Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh/Archive 5

Organization
I think the section on organization needs improvement. It needs to mention the different units, hierarchy etc. Also some details on the membership criteria needs to be included.

And I also think, the first sentences in the introduction should contain the text that RSS is an "organization for Hindu males". Please let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupkc (talk • contribs) 10:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that should find a prominent mention.  Lynch 7  13:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This overlaps with the discussion on lead sentences too. So I make this suggestion in both places. The suggested lead sentence.

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

Recent changes to sources
I dropped a note at User_talk:Thisthat2011 as a consequence of his/her recent changes of some citations. I have no idea if the cites were good or otherwise because I have not been involved in the subject. I expressed a concern about replacing with a tertiary source (merely as a pointer to good practice, not specifically for this article) but s/he has asked me to bring it here. Below is a copy of the conversation so far:

Why have you replace a perfectly good set of sources with, among other things, an encyclopedia? We do not use encyclopedias unless absolutely necessary because they are tertiary sources. - Sitush (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you taken part in the discussion or you are just 'following me' by your own standards? Drop the bone when even the other guy User:MikeLynch has not said anything about it. Please discuss it out atleast on the talk page. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011  17:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)}}

- Sitush (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That doesn't read too well with my introduction, does it? My point was: if there are sources cited then that does not necessarily stop them being replaced, but replacing with an encyclopedia doesn't usually make things any better. We might remove an unreliable source, for example, but not replace with a tertiary source. - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion about the sources happened here. I have replaced the sources with better ones that I feel are better per RS, otherwise many will come and point out how http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=155 or http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/Jan/15/lessons-for-bjp-22.asp is better than a possible gbook source, etc. I have no idea how the sources on jester http://www.jstor.org/pss/3023941 is by default better source than a gbook source. The other two are allegations as well about Aseemanand's confessions. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011   17:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I would rather not have the allegations mentioned, but if there are then better have good RS to avoid unnecessary questioning of sources. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011  17:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not for the first time, you have missed my point completely. I couldn't care less about whether the original sources were ok or not because I do not know enough about this subject to comment. However, replacing with an encyclopedia is not the done thing. Remove the poor source(s), if appropriate, but avoid using a tertiary source as a replacement. There must be something better than this out there somewhere, surely? If only because tertiary sources themselves rely on secondary sources, as does Wikipedia itself. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now read the thread you link to. I cannot for the life of me see where there was a recent suggestion that the sources be changed. Indeed, the thread seemed to have died out until Boolyme came along, and you appear to have jumped on that arrival as justification for ignoring what appears to be some sort of consesus. Boolyme, by the way, is perhaps not the best judge of these situations: there have been a few run-ins in the past. Anyway, are you going to revert or not? - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, I note that Life and Work of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel page you link to says that RSS is militant - no allegation about it. Somehow I do not think that was your intention. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, whichever way this goes I am fine with it. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011  20:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that is yet another response that I do not understand. I am going to remove the encyclopedia citation. - Sitush (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ideology
I think there needs to be a specific section discussing the ideology of Sangh. This should potentially include its literature, ideoalogical influences from outside, and the impact of its ideology in socio-politico scene in India. Currently this topic is vaguely spread across multiple places. What say you ? Anup (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree; currently there is very limited mention of it. Please do add on any information.  Lynch 7  09:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Any suggestion for references, any one ? Anup (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Anajayshankar (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC) First of all, mention who calls/ alleges RSS a militant organization. Is it a voted government, countries, UN or who. A bunch of self styled secularist like Indian National Congress or CPIM or Muslim League will do no good. All know what bloody history these people have. None of the courts have judged RSS as criminal or militant organization as they have done to JKLF,SIMI,HUM,JM.Anajayshankar (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We call such sources reliable sources. Anyway, I believe you have to tone down the comment if you want to be taken as a serious neutral contributor to the article. I don't think this merited a reply, but well, here goes  Lynch 7  13:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

i had seen this getting changed from non biased to biased but as discussion of ideology is going on. The ideology is what the organization thinks and not what the opposition of an organization thinks so we must consider the belief of an organization as its ideology. --Sandeep (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

First ban and the acquital

 * I had removed the quotation of Sardar Patel because it was not visible on the google e-book cited therein. Kindly recheck it and if you feel it is genuine please remove it from the above sub-section of the title.Click this site for veification:Krantmlverma (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think now my reason of removing the cited quotion is very clear to everybody. Dr.'Krant' M.L.Verma (talk•Email)

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

 * A phrase was given in the lead of above article along with its refence. A book titled Sarfaroshi Ki Tamanna was published and released on 19-12-1996 by the former Prime Minister of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee whose forward was written by the then RSS Sarsanghchalak Prof. Rajendra Singh. In this book a chapter was given in which it was proved with the verifiable contents that RSS is a Banyan tree of Bismil's thought by the writter of the book. I had quoted the same phrase as an adjective to the subject article. Since you are well conversant in Hindi and Sanskrit you may see his Autobiography on wikisource. Whatever guidelines Ram Prasad Bismil had suggested in it the RSS has expanded its organisation on the same foot-prints.
 * Kindly suggest me if this fact can be given in any of the Section or Sub-section of the above article. It will be so kind of you. Dr.'Krant' M.L.Verma (talk•Email)Krantmlverma (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Background of R.S.S.
I have given here some historical facts about the background of R.S.S. after verifying from the relative sources/books. The references of these books have also been given as a footnote. It is my humble request to all the viewers/editors of the wikipedia not to delete these facts but to give their comments here at this talk page or talk to me via e-mail. Their suggestions would be honored & discussed properly. With all regards, Dr.'Krant' M.L.Verma (talk•Email)Krantmlverma (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 4 November 2011
1. All Sarsanghachalaks names have either Shri, Dr., Prof etc except for Sudarshan. Would be good to have "Shri" as prefix for Kuppahalli Sitaramayya Sudarshan.

2. Reg the section " The first ban and acquittal. The collection of letters between Patel and Nehru released by National Book Trust show that Patel did not believe that RSS had plotted the Gandhi.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/rss-didnt-plot-gandhi-killing-mahasabha-did-patel-to-nehru/870537/

Arisebharat (talk) 08:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Protection for page has expired. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Keshab Chakravarthy and K. B. Hedgewar
Please see Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. utcursch | talk 10:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Previously K. B. Hedgewar was involved in such type of revolutionary activities, This fact has been disclosed by so many writers viz. C.P.Bhishikar, M.S. Golwalkar , K.S.Sudarshan and Rakesh Sinha previously. How can this be called as original research of Dr. 'Krant' M.L. Verma? I think now this matter is very clear to everybody and the tag on these articles need to be removed as early as possible. With due regards to all wikipedia editors., Dr.'Krant' M.L.Verma (talk•Email)Krantmlverma (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

About a reference source
Hello,

Is this book Encyclopedia of modern worldwide extremists and extremist groups - Stephen E. Atkins a reliable source?

A look at the 2004 edition points to factual errors such as "A member of RSS assassinated Mohandas K. Gandhi in 1948". इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011   10:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What a horrible lead!
This review of the lead is from a statistician who has published papers in mathematical journals. This article has a pathetic lead and it is so ludicrous for an article with at least 500-600 views a day that it makes me laugh and cry at the same time. It suffers from multiple-organ failure and I do not know where to begin - mistakes of case and grammar ("also known the Sangh"; "Nationalist" and "Demolition" begin with capitals in middle of a sentence), no proofreading (parenthesis mismatch), no coherence, long-windedness, synthesis (reports on retracted confessions are used as references!!), out-of-context referencing of random authors with hardly any notability on debatable points, tautology ("a Hindu organization ... for Hindu males"??, "a former member who left" - Wow, is there a former member who did not leave?), and what not. The poor writing style shows why Wikipedia is not considered as a reliable source in any academic journal of repute (thank God it is not), and I am willing to bet at any odds that none of the editors involved in writing the lead, proofreading it or debating and flaming about it ad infinitum in the unending discussion threads have published anything of merit in a journal. For this article to improve, it does not need circumlocatary Wikipedia policy debates, it does not even need copy edits, but it badly requires good writers who are neither pro- nor anti-RSS and who have at least some experience of writing for peer reviewed scientific journals. Nmisra (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggesting on talk page here and notably not editing just discussing which should not be considered as doing actual edits, there is no need to mention in lede section in detail when all the organization was banned. ईती ईतीUAनेती नेती Humour Thisthat2011   19:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The banning information need not be in the lead. Also, during one of the edits, the alleged word preceding "militant" was removed from the lead; I think it was unintentional. I'm putting it back. (I won't remove the banning info just yet, lets see if we get some more comments on it here).  Lynch 7  14:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the photo gallery looks a bit long. Any takers for cutting it down? (We can always have a link pointing to a gallery on Commons).  Lynch 7  14:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The article looks nice now need to little more improvement. --Sandeep (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

POV in article aimed at protecting the RSS from criticism
Considering that the RSS has its own section in A History of Fascism by the reputable scholar Stanley Payne who describes it as a militant nationalist movement essentially aiming for a theocratic Hindu state, I find this article highly biased in its protective nature of the RSS. The article as it is written even calls into question whether the RSS has been violent at all, I have been reading multiple sources about it and they say that it has been repeatedly violent and banned by the Indian government for its violent behaviour. Also, the section that claims that the RSS "protected Sikhs" in the 1984 riots is backed up by only one source, while another source that I have found says the complete opposite - that the RSS supported the pogroms against Sikhs in response to Indira Gandhi's murder by a Sikh nationalist. In summary I believe that the article as it is written now is clearly designed as a defense of RSS actions, particularly by putting into question whether the RSS has committed violence.--R-41 (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Can you show the evidence here stated "RSS supported the pogrom against Sikhs" ?? -- ɑηsuмaη  ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 20:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly: Ram Puniyani. Contours of Hindu Rashtra: Hindutva, Sangh Parivar, and Contemporary Politics. Delhi, India: Kalpaz Publications, 2006. Pp. 62. "...the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her bodyguards. This was followed by massive anti-Sikh pogrom in which many a Congress workers lead the assaulting mobs. During this pogrom the RSS ideologue wrote a document subtly supporting Rajiv Gandhi’s turning blind eye to the ongoing anti-Sikh pogroms (Nanaji Deshmukh, 1984)." A report to the United States Congress by a Sikh man about the violence in India in 1984 said that the RSS was taking part in the violence as well as killing other people such as RSS members killing an Australian missionary and his sons during the 1984 violence. He appears to be a Sikh nationalist calling for a Sikh sovereign state in response to the pogroms, so I acknowledge that he may be distorting facts. .--R-41 (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What I have read is that the RSS views Sikhs as ethnic Hindus and supports their assimilation into Hindu culture - but supporting ethnically-Hindu motivated violence after an assassination of a Hindu head of state seems entirely feasible for a Hindu nationalist movement to do. It may be wrong if I can see evidence that clearly shows that the RSS saved Sikhs as the one source in the article claims. If more evidence can be shown that the RSS did save Sikhs I will rescind the point.--R-41 (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But what I am more focused on is the fact that I have read that the RSS committed substantial violence in the 1960s and has committed violent pogroms against Muslims in northern India, and that it vouched for the tearing down of the ancient Babri Mosque that resulted in Muslim uproar and riots. Plus historian on fascism Stanley Payne describes the movement as having goals and organization very similar to fascism - such as having a mass nationalist movement, and Cyprian Blamires' World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia on page 333 that describes the RSS as being fascist. There are other sources that describe it as a militant Hindu ultranationalist movement. This is hardly like how this article currently presents it: as a very moderate-sounding movement.--R-41 (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets not talk about Babri issue, I know it was a big issue, and still a big issue and I think the issue never going to be solved. If you find reliable sources that RSS committed violence I wouldn't doubt. I think RSS had taken right steps where needed. If there was no RSS, you might have seeing a totally different India, It has played a major role saving India and hindus (I dont know what sources are available). And if you read the violence before partition and during partition of India committed by muslims, you would know the severity of this issue. Coming to 