Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh/Archive 3

RSS
To add the sentence 'controversial right wing'with RSS is not biased one.it is a least fact.if somebody add 'an extremist hindu organisation' then it would be vandalism.but here RSS has had long controversial involvement like in Gandhiji assasination,Babri masjid demolistion,Gujrat roit,Orissa riot and offcourse it banned three times by govt. of india. so these evidents all are not enough for your guys to be included a word controversy ?Vicharam (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki needs facts and references that support them. The articles need to be written with neutral point of view. Involvement in Gandhi's murder etc are allegations and the Courts have exonerated the organisation. There are sections on assasination of Gandhi where all of this is discussed in detail. If you look at people and organisations in public life, there are so many accusations flying around them. Obama would be called controversial by some Republicans because of his so called support to ACORN. Similarly, with most people in public life. That doesn't make all of them controversial. You can still talk about their controversies, but they cannot be labeled as controversial. Please also note that Wiki discourages the use of Weasel words. nihar (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

rss
There is scope for an article to be written/discussed in print/electronic media about these types of saffronisation of wiki.Definitely this rss minded wiki editors make it authenticity vulnerable.nihar, why u are comparing RSS'controversy with obama. Then what would be the criteria for militant,facsit,extremist,organisations.Please don't fool others by telling wiki's formalities and procedures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicharam (talk • contribs) 12:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

With reference to the below line in the page on RSS

"Noted Gandhian leader and the leader of Sarvoday movement, who earlier was a vocal opponent of RSS had the following to say about it in 1977"

The name of the Gandhian leader is not mentioned. I think it's Sri Jayaprakash Narayanan (JP). If that's correct, his name might be included to make the statement more factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.92.15 (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Vicharam, It is the people who go on posting random allegations and accusations in an article on Wiki who make the authenticity of the Wiki vulnerable. As you yourself have said Nihar is sticking to Wiki formalities and procedures. If one is not ready to accept and abide by "Wiki formalities and procedures" that person should not be on Wiki. Criteria for militant, fascist, extremist organizations is simple - put forward verifiable and proven facts from independent sources. One cannot consider a known ideological opponent like Forum of Indian "Leftists" to be an authentic source of information on RSS. --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
The neutrality of this article has to be discussed. Several critical remarks on RSS, in the criticism secti9on was removed earlier. I have restored them. Also, many controversial events involving RSS, including Hindu-Muslim riots in India, Babri Masjid demolition etc are mostly unmentioned here. Anupkc (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why the POV notification box was removed without discussing here. I still think that, the article lacks sections detailing the criticism against RSS, especially on the issues of Hindu-Muslim violence and Babri demolition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupkc (talk • contribs) 08:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I don't need any web resources, specifically. Even books will do. I will update the page with any relevant data with citations, if I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupkc (talk • contribs) 11:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thet reference provided to the above statement is just a link containing teh header to an article. There is no content in that article. Hence I have removed it. --Anupkc (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not know that. But anyways, This what the site says when I opened in IE.

This does not match with the original claims anyway.Anupkc (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Friend, Rference for Khuswat singhs statement on RSS is added. Moreover refrence for relation of SFH with FOIL is also added. --Sandeepsp4u (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The original claim was that "RSS has adopted militancy hit muslim children" and the quoted para clearly mentions details that "57 children (38 Muslims and 19 Hindus)" were dispatched from the affected areas to new delhi. The it says that "Around two dozen children, mostly from Muslim community have been adopted... ...20 days ago". what in your opinion does not match the "original claims" here, anup Unknownbroadway (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Fellow wikiusers,

A reference to FOIL and SFH report exists in the section though FOIL's credibility has been questioned by several independent bodies. FOIL itself is a part of Progressive South Asians Exchange (PROXSA). One such reference has been inserted so that readers can take into account the fact that this allegation may not be true. Further the investigation by the UK Charity Commissioner have cleared Sangh of any such missapropriations. In wake of this dedicating a full para to this episode itself does not make sense. Though if users feel that the incident commands mentions then we should keep the qualifiers like the one I have added intact. Indian (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Further, the fact that FOIL itself is a part of Progressive South Asians Exchange (PROXSA) [92] which has been under severe criticism from media bodies like Independent Media Center (IMC) [93] casts shadow over reliability of such claims." This sentence especially the last part - "casts shadow over reliability of such claims" is your point of view. I am removing this part which violates neutral POV.--Anupkc (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The last edit on removing the points shedding light on role of FOIL/PROXSA is infact a breach of the NPOV norm. The addition of the statement was not a personal viewpoint but a statement that arises from the report and comment from a third party organization called IMC. Further the user who has deleted the statement (pl. sign your id after making changes) should keep in view the fact that an allegation which was eventually ruled out by all the legal govenment agencies is being highlighted which amounts to implying that the govt. bodies are biased. Explain your action ASAP or else I will have to revert back the changes and add the statement which was duly sustaintianted and had reliable sources that I had provided. Indian (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"casts shadow over reliability of such claims"- This is an opinion, not a fact. And whose opinion is it? If it is yours it does not deserve to be here. If it is of a third party, please mention that so-and-so opined that "...casts shadow over reliability of such claims" --Anupkc (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Wiki is not just about A said so, B said so etc. When one puts the word militant in double quotes in the phrase "most militant Hindu organisation", he is also trying to express his own opinion and not exactly how it appears on britannica. Wiki rules cannot change from person to person. In this case, the user Mainmahan|Indian has substantiated the statement/opinion he is making with factual references. So, we should retain "casts shadow over reliability of such claims" in the section.--Deshabhakta (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Gandhi Assassination
The words of Gopal Godse, a convict and the brother of the accused is very much a valid info on the Gandhi assassination and RSS. It has been clearly stated that those are indeed words of him. The article should and could contain more than court verdicts for the sake of comprehensiveness. So they should stay. --Anupkc (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Repeat- Gopal Godse, is not just a brother of the assassin, he was a co-convict as well. So his words on the assassin's as well as his own association with RSS does count.-- Anupkc (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The undo based on the Notability criteria is a violation. If not, please explain and discuss here before editing. --Anupkc (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

