Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Lead section

I see again that the changes to lead section have been reverted without any discussion and with no attempt at building consensus. Evoxx, I do not agree with your changes to the lead section because

1) As Taelus has pointed out, the lead section should not have undue weightage on any particular viewpoint and should summarise all the viewpoints. Any labels and criticism could still be added with counter criticism and in the proper section. The criticisms could then be summarised in the lead section (as the paragraph I had put was already doing).

2) The paragraph on Hedgewar's infulences is at most be put in the section on history and not in the lead section as the it is not directly related to the RSS. This definitely amounts to WP:undue. You have copied and pasted the same content which is in the history section to the lead section, repeating a whole paragraph twice on the page. I for the moment would not like to assume any bad faith, although it looks like it was done only to clutter the lead section.

thanks nihar (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead section is in good shape now covering all aspects. it should be fine now to remove the "lengthy intro" template. --Deshabhakta (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Exchange of charges with christans sub section

I propose to remove this sub section as it only shows allegation and counter allegation which might be true to fales. I will propose that we must just mention it in two sentence by keeping it nuteral for every one. If any one have no objection i will proceed further and i am also ready for further discussion--Sandeep (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Should i proceed to remove the contents as i had waited for any more ideas. My intention to remove this section is just to make the article proper as the criticism section is looking much longer the the articles other section itself.(Sandeep 13:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepsp4u (talk • contribs)

Merging the section on allegation of gujrat riots and orrisa violence and reducing the content by keeping the neutral point of view. The article's criticism sections had been given more preference and concentration then the article itself that's why i am reducing the content so that we can make the article a readable one and a neutral.--Sandeep 10:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepsp4u (talk • contribs)

I would invite contributors in making this article neutral and making balance by giving proper preference to every sections--Sandeep 10:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments of Madan Mohan Sarkar of Structure Demolition

As per the constutution of RSS whatever act an individual do he is solely responsible for it and he is counted as a non member of RSS from that movementhttp://www.hvk.org/articles/0300/26.html. My point hear is that the comments of a Swayamsevak can be counted because as per the constitution of RSS he is not more a Swayamsevak and on the basis of same constitution RSS is not at all responsible for whatever act an individual do. Please suggest what is neutral so that we can make article little better for reading. Regards(Sandeep 10:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

I think no have objections on this point of view so i i must proceed in removing this quote. I will still request if some one have any other point to discusses on this issue please come forward (Sandeep 05:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepsp4u (talk • contribs)

No Change Without Discussion

I think we must mutually agree that we will not change the content without proper discussion or declaring it on the talk page so that it will be helpful for others to understand the changes and put there view points. Few users are editing the article without any discussion or consideration of other users and this seems to be a hypocrisy and POV (Sandeep 05:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)).

Neutrality tag still needed?

Is the neutrality template placed at the start of the page still needed? After so many discussions and edits, this tag looks like extra weight on this article which can be discarded off. Shall we go ahead and remove the template? I am in favor of removing the template. --Deshabhakta (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I too support you that it must be removed because there is so much edit and discussion on neutrality point i will go forward and remove it (Sandeep 13:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepsp4u (talk • contribs)

I don't see a need for it.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Where does you see that article is not neutral please share hear --Sandeep 07:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepsp4u (talk • contribs)

Starting in the lead, it is not neutral. Loaded wording is used heavily. I worked a bit toward neutrality, but there are very clearly strong feelings on multiple sides.- Sinneed 22:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please pause, or the article will need to be locked.

Stop deleting one another's work. If the added text isn't ideal, consider fixing it or tagging it or the section, and explaining here why it must be fixed or deleted. Then if it is so bad that it simply can't stay, perhaps kill it.

But really, the article is highly partisan, and is tagged as such... I think the readers are well-enough aware of the problems that tagging them should be adequate at the moment. Once the shooting dies down, and there is a good base of content, perhaps wp:BALANCE can be achieved, even if wp:NPOV itself is not possible.- Sinneed 20:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section

The criticism section is looking like a playground of allegations and counter allegations which is not bringing any good view to article. What member editors have to say on this--Sandeep (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The secondary refrence given on the Justice Narayan Commission and Vithayal Inquiry need to be checked on relablity ground and must be verified as i was unable to found the cited quote in the book--Sandeep (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected that citation links. please check now.--Vicharam (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The citation template in liberhan commission's statement not relevent here. i removed that unnecessary citation template--Vicharam (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the criticism section is becoming too long and making the article biased. I think there is a need of creating anothere article where you can create a whole article full of criticism and whaterver way you want. I propose that the criticism section must be shotrened by editing it properly without keeping biased intention. --Sandeep (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I had added the refrence content showing new york times as a hindu biased agency. I request the editors to discusses if some have any disputes before doing any changes to that content. --Sandeep (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not say any condition that the article's content should be limited. if the criticism is more i.e. this organization is most controversial movement in India. I suggest to put in introductory sentence "One of the controversial hindu nationalist organisation in India"--Vicharam (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, wikipedia may not restrict article's length but it does say that a particular section should not over-weigh against the remaining sections of the article. The intro section is already well balanced stating both the good work it has done as well as the controversies it was allegedly involved or dragged into. "Most controversial" will be an unnecessary and redundant addition to lead section and also it sounds like a POV. --Deshabhakta (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am unable to find the word militant or extrimist or something related to that on Brittinica i will ask the users to correct me if i am wrong and if i am correct i will proceed and remove that part from the article to make it proper--Sandeep 09:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepsp4u (talk • contribs)

i will proceed and remove the Britannica's reference as i am uanble to see it in the encyclopedia. I had waited long for the discussion --Sandeep 10:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepsp4u (talk • contribs)

Reliability of opendemocracy and massviolence.org websites

Hi,

This article makes use of the following two websites as sources:

Open Democracy claims itself to be a website for debates, blogs and news analysis. That means it is not a source of news a forum for opinions. Further who owns and runs this?

Also what is the reliability of http://www.massviolence.org/? Even google gave me only one result that too back to this website only, There is no talk, no reference to this to this website elsewhere!

We need to look at deleting content sourced from these two if the reliability is not proved.

--Deshabhakta (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I am dubious of using these as wp:RS. It might well be worth presenting both at wp:RSN for consideration.- Sinneed 20:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The Massviolence.org site seems "real", as it has reasonable coverage in the press... but does it meet wp:RS? RSN should be able to help with that.- Sinneed 20:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As you note, the opendemocracy.net site appears to lack editorial control... I can't see how it can be used as an wp:RS.- Sinneed 20:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless the content is problematic, simply flagging it with {{CN}} seems adequate. Does the content violate wp:BLP or some other standard that requires it to be killed off? If not, each of the bits really should be tagged... and if it should be deleted the bit should ideally be ~~brought~~ discussed here.- Sinneed 20:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please let me strongly encourage discussing the content to be killed here before dropping it. Consider either rewording it for neutrality, or adding a sourced alternate view, or both.- Sinneed 20:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The two are used in this article to quote the following:

RSS was involved in major attacks on minority groups [27]. in which 1,000 individuals were killed in the incident at Garmukteswar on November 1946[28]. These types of major attacks and counterattacks by RSS, Sikh and Muslim organizations cemented the public perception regarding the Two-Nation theory[27].

These are very serious accusations and portray the subject organization in an extremely negative manner. If at all such a matter is to be added to the article, we all should make it sure that we are sourcing it from highly reliable sources. With a Gandhian leader acknowledging the good work done by the organization during partition, if we place such contrary material from dubious sources (even in flagged state) will not be good for the quality of the article.

Let us remove the material sourced from these two websites. --Deshabhakta (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the immediate removal of the content. Please tag it with ^{[citation needed]}. You may want to gather support for excluding the sources. I would support, at this time, exclusion of opendemocracy site, but that needs more support in this contentious article.- Sinneed 18:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

ok, i will put Vc template. Cn cannot be used as citation is already provided. TO question reliability, Rs or Vc should be used. --Deshabhakta (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't not know that. I do think most everyone knows that if they see a CN tag next to a source, someone is saying ... it needs a source, but it is good to know there is a specific template for this situation.- Sinneed 19:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead Section overloading over with accusations

A sentence is being placed in the lead paragraph of the article saying "The RSS is sometimes classified as a terrorist organization." I see multiple issues with this edit.

The source, a book by Gyan Publishing House, does not appear like a reliable source. It is not at all a well known publisher. While writing about World's largest volunteer organization, caution should be exercise to choose only reliable well known sources.

The author of the book does not say that he classifies RSS as a terrorist organization. This edit is a SYNTHesized version.

Whoever wants to have this sentence in this article, please discuss here. Please provide details about reliability of Gyan Publishing House. We can go to RSN if we still continue to be in disagreement over the reliability of this house. Once reliability is proved, please provide details from the book which lead all of us to believe that "The RSS is sometimes classified as a terrorist organization."

