda, and such should also be mentioned.
  • Same goes with the agenda of the track-2 group Dilip belongs to. That group has publically declared that it will discuss the Kashmir issue with the following options: independence, accession to Pakistan, to de jure recognition of the current status quo. The idea of accession to Pakistan and independence(sic) are fissiparous and considered seditious by the Government of India. This should also be mentioned.

POV stuff[edit]

  • Just been looking more closely at the language here. For now, I've looked only at the Affiliations section. Lets remember this is Wikipedia, not a place to dispense opinion. Neutrality, neutrality is the word here.
  • Clear you don't like Dillip's writings and PIPFPD and AID, dat's fine, no prob. But "this group has a questionable agenda" is POV. Some think so, some don't, and the section should be written like that.
  • Looked at PIPFPD site where you got the quote which you called "following solutions". There is small but vital difference between what it says and the way you characterize it. They don't call them "solutions", they say "approaches to the dispute". Even if you think the difference doesnt matter (I think it does), at least your quote should be of full sentence, as now.
  • It's not "these" (i.e. all three listed approaches) that are at odds with the GoI views. You say, above, that only the first two are "fissiparous and considered seditious" by GoI. Language in article should be like that, stating precisely what some believe is anti-national. Also that others don't believe it is anti-national just to recognize that there are multiple appriaches/views to the dispute.
  • AID: Tried looking at your cited page, link doesn't work. Therefore removed the line about communist organizations etcetera. In any case, presuming you find the correct link, "AID has been involved in several controversies" and "dubious funding" are POV. As with PIPFPD, please write it something like "Some have criticized AID for association with communist organization and for their sorces of funding."
  • Will have similar corrections, in same vein, to other sections in this page later.
  • Let's remember about living peoples bios: 'Editors should remove any negative material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source.[1]

Thanks. Hey19 09:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Hey19[edit]

  • Thank you for the edits.
  • I actually like of DD's articles(even if I may not agree with many of his points), but that is beside's the point. AID is a different matter, so you can watch my writings accordingly for bias.
  • If we are splitting hairs, then even the third status quo solution is officially constitionally unacceptable to India[2]. So I will change this accordingly.
  • Hence, the current official GoI view is against this policy.
  • Will incorporate suggested language in page.

Thanks Mikeslackenerny 08:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More POV stuff, article additions[edit]

Plenty of things to clean up here. Will do as and when I get time.

For this time:

  • AID reference. I accept you don't like AID, but what you have given ([3]) is an unsigned page with no claimed author! Any way you look at it, this fails the standards of Attribution and Reliable sources. Therefore I am removing that line again.
  • It is curious: where affiliation claims are made for Dilip for orgs you seem to have no objection to (PUCL, NBA, etc), you ask for citations for such claim. For orgs you dislike (PIPFPD, AID), you conspicuously omit asking for citation. Why?
  • PIPFPD reference. Again, this is an unsigned page (that even has typos -- resolunion, demoractic). I sympathize fully with the kashmir-information.com (Kashmir Information Network) effort, but there is no ownership anywhere on their site I've been able to locate. I also know this resolution is correct (except for typos), but surely you can find it on somewhere else that is attributed and where there is ownership information. Please do. I am removing the Kashmir-information link.
  • On thinking about this some more, I am not sure that a statement that "we urge recognition that there is a plurality of views and several approaches to the dispute" is 'by itself' anti-national, even if those three stated approaches are contrary to the GoI's views. But since the language now reads that "some label them antinational", I'll accept that and leave it untouched.
  • Moved PIPFPD website reference to more correct place in sentence.
  • "The above was likely a thinly veiled attack ..." is POV. Have changed that language.
  • Why did you remove the word "patriotic"? Your quote of Dilip's article explicitly uses "how must a patriotic Indian act?"
  • Removed link to Varsha Bhosle's article. It makes no mention of considering Dilip's article treasonous, therefore it does not support your claim that it is. Put in a line regarding my and plenty of others' take on the article (thought experiment).
  • Since this is a section on "Selected Articles", surely we should not stop at just two. I've put in mention of a couple more. May flesh those out later (you are welcome to do so too). Please add more that you think are worth mention.

No time for more today, though there is plenty more to get to.

Two general points. One, I get the sense that you don't expect anyone to follow the links (references) you provide. But some people will.

Two, I'm sorry if you think it is nit-picking, but this is Wikipedia. Things here have to be spot on, as neutral as possible, etcetera.

