Talk:Keshub Chandra Sen

Wikisource & Wikiquotes

I have added Wikisource and Wikiquotes. Both are at the initial stage and I intend to do some more work on that over a period of time. Others interested in this topic may please put in their might.

-- P.K.Niyogi 04:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Move to Keshab Chandra Sen

If there are no objections, I would like to move this page to Keshab Chandra Sen. The Keshub Chunder Sen spelling was common in British days; it ‘smells' of British times, somehow. Keshab Chandra Sen is closer to the Bangla, and the common way to spell the name today. Google comes out 3,260 vs 4,140. Comments please. Devadaru (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The spelling of the name is as he himself used. I think it should remain as it is. - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The name with this spelling also has links outside Wikipedia (Wikiquote etc.). A move disturbs all that. - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you make some good points against my proposal. I guess it still seems old-fashioned to me. I have become accustomed to the spelling found in the Ramakrishna Mission literature. And a move would have a redirect. But considering your reservations, I will hold off making any changes. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Devadaru (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a standard practice to use the spelling of a name as used by the person himself. This page has been moved from the spelling proposed to the present one with a redirect available. I am happy that Devadaru sees the point - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

We can't change the way a person wrote his name, so if the subject wrote his name as "Keshub Chunder" , we have to stick to that. --Ragib (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fake Image deletion

Dear Mr Rageeb, you know quite well that this is not Keshab Sen's true image, but a forgery. You also know quite well that previously also you cannot say where the origin of this doctored and manipulated image is from and where Banglapedia pirate it from. All this has been repeatly discuss on Talk:Brahmo_Samaj, at Village Pump, at Copyright issues page. If you are so concern with this image and WP:RS why not you compare your upolded forgery with so many authentic image of Keshab Sen all over Internet. 195.178.107.95 (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, once again, I never said or implied that the image is fake. The image is from Banglapedia, and if you want, you can consult it to learn the sources. As far as I'm concerned, the image's source have been provided (Banglapedia bio). Please stop blanking the image. You have also broken 3RR by reverting via your numerous IPs. A look at WP:NPA would also help here. --Ragib (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As the uploader why would you admit it to be fake? Many people say the image is fake, manipulated, doctored. As a fake image which was published by Banglapedia very recently it is still in copyright, you could not establish prior publication. The dubious sources and quality of Banglapedia as a primary source has been admitted by Banglapedia themselves and it has a strong Bangladesh POV and is not reliable for West Bengal Hindu subjects like Sen. The true image of Sen has been published by India Government on Postage Stamp. Why do you not upload that image instead? Do you deny that Sen was "swarthy" and "nut brown" in real life and not a White Indian like in this forge and doctored painting. It is your imagination that 3R Rule is violate since you have violate it and not I.195.178.107.95 (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you are not making much sense. Banglapedia is a product of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, an academic institution, and has been widely acclaimed. Your claim of "bias" is patently ridiculous. The insinuation regarding religion is even worse ... and shows your personal opinion. "Many people says its fake" ... who and where? Show any references? Or should I assume *you* and your other anon IP (69.197.132.98 ) from England think so? So, please provide any references for the claims you make above, or stop your ridiculous comments about the photo or about Banglapedia. I can't help that you have a religious POV and want to draw imaginary lines here. --Ragib (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My dear Ragib. I have just been reviewing the previous debate on this controversial image. This is a copyright issue primarily, the forgery aspect is secondary. As the uploader of this image to Wiki you have provided the wrong copyright tags so that this image could be uploaded. Every Public Domain tag you have given is inapplicable. The first publication of this image you could show was from the first edition of Banglapedia (from where you digitised it), which is not even 10 years back. Since it is a now copyright issue, until such time as you can demonstrate "publication" of this image more than 60 (or 70) years back, this image must be deleted to comply with Wiki policy. Altenatively, you can cite the creator of this image and claim "fair use". Every other claim you make has already been convincingly disposed of in Village Pump and Media Copyright Questions when this controversy erupted on another article in March/April 2008. The Image is a blatant forgery easily discernible to an ordinary person when the image is compared to the postage stamp (published by Government of India) referred and to other portraits of Keshab Chunder which can be viewed on internet. You should properly explain why you persist with promoting this dubious image from a dubious and POV "encyclopedia" like Banglapedia and why you cannot even state with certainty if this image is a portrait or a photograph and when it was "fixed" (in all senses). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2008/April#Question_on_controversial_image

Who is Jaysweet, why is he relevant, and where can we read your discussion with him, or was it Off-wiki?. Finally, concerning your innuendo, is there a Wikiban on using IP addresses or having users from England. 69.197.132.98 (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Brahmo Vandals at Work