G. Godse has said lot many fancifull things lot many times, contradicting himself again and again. We can't put all of them here. Thats why in such disputable matters, it is good to go by what courts and commissions say rather than some fringe quotations nihar (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So finally you know G Godse is. So there is no issue of Notability anymore ? Give proofs on how Gopal Godse contradicted himself after the above statement. There is no space limit in Wikipedia. All the relevant comments by Gopal Godse can be added here, if you have references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupkc (talk • contribs) 13:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What he said infront of the court and what he said almost 50 years later as an oldman in itself is a contradiction. And, I may know anupkc as well, so does that make you notable? nihar (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So what? If you want, you can add what he said in the court about the association with RSS. that will make it more comprehensive. But that is no reason to remove his other statements. There is no rule that a person's contradicting statements cannot be added in the article. So, if you have no other comments, I will reinstate the words of Godse in teh article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupkc (talk • contribs) 13:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You can add all of that and more from reliable sources to the page dedicated for the assination of Gandhi. This page may not be the best to talk about all that. nihar (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In a section titled RSS's association with Gandhi assassination what else do you talk about other their association? I guess, if we keep disagreeing an arbitrator needs to be involved. --Anupkc (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

this is an article on RSS - not naturam godse. the RSS was accused of being involved in the assassination but the courts aquitted them. end of story. this article already mentions an accusal on RSS for the assassination and that is comprehensive enough. if you go on adding naturam godse's over the years contradictory statements here then this article begins to sound naturam-centric rather than RSS-centric. Unknownbroadway (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Nathuram godse's contradictory statements? May be you mean Gopal Godse's. Btw,the claim that he made so many contradictory statements that cannot be included in this article, is still a claim. And that particular section cannot be made comprehensive without sttaing all aspects of RSS's association. And teh Godse's brothers self-confessed association merits a mention. If you argue that he made contradictory statements on teh association, that can also be mentioned. I have stated this clearly earlier.

Dear Anup, Gopal godse's statement can't be added as a proof as the Judiciary of India had stated that RSS was not indulged in Gandhi Ji's murder. The more nuteral and acceptable is judiciary and not Gopal Godse. What do u say ? As Indian court had ruled that RSS is not involved in this matter why again and agian u are mentioning this hear. I request you to give this statement of page related to Gandhi Ji, Gandhi's assassination or every on Nathuram Godse.. This is RSS page and hear things related to RSS should only exist and not some Gopal Goses's claim after 50 yrs of incident. --Sandeepsp4u (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandeep, I am not making any claim that RSS is associated with Gandhi assassination. My claim is just that Gopal Godse, a convict in the case made a statement claiming association with the assassin and RSS. And that has nothing to do with what court ruled. --Anupkc (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Anup, You may be right but if we put this statement of Gopal Godse on the article page then it will prove to be doubting the India judiciary. Moreover as i said that this Gopal Golse is not such an entity that his statements can be included on this article ya it can be done on Nathuram Godse article. There are lots of aligation on RSS but they can only be accepted when they are proved. Allegation is not the truth its just a POV until its proved. So Gopal Godse statement can't have such vlues to be included on this page--Sandeepsp4u (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Anup,

Gopal Godse was co-convict. Gandhi's assassination is a legally closed case. Whatever G Godse said in the court of law should be considered and not something he says 50 years later. That too the source of this so called interview with G Godse is Frontline magazine which is known for its communist bias and hence it is not a neutral source. Frontline is run by the The Hindu Group whose chief editor N Ram is the founder member of Students Federation of India which is the students' wing of CPI(Marxist). The section on RSS and Gandhi Assassination is comprehensive enough without the mentioning of a statement of G Godse's to Frontline. The section gives due mentioning of the allegation of its involvement, court trial, ban and acquittal. --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You can think whatever about Frontline and it does not matter. It was stated in the article that the quote is from Frontline. It was not stated as a generalized statement. And the issue was not settled just in court. It is still an ongoing debate in the media and that is what that interview exactly shows. So, if you have any new points to mention, I am brining back those references. -- Anupkc (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So if there no more objections on bringing back Gopal Godse's comments on his RSS affiliation, please let me know. I wil reinstate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupkc (talk • contribs) 09:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of depate in media goes on about RSS so what we will put everything in the article. After the judgement of court no such statement of Gopal Godse make any sense to be on the article. --Sandeepsp4u (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear friend, the idea of the article itself is to put as much info about RSS, as possible. So please feel free to do so. And this is just your POV "After the judgement of court no such statement of Gopal Godse make any sense to be on the article" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupkc (talk • contribs) 10:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear anup this is not my POV. Your intention is not to provide every infomation but its to provide all negative informaion because you are only buys in providing lenth to the criticism. I you are saying that this is my POV then you must provide some third party refrence that Gopal Godse's statement holds a very strong ground. I had given a point that after getting a positive judgement from court RSS is not liable of any such statement. The idea is good to put as much info as possible but a nuteral info and not only criticism.--Sandeepsp4u (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Allegations on Brahminism
In the context of allegations of Brahminism or "uppercastism" against RSS, it does makes sense to include the caste profiles of RSS heads. This is in the context of the allegation that RSS works towards re-establishing a social hierarchy.