Please do not re-introduce the sentence until we come to an agreement/compromise. The statement is highly defamatory and should be substantiated with reliable sources, preferably multiple sources. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of the source and the content. Please tag it with ^{[citation needed]}, and pursue community disapproval of the book. Books are generally going to be hard to keep out of an article unless they are self-published. If you object to the content of the book, you may want to pursue the publisher. If you object that the content is not *IN* the book, you need focus on that.- Sinneed 18:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a reliable source and it has already been proven at WP:RSN. Why didn't you conduct a simple search there for "Gyan Publishing House" if you were so concerned about its reliability? Read my edit summary:"Checked WP:RSN. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_37#ISHA_books_and_other_circular_references"[1]--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope you will forgive me making a minor point... we don't prove things at RSN... we gain consensus from WP editors who are particularly interested in reliability and sourcing.- Sinneed 20:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No, thats a good point, I didn't know that, I assumed their decision was final because you're supposed to look through the archives for a case that has already been solved.

But really though, if he was concerned about its reliability he could have done a search at WP:RSN. Some people there consider it an okay source so there shouldn't have been a problem in the first place. But he removed it twice and said to check it at RSN, one of the times after I linked to the relevant page at RSN and readded it. On that point at least he is wikilawyering and basically be disingenuous.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed... thus I encourage against chopping one another's work at this time without discussion here 1st... to instead tag it and talk. It is a contentious article, frustration is going to be hard to avoid, and with it difficulty wp:assuming good faith.- Sinneed 05:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

RSN is a pretty solid place to get guidance on sources. If a source gains support there, one will be hard-pressed to exclude it from a relevant article. WP runs on wp:consensus and wp:RSN is the best place to find editors who are interested in wp:RS, and reach a consensus about a source, in general.- Sinneed 05:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As we can see in the RSN conversation, this publishing house is looked at with suspicion. To add to that, the author is also not well known. Such a source should not be used to post serious allegations of this nature (classified as terrorist organization). If we have some other sources, which are undoubtedly reliable, then we can look at mentioning that remark at an appropriate place in the article. --Deshabhakta (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the last post on there.

I've searched inside many more of the titles by Gyan and ISHA. Gyan books appears to be a well-established publishing house with reputable authors.
— CactusWriter, needles 07:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC

It was near the end, maybe you missed it?--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

such a questionable source and that too a book written by a very less known author should not be used to make such a serious allegation about a very respected organization. --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The book which is sourced hear is written by a very less famous author and so i am unable to understand the point of the editor hear, who is just trying make some very serious allegation on the basis of such a weak source. The writer is not well established and this point need to be considered.--Sandeep 05:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepsp4u (talk • contribs)

Protected

Per a request at WP:RFPP I have fully protected the article due to a slow edit war. The protection will last for the same period of time as the previous semi-protection, i.e. until September 2010, unless the issues that led to the edit war are resolved. I strongly recommend that the editors concerned take this opportunity to discuss any issues. TFOWR 12:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Provide the valid reference

Our Wikipedia Contributor are always ready to manipulate the History without the fact Or any Primary resource , No reliable source is given to prove the section "Protection of Sikhs during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots" which say RSS & BJP protect Sikh , reference cite is false.(Khushwant Singh had't spoke any word on the topic). please provide the valid reason for keep Misleading. --Dilpreet Singh Virdi (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The source is mentioned in the article. Please go through it. It is a book authored by Khushvant Singh himself. "Reference cite is false" - what does this mean? --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If you means this reference "http://www.sikhtimes.com/bios_021503a.html" which is published by "The Sikh time" Who are speaking against Sikh. Moreover, In the article he is claiming many non-sense about Sikh.

In the two paragraphs he is claiming :

RSS kill Muslim (& is deangerous for Country Integrity , Does it means they are terrorist Organisation & Making Violence against the Human Rights.)
RSS save Many Sikh (, But no reference & name of Victim was mention . Does peoples live with labels of Congress & BJP Or RSS?,It should be some hindu save & RSS article has no concern with that even.)
japji Sahib ji is based on Upanishads,( LOL,mum!? Out of Scope)
Sikh are Kesh-dhari Hindu (Hindu are Head/Hair less Sikh?-- Off-course this is not the right place to discuss this)

then he claims -- Q "In Encyclopedia Britannica that Sikhism is a tradition developed within Hinduism or an extension of the bhakti movement. " -- In Reply He said -- Yes, McLeod's works did change my ideas on this issue. A scholar must keep an open mind.

Later some one make more Intelligent statement and again he will claims , This new guy has open my mind again. So such immature statements make conflict and creates confusing among others.

(Off-course answer to all of these question has been given by Sikh scholars and they don't consider him as Sikh anymore for his anti - Sikh propagandas. Here is a link with thousands of proof, Explaining what RSS is Doing for Sikh [[2]])

We Wikipedia contributors should be balance and must maintain a Neutral Point of View. Please be advice to remove this information from the article .

--Dilpreet Singh Virdi (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Khushwant's statements are sourced from the book K. Singh: “Congress (I) is the Most Communal Party”, Publik Asia, 16-11-1989.

As pointed out by you sikhtimes cannot be considered a reliable source and we can remove the material sourced from it. Khushwant Singh is a well known personality and his views are not out of place on an article. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Deshabhakata , Please check my post once again , you skip the major part & my point of view to raise this Question.--Dilpreet Singh Virdi (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

dilpritsingh is correct

I just want to know that ("RSS has also supported the mixing of Nanakshahi and Bikrami calendars")how this quote is considered as anti sikh. I also have arguments that can a whole section be written on the basis of single source ???--Sandeep (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This section was removed even though the references were quite clear. Here is the reference for you again Kushwant Singh: “Congress (I) is the Most Communal Party”, Publik Asia, 16-11-1989.

“It was the Congress leaders who instigated mobs in 1984 and got more than 3000 people killed. I must give due credit to RSS and the BJP for showing courage and protecting helpless Sikhs during those difficult days. No less a person than Atal Bihari Vajpayee himself intervened at a couple of places to help poor taxi drivers.” It has also been quoted in "Who is a Hindu?" by Dr Koenraad Elst.

I am reinstating the paragraph with suitable changes Unspokentruth (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Unspokentruth, I removed that book's quote for a couple of reasons. I'm pretty sure that book doesn't exist. I don't see why it needs to be inserted as a quote, I mean, this article is already a quotefarm. Khushwant Singh is an author, not a news agency. If he's written a book on why the congress party is the most communal party in india he's probably a bit biased towards the RSS and the BJP. I searched for it at Worldcat.org but I couldn't find it. If that comes off a bit choppy my bad.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot make sense of your argument. I have given you the reference to Kushwant Singh's quote in an article, which also has been quoted among others by the book "Who is a Hindu?" by Dr Koenraad Elst. I see no reason why you should be removing the quote. Please discuss your objections substantially. I am reinstating the content for now. Unspokentruth (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it in bullet points so you can understand.

The section is based entirely on Khushwant Singh's viewpoint and he is by no means an authority
If he's written a book on why the congress party is the most communal party in india then he has bias towards the RSS and the BJP.
if it's one quote it deserves a sentence not an entire section.
Don't accuse me of vandalism when I am engaging in a discussion with you.

--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou so much for your reply. Your inference about somebody's bias based on your own speculation does not make somebody biased. First you claimed such a book doesn't exist at all. Now that you know it does and that it is very much in the public domain you start passing judgments about something which you thought did not even exist the earlier moment. Unspokentruth (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I still don't think it exists but I thought it would be better to debate without questioning its existence because you might take it personally. You failed to address my two concerns about its inclusion. Only one of my bullet points was about bias and that was a valid point. --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, Bad to see the issue I have raised is remain at the point it was , RSS article editor taking the advantage unnecessarily to highlight them-self and taking the credit for the same. However In contract we have statements of November 8, 1984 Nana DeshmukhClick Here, where he claim it was "Hindu neighbours who protected lives and property of troubled Sikh brothers " - So my Question remain Same why RSS editors taking the advantage of the situation and the paragraph "Protection of Sikhs during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots" should be deleted from the article. --Dilpreet Singh Virdi (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph is sourced directly to Khushvant Sing's quote from a reliable source. Nothing has been quoted out of context and the section adheres to all policies of Wiki. Lets retain it. --Deshabhakta (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Meaning! Patriotism or Volunteer

Obviously "Swayamsevak" means "Volunteer"; anyone knowing Indian languages would agree with me. I was nearly appalled to see that the org name was translated to "National Patriotism Organization"! I request correction - Smitha Varma 19:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.88.254 (talk)

I added the "Volunteer" translation from Britanica.- Sinneed 21:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please shows in the discussion that the meaning of Volunteer is something else then Swayamsevak. I think you are not aware of indian language specially hindi because Swyamsevak in English is volunteer --Sandeep 12:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepsp4u (talk • contribs)

Please learn how to use the references section of an article.You should really sign you comments, it clutters up the page.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I know very well how to use references section but you failed to answer my question that please show how you got the meaning of volunteers as patriotism and which dictionary yo had used for this meaning. I had replied regarding the problem of signing the post on you talk page.Thanks --Sandeep 04:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepsp4u (talk • contribs)

Sentence 1 proposal

"is a Hindu supremacist[4] paramilitary[5] volunteer[6]"

This seems to be "hammering". This is covered later in the lead, and seems *strongly* POV in sentence 1. wp:MOS - 1st sentence should explain notability. I propose:

"is a controversial Hindu volunteer"

It seems clear to me that the body and sources support "controversial", it is not clear to me that the rest is supported thoroughly enough to be in Sentence 1.