This page is being vandalised in order to spread the message of a section of the Brahmo Samaj. First, Rono Sen deleted both the biography and photograph of Kehub Chunder Sen. Thereafter he put up a distorted biography of Keshub Chunder Sen. An anonymous editor has attempted to rectify some of it. When an attempt was made to restore the photograph, the dummies of Rono Sen have been actively deleting it under some pretext or other. They have been abusing and threatening right thinking Wikipedians and tiring them off. They used the same tactics when propagating their distorted philosophy on the Brahmo Samaj and some of the related pages and put up all rubbish. After vandalising the Brahmo Samaj pages they have turned to vandalise the biographies such as those of Keshub Chunder Sen and Sabarna Roy Choudhury. On all these pages, their attempt is to delete or eliminate all other points of view and force their own. The image of Keshub Chunder Sen, uploaded here is in use in various publications of the Navabidhan Samaj. It is widely considered a true representation of the person. Rono Sen is associated with the IT industry and as such has access to large numbers of computers. Thus he is able to confuse others with numerous acronyms and anonymous edits. I suggest that this page be reverted to what it was before Rono Sen’s edit and then locked. - Shiben Dutta (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This is getting a bit too much these days. What I don't understand is what is wrong with the 1st photograph? It is the commonest photograph of Sen and it is in public domain as he died more than 60 years back. Also, why are some people trying to degrade Sabarna Roy Choudhury page? Childish act, really. --GDibyendu (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

May be semi-protection will help anon IP vandalism. --Ragib (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GDibyendu, Ragib, and others - the first photo is not only acceptable, but clearly a photo of Keshub Chunder Sen that has been widely used to portray him. Both photos add to the article, and both should remain. Semi-protection would help with the vandalism. ~ priyanath talk 15:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Priyanath, This is a serious issue, but unfortunately a gang of editors is trivialising it. The image uploaded by Ragib is a "calendar art" portrait based on a painting hanging in a well known museum in India. The fact that this dubious portrait is "calendar art" is admitted by Ragib in previous discussion. In the authentic portrait Mr.Sen is very "brown". However, Ragib's version has blancoed (whitened) Mr.Sen - and is hence not reliable or a "fair depiction" (well actually it is a "fair" depiction, but in an un-RS way). All the Historical literature describes Mr.Sen as "swarthy", "nut brown" etc. The acceptable WP:RS Postage Stamp of Mr.Sen (based on the museum portrait) issued by India Government faithfully depicts Sen as "brown". I believe similar disputes regularly occur in Christian wiki articles over whether Jesus Christ was a white or brown or black etc. I did not discuss this previously and neither was the "photo" accepted (please see the archived discussion). Am CC'ing this to the Talk of concerned article also, since edit warring is in progress.69.197.132.98 (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think most people understand that ancient b&w photos don't show shades of brown, and therefore will not assume that his skin was white. If indeed it is calendar art, it's still apparently a widely used representation. I see two steps that might produce a compromise, which should be well-discussed here first. 1. Since the second photo is probably more accurate, swap the position of the two photos, since the more accurate would arguably be more encyclopedic. 2. If the first photo is calendar art, then simply change the caption to state 'Artist's rendering of...' or 'Retouched photo of....'. And please stop reverting. From your talk page, it appears that you are just one more step from being blocked. ~ priyanath talk 19:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw suggestion. Page is just fine as it is, and both photos are legit and appropriately placed. ~ priyanath talk 05:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For clarification, I have NOT claimed or "admitted" that this is calendar art. So, the anon is misleading in his statement above. All I mentioned was that "it seems to be coming from the collections of the India office of British Library. The publication is from "Calcutta Art Studios" circa 1890 [3]. It seems that the same studio published a large number of photographs of prominent people of the era." I don't see any problem with the color of the hundred year old image. --Ragib (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Reading the comment by anon above, I find it extremely ridiculous. You can refer to other b/w photos from 19th century, and those also don't differentiate much between a person with a brown complexion and one with a lighter complexion. In other words, there isn't any difference in grayscale or b/w photos in terms of skin colors of the subject. If that's the only argument against the photo, then indeed this continuous blanking is simply vandalism. --Ragib (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

To prevent continued vandalism from anon-IP addresses, I have semi-protected the article. Editors are welcome to discuss the article and/or the photos in the talk page and reach a consensus. --Ragib (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous.

Firstly user:Ragib should temper his particpation in this discussion, since he is the uploader. He has gone to extraordinarily great lengths to defend this image. As an "involved admin" he has breached his duty by blocking this page to protect his uploaded image.