Discuss specific issues and not caste profiles nihar (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

How can you discuss the allegation that "RSS is dominated by brahmins", without discussing the caste profiles of its heads? == Anupkc (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And you would also know that in CPI(M) too most of its founders and members are Brahmins and from upper castes and so does Congress. nihar (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a place to discuss CPIM. This is an article on RSS. Stick to the topic.-- Anupkc (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't get agitated with the name CPIM, I was just giving you an analogy. You could well, discuss all that you want without unnecessary caste and racial profiling. nihar (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The caste profiling is not unncessary, but inevitable for discussing this content. And btw, the edits you remived contained more than just caste profiling. For example it also included allegations of "Maharashtrian Brahminical Club and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupkc (talk • contribs) 14:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

from these claims i assume some people on this board live right next to RSS leaders. back your claims before posting such a statement else i will remove it. Unknownbroadway (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Which claim are you referring to? All the claims I had included ( which Nihar removed for wrong reasons, IMO) had been substantiated with references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupkc (talk • contribs) 08:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

you don't seem to understand the difference between brahmin (caste) and Brahminism (phenomena). You are trying to mix up the two for advocating a point of view. This type of faulty argument is very well known. It is something like this - Some leaders of the White House are Whites. Some Whites are White supremacists, hence White House is White Supremacist institution. Your POVs and advocacy is all based on this. Unspokentruth (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. "...Nagpur region of Maharashtra where the RSS was founded in 1925. It claimed to be a Hindu defence organisation to meet a terrible threat from muslims - yet Muslims were and are very thin on the ground here. 'The RSS was and remains, an overwhelmingly high caste group' - and the Nagpur area already by the early 1920s had become a major center of Dalit [=low caste hindus] activity." Racism in metropolitan areas --By Rik Pinxten, Ellen Preckler (http://books.google.com/books?id=TDQ0fXsx3ooC&pg=PA83)

“With a largely Brahman-dominated leadership, the BJP can now be fairly said to be the political front of the RSS.” -- Religion and political conflict in South Asia: India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. By Douglas Allen http://books.google.com/books?id=E0vjilj8zOYC&pg=PA18 Evox777 (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Mission Section
Whoever added the following under Mission section of the article, please let me know where such a quote from Shri M S Golvalkar exists in the book Bunch of Thoughts. In the absence of such a reply, I will be removing this mentioning from the article soon.

While explaining the stand of RSS, on the problems faced by the nation, he identifies three entities – Muslims, Christians and Communists – as internal threats.[43]

--Deshabhakta (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an exlcusive chapter on the "Threats to Nation"in Bunch of threats, where he identifies these three threats. You can verify it here. Part 2, Section 16 at http://www.hindubooks.org/bot/contents.htm -- Anupkc (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Anup for the link. I will go through the chapter mentioned by you and get back.--Deshabhakta (talk) 06:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandeep whydid you remove the above comment ? WHat did you mean by " In that there is now word specifically used for the threat to nation" ? --Anupkc (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection of Sikhs during anti-Sikh riot 1984
This section is just for one quote by Khuswanth Singh. Unless, it is substantiated with further information, it does not deserve a separate section IMO.--Anupkc (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Together we can elaborate more on this topic in the near future. Lets continue to have this section. Having a short section should not be a problem.--Deshabhakta (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
This section is getting cluttered, after moving texts from other parts to here. I think, it should be divided into sub sections.--Anupkc (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The text was removed from the criticism section, citing incorrect references.

But I have verified the references and they indeed are correct and valid. So reinstating this. --Anupkc (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the last paragraph in Britannia's article on Hanuman

It indeed contains the exact wordings referenced in teh article. So please revert the edits, Sandeep.--Anupkc (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Reinstated the text, after consulting with Sandeep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupkc (talk • contribs) 09:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Funding
The following statement in the article is misleading

on the following counts - The investigation by UK charity commissioner had nothing to do with the allegation by SFH. - The allegation was not against even RSS. The commission itself clarified it. - The enquiry was only about funds collected for rehabilitation of victims of the earthquake in Gujarat in 2001.

Also the reference "A Factual Response to the Hate Attack on the India Development and Relief Fund (IDRF), © Friends of India and Authors of the Report" at http://www.letindiadevelop.org/thereport/synopsis.html does not exist.

And the second reference has no reference to this claim made in the article - "misleading Marxist propaganda by IDRF".