Thanks. Hey19 18:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike replies[edit]

  • Attribution, eh. Yeah, I can understand how unsigned documents are tantamount to slander. Will try to find an acceptable source for the same.
  • It is curious that you find this curious. I guess it is standard practice (correct me if i am wrong) to add sources for any info you might add. I think citations already existed for DD's links to AID and PPIDFD, so I dont see why I would ask for those.
  • Gosh! Would [4] please you more? I guess even the typos are correct, in a sic sort of way :)
  • Hmm.. I thought it was obvious that the patriotic in DD 'Patriotic Indian' is said in (condescending?) sarcasm. But I guess reading between the lines is a POV activity too.
  • I think Varsha's article was a counerpoint to Dilip's and should stay. The reason I posted it was to support my assertion that the article invoked debate and controversy. Why the presumption?
  • Other notable articles causing debate were those on the timeline of the Bombay Blasts. I think he did a public service there by pointing out that the blasts were after the riots, and not before. Though he does take a "worst case senario" POV regarding the reasons people might have thought so.
  • Ps: Thank you for the free psychoanalysis regarding my intention on posting references. I revised the whole article and all changes had refernces. Maybe I should just post without, but then some smart aleck will go post Fact tags all over. But point taken. Credibility and NPOV has to be established, though the whole setup for the same is dubious and can be abused.
  • And regarding the thought experiment. Sure it was (and thus has merits), but it served as a vehicle for a backhanded slap as well. Two birds with one stone I guess.

Later. Ta.

Mikeslackenerny 11:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Responses (no editing this time)[edit]

Just passing through, not enough time for more editing I want to do. Hope do it in 2-3 days. For this time, some quick comments.

  • Please don't get testy. Appreciate your efforts to fill out this page, really. I only want to make sure it is accurate and NPOV.
  • Not that they are tantamounted to slander, but they don't fit Reliable sources. I'm not concerned with slander, but with reliable sources.
  • Looking at the history of this page, no citations were ever provided or requested for PIPF/AID mentions. You suddenly asked for citations for links to other groups, but not these two.
  • The ipcs.org document is OK.
  • It's not obvious that the "patriotic" was sarcastic. To me and others who read the piece, it was a call to the highest ideals of patriotism, a la Stuffunberg (sp?). But that's immaterial, that is why I used the quotes around "patriotic Indian".
  • Your original remark using Varsha Bosle's article was this - The above was likely a thinly veiled attack on the BJP government in context of the Gujarat riots of 2002. Such a hypothesis calling upon Indians to revolt against the government may be considered treasonous. [Varsha Bhosle's take on this article]. Certainly it sounds to me as if you want it to support the "may be considered treasonous" claim, because it appears right afterward.
  • I don't believe the article was a backhanded slap on BJP Govt alone; it can be read as a slap on any Indian Govt (what about Cong massacre of Sikhs? or Cong socialism that perpetuated poverty? etcetera). But I think it was above all other just thought experiment. Anyway, I accept that you and others saw it differnetly and the article language now reflects that controversy, fine with me.
  • Sure the setup can be abused. But those who want to make a sincere effort to flesh out and improve Wikipedia should observe the NPOV etcetera requirements as close as poss. Wikipedia is not a place for denigrating or praising people, but for as neutral descriptions as poss.

Will be back. Thanks. Hey19 15:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Edits wrt AID==[edit]

  • Methinks the whole AID thing on Dilip's page is pointless. AFAIK, DD only has moral support/metoring role for the AID Bombay chapter and nothing more. (as of 2005). Shall we remove AID affiliation? I am not sure it is notable enough.(specially when compared to his more active affiliations)
  • Are the current sources better?
  • Regarding the patriotism bogey, if you've read his articles on the same (including the Kashmir Army officer essay), its not moot to say that he belongs to the "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel' brigade.
  • Have read the Wikipedia "living persons" biography guidelines. Maybe my edits will be better now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikeslackenerny (talk • contribs) 05:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Father? Why?[edit]

Sorry for silence. Busy with other stuff.