Second bit: Is this in fact the largest volunteer body as I have seen stated? If so, that well might belong in S1. It should, if so (and thoroughly sourced) certainly been in the lead and the body, as that would speak to notability.- Sinneed 20:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well paramilitary is covered in the article here: Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Liberation_of_Dadra_and_Nagar_Haveli_and_Goa and Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Criticisms_and_accusations. It is cited as a hindu supremacist or racist organization in a fair amount of literature. In terms of volunteer? Published sources, including its leader's own books have the purpose of the organization as eliminating diversity in Hinduism and they consider Muslims a third column in the country. I mean Hamas does a lot of charity work too, but that article includes its record as a paramilitary group(I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'm just using it as an example.) The reason there isn't more on that is because everything I try to contribute is censored. Definitely not by you but thats the real problem here. All prominent positions should be in the article side by side but anything against it is taken out.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thus I am not proposing to remove it from the lead... only from sentence one. Sentence one should speak to why the organization is notable.- Sinneed 05:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, if the terms "Hindu Supremacist" and "paramilitary" are from reliable lets have it in the article but lets not have it in sentence 1 of the article.

--Deshabhakta (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The RSS didn't become notable through volunteer work, plain and simple. The first sentence should reflect why it has been historically notable.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read this article itself to know the plain, simple and enormous amount of volunteer work done by RSS. You can read the RSS constitution here which no where mentions that it is formed to be Hindu Supremacist or Paramilitary organization. These are only accusations or criticism from some authors and they can be kept in para 3 which already has a lot of criticism about this organization. --Deshabhakta (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

In early 1954, volunteers Raja Wakankar and Nana Kajrekar of the RSS visited the area round about Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman several times to study the topography and also to get acquainted with the local workers who were agitating for the liberation....Subsequently on 28 July, volunteer teams of the RSS and AGD captured the territories of Naroli and Phiparia and ultimately the capital of Silvassa. ...
— from the article

That isn't paramilitary? You act like you're interested in both sides but everything that supports your view of the RSS is automatically unquestionable fact while anything that isn't supportive of that image is questionable and lending undue weight.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That is your synthesis. During the freedom struggle numerous Indian organizations accross political and social spectrum and also all common people participated in the movement. That does not make them part of any "paramilitary" organization. Unspokentruth (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That was an example. that sentence is backed up by reliable sources.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

On this point the editor look biased as he is trying to edit the whole article with a single book reference and the intro line which he had edited clears his intention. I will request him to reconsider his view and discusses it hear before changing the article as per his pov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepsp4u (talk • contribs) 10:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your point would seem more genuine if you hadn't removed the word member from the article[3], which we had reached a consensus on.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What is a written about dadra and nagar haveli is typical of a satyagraha type movement, the Gandhian way. There is nothing 'paramilitary' about it and the listed source is only accusing this organization to be 'paramilitary'. --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

My dear friend i don't consider my point i am hear to share my knowledge and give a good article on certain topics so i always wish to give a neutral point and same i had done in this case. "former member or members" this was looking like some one is trying to force something and RSS itself had declared that he was out of the org since long so how can one consider him as a member since to consider your point the former member looks good --Sandeep 05:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepsp4u (talk • contribs)

There are 2 sources given in the sentence. One says member, the other former member. Since having him be a member would be very bad for the RSS, the RSS would have a profound conflict of interest, and would not be a reliable source for the murderer's membership.- Sinneed 05:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Give Wikipedia:Consensus a good read. That was one of the things it seemed like everyone agreed on--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your source of claiming him a member is still in discussion and that source is not written by a well established writer. There are other sources which claims that he was the former member of RSS so i think it would be better if we can make it only former member and not confusing the reader by writing member or former member because this type of writing will not look good in lead section. --Sandeep 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepsp4u (talk • contribs)

No, its not. We reached consensus on the issue of member or former member earlier. We are not confusing the reader we are providing him/her with all the published viewpoints. You should really sign your comments, it clutters up the page.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Still my point is also not wrong at all that what is sense behind putting this both member and former members and you had also missed my point that the claim which you are making about a member is not a much credible and established source and as that source is making an allegation on an organization with big reputation i think we must consider my point also otherwise it will unfair with the article and with the organization also. There is nothing wrong in discussing on the point which is serious not matter weather consensus is reached or not. I am signing the post but there is some issue at my side and i am very sorry for the same, still i am trying to solve the issue and if you can help me anyway i will be thankful to you. --Sandeep 04:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepsp4u (talk • contribs)

wp:Wikipedia is not censored. If you are unhappy with what a source says, you may want to consider taking it up with the publisher.

There are 2 sources. If you don't think one should be used in WP, a venue to gather support for your view is wp:RSN. Until then, please do not remove it again, even if the article is unlocked.- Sinneed 05:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

why should i take it with the publisher. Its the responsibility of the editor who brings such sources which are not well established. Your comment reflects that wikipeidia accepts any xyz writer as credible source so if i will also publish a book on this issue will be taken as a source ???? Please try to understand that the source which you are giving must be of some creditability as you are dealing with some sensitive issue. Don't instruct me if i will find my point logical and correct i will do so because i am not violating the basic rules of wikipedia. Sandeep 09:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepsp4u (talk • contribs)

You are violating the basic rules of Wikipedia. Either leave the source in, or gain wp:consensus that it is no good, or face consequences that might include article or topic bans, or account blocks. Wikipedia runs on wp:consensus, not on "mother may I?".

Further, I understand you are having difficulties mastering the signing of posts, but you are also simply not following wp:talk page guidelines. Please review how to post on talk pages, in particular how to sign, how to "thread" your posts.

Using the Preview button may help with the posting issues.- Sinneed 13:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I very well know about the rule of consensus and that's why i want to make it hear because i have doubts on this and so consensus must be taken again on this topic. Your source is not established source and so it can't be used for doing big allegations on a reputed organization. Now you will have no difficulties with my signing posts. By the way thanks for your advice. --Sandeep (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is judged by its first sentence and you just are just changing that by some low established or un established source. RSS is very famous for its social activity and there are many well established source for the same--Sandeep (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Have a good read of wp:Wikipedia is not censored "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so"

The nomenclature-‘supremacist’ is particularly troubling and it betrays a biased mindset. You cannot call the RSS a Hindu supremacist organization, just as you won’t call the NAACP, a Black supremacist organization. The RSS neither stands for, nor does it claim superiority of Hinduism over other religions or races. On the contrary, it only vouches for the equality of Hindu culture to the other Semitic religions. It argues that, unlike what the Church or Islam preaches, even a Hindu- a nonbeliever in their eyes can achieve salvation and union with God. Can you term that endeavor supremacist and if so, I am afraid, one has been looking up the wrong dictionary. The RSS can be better described as a resistance movement, all the more so, because it resists the organized attempts of foreign cultures to establish their dominance over the land of India. Thus, the entire activities and agenda of the RSS should be read and reviewed in this context. In this pursuit, they organize the shambolically, disunited Hindu community into a political force of some reckoning. It is the one and only defence against the total de-Hinduisation of India and that’s why the organization is not so popular among its detractors. (59.88.78.10 (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC))

Remove paragraph "Protection of Sikhs during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots"

Our Wikipedia contributors always in hurry to manipulating the things or History even if we have the valid reference they close there eye to ignore the fact. RSS article editor taking the advantage unnecessarily to highlight them-self and taking the credit for the same. However In contract we have statements of November 8, 1984 Nana Deshmukh Click Here, where he claim it was "Hindu neighbours who protected lives and property of troubled Sikh brothers " , this is most reliable resource where RSS leader Nana Deshmukh (Nana) himself accept the reality - So my Question remain Same why RSS editors taking the advantage of the situation and violating the Wiki policies. even if some Hindu protect the Sikh in 1984 what RSS article has to do with that?(However , thousand of Hindu kill ,rape, looted property of Sikh why not you take the responsibility of this TOO !!) the paragraph "Protection of Sikhs during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots" should be deleted from the article. --Dilpreet Singh Virdi (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My friend they are cited content so can't be removed if you disagree then you must provide source that all this work was not done by RSS --Sandeep (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

One source does not deserve its own section heading. This was not some pivotal event in the RSS.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

A number of fault lines here:

Dilpreet - The Hindus burning up Sikhs (to my knowledge) were associated with the [[Indian National Congress]. Hindutva does not represent all Hindus, and the Milli Gazette is not a reliable source. The paragraph should not be deleted because it is a point that the RSS itself prides itself on.
Sandeep - You're right
Profit - You are also right. The event should be in the article, but does not deserve a topic heading.Pectore^talk 00:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That book doesn't exist. A search for it at Worldcat turned up nothing even with different variations of Khushwant Singh.
There really should be more sources to prove that if its true.

--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sandeep, Please check the Article I provided , it has paper cutting of November 8 1984, exactly 8 days after the Indra dead, Nana Deshmukh(RSS leader: hope you know this ) wrote this article.
Pectore, I valued your inputting provided you check the link I posted.
In Article [4] Nana Deshmukh claim it was "Hindu neighbors who protected lives and property of troubled Sikh brothers ". So same Question again what RSS article has to do with that?

This is most Authenticated proof which proves my stand. Honestly, Remove the Paragraph from article.

--Dilpreet Singh Virdi (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, we can't edit the article right now because it is locked from editing because of an edit war earlier, so this discussion is for when the block is lifted.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Let the articl become free for editon then we will discsses what can be done --Sandeep (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bency4578, 6 August 2010

{{editprotected}} RSS violance in Thiruvananthapuram

In 2000 July 13, RSS workers went on the rampage in Trhiruvananthapuram,attacking attacking the Ayurveda College Hospital, government offices, KSRTC buses, private vehicles and commercial institutions along the 3-km statue-East Fort stretch of the arterial M.G. Road. Rajesh (20), a KSRTC bus conductor, was critically injured in the head when the RSS activists armed with staffs and stones stormed the Transport Bhavan at East Fort.He later died in the Hospital. http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2000/07/14/stories/04142116.htm.

After one year, Fast Track Court I Judge Y. Thajudeen Koya found two Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) activists guilty of murdering a Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) bus conductor at East Fort in July 2000.The court also found 23 RSS and BJP activists guilty of various charges, including criminal conspiracy, destruction of public property, abetment, unlawful assembly and rioting with deadly weapons during the march.

http://nchro.org/public_html/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1280:-rss-activists-found-guilty-of-murder&catid=7:fascism&Itemid=16

Bency4578 (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Your both links are not neutral one is one the hindu which is left influenced and another is of the website which is of Binayak Sen the famous anti hindu personal. So i don't think that both this link will really survive and will be counted as neutral

The Hindu is a Communist and Anti Hindu News Group

http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/2006/the_hindu_censoring_tibet.html

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2003/09/03/stories/2003090302701002.htm

http://www.medianewsline.com/news/151/ARTICLE/4551/2009-05-18.html

--Sandeep (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

the user sandeep always alleging the hindu newspaper is not a neutral one. Who authorized this user to analyze hindu newspaper neutrality. according to his POV, whoever publish any news or article against RSS/Sangparivar, they are against RSS and hence it should not be used as neutral source to provide citation for article on RSS . please note this is wikipedia not RSS mouthpiece Organiser--Vicharam (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have disabled the request for now as there does not yet seem to be consensus for the edit. If there is any disagreement over which sources are reliable, you may wish to ask at the noticeboard. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason this shouldn't be added, even if The Hindu is left wing by this user's standards that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. They didn't simply make up this story! I would also urge the inclusion of other sources: On July 16th 70 members of the RSS vandalized the first floor of the Videocon tower after Headlines Today showed a videotape in which top RSS members discuss a plot to kill the vice president and other terrorist activities.^[1]--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes correct this is wikipedia and not any one's mouth-peace so leftist who are famous for there anti RSS stand so can never be considered as neutral hear and The Hindu is there mouth-peace. If some users are unable to justify there edits then they must keep themselves away form editings just because they have some wrong feelings for RSS. This is wiki and hear only neutral points or points of both the party's must be considered. Regarding The Hindu i had presented my point with proofs so this is not my POV but as some users are forcing to include this content just because they feel, i think that point must considered as POV.--Sandeep (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC) No media had proved that that video tape was of RSS members they were just barking. Yes that floor vandalism can be considered for inclusion after coming on concise.See this article is looking very disputed and so every edit must be done after discussion that's what my point is. --Sandeep (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is utter codswallop, The Hindu is an acceptable news source and the POV of a few random users does not justify rejecting it. Whether this content belongs in the article is a different manner, but WP:RSN has already had a discussion on this because the POV pushers keep complaining about The Hindu and all mainstream media outlets from India. —SpacemanSpiff 12:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Let us not treat this article as a news line. It is meaningless to go on getting every day news items and add it to the article.

Binayak Sen's website is no way a reliable source - an unambiguous reject.

Request fellow users not to use wikipedia for defamation purposes. It is highly objectionable that an user on this talk page is saying "top RSS members plot to kill VP". What is the basis of this statement? The user must apologize and immediately remove this statement from the talk page. --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Hindu is a reliable source, but this incident is relatively minor in relation to the RSS's notability (and therefore does not belong). I don't know what all these spurious allegations of "defamation" are about.Pectore^talk 01:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

who is random is not he issue hear but few user with there pov just trying there level best to defame RSS every now and then they are busy in collecting a tiny news against RSS rush hear to put that on the article. I want to ask that is this a news collection site or what ?? Friends be neutral in your point and give justice to the article in every aspects. I am again saying that The Hindu is a leftist News Agency and this is not my POV i had given strong sources for the same then how one can deny just because a user is having negative thinking for the organization like RSS.--Sandeep (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Hindu appears to have some Controversies associated with it. That being said, its been accepted as a reliable source. However, I agree with you that the incident does not merit inclusion in the article, and that many users are using Wikipedia as a soapbox for personal views. What you need to do is argue against this in a concise and reasoned fashion and not resort only to accusing users of being anti-RSS (and conversely, not try to edit Wikipedia to be pro-RSS).Pectore^talk 01:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The attempt to include the aforementioned piece of information is dubious and disingenuous, for the simple fact of reason that, it fails to mention the context of the incident. The activists were involved in enforcing a hartal called by the BJP and moreover, there is no conclusive evidence that they were RSS activists indeed, even considering the intermingling of activists in both the organizations. Such incidents are not remarkable or unheard of, in the highly charged socio-political landscape of Kerala, where hartal/bandhs/strikes are called at the drop of a hat and any nominal political organization indulges in arbitrary violence to ensure its success. In short, the motives of the user in attempting to smuggle in this article is suspect, to say the least.(Mksuraj (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC))

Edit request from Sampathpeechu, 25 August 2010

REDIRECT Template:Edit protected/preload

Please remove the words "Hindu supremacist" and "paramilitary" wherever they occur in the article. Nowhere in the official website of RSS (http://www.rssonnet.org) does RSS claim to be "Hindu Supremacist" or "paramilitary". Moreover, reference number 4 cited for "Hindu supremacist" is an opinion at best, not a fact. Also, reference number 5 cited for "paramilitary" is an opinion at best, not a fact. Also, in the context of Indian law any unofficial or private entity considered "paramilitary" would be legally banned by the Govt. of India. The fact that there is no such ban on RSS in India should be enough evidence to stop associating the word "paramilitary" with RSS.

Sampathpeechu (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Sampath

Protection template

{{editprotected}} Please replace existing protection template with:

{{pp-dispute|expiry=08:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)}}

Note that the small parameter is contraindicated. --Bsherr (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Commander Keane (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Supremacist" in first para

Please explain why the word supremacist is being placed in the first paragraph when it is already in the third paragraph of the lead. Citing one author twice in the lead is a total violation of WP:UNDUE, and an attempt to muddy the waters instead of treating the page with a neutral point of view. The RSS is a Hindu volunteer organisation, and it also is no stranger to controversy (which has been amply documented in the article), but the tag "Supremacist" does not really belong twice in the lead (only once, where the other characterisations of the RSS are).Pectore^talk 16:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Leading paragraph not a good summary

I'm a first-time reader of this article, and after reading the summary, I had one impression, and after reading the body for details, I had a very different impression. The first paragraph uses terms like "was banned three times by the Govt. of India" where the readers assumes the Govt. of India is the protagonist and the organization is the antagonist. However, upon reading the details, it's clear the 3rd time was when Indira Gandhi suspended democratic institutions and banned the RSS in an attempt at maintaining totalitarianism. There's a section of the article about the Gandhi assassination, but there are also other sections of the article about volunteer work and inclusion in the Republic Day parade, yet only the Gandhi assassination is duplicated in the summary. Overall, the summary seems to paint a very different (and comparatively negative) picture than the details of the article allude. -- Thoreaulylazy (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is still protected so no one is listening hear --Sandeep (talk) 10:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The leading paragraph is looking is so made shape that while reading the entire article it is seems that some one had tried to make the leading article boring. I request to please reconsider the lead section with proper manner in respect to the entire article.--Sandeep (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

-You require all this basic info in the lead article....thats why its the leading part....for people who dont have time or just want to know about the organisation. This article is not at all criticising the RSS.....so enjoy.....that most of it is still there...there should be a massive cleanup as this article is clearly glorifying the organisation....and all attempts to input critical remarks are being rejected by probbly cyber-RSS members <lol>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranav21391 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, as much as Pranav21391's comments are not in the right spirit, I would like to raise similar concerns. Only the lede makes mention of alleged militant activities. I think that the rest of the article should reflect that. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 20:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The lead reflects the material in the article. The RSS also has varying levels of notability in various different medias; the foreign and Indian English media are relatively unfriendly to the organization, while vernacular papers are more positive in their treatment of the RSS. The article at this point in time has improved considerably, though tighter sourcing is always necessary.Pectore^talk 22:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Mouleswarareddy (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC) This organisation was not banned by the British. It was banned after Mahatma Gandhi's assasination in 1948, during Emergency in 1975-77 and in 1992.

Removing POV Soures

http://news.oneindia.in/2011/01/15/maharashtraats-to-quiz-aseemanand-in-2008-malegaonblast-aid0126.html

the above source has nothing to do with RSS and there is no name of RSS in that article so what is the use of keeping such a crap source in the lead section and that's why removing it. --Sandeep (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-01-08/india/28376204_1_aseemanand-naba-kumar-sarkar-bomb-for-bomb-plan

there is no discussion of RSS in the above article and it seemed that some had really very baiased views about RSS and putting all this un wanted links in the article and hence i am removing it --Sandeep (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you're reading carefully enough.The hindu radicals referred to in the article are the RSS so please wp:agf man.

Aseemanand aka Jatin Chatterjee, born Naba Kumar Sarkar, has linked Hindu radicals also to the blast in a minority-dominated locality in Gujarat's Modasa town. Further, he said RSS leader Indresh Kumar was part of the plan hatched to avenge bomb attacks on temples, but said that militant Gorakhpur MP Yogi Adityanath provided no help to one of the accused. Indresh, Aseemanand claimed, helped enlist members of the saffron terror plot, including Sunil Joshi and Ramchandra Kalsangra, aka Ramji. In a statement before a magistrate under Section 164 CrPC (admissible in a court of law) the swami also identified the group of radicals who were part of the 'bomb-for-bomb' plan. He said the Hindu radicals allegedly attacked mosques and the train carrying Pakistani citizens as part of the 'bomb-for-bomb' plan to retaliate against jihadi terror.

--Profitoftruth85 17:53, 10 March 2011

ok thanks for showing it its my mistake and i am sorry for the same but please sign ur post --Sandeep (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid, both the news items cited above do not link RSS, as an organization, with any terrorist activities. There is only a passing reference to RSS while linking one of its functionaries, Indresh Kumar. Shovon (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a really good expose by Tehelka on RSS involvement in the 2006 Malegaon blasts which we can include and create a new section on, but I'm having a hard time finding it. If anyone can find a link to it, please post it.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

but i have one point hear that all this are just allegations so we must take care that we don't do anti RSS work in this article as any one can put allegations and until they are not proved we must give less preference to such sources. What other members says ???--Sandeep (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Kind of. We must make sure the incidents are notable before adding them as controversies, even if they are just allegations. Yes Michael? •^Talk 12:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

i had added a statement and few sources to balance the allegations so that things can been seen in proper and neutral perspectives by readers.--Sandeep (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

yes Michael i agree with u but then what is notable will also become a controversy hear so we must have to take care all this points --Sandeep (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We have to discuss before adding them. That's what the talk page is for :) . Yes Michael? •^Talk 14:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Disputed Structure Demolition Section

Earlier we had a discussion on this topic with one of the editors hear and we came to conclusion that we will keep the heading as i had changed then who had changed it without making any notification ??? Even Supreme Court had not accepted that there a Mosque there then what is the claim that the structure which was demolished was a Mosque(Masjid) please back the changes with credible sources. --Sandeep (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Please be kind enough to give a link to the discussion you speak about. Yes Michael? •^Talk 09:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is called a 'disputed structure' in Govt. white paper http://expressbuzz.com/biography/liberhan-takes-suspicions-as-proof/128120.html. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 13:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of the image

i had uploaded this pic and linked it to the RSS page here, it has been viewed many times by people across the world. the man in this pic is facing difficulties and he wants it to be removed. so, i think that protecting the right of the person in the pic, we should remove it from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pm.madhav (talk • contribs) 18:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That's too bad. I thought it was a very positive picture. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Which picture are we talking about exactly? Lynch 7 19:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Nvm Lynch 7 19:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Too bad. It was a good addition to the article. Lynch 7 19:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

the pic was my own , but due to professional reasons and my stay in the disputed Jammu and Kashmir , i had to remove it, it will get back soon on the RSS webpage. The future Prime Minister of India. (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC) Madhav Bhardwaj User:Pm.madhav

Okay, though I would suggest from my side not to be too vocal about it if there is some issue. I think people are not after issues in general for the heck of it. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

friends, after a long introspection and the situation of my country, i have decided to re assert this image to this page , if it is positive, definitely it should remain on the page.

Pm.madhav (talk) 19:02, 14 july 2011 (UTC)

सरसंघचालक

The sanskrit translation of Sarsanghchalak is not given correctly. It should be as सरसंघचालक. Kindly edit it. Smgarge (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Shripad.

Y Fixed. Thanks for pointing out. Lynch 7 15:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following in the lead

"RSS considers all the followers of Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism to be Hindu. The same view is echoed by the Indian Constitution."

Sources:

Craig Baxter - 1969 - "The Jana Sangh; a biography of an Indian political party"

quote- ". To the RSS and the Jana Sangh Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs are Hindus"

Martin E. Marty, R. Scott Appleby - 2004 - "Fundamentalisms Comprehended" - Page 466

quote- "They view Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Tribals, and Untouchables as belonging within the Hindu community"

Koenraad Elst - 2002 - "Who is a Hindu?: Hindu revivalist views of Animism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and other offshoots of Hinduism"

quote - "Following Savarkar, the RSS-BJP and other Hindu parties including Savarkar's own Hindu Mahasabha use the term Hindu in the broad sense: as including Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Veerashaivism, Arya Samaj, Ramakrishna Mission"

Constitution of India: Article 25

quote - '"Explanation II: In sub-Clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion"

117.201.252.119 (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

See if this edit looks fine. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

_{Marking as answered while wait on reply from original poster. Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)}

Removal of neutrality dispute clause from the article

I want to devote some of my time to edit the sections in which others feel that the neutrality is disputed. I feel that most of the content is backed by credible sources. So, if someone can point out some of the content that is disputed, I will be able to help in editing them. Otherwise, I will just go and edit as per my thinking and remove the neutrality clause. Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 19:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you comment about this talk here as well. There were just two editors here, me and the other chap, discussing how the first line is controversial too. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 21:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.78.85.67, 12 April 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

RSS is not the right wing or militant or paramilitary organization. Please remove those words from the article. It is no more militant and paramilitary than tea party in America

67.78.85.67 (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done There are sources to support the claims. And it is clearly mentioned that it is allegedly militant. Yes Michael? •^Talk 12:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please mention what sources call RSS as militant where exactly. Please also point out what exactly is meant by militant organization. RSS started in 1925, and till now how many alleged or actual militant activities are done by RSS? What is the criteria used in Wikipedia to call an organization allegedly militant? Are the sources blind to the fact that the conspiracies and actually militant attacks are still under investigation and point out how many judgments are passed that call RSS militant? Thisthat2011 (talk) 07:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see references 6,7,8,9,10,11. Yes, as you mention, they are probably still under investigation; and that is precisely the reason why the word allegedly is used. No judgments are passed as such; and that is why allegedly is used. The only reason that it finds mention in the article is because its allegedly militant nature is notable. Yes Michael? •^Talk 08:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently all allegations are based on Swami Aseemanad's confessions. Though isn't it true that the confession is reverted by Aseemanand? Can these pseudo secular sources be considered reliable who change their behavior on nothing but religion?

Lets see the sources here:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3023941, did not mention why it is militant, only a claim based on Gandhis death which was later proven false in courts. http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=155, is this source reliable? The report actually tells of militant attack on RSS and then claims straightaway that RSS is militant! According to this report it is the RSS that is militant when it is attacked by militants! http://www.deccanchronicle.com/dc-comment/rss-must-right-itself-297 - page not found! http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/Jan/15/lessons-for-bjp-22.asp - is this reliable? Again Swami Aseemanand's confessions come into the picture. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-01-08/india/28376204_1_aseemanand-naba-kumar-sarkar-bomb-for-bomb-plan - Aseemanand's confessions, later reverted. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12180193, same as above.

So how does this make RSS an allegedly militant organizations based on nothing but retracted confessions? Is this a policy in Wikipedia or a behavior only extended to Hindutva institutions like RSS? I could assume this changing behavior based on religion to pseudo secularists but this should not continue on Wikipedia. Or is there a liberty by policy to put an organization as allegedly "militant" or allegedly anything else based on retracted confessional statements? Thisthat2011 (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This is, by no means, a policy extended only to Hindutva organisations. This is merely in compliance with Wikipedia policies. As you have clearly stated yourself, the matter is subjudice. I am not asserting, by any stretch of imagination, that RSS is militant. The sources say that it is allegedly militant. Whether Mr. Aseemanand confessed, or retracted, we should not care. What we should look is into the alleged militant nature of RSS. These sources make note of the allegation, and that is why it is marked allegedly. Yes Michael? •^Talk 08:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look at sub section on controversies, there is more material in Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Criticisms_and_accusations but how is it mentioned the first paragraph itself. Please mention this policy for better understanding.Thisthat2011 (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are these sentences mentioned in the first paragraph itself? "and allegedly militant [6][7][8][9][10][11] organization in India.The allegation of being militant is denied by RSS and some other prominent personalities and they termed it as political conspiracy[12] [13][14][15][16][17]"! Please show the policy to mention controversies in the introduction.Thisthat2011 (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Manual of style (lead) states that

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article and, if possible, its first paragraph should be able to stand alone as a concise definition. The lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.

I hope this answers your question. Regards, Yes Michael? •^Talk 12:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont think alleged as militant is part of definition of the article. I don't think allegedly militant or its rebuttals should be in the first line. The alleged controversy is anyway later mentioned in the introduction. Mentioning "and allegedly militant [6][7][8][9][10][11] organization in India.The allegation of being militant is denied by RSS and some other prominent personalities and they termed it as political conspiracy[12] [13][14][15][16][17]" in the first line itself, when controversial part is mentioned later in the introduction is in bad faith I think.Thisthat2011 (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The present lead summarises the article, and that is what MOS(LEAD) asks. Yes Michael? •^Talk 14:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:LEAD i.e. the section before the table of contents and the first heading. It is therefore not the first line is my understanding. According to me RSS is not a militant organization unlike NSCN which is militant with all militant activities. As I said allegation as militant and then next line denials perhaps is meant to defame and therefore in bad faith.Thisthat2011 (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Even in my personal opinion, RSS is not a militant organisation per se. But the sources allege so, and we have to let it be. Our personal opinions cannot come in the way of the the five pillars of Wikipedia. Yes Michael? •^Talk 15:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Still the contents of allegations should not be in the first line, but rather should be in the last sanction. I am yet to understand this part where allegations form part of first line in Wikipedia. I will shift these to the last section of lead unless someone comes with reasons on why is this in the first line.Thisthat2011 (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no policy which governs the first line. It is very much a part of the lead section. Kindly direct me to a policy/guideline which governs the first line. Yes Michael? •^Talk 16:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Requesting consensus from other editors on this issue. Please read the discussion above, let know if the edits done by me is more correct over this version. I do not find any good reason to define an organization as allegedly militant in the first line itself.Thisthat2011 (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Posted at WT:IN. Yes Michael? •^Talk 17:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this a bias of not talking for the edits that I think are done in bad faith to make RSS look militant? The organization was formed in 1925, and till now let us count how many alleged militant activities are done by RSS. I would rather want people to give views and it should not bother anyone that if just because majority would vote for including allegations in the first line would then result in content change in same fashion over the Wikipedia.

This reminds me of parliaments who work on majority/minority calculations but when this behavior comes home to roost suddenly the same people tend to change policies by majority/minority calculations again, thus making policies dependent more on majority/minority calculations not vice versa (or should I say dependent on silence/chattering in it) or than anything else.Thisthat2011 (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be improper to compare this to a parliament. Wikipedia is not a democracy. There is no voting over here. Wikipedians just discuss, and reach a consensus (which is different from a vote). It is not our job to look at the history of the RSS and determine its nature. Our opinions are not called for. Yes Michael? •^Talk 12:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to change this article as suggested from my side. Since no one is responding, I am taking it that consensus is this side.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 20:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

How can you assume that? There is no way you can just take that consensus is on your side. Yes Michael? •^Talk 04:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct, though I am yet to find any rebuttal to my statement allegations mentioned in the first line are in bad faith; to consider lead section and does not completely satisfy the criteria mentioned Wikipedia:LEAD which should be considered as a whole and not just one line. From my understanding, not clarifying this - that first line should not be considered as brief reflection of the article but the lead section as a whole should be considered as brief reflection - may lead to incessant edits with allegations (and rebuttals of the same) in the first line itself. Silence will discourage clarity on this matter and from my side I insist suggestions should be welcomed and consensus, either way, should be built.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 09:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

Again, there is no policy governing the first line. The first line currently describes the organization, and all these are the adjectives used to describe the organization. It fits perfectly into the article. Just because you disagree about its alleged militant nature does not mean that you can move it to the end. Yes Michael? •^Talk 11:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Either way I would like to have a consensus on this. Thanks.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 11:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

I agree. Yes Michael? •^Talk 11:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that the if such heavy word like militant is used in the first line itself the article will be biased before anyone read it further. I think we must include this allegation of being militant in the later part of the article and not in the first part. Dear user Michael you are correct that there is no rule for first line but as per my knowledge wikipedia is not just work on certain rule book other wise it will be a Hippocratic work and not the democratic. There are lots of others things also considered hear except the rule. Regards, --Sandeep (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get exactly what you meant. It is clearly mentioned that it is an allegation. The first line contains adjectives which describe the organization, and being allegedly militant is one of them. Yes Michael? •^Talk 09:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you throw some light on what exactly means by an "allegedly militant organization"? Please go through the discussion again. A few incidents in 85+ years history does not make one alleged organization. I have discussed the sources as well..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 10:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

I think all the light has already been thrown. 85 years or 2085 years, if there are some notable allegations, then it will be shown. Yes Michael? •^Talk 13:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What nonsense. Does it mean that if any people of any organization indulge in alleged militancy, that organization becomes allegedly militant?.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 15:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you have answered your own question!Yes Michael? •^Talk 16:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I asked a question, I did not give an answer. Please don't avoid answering, since there are many organizations who have indulged in wholesale militancy, I would be adding such at other places too, may be not..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 16:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

For other organisations, go to the respective page/talk page. Yes Michael? •^Talk 17:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

So there is no standard. This is real reason why there is a problem. Going to other sites and discussing this whole thing is a waste of time in absence of standards that are applied to case by case basis, and forms selective bias. This absence of standards is alarming to me..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 17:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyway here are some technical reasons:

1. Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#First_sentence_content First sentence content - Why is this subject notable?

About Wikipedia:Notability,

1. Wikipedia:BLP1E#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event states that "Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. - Extending this to first line in the article on RSS, the allegations with reliable sources are immediately disputed by counter allegations from reliable sources are followed immediately; hence will be better to merge with the later part of introduction.

2. Wikipedia:Note#Notability_is_not_temporary - While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time re-assessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. As a result articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier considered. - i.e. this would be checked again and again till court case is settled, making this whole exercise of deciding the allegations also temporary.

3. Wikipedia:BLP1E#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event - If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.[5] In addition, some subject specific notability guidelines such as WP:ATHLETE provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event." [5]-(to biographies of low-profile individuals.) - Extending to first line of the article on RSS, RSS role is not significant as an organization here, and RSS is not chiefly known for one event.

Considering all the above reasons, it is better to move allegations and immediate rebuttals and counter allegations to the last section of paragraph..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 18:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This is certainly not notable for 1E (one event). Yes Michael? •^Talk 04:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Please go through the discussion again. I have pointed out how the sources mention just one even others are incorrect or unsubstantiated..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 06:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The policies you have pointed out refer to Biographies of living people. And the RSS is defintely not a unit notable for just one event. Yes Michael? •^Talk 08:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of organization wise guidelines, these points should be extended to guidelines for first line for organizations too. I think that much is common sense..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 14:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Extending Biographies of living people to organisations? Seems quite unusual. Yes Michael? •^Talk 14:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The only unusual part is absence of standards for first line for an organization, creating a gray area to that may be abused. Taking a leaf out of standard mentioned for similar pages, in this case biographies, is not unusual, it is common sense. I don't what is exactly called passing common sense as unusual..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 15:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

More info on the following link: WP:LEAD is written so that it can apply to all articles (& policies).असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 07:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Alleged involment in militancy

I shall be removing the section Alleged involvement in militancy According to some released documents by WikiLeaks, Congress(I) party's general secretary Rahul Gandhi remarked to US Ambassador Timothy Roemer, at a luncheon hosted by Prime Minister of India at his residence in July 2009, that R.S.S. posed a 'bigger threat' to India than the Lashkar-e-Tayiba. RSS mouthpiece Panchjanya said that the statement indicated his lack of understanding of Hindutva & concept of nationalism and part of a pre-planned move^[2].

As the section is completely false. No where Rahul Gandhi has named RSS all he said to wikileaks was informed the American ambassador that Hindu extremist groups could pose a greater threat to his country than Muslim militantsRahul Gandhi, the "crown prince" of Indian politics, told the American ambassador last year that Hindu extremist groups could pose a greater threat to his country than Muslim militants The Hindu December 17, 2010. such as the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba.Radical Hindu groups bigger threat than LeT, says Rahul What Rahul told US envoy about Hindu terrorism</ref> There was huge political uproar in India after his talks were leaked.[5] Prince's National Integrity Doubtful RSS mouthpiece Panchjanya said the statement indicated his lack of understanding of Hindutva & concept of nationalism and Indian historyThink before you speak. Please note he mentioned Hindu extremists and not RSS.

If RSS would have been found involved in militancy, it would have been banned or some legal cases must be on them or their leaders. How can wikipedia display such false statements in their pages. Jethwarp (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You can not blame Wikipedia for what Mr. Rahul Gandhi said the US Ambassador and leaked by Wikileaks. I will change the content to make it look as it appears in the report i.e. Radical Hindu Groups, to which RSS replied immediately..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 08:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

THE Heading Alleged involvemnet in Militancy is misleading. If you want to put remarks of Rahul Gandhi & RSS then I will change the heading. Please give a citation that RSS is involved in militancy then change the heading```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.203.237.64 (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the heading to RSS and Rahul Gandhi from old heading Alleged involvemnet in Militancy. The cited sournces have not mention on RSS with Militancy. As said earlier by someone heading are misleading. So if some one wants to revert back old heading, he should give such citatation which collaborate with heading Thnak youJethwarp (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We have had a lengthy discussion above, and ended without consensus. The matter is at ANI as well. Just because another editor comes and takes the same side, it is absolutely no reason to remove the disputed material. Establish a firm consensus here first. Ask experienced editors to get involved That is the way to go about a discussion. Yes Michael? •^Talk 11:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Mike give link to ANI please.210.89.52.208 (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The 'alleged militancy' part of first line is resolved here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dougweller#Enquiry_on_Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh.23Edit_request_from_67.78.85.67.2C_12_April_2011_edit_discussion_for_consensus

210.89.52.208 (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the report. Start a new thread there, and don't reply in the archive; an admin won't see it. Yes Michael? •^Talk 15:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

After I posted there, the clerk personnel sent a message here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thisthat2011#Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh.23Edit_request_from_67.78.85.67.2C_12_April_2011_edit_discussion_for_consensus saying with the resolution. I sent a message on his page to clarify what he meant and sent the link above : This

It is the same issue, and replied already..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 15:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment Agree with this version; allegations are well-cited. Organizations are not "living persons," and as such BLP rules don't apply. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well this assertions are incorrect, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dougweller#Enquiry_on_Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh.23Edit_request_from_67.78.85.67.2C_12_April_2011_edit_discussion_for_consensus

i.e. WP:LEAD is written so that it can apply to all articles (as do our policies). user:Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC). If you have any issues take it to the a clerk for the Arbitration Committee user:Dougweller..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 05:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. WP:LEAD applies to all articles. The same is not said about WP:BLP. ArbCom was not the right place to take the dispute to. It looks like Dougweller has just given a few kind words for you trying to clear it up. He hasn't given his opinion on the dispute. Please continue the discussion. Consensus has not yet been established. Yes Michael? •^Talk 13:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that WP:LEAD does not say anything for first line of an organization does not mean that those who made standards have ignored a facet of the page. As there is no straightforward standard to write the first line of an organization, but there is another for biography, it should be extended to it. I have raised it again to the concerned person and I am expecting a reply for this. Consensus is not about majority/minority, it is about considering all aspects to decide the outcome by concerned parties..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 15:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Biographies of Living Persons and Organizations? Still looks like Apples and Oranges. Yes Michael? •^Talk 15:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen standards on first line of an organization? Are you a multilingual or you are content with one true language of the quen?.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 15:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no relevance of my linguistic capabilities here. To clarify, I know 7 languages, of which 4 are Indian, (including the noble language Sanskrit and my mother tongue), and two European languages, barring English. Ohnoitsjamie has made his note here, as an uninvolved administrator. Please take note of that. Yes Michael? •^Talk 15:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, as I said, I have raised the issue with the concerned person again. Hope to get some clarity soon..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 15:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Mike is correct. There is a clear consensus here and the article as it stands is not in any violation of policy that I can see. If you continue edit warring on the topic, you may be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you point out where is mention of standards for the first line for an article to an organization? The thing is I have tried to find details about it a lot and can't locate anything of the sort..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 16:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That is because there are probably no such standards. Yes Michael? •^Talk 16:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly which is what is pointed out a few times already and also that it is an assumption if we don't see that no such standards are already formulated, and they are in fact mentioned standards in WP:LEAD - First line - biography part, as pointed out a little while ago above - 3 points and explanations..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 16:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I found them. Excerpts from WP:BEGINNING.

The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject.
If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.^[3] However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text. Similarly, where an article title is of the type "List of ...", a clearer and more informative introduction to the list is better than verbatim repetition of the title.

When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms.^[4] Similarly, if the title has a parenthetical disambiguator, the disambiguator should be omitted in the text.^[5]

If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a specialised term, provide the context as early as possible.^[6]

Redundancy must be kept to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information which is not already given by the title of the article. Remember that the title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead.^[7]

For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence.^[8]

If the article is about a fictional character or place, say so.^[9]

If the page is a list, do not introduce the list as "This is a list of X" or "This list of Xs...". (See Format of the first sentence below).

Let me know which part of the current first sentence is in violation of this. Yes Michael? •^Talk 16:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, there are no guidelines, so lets see if some one has done something similar. The guidelines are then for WP:LEAD, where there at the end this can be mentioned. As it is, notability is also not strong as the allegations are immediately disputed, making the article look like an article with a lot of disputes and so on - which is why it is not in bad faith. An allegations should not be mentioned in the first line because allegations are notable along with their refutations, allegations are also temporary and as it is the incident is not significant in 85 year history of RSS, not RSS is not significantly part of it by policy. It is therefore better to put allegations in not in the first line but in the last line, along with other accusations in WP:LEAD..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 17:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, there are guidelines. I just pasted them above. And yes, the allegations are notable. We have gone through that in the discussion. Yes Michael? •^Talk 17:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct, I agree. Perhaps inferring from available indirect references is upto no good, anyway there is no standard for first line for article on any organization..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 20:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt this really interesting discussion. Have gone through all the arguments put forward. I would like to ask YesMichael, if an organisation had done a lot of social work and one among its millions of members has been accused of some terrorist attack, would it be prudent to label that organisation a militant one. Infact, that can be said about christian organizations also. They indulge in forceful religious conversions all over India. Mike, do you realiza that you are helping the present government in fooling people about the actual nature of the RSS. Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 09:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If your comments were to reflect the kind of edits you will be making to this article, then god alone knows how you will maintain a Neutral Point of View and enable removal of the tag (which you claim will achieve). This page is not to discuss Christian organizations; TT2011 has been involved in lengthy discussions regarding Christian Terrorism; perhaps you could join him/her. Anyway, just as you read the discussion above, please take some valuable time out to read the references presented in the article. Wikipedia reflects what the sources say. That's that. Lynch 7 11:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Mike, you still haven't answered my question. The first line lacks NPOV and you also know that. Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 14:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The first three references are mere opinions. The first one is JSTOR article written by some Jean A. Curran. Please prove how a POV of a person will not lack NPOV. The second one is the muslim media network. This haven't yet said that JeM is terrorist organization. How credible is that. The third one is an article from greatkashmir.com. The name itself sounds secessionist. I dispute its credibility. The fourth and the fifth article are about Aseemanand. Nowhere in the article, its written that "RSS" as such "is involved in militant activities". Please be objective in your reply. and lets avoid this christian terrorism arguments. Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 14:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mentioned in my first two points above already. What a waste of time. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If you start calling all cited articles as POV, then 9/10ths of the articles on Wikipedia would have little orange tags on them. Okay, I'll make a discount on the Muslim media network source; You "seem to think that the name of greaterkashmir.com sounds secessionist". Isn't this your POV? Also see the second line of the article, which says that these allegations have been denied; I can comment on and dispute each source of this too; of course an RSS person will say RSS is not militant. All books/journals/articles are based on the writer's perception. My dear friends, Wikipedia is written on what sources say, and not necessarily the truth. Is the RSS militant? I don't know, but as an Indian and a Hindu, I hope not. Our responsibility is to ensure a neutral POV, and on many occasions, it has been banned, and accused of being militant; the article should reflect that adequately, but I'm not saying we should give undue weight to it. @TT2011, lets try and tone down the hostilities down, shall we :) Lynch 7 17:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

How about presenting clearer sources, because this can repeat again as far as RS is considered. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the journal entry by Jean Curran should be good, as well as the BBC article; both of which mention the RSS prominently, and not in passing. Note that both these sources don't mention the alleged militant nature just as a one-off event or anything, but mentions it seriously. Lynch 7 18:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I might be a dimwit, but I want to reclarify some of the statements put forward by Mike. So here it goes: 1. There may be 9/10th of all articles based on POV, but they might not be disputed by wikipedia editors. 2. No need to discount the muslim media network source. I am not against muslims. Just try to put some of the views on islam from Hindu or christian religious websites, you might be unable to bear the backlash. Again, I do not want to quote websites here. Then the editors will doubt your POV. See my only point is if a point is disputed by editors, there shouldn't be any mention of it in the article. Again, I don't want to go quoting some wikipedia guidelines here as you must agree that they are open for interpretation. 3. Its good that you agree that the allegations have not been proved in any court in the world even after more than 70 years, so I want to ask you isn't it your POV if you are so interested in keeping this in the first line itself. 4. You seem to be suggesting that I am a RSS member by writing "of course an RSS person will say RSS is not militant". May I know how you came to this conclusion? 5. Nobody cares here whether you are an Indian or a Hindu or what you hope or wish. Every argument should be logical. If it is disputed, then it shouldn't be put in the first line. Thats all I say. There may be a separate section which can deal with the alleged links. I am OK with that. What if some article's beginning is by "Mr. X is a businessman, alleged murderer, alleged rapist, alleged bomber and alleged thief." I hope you get my point. If still you want to continue imposing your POV, then best of luck. Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 18:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Two points before I begin my comment: It is good that you don't care what I am, you may choose not to read that particular line; fine by me. Also, to clarify, I do not, by any stretch of imagination, intend to allege that you are connected to the RSS in any way at all. I only hope and wish that we all discuss in good faith; if you want to throw that in the dustbin, fine by me; I am capable of discussing through Wikipedia policies and guidelines, while having a cold and stony discussion.

So, going by your argument, we should go on eliminating sources which someone else disputes? So today, if some editor disputes A. Raja's involvement in the 2G Scam, we shouldn't make a mention of it in the A. Raja article at all? Also, again, regarding your comments on courts not proving charges, the government has banned the RSS multiple times; there is indictment at some level, for some amount of time at least. Lynch 7 19:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Dude, sorry to say this, but you didn't get the point I was making. I will make it simpler for you. Go back to the A. Raja page. Read the first line only. Tell me whats written there. Does it say that he was "allegedly" corrupt? Even if it was written there, did amyone object to it. What happened after that. Was it removed or was it kept. I said "There may be a separate section which can deal with the alleged links. I am OK with that." You have totally missed the point I was trying to make. I thoought the discussion which you had been doing for the past few months was about the first line only. and yes, if possible, please answer point wise to my arguments. Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 19:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir, this is not a biography. Read WP:BEGINNING; the terms presently used are adjectives used to describe the subject in question, and the terms used do describe the organization in question. Regarding discussions regarding WP:BEGINNING, it has been discussed at length. And I deeply regret to inform you that I find it mildly inconvenient to answer to your questions pointwise, since many of the points tend to be redundant, and I prefer (in some cases) to make my answers sweeping. Lynch 7 19:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Does it? I have gone through some of the edits you have been making and they make your affiliations clear. I am sorry but you won't get away with this. I will refer your edits to some of the administrators when I get some time and see what can be done about you. Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 19:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

By all means, Sir, feel free to do so

. Lynch 7 19:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

And yes, just for the records, It was you who quoted A.Raja. None of my points were answered. So, I feel it proper to edit the first line and remove the "allegedly militant" remark. I have read WP:BEGINNING and I feel that you should reread it. Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 19:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I really smell no sign of consensus on this thread, so any edit you make to the line in question could be legitimately reverted. I am sorry if I could not satisfactorily comprehend (and hence, answer) any of your points. If you did not know, Wikipedia runs on consensus. Lynch 7 19:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You will never smell one. You could also never be able to comprehend satisfactorily. Such a loser. ,,|, Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 14:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This overlaps with the discussion on Organiztion too. So I make this suggestion in both places. The suggested lead sentence to include the membership profile

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) (Hindi: राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ), (National Volunteer Organization[2] or National Patriotism Organization[3]), also known the Sangh, is a right-wing Hindu nationalist, paramilitary,[4] volunteer,[5] and allegedly militant[6][7][8][9][10] organization for Hindu males in India. These allegations are denied and termed as political conspiracy[11][12][13][14][15] by RSS and some others.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupkc (talk • contribs) 09:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems fine. Lynch 7 09:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

^ "On the rampage". Retrieved 7 August 2010.
^ http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-think-before-you-speak-rss-tells-rahul/20101221.htm
^ For example:
This Manual of Style is a style guide containing ...

not

This style guide, known as the Manual of Style, contains ...
^ For example, in the article "United Kingdom":
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain, is a sovereign island country located off the northwestern coast of continental Europe.
^ Thus, the article Egg (food) should start like this:
An egg is an ovum produced by ...

Not like this:

An egg (food) is an ovum produced by ...
^ For example, instead of:
A trusted third party is an entity that facilitates interactions between two parties who both trust the third party.

write:

In cryptography, a trusted third party is an entity that facilitates interactions between two parties who both trust the third party.
^ For example, instead of
Pakistani-Iraqi relations are the relations between Pakistan and Iraq.[6]
consider:
Iraq and Pakistan established diplomatic relations in 1947.[7]
Remember that the title need not always appear in the lead if the article title is descriptive, and in any case the statement relations are relations does not help a reader who does not know the meaning of diplomatic relations. In this case, the editor of the second version sensibly opted to include new information (that relations were established in 1947) in the first sentence, rather than repeating the title.
Sometimes a little redundancy is unavoidable. The Oxford English Dictionary has to be called by its proper name in its article, and cannot be called anything other than a dictionary in the first sentence. Even in these cases, the first sentence must provide information not given in the title. But try to rephrase whenever possible. Instead of

The Oxford English Dictionary [...] is a comprehensive dictionary of the English language.[8]
consider
The Oxford English Dictionary [...] is the premier dictionary of the English language.[9]
Both contain some redundancy, but the second is better because it tells us that the OED is the world's most respected dictionary of English. Again, someone who knows what the word dictionary means will probably assume that any dictionary is comprehensive, so they do not need to be told that.
^ For example:
Amalie Emmy Noether [ˈnøːtɐ] (23 March 1882 – 14 April 1935) was a German mathematician known for her groundbreaking contributions to abstract algebra and her contributions to theoretical physics.

This example not only tells the reader that the subject was a mathematician, it also indicates her field of expertise and work she did outside of it. The years of her birth and death provide time context. The reader who goes no further in this article already knows when she lived, what work she did, and why she is notable. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) has more on the specific format for biography articles.)
^ For example:
Homer Simpson is a fictional character in The Simpsons.

[1] "On the rampage". Retrieved 7 August 2010.

[2] ttp://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-think-before-you-speak-rss-tells-rahul/20101221.htm

[3] For example:
This Manual of Style is a style guide containing ...

not

This style guide, known as the Manual of Style, contains ...

[4] For example, in the article "United Kingdom":
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain, is a sovereign island country located off the northwestern coast of continental Europe.

[5] Thus, the article Egg (food) should start like this:
An egg is an ovum produced by ...

Not like this:

An egg (food) is an ovum produced by ...

[6] For example, instead of:
A trusted third party is an entity that facilitates interactions between two parties who both trust the third party.

write:

In cryptography, a trusted third party is an entity that facilitates interactions between two parties who both trust the third party.

[7] For example, instead of
Pakistani-Iraqi relations are the relations between Pakistan and Iraq.[6]
consider:
Iraq and Pakistan established diplomatic relations in 1947.[7]
Remember that the title need not always appear in the lead if the article title is descriptive, and in any case the statement relations are relations does not help a reader who does not know the meaning of diplomatic relations. In this case, the editor of the second version sensibly opted to include new information (that relations were established in 1947) in the first sentence, rather than repeating the title.
Sometimes a little redundancy is unavoidable. The Oxford English Dictionary has to be called by its proper name in its article, and cannot be called anything other than a dictionary in the first sentence. Even in these cases, the first sentence must provide information not given in the title. But try to rephrase whenever possible. Instead of

The Oxford English Dictionary [...] is a comprehensive dictionary of the English language.[8]
consider
The Oxford English Dictionary [...] is the premier dictionary of the English language.[9]
Both contain some redundancy, but the second is better because it tells us that the OED is the world's most respected dictionary of English. Again, someone who knows what the word dictionary means will probably assume that any dictionary is comprehensive, so they do not need to be told that.

[8] For example:
Amalie Emmy Noether [ˈnøːtɐ] (23 March 1882 – 14 April 1935) was a German mathematician known for her groundbreaking contributions to abstract algebra and her contributions to theoretical physics.

This example not only tells the reader that the subject was a mathematician, it also indicates her field of expertise and work she did outside of it. The years of her birth and death provide time context. The reader who goes no further in this article already knows when she lived, what work she did, and why she is notable. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) has more on the specific format for biography articles.)

[9] For example:
Homer Simpson is a fictional character in The Simpsons.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]