Secondly, User:Shiben_Dutta is a sock puppet for Nav Bidhani members of "Brahmo Conference" Yahoo group. Kindly see this URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/brahmoconference/message/630 and a few days later opens this single purpose account. I suspect he was previously under the user name of Jayanta1952 also.

Thirdly, Shiben Dutta has lied when he says that my cousin Ronojit Sen (RonoSen) deleted Keshab's image from this page (I am Bikash Sen). This is easily verifiable from the article history. I am emailing RonoSen (who is disgusted with the clique of "super pseudo editors" at Wikipodia who dominate infrequent - but specialist - contributors) and has stopped contributing) about his defamation here.

Fourthly, my own participation in the "image controversy" discussion was not very extensive, but I followed it at the time. Ragib could not even establish if this was a "photo" or a "portrait" (ie. painting). As of now both the images on his page are "paintings" and not "photographs".

This is quite clearly a dispute / edit war between 2 factions of Brahmo Samaj, if super editors take sides it is not good. Have 5 Pillars of Wiki been discarded?

There is no dispute (yet) about User:Priyanath's image since he has clearly cited the date, publication etc. (I can also tell you who painted his image). Let Ragib either state unequivocally his image's source or else deny that the full COLOUR original of his image is hanging in an INDIAN museum.

Ragib's statement is false that Calcutta Art Studios is the source of his image or that Calcutta Art Studios was into "photography" then. It specialised in cheap calendar art and reproduction of "distorted" religious images like the present one. quote for Ragib "PS. Can you verify that the "Calcutta Art Studio" is a "photographic" studio, because from BL it looks to be a "calendar art studio" as in paintings and portraits of gods and goddesses (like the impugned image) Yvantanguy (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)" Ragib could not reply.

Let Priyanath's image stand till such time as User:Ragib can defend his image and provide a verifiable PD source for it. Worklikeadog (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, semi-protecting an article to prevent drive by anon vandals is not any "use of admin powers". It is standard practice to protect articles in such cases from anon IP vandals. In the last 24 hours, you and your anon IPs have broken 3RR multiple times despite a consensus by other editors to preserve status quo. Once again, users are free to edit the page, but NOT anon ips and throwaway single purpose user IDs like Worklikeadog (talk · contribs) created solely to evade 3RR violations.

Secondly, if the user is suspected as a sockpuppet of another user, please make a request for checkuser.

Fourthly, I have mentioned all along that this is a photograph as used in many places (including various websites and Banglapedia). If you have any proof to the contrary, please provide that. You might also try *actually reading* my comments : it seems to be coming from the collections of the India office of British Library. The publication is from "Calcutta Art Studios" circa 1890 [3]. It seems that the same studio published a large number of photographs of prominent people of the era.. I did not state that the image IS taken from the calendar or Calcutta Art Studio, I merely pondered that it is a possibility which may or may not be correct.

You are also applying circular logic here ... at one point you claim this is a photo from an album and therefore not in PD now, and the next point you claim this is a portrait. Which one is it? I'd love to see your proof that this is "from an Indian museum". --Ragib (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Ragib. The image was not deleted by myself from this article. It is a blatant lie by whoever is saying so to libel me. Actually I strongly defended this article from vandalism and provide good cites. This is not the first time this image has been challenged. When you could not prove it at Talk:Brahmo Samaj, the discussion was taken - at your request - to Village Pump where also you could not justify this image. Then User Yvantanguy and You took it Media Copy Right questions. At that point User Sarcasticidealist said you were wrong - in unambiguous wording. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2008/April#Image_from_National_Geographic.2C_Found_on_Web

"Unfortunately, as I understand it the law is very clear on this point. In jurisdictions where copyright is measured from the date of publication, a date of publication has to be established proximately enough to know whether or not the copyright is lapsed. If the earliest date of publication we're aware of for this photo is 2003, then we can't consider it in the public domain in jurisdictions where the relevant lapse is date of publication + 60. For what constitutes publication, see Wikipedia:PD#Publication. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)"

Whereupon YOU concocted this absurd story about British Library and concocted a date of 1890. Then YOU waffled about whether it is a painting or a photo. Since YOU are uploader, YOU tell us. The fact of the matter is that you pirated this image from Bangalpedia which itself was published in 2003. It is incumbent on YOU to inform us (like Priyanath has) on the following lines:-

a) Is it Photo or painting? b) If photo when was it first "published"? c) If painting who painted it - what is its "provenance"?

If YOU cannot do this, please be a good sport and remove this image, especially when there are so many good ones of Keshub Sen available (like the 5 in the files section of "Brahmoconference Yahoo group".) Ronosen (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ronosen, time to cool down, and stop making personal attacks. ~ priyanath talk 22:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

First, it is not clear who we are dealing with here. One point, we see anon IPs replying to comments, the next moment Bikash sen/Rono Sen comes up to reply to comments directed at the anons. I somehow think that there is actually a single person we are dealing with here.

Second, I have reported Ronosen (talk · contribs)'s posting of my personal information here at the ANB.

Third, I have always maintained that this is a photo. I have given a source: Banglapedia. They (ASB) maintain that it is an old photograph (taken before subject's death) of the subject. For a person who died in 1880s, there is no law that would make the image remain under copyright. I have mentioned my sources accurately in the image page, and have repeated this multiple times.

Finally, we don't have to "look into" the photos section of any yahoo group. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick update; following a checkuser, User:Ronosen has been found to be using open proxies extensively, and have been blocked indefinitely. The anon-IPs are all open proxies, and were deemed likely to be used by the same user(s). The throwaway accounts User:Worklikeadog were also found likely to be the same IP/user. --Ragib (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection

To protect the article from continuous anon/open proxy image blanking, I have semi-protected it. However, one of the anon IPs / single purpose accounts claim that since I have an opinion on the issue, admin action (i.e. semi protection of the article) in my part is not ok. I request an uninvolved admin to take a look at it, and decide whether or not semi-protection was not appropriate. In that case, feel free to unprotect the article. I leave it to a third party admin's judgment to decide about semi-protection. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandal group

I have been an observer of Bengal pages in Wikipedia but never ventured to edit. I have logged in primarily to congratulate and thank Ragib for conclusively nailing Ronosen for sock puppetry. However, what he has touched is only the tip of an iceberg. Far from being cowed down they are regrouping to launch fresh attacks. They have already started again. Ronosen and possibly one or two friends of his, have been using the pages of Wikipedia for propagation of a certain ideology of theirs. In order to do so, they have been removing matter and forcing other editors out by abuses, threats and what not. The edit remarks would justify my charges. They are propagating some Adi Dharm , which no responsible historian, religious or otherwise, has upheld. They were initially editing mostly under two acronyms – Landirenzo and Yvantanguy. Now, they have not used these acronyms for more than a month (since middle of May), possibly to avoid scrutiny under the pretext that they are no more in use. Then they edited under the acronym Lillycottage and now they have new acronyms – Worklikeadog and Gayatrisavitr . Apart from numerous confusing acronyms, they frequently edit anonymously, using different PCs – 122.163.156.83, 212.227.114.82, 117.200.145.205, 116.68.248.162, 208.100.55.143. This totally confuses other editors. I shall be grateful to Ragiv if he gets these checked also for sock puppetry. There is need to unearth the entire vandal group. - Ramen Mishra (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Ragib, Priyanath and GDibyendu for the action taken to curb vandalism. - Shiben Dutta (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Will appreciate if someone checks Users Sbiben Dutta and Ramen Mishra for sockpupetry who open unipurpoze accounts to vandalize my editings. ShebinDutta today has just vandalised my edit to this page.Lillycottage (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is my ID being dragged into this. Please take out the truth. After delving into the facts I opine, this is actually about "new" editors and "old" editors at Wiki for articles connected to the Brahmo Samaj. Here is what veteran editor P.K.Niyogi had to say to User:Seejee:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seejee#Brahmo_Samaj

"Regarding the Brahmo Samaj page, you know I have not really been the fighting type. My policy has always been to work on pages where others are not interested. The Brahmo Samaj page has always been a hot spot but later I found that nobody was adding anything but only deleting this and that. That happened for many months and so I kept on restoring materials without giving it much of a thought. Then I found that some people were interested in developing that page and so I have withdrawn.

Those who are now working on the Brahmo Samaj pages seem to be a group nominated by an organisation called Brahmo Conference. I cannot say that what they are adding is baseless. In fact, I could probably agree with much of what they are adding. However, being young these people are rather brash and lack refinement and culture. The pages read more like drab law court reports rather than Wikipedia articles. It certainly would not attract readers. Then they are a bit obsessed with their ideas and are unwilling to accommodate anything that does not suit their thinking.

I agree with your views on the mud slinging campaign but I don’t think that these people are really amenable to reason. Irrespective of personal views on the subject I am off from those pages. You may decide on your own course of action. These people are mentioning some links to a Yahoo group page of Brahmo Conference. You can check on that if you are interested. I had also become a member of that group but decided to quit.

Regards,

P.K.Niyogi (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)"

The interesting part of Mr.Niyogi's post is "I cannot say that what they are adding is baseless. In fact, I could probably agree with much of what they are adding. However, being young these people are rather brash and lack refinement and culture. The pages read more like drab law court reports rather than Wikipedia articles. It certainly would not attract readers."

If we probe a little further into Mr.P.K.Niyogi's talk page (archives), we find that he was invited to join Brahmo Conference Yahoo group by another User Debanjanray2003

"Dear Mr. P. K. Niyogi, If you are a Brahmo, will you be interested to join our e-mail discussion group brahmoconference@yahoogroups.com ? visit website http://groups.yahoo.com/group/brahmoconference. My vision: 1) To collect and publish information about who-is-who in Brahmo religion 2) To collect all good materials about Brahmoism. 3) To connect all Brahmos in the world and hence revive this religion. Regards, - Debanjan Ray (e-mail: debanjan.ray@siemens.com and debanjanray2003@yahoo.co.in )"

On probing further we find DebanjanRay2003 (from his Talk page) to be a serial plagiarist and vandal closely linked with User P.K.Niyogi both of whom mysteriously stopped editing Brahmo pages. Somebody should investigate this Brahmo Conference Group for coordinated sockpuppetry of Brahmo articles.

Debanjanray2003's is obviously behind the attack on poor Ronosen whom they deliberately provoked. It is an old story linked to how Ronosen exposed Debanjan Ray's piracy (he sat and took digital camera pictures) of a copyrighted book of Sadharan Brahmo Samaj and uploaded it to Wikisource. Here is that link: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Talk:The_Religion_of_the_Brahmo_Samaj

Hope someone acts, but Wikipedia is one of the biggest copyright violation promoters like Google, Youtube etc.. Gayatrisavitr (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make two comments: (1) User:P.K.Niyogi has made great contributions in Wikipedia so far. (2) Gayatrisavitr's changes in Sabarna Roy Choudhury today is constructive. And I would suggest User:Lillycottage to check this and how to add different point-of-view with references without deleting others' changes. Then I guess, we won't have to debate on these things and concentrate on content development and improvement only till people like Ronosen joins back :) --GDibyendu (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Brahmo Samaj

Worklikeadog suggests that what is happening here is a dispute between two factions of Brahmo Samaj. What factions? Well, there were lots of controversy in the Brahmo Samaj in the 19th century. Now, although the groups maintain different samajes, there is hardly any conflict. Anybody can become a member of more than one samaj and people from one samaj freely participate in the celebrations and functions of another samaj. Intermarriages between members of different samajes have been taking place for more than a century. It is only a few "fundamentalists" like Rono Sen, who are remnants of the past and continue to live in the past, who are unneccessarily raking up old issues and creating confusion. This particular group is not allowed to project their distorted views in their internal publications and websites, and as such has picked up Wikipedia to propagate their outdated ideas. It is good that Wikipedia adminstrators have understood their objectives and are taking steps to ban them. My heartiest congratulations! - Seejee (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There are not many controversies "in" the Brahmo Samaj. The only controversy is with people "outside" Brahmoism who labour under the delusion that they are Brahmos. As Sivanath Sastri wrote in "History of Brahmo Samaj" - "There are many more Brahmos outside Brahmoism than there are within". This statement decoded means "only Brahmins are Brahmos, others have to wait till their 2nd birth". Coincidentally this issue was discussed recently on the other Brahmo Conference group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/brahmoconferenceorg/message/99 by "Shiben" Dutta. There is no possibility of legally valid inter-marriage (in India) between a non-Brahmin Brahmo Samaji and an Adi Brahmo. It is true that anyone can become a "member" of a Brahmo Samaj, this however is quite different from being a Brahmo. IMHO the only action Wikipedia administrators should take is to ensure that 5 Pillars of Wikipedia are upheld. "He who protest the most should be investigated first." Worklikeadog (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Somebody under 2 or 3 identitys is repeated undoing my constructive editing. To these sick people I must only say, I am not connect with any other identity of Wikipida. If you keep stalking me and revert my edit I formally complain to Administration Board.

Europeanisation includes "The process in which a subject (be it a culture, a language, a city or a nation) adopts a number of European features". On other hand "Europeanize" means "denationalize and subject (a territory) to the supervision of an agency of a European community of nations". (source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Europeanizing )The better sense of context is "Europeanisation" which means "Westernisation" of Asian culture. From Vandalism "Vandalism per se is often considered one of the least serious common crimes, but it can become quite serious and distressing when committed extensively, violently or as an expression of hatred and intimidation.". Lillycottage (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)