  • I agree with you, AID affiliation is pointless. In fact if I think abt it none of his affiliations mentioned on this page are particularly useful re: a page about Dilip. We can discuss others if you like. But since you propose it, let's remove AID section at least - you do it.
  • Think you are right, he does blv in "last ref of scoundrel" motto. But I think he is not scorning patriotism completely, he is calling for it to be seen differently. For e.g. in Kashmir soldier piece, he is hardly saying that mans' patriotism is "last refuuge of a scoundrel" variety. I think he is saying "here's a man whose patriotism I admire." But anyway, this is just discussion.
  • Do not understand what Dilip's father has to do with this. The only reason he is mentioned here seems to be because you say he filed a pil about Srikrishna, and a Rajeev Srinivasan article mentions possible correlations. Next few points about this.
  • First, where is the citation for the pil about Srikrishna? The reference you give (PUCL Bulletin article) does not mention any pil, it only says he (father) went in a delegation to CM to ask for justice.
  • Second, Srinivasan does not offer a citation for this pil either, he just uses the sentence you have copied and pasted.
  • Third, even if Srinivasan noted the possible corelation, so what? What is wrong with father asking for justice and son writing articles asking for justice? Srinivasan is implying conflict of interest, but how? Father goes in delegation to CM asking for report to be implemented. Son writes articles about the subject of the report. Where is problem? There is no conflict I can see. Worst thing Srinivasan seems to say is that DD did not mention this connection. Not mentioning is not conflict of interest.
  • Fourth, "involvement with anti-Shiv Sena interests" is clearly POV. Govt orders an inquiry. Inquiry is completed, report submitted to Govt, it recommends certain action. When a citizen asks for that action to be taken, it cannot be called as "involvement with anti-PQR interests."
  • Fifth, let us also remember that this is same Rajeev Srinivasan who wrote [5] who wondered that tsunami was in retaliation for action against the Kanchi Acharya. (The devastation by the tsunami in Tamil Nadu, could it be a caveat from Up There about the atrocities being visited on the Kanchi Acharya?) Besides, even the article of his you have quoted is full of only insinuations, no proof. (sample, e.g.: what is his source of support? Could it be some foreign-funded NGO, with a missionary connection, funding him to help their anti-Hindu agenda? That would explain a lot, wouldn't it?) How can you take such a columnist rumuour monger seriously? How does this fit Reliable Sources?
  • Sixth, to repeat, I do not understand why this section needs a mention of father. I propose to remove this para entirely unless you can give a reasonable explanation.
  • Please put in mention of article you mentioned about timeline for blasts! Dont recall this one, but it sounds interesting.

Thanks. Hey19 17:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, meant to add that again I won't be able to return here for editing for a few days, going out of town on work.

Thanks. Hey19 17:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Realized one last detail. In para above that begins "Third", I mentioned that Srinivasan says DD did not mention the connection. But if you read Srinivasan's article [6], he refers to a Dilip's article [7] as from where he found out that JB Dsouza is Dilip's father. i.e. DD does mention the connection. so what is Srinivasnan's problem? Hey19 19:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father deceased[edit]

Came back to thiss page after some mths because I heard DD's father has died, wanted to add. Found various minor changes by unnamed contributor, some of which I have corrected.

  • I think "left-centrist" is a better description of DD's work than "leftist". He has been critical of the left too (sometimes unfairly, imho, but that not the point).
  • Why not let "wife" remain in photo caption?
  • It is untrue that comments are moderated on dcued blog. I just went and checked to be sure, added a comment that has appeared without moderation.

Thanks. Hey19 05:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep NPOV[edit]

Again came back to this page after some mths. Let me repeat lines from above:

  • I think "left-centrist" is a better description of DD's work than "leftist". He has been critical of the left too (sometimes unfairly, imho, but that not the point). See for example his recent article for Seminar [8].
  • Also, Sri edit has no way of knowing whether comments are deleted. I have seen plenty of comments on dcubed blog which are highly critical of him, never deleted. Please stick to facts, not opinions. That is what Wikipedia is for. To repeat lines from earlier on this page: Let's remember about living peoples bios: 'Editors should remove any negative material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source.[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey19 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roadrunner etc[edit]

Returned after long time, wanting to add details abt DSouza's new book "Roadrunner".

  • Found my "left-centrist" from 2 yrs ago has been changed to "far left". I think that it not correct -- see Seminar article above, but also see his criticism of Nandigram [10], and his call for a strong right wing political party in India Together [11]. He is *critical* of the far left. IMHO he is as wary of them as the right.
  • Moved material from "Awards" to "Work", added a couple of articles of his I appreciated. Some other cleasnup.

Thanks. Hey19 (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal[edit]

I will can only repeat what I wrote earlier. "Far-left" and "leftist" are IMHO not correct here. I have now changed to "left-centrist, liberal". Let me repeats what I said before - see Seminar article above, but also see his criticism of Nandigram, and his call for a strong right wing political party in India Together. He is *critical* of the far left. IMHO he is as wary of the left as the right. His views are broadly liberal and just left of centre (IMHO).

Thanks. Hey19 (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor changes by the subject of the page[edit]

I've long wanted to make a few corrections/alterations on this page. Finally created an account just now and did so. The substance of this page remains the same as what it has evolved to be over the last few years; thanks to the various Wiki users who have worked on it.

Dilip D'Souza Deecubed (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dilip D'Souza. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dilip D'Souza. 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) 05:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dilip D'Souza. 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: 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) 09:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dilip_D%27Souza&oldid=1207042427"