I am dividing the criticism section to subsections--Anupkc (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Any one making edits to teh section, please discuss it here. Sandeep. why did you remove my edits? I have clearly explained above how the previous statements in teh article were unreferenced, factually misleading etc. --Anup 09:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The details of publications like Panchjanya, Bunch of thoughts etc. were misgrouped under criticism giving the section undue space and weight. I have reclassified them under a separate section. Hope this is not controversial on grounds of reclassification and stays though it's open to discussion. Indian (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight is being given to untenable charges made by a fringe leftist group which itself has a controversial reputation. I am summarising the whole paragraph with all points.

clever dear anupkc, you could as well refer to the SFH website and you will get to know if UK charity comissioner's report had anything to do with SFH allegation or not. Unspokentruth (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted content
I am unable to verify the following: “The organization gained considerable strength and support because of its relief activities organized for the migrating Hindus, and protection of Hindus and Sikhs in the Hindu-Muslim riots”---Vajapayee Manik Chandra & Paradkar Sridhar,2002, Partition Days, Suruchi Prakashan. If somebody can correct the citation or post another, the above material will be reinstated. Evox777 (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that new section created is own POV just writing an easy without any reference. I think there must be a discussion before adding any new section in the article. --Sandeep (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What new section are you talking about? Whatever i had written, i had provided verifiable references. I see you have reverted back all changes i made. I don't wanna get in an editing war so do you mind explaining why my edits and references were removed? This whole article is completely biased towards RSS. An organization which Amnesty international has blamed for thousands of deaths. All this article contains is selectively picked out references which project RSS in a good light. Evox777 (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

is there any wiki policy say that before adding any content to perticular article the subject should be discussed in disscussion page ?--Vicharam (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy like that. What sandeep is doing is wrong. He has no right to remove constructive additions and edits by others, just because they go against his point of view. Evox777 (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been almost a week and there has been no response from either Sandeep or Nihar. If there is no reponse from you two by tomorrow, I am gonna assume you have no objections against my previous edits and i will reinstate my material.Evox777 (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Vicharam... and Evox777.. The same policy applies to you both also that it not u are against some idea so u can oppose it hear in wiki.. i am always ready for discussion and moreover this adding is disputed and so it must be resolved before adding on article. The source which you are quoting are totally biased towards organization and i had proved it by posting the reference for my sentences. I don't have any objections if any one of you can bring the neutral reference's which can be useful for the contribution. I hope you understand what i mean to say. If we will put such biased source quotes then later there may be lots of issues with other contributers. So we must always try to put the neutral sources.--Sandeep (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please re-post those neutral references which go against my citations. I can't recall seeing those anywhere. And until now, I have not reinstated my edits.

In support of my citations: - The online encyclopedia of mass violence is a peer reviewed publication whose articles are accepted in universities across the globe. Here is some more info:
 * http://www.massviolence.org/-The-Project-

- OpenDemocracy.net is run by a well known UK based non-profit organization (registration number: 1086404) which fights for human rights and democracy.

I agree with Vicharam's point, Justice Liberhan's report cannot be branded as biased and brushed aside. The report has been presided by a respectable Indian high court judge, taken 17 years to complete, and has taken the testimony of hundreds of people including former Indian prime ministers.

The report is legally admissible in Indian courts and will be considered as evidence upon submission. You are probably gonna dispute this too so here is a link from BBC.
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8373586.stm

Evox777 (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Evox.. you do your edits with Your reference and if i have any doubt i will put my neutral reference --Sandeep (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

@sandeep. I am still waiting for you to provide the neutral references which convinced you delete my changes. I have sufficiently explained the neutrality of my citations, but so far you have not even produced yours.Evox777 (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Sandeep does not have any neutral refereences for his POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.200.44.60 (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Evox about which changes u want neutral references..... and please ip edits are not much welcomed in wiki --Sandeep (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

@sandeep Please reread. "please ip edits are not much welcomed in wiki" --citation neededEvox777 (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Evox..... I know very well and that will alos require you to prove hear that the ip is mine so check before you talk.--Sandeep (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Evox I had already stated that The hindu can't be considered as nuteral refrence and had given enough reference supporting the same and i don't know how Asgar Ali can be considered as Nuteral for RSS Article... --Sandeep (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

@ All.. It seems that this page is under some attack as lots of ip edits are seen i had reverted on of them. I will request to stop doing ip edits as it will create more issues in resolving the despute and making contribution to the article.--Sandeep (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

too many edits from ip users
I see too many edits from ip users, many of them vandalistic and without any regard to the quality or the content of the article. It is neither desirable nor is any use discussing with ip users. I suggest they come with their user IDs and stop hiding behind these IP socks. If such attacks persist, I think we should seek page protection. Unspokentruth (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unable to verify the following material
The Liberhan Commission report while observes that "RSS swayamsevaks" offered "resistance" to a defiant group of karsevaks who "breached the security cordon around the disputed structure" and that "the RSS swayamsevaks succeeded in physically throwing the intruders from the platform" when "no visible substantial resistance was put up by the police or the administration for stalling the intruders" --- paras 43.12/13,p253,Liberhan Comission http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?title=Street+corner+gossip&artid=mIBkN5sGz|0=&SectionID=d16Fdk4iJhE=&MainSectionID=HuSUEmcGnyc=&SEO=A+B+Vajpayee,+Ayodhya,+Liberhan,+Advani,+Singhal,&SectionName=aVlZZy44Xq0bJKAA84nwcg==

From Liberhan Commisson's report:

43.12 Admittedly, press passes were issued by the VHP media center signed by Ram Shanker Agnihotri and Chauhan to the photographers and journalists

43.13 IG AK Saran stated that the intention to perform a symbolic Karseva was given to him by Vinay Katiyar on the 4th of December. This statement of AK Saran, on te face of it appears to be false, as admittedly the purported decision with respect to the symbolic Karseva was taken on the 5th of December at Ayodhya by the Dharam Sansad. The organisers and leaders continued mobilising the people for the construction of temple even till the 6th of December 1992.

If the paragraph numbers you posted above are wrong, please post the correct number(s) and reinstate the material.Evox777 (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Quote on partition
The organization gained considerable strength and support because of its relief activities organized for the migrating Hindus, and protection of Hindus and Sikhs in the Hindu-Muslim riots --- Vajapayee Manik Chandra & Paradkar Sridhar,2002, Partition Days, Suruchi Prakashan. Evox777 (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Disputed Structure Demolition Section
The so called babri masjid structure is never termed as babri masjid by court or by any government body. Moreover there was worshiping done at that place before its demolition so we can't termed it as Masjid --Sandeep (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

is there any wiki policy that name should be used as the way any govt. body or court used. then why you dont change babri masji article name to disputed strcture ?

According to the directive from Supreme Court of India, the structure is not to be referred to as "Babri Masjid". It should be either called "Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Mosque structure" or "disputed structure". --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

@Evax...Well if it is not wiki policy then i dont what is the issue. If you want everything in your to be writen on the article then i can also argeue on the same point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepsp4u (talk • contribs) 13:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't change without giving or discussing in talk page.--Sandeep (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This a vandalism done on the name of contribution to the articles. PS don't change the heading because if we put it as Bari Masjid then it will count as biased to a certain group and will not be neutral.--Sandeep (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What was destroyed in December 1992 was a “mosque” at a disputed site not a disputed structure. -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2528025.stm Evox777 (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

there is a clear directive from Supreme Court of India not to use the term Masjid as the matter is subjudice. Terming it as 'mosque' or 'masjid' would indicate bias towards a particular party in the legal case before the court of India. It should not be called mosque.--Deshabhakta (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC) @ Evox.. this is called vandalism as you are again and again editing this section without any discussion --Sandeep (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC) @ Evox.....So u wanted to say that you prove BBC news more then the Law court --Sandeep (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Evox777 (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2528025.stm
 * 2) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/No-question-of-regretting-Babri-Masjid-demolition-RSS/articleshow/5304752.cms
 * 3) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Chronology-of-incidents-related-to-Babri-Masjid-demolition/articleshow/5261698.cms

it does not matter how many website you mention when the supreme most legal body of the land (India, in which Ayodhya is situated) has directed not to use the terms mosque, masjid or mandir to the disputed structure that existed at Ayodhya. --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

@Evox, your edits re-inserting the text 'babri mosque' are a clear case of vandalism. You are going against the law of the land. The matter is in the courts and law prohibits us to call it a mosque or a temple. --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

stopping Vandalism by reverting it --Sandeep (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

neutrality tag
Hi Evoxx, what is your specific disagreement and why is the tag being placed and removed so many times? Which particular point or section are you disputing? Unspokentruth (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

We will wait for Evox to bring the nuterality to this article if he cant as i had stated in the above section then the despute will be over.--Sandeep (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

user sandeep4u and deshabakta are removing some sourced content form this article regularly. are they thought wikipedia should carry RSS point of view only ?. what nonosense this. let them learn what is wikipedia. who authorise them to decide Asgar ali engineer's,The hindu daily's,frontline magazine's,Jitendra narayan commission's report on jamshadpur communal voilence..etc neutrality. if they wish Kapur commission finding to be included,then Jitendra narayan commssion finding will not be removed. what is the basis to accept one govt of india commission findings and other to reject ?--86.96.226.90 (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr xyz with ip edits please come with the user account and also tell your friend evox to proceed on neutrality issue--Sandeep (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As said earlier in discssion i am removing the neutrality tag because no efforts had been made by the user who was tagging this page as not neutral to make it neutral. If any one have any doubts or issues then please discussed it hear before making any tag or changes. --Sandeep (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

with so much gossip about RSS added to this article, what purpose will the POV tag on this article serve? --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

All the edits done in recent times are all allegation and claims and no allegation and claims can be true or false, so are this type information is useful and constructive for the article --Sandeep (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)--Sandeep (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The quote from goodnews agency
I have gone through the references given and I see the synthesis of references and see that the whole section is based on false premise. First of all, in the reference given, I do not see a direct allegation against the RSS. Hence I removing the libellous POV section which is just made of polemical accusations and counter accusations both unsubstantiated. Any of you who can spend two more minutes, please also go through this, the quoted organisation talks of "harvest", wow!. Unspokentruth (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

After Britannica, you are now accusing Timesonline.co.uk of bias and using shoddy sources. Whatever problems you have with my references, take it up with these guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN If they say timesonline.co.uk and its sources are not reliable i will remove my edits.
 * "First of all, in the reference given, I do not see a direct allegation against the RSS."

When Timesonline.co.uk has "Hindu extremists" in the title of an article with only one picture showing RSS members, who do you think it is referring to? Here is the link again: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5186703.eceEvox777 (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Assuming something which is not in the references is what is called synthesis. Please read Wikipedia policy on synthesis for that. Please give direct references. Sythesising the content is not allowed Unspokentruth (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC) @ Evox..... All your references are always disputed but you never get agree and one more thing that they way you are editing this article is clearly showing your intention —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepsp4u (talk • contribs) 10:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have said it before and i will say it again: Take this up with the admins, because i am not going to argue with anyone about the neutrality of BBC news, "the Hindu" (which runs Frontline), "The Times, UK", Amnesty International and Encyclopedia Britannica. Here is a link to help you guys out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN. If these guys say my sources are unreliable, i will happily remove my links and edits.Evox777 (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Evox, for your benifit again, let me tell you I am talking of synthesis here. Reliability of the source is a different issue. Please let me know if you have problems understanding what synthesis is. You have been desperately trying to cobble up a paragraph which is based on synthesis of the sources. Please read the wikipedia policy on synthesis first and let us discuss if you have any problem with that. thanks Unspokentruth (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I had placed a 'syn' template on the matter put by one of the IP socks, which probably is your own, why was it removed? I can see a delibrate and a desperate attempt at synthesising with absoultely no regard to any discussion. The synthesis is easily visible as you read the sources. Whoever removes it has to explain it first. Unspokentruth (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of the definition of synthesis. If you go thru the sources you will see the lines have been taken almost word to word from the sources. There is nothing in there that has been madeup. The sentences were earlier combined but I separated them because you and your 2 buddies were complaining about them being from 2 different sources, even thou both sources are reliable and refer to the same period (and therefore follow Wikipedia's rules). But now grammatically speaking the sentences look like orphaned children.

The issue of reliability was raised in response to attacks by you and your buddies on Wendi Doniger (Britannica e.), A G Noorani (The Hindu newspaper) and a host of other respectable organizations who don't share RSS's view point. While i am writing this, Deshabhakta again vandalized a section by calling into question A G Noorani's neutrality.

By the way, when you have time look up the definition of "IP socks": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOCKS

- Evox777 (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Evox....It is clearly mentioned in the article about what role A.G Noorani played and for that what consequences he had faced from the coutr of law. After looking at this incident my friend how can you claim that A.G Noorani is neutral in his views. --Sandeep (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)--Sandeep (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Wendy Dongier

 * Interesting argument - as if all these sources are monotonous and coherent. Wendy Doniger has been criticised among others by Harvard prof Michael Witzel for distorting Hindu texts and also by BBC itself for being "rude", "crude" and "very lewd" . Wendy Doniger definitely is not the person who is to be quoted here. At most it can be spared a line in the criticism section that too would not make much sense. nihar (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Allegations by christian missionaries
Reference unverifiable for "RSS along with its offshoot organizations Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Bajrang Dal (BD) and Hindu Jagaran Sammukhya (HJS) stand accused by aid workers of orchestrating the August 2008 anti-Christian riots in Orissa. " which is the lead line of the paragraph. The whole paragraph is based on this false premise. Reinstate only if you can show the that line in the reference. Unspokentruth (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"The Hindu Jagaran Sammukhya (HJS), a frontal organisation of the RSS" "Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the largest hardline Hindu group, denied the claims. “The accusation is absolutely false" "This month Lord Malloch-Brown, Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, turned down a plea for members of the RSS and the Bajrang Dal, the youth wing of the VHP, to be barred from entering Britain." Evox777 (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this looks a clear case of synthesis. What our esteemed friend tries to do is interpolate a photograph and some content. nihar (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

@Evox, RSS has been known for talking for Hindu cause and hence might have commented/objected when the term "Hindu extremists" was used. It is completely your own synthesis that the author of article meant "Hindu extremists" to be RSS. --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Content on Emergency
And about the content on emergency. I could get it on one search in the google books. Why so much ado about nothing. Dear Evox777, could you not have done that once before you deleted it. Why always confront and fight for such small things? nihar (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Here it is http://books.google.co.in/books?id=QCh_yd357iIC&pg=PA238&dq=%22dominated+by+tens+of+thousands+of+RSS+cadres,+though+more+and+more+young+recruits+are+coming%22&cd=2#v=onepage&q=%22dominated%20by%20tens%20of%20thousands%20of%20RSS%20cadres%2C%20though%20more%20and%20more%20young%20recruits%20are%20coming%22&f=false nihar (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not in India and because of that i don't get the exact same results as you guys do. I did try to google it but nothing reliable came up. This is a controversial topic and therefore everything in here must be readily verifiable. In any case, the burden of source verifiability is on the editor not the verifier.Evox777 (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Image Deletion
Whey the flag image file is deleted ??????--Sandeep (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It was deleted under criteria CSD F11: Uploader has specified a license and has named a third party as the source/copyright holder without providing evidence that this third party has in fact agreed. If you want to question this deletion, or ask for more information, ask User:Melesse who handled the deletion. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have re-hidden the link to the file for now, as it displays as a red link due to the deletion. --Taelus (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

i agree with you --Sandeep (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss
friends,

I see that lot of editing is happening without any discussion. Discussion is a must in a collaborative medium like this. Can you all please discuss in detail while editing. That would help save a lot of effort. I also request all not to make personal attacks on anybody. I am rearragning the discussion (which now is cluttered) in sections so that it can facilitate the discussion. nihar (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nihar that whatever changes need to be done must pass through and not be just edited as an individual feel. I support the re discussion about any changes which is disputed or any section to be created or edited. I think by fallowing this simple things we can have a good discussion and can contribute towards the article--Sandeep (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you look thru the talk page you will see that i spent a month explaining the neutrality of my sources and still didn't reinstate my material. But it is clear that every source that is critical of RSS seems biased to you guys (sandeep + deshabhakta + nihar + unspokentruth), from Britannica encyclopedia to Amnesty International. I am not the only one complaining, the talk page is filled with people complaining about you 4 shouting "POV" and removing constructive edits. Sandeep even went as far as removing critical comments from the talk page, which in my view was enough to get your account suspended but the admins chose to just give him a warning this time. After talking with the admins, i was referred to the reliable source notice board. I have confirmed that my sources are reliable, so if you guys still have any problems be it source neutrality or synthesis, take it up with the admins or reliable source notice board. Here is a link to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN If you are expecting that i am gonna sit and argue with you over the neutrality of Wendi Doniger (Britannica e.) and A G Noorani (The Hindu newspaper), that is not going to happen. Evox777 (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

people hear are not going to get frighten. Even i had placed many references claiming about the non neutrality of your articles but u had never given any head to it. I know your admin who tried to frighten me but the truth will never vanish. My claims are completly logical that if you put that your references are neutral and if we present the logic that it is not then that dipute is to be solved by discussion and not by vandalism which you are doing on this article. Till date you are making edits as you are the only contributer and everything you edit is correct. My friend this is simple logic that if something is disputed it must be halted and must be discussed before starting it again. If you don't want to discussed then you must not edit the article or i have approach some admin for protecting the article from vandalism. About Britannica my claim is that how can you say that the writer of Britannica is having a neutral view point about RSS ???????? --Sandeep (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

you are blaming four guys but what is your stand on this article is clearly seen from your edits. Regarding your claim of A.G Noorani and the hindu group. Bellow are my counter claims i will request you to please answer. The hindu group is influenced by a left parties of india who can never be counted as neutral against RSS, if you want any references for proving my claim about the stand of left parties of india for RSS then please let me know.Bellow are few links which make my claim more solid about the hindu group http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_030526.htm http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2003091300770200.htm&date=2003/09/13/&prd=th125& http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2009/8/46430_space.html

I will like to hear from you about my claim that The Hindu is a biased news agency --Sandeep (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)--Sandeep (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I had added the references which were asked by the user vicharam. If some one have any differences or suggestions then please discusses hear --Sandeep (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

currently there is discussion going on the fallowing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Are_the_following_sources_and_articles_reliable.3F so all the contributers and friends are invited to give there comments --Sandeep (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Vallabhai's comments
Sardar Patel had commended RSS and some of his recorded compliments to RSS should have been mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgupta24 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

you need to collect referenced material and quote it in the article. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Bogus claims of "anti-Sikh" views
The anti-Indian editor, Evox777, added a bogus reference inferring that the RSS's calls to ban portraits of "Sant" Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale(who, as the article shows, is anything but a "Sant") constitutes "anti-Sikh" sentiment. That is as ridiculous as claiming that banning portraits of Osama bin Laden is "anti-Islamic". Someone needs to investigate the anti-Indian SPA users and rell them in here.59.160.210.68 (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You should assume good faith of other editors, and additionally your blanket reverting doesn't seem to match your reasons given. You also undid spelling corrections, additions of reliable sources to existing content, and retypes here and there. Infact, it looks as if you have undone all the recent changes Evox777 did. Could you go back through your reversion of "vandalism" as you claim it, and put back in the spelling corrections and sourcing? You have removed alot of content for someone contesting the removal of verifiability tags... --Taelus (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the spelling mistakes. I'll look into that right now. I have not removed any reliable sources (Britannica etc) but fixed the Indophobic SPA Evox777's attempts to introduce bias by disproportionately emphasizing certain references (using quoteboxes etc), as well as his transparently fraudulent hagiography of the controversial Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale based on an op\ed from a Sikh extremist website. Those blatant misrepresentations need to be addressed.59.160.210.68 (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "I have not removed any reliable sources"
 * Your edits say otherwise. I hope you know that disliking RSS is not the same as disliking India, so please do not label me "anti-Indian". I was born in India and i am proud of my heritage.
 * All i did was summarize what was given in the 2 references. If you go thru them, you will see that I did not make up the word "sant" (=saint). If you feel I "wilfully" left out some important material, feel free to add that. And if you think the sources aren't reliable, i am willing to present my case to the Reliable Sources Notice Board.--Evox777 (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing that the concerned individual is a controversial figure, considered as a saint by some and a radical by others I suggest referring to him as a "controversial Sikh leader". Will that be satisfactory to you?--Evox777 (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Evox on what ground you had started editing the article on the basis of Brittinica as the issue is still in disucssion on Reliable Sources Notice Board. Please let me know or i will revert your changes --Sandeep (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A general consensus was gained that they are reliable sources. The on-going discussion is regarding how to balance the neutrality with other sources. I have asked another WikiProject to take a look over the article to get more eyes on it. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Gandhi Assassination in Introduction
I read all the references mentioned in the paragraph concerning Gandhi's assassination in the introduction section. None of the references #23 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2800851.stm), 24 (http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/02/world/hindu-still-proud-of-role-in-killing-the-father-of-india.html?pagewanted=1) and 25 (http://books.google.com/books?id=AE_LIg9G5CgC&pg=PA200#v=onepage&q=&f=false) mention or imply that "killer and the rest of the conspirators were all former members of RSS and firm believers in its ideology."

This statement will need to be removed as it is not corroborated with any credible reference. --Deshabhakta (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Challenging Brittinica as a nuteral source
I hear by challenge the usage of refrences of Brittinica as a nuteral source on the topics related to hindu and its orginaization. I would like to welocme the users and editors to comment and give refrences in support of against this claim. This are my claims about the biased nature of Brittinica http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/xpress/hindu-press-international/2009/05/16/encyclopaedia-britannica-will-review-its-hinduism-article/ http://www.blogs.ivarta.com/Defaming-Hinduism/blog-4.htm As per the articles of Titchener which is included in the trusted archive of Indian University press the secondry articles of Brittinica are not adapted for intelligent readershttp://www.jstor.org/pss/1413113--Sandeep (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Use these two sources in the article to state "However the views of Britannica are challenged..." etc etc. Opposing sources don't 'cancel each other out', we show them all thus providing the reader with both sides of the argument, thus maintaining NPOV. This has already been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard, and consensus there was to provide both sides of the argument, rather than remove both, especially as Britannica is generally seen as a good and reliable source. I see you have already added these two sources to the article, which is good, we are offering our readers the full view. Remember, sources don't need to be neutral, as in reality there is no truely neutral source, we just have to present the information in a neutral balanced format on Wikipedia. The best way to do this would be to provide all points of view from all reliable sources. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Link to previous RSN discussion: RSN. Note that this link will break when archived, and should be replaced with a link to the relevant archive. --Taelus (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

i agree with you and so i had done the same in the article. I request you to please let me know if i am wrong some where. regards--Sandeep (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)--Sandeep (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Dear Taelus please help me regarding the challenge by user specmansif as he is undoing the edits and claiming that the sources is not neutral. As you said we must add both sources and so i am fallowing--Sandeep (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * He is not saying they are not neutral, he is stating that they are not reliable. Check out WP:RS for more in-depth information. As I previously said I am not an expert in this area of knowledge, thus if you want to know where you might be able to find more reliable sources, may I recommend contacting other users who are editing this page, or a relevant WikiProject? Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The RSNB has already reached a conclusion that Britannica e. is a reliable source, so please do not add material especially from shoddy sources such as hindujagruti.org (looks like something out of North Korea -- "say no to valentines day" really?), hinduismtoday or blogs questioning its reliability. As the guys at RSNB said, you are free to add material which says RSS is not considered militant by blah blah.
 * And as the admin jayjg pointed out on RSNB, Wikipedia demands reliable sources not neutral sources. If you can't distinguish between the two, i suggest you stop editing. PS:And for god's sake use a spell checker --Evox777 (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am warning you to stop suggesting any one to stop editing and making abusive comments.--Sandeep (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC) If you say that its shoddy then we have believe it, is it like that ??? at RSNB no one had said that this sources are shoddy or unreliable and its only hear you are changing you stance. One more thing celebrating or not valentines day is a personal matter of an individual and you have no rights to comment on any one's personal right. One more thing on that site from were you are commenting about valentine day is for hindus and for protecting there rights and culture. I will request any mod to please teach the user Evox777 how to discuses.

How can u challenge the reliability of the sources given by me do u have any source which prove it to be unreliable,if not then drop your claim--Sandeep (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I had edited the article with reliable reference sources like university press of Chicago, a book "Invading the scared by Ramaswami Krishnan and news site hinuism today claiming the biased nature of Britannica--Sandeep (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry friends, I was away for sometime.

Dear Taelus, I think you missed one of the discussions on Doniger which has been archived,. There was a link posted from Outlook India that carried critricisms from none other than Harvard Professor Michael Witzel that Wendy Doniger had distorted Hindu texts and also from BBC which called her "rude", "crude" and "very lewd". Now is it fair that somebody who is known to have specific bais be quoted that too in the lead paragraph and not even in the criticism section? I appreciate your effort in finding a middle path, but does that mean I now put something like this "Wendy Doniger who has been criticised for distorting Hindu texts and who has been called as "rude", "crude" and "lewd" by the BBC has said blah blah blah about RSS? Does that make sense? Do you really think thats fair? Appreciate your comments nihar (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well in that case, a mention is still ok along with the counterclaim that they have distorted texts. However the article should not give undue weight to a viewpoint which is heavily criticised. The lead section here does need a clean-up and re-write as it should only be there to summarise the article, it seems to be growing into its own mini-section of content currently. I see your point however, as at this rate the article will become about controversy about controversy since sources disagree with each other. Possibly a rewrite would be the best option here, with criticism all gathered together into a single section unless it is relevant elsewhere. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree! I' ll try my luck at this. I have tried that earlier too, trying to sum up all the critical comments in the criticism section while using a line to mention about them in the lead section. nihar (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The references which i had given clearly shows that wendy dongier who is the member Brittinica Pannel is criticized at various places for his hindu biased nature so this a reliable source and can be used. I don't know what is the problem in the references--Sandeep (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the images
I have posted citation needed tags on some images, please replace these tags with reliable references.Thanks--Evox777 (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please add some reliable references and reinstate the material given below: --Evox777 (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) File:Tsunami relief by rss volunteers.JPG|thumb|right|300px|RSS volunteers engaging in relief work after the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004.]]
 * 2) File:Gujarat Earthquake first aid by RSS Volunteers.jpg|thumb|right|300px|First aid centre by RSS volunteers, Gujarat earthquake 2001]]
 * 3) File:KtakaAndhraReliefByRss2009.jpg|thumb|right|300px|RSS volunteers engaging in relief work after the Karnataka-Andhra Floods in 2009.]]
 * 4) File:Reliefwork.jpg|thumb|left|200px|RSS volunteers helping victims of the flood in AndhraPradesh 2009]]

Intro Part of Article
The intro part of article is looking like a criticism section due to the vandalims of Evox777 and supported by a admin user. What is the logic behind the quotes in the intro section ??? Is this the way an article is written in wiki ????? I will request to change the intro part as a summirized section of the whole article and if some one have any objections please speak out. --Sandeep (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say the whole article needs a revamp. Just a reminder, you are attacking the same admin whom YOU brought into the picture. And its not like other admins have been nice to you. Evox777 (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is in a better condition now. I think we can remove the essay-like template from the article. Please let me know in a couple of days if any of you feel the template needs to continue to exist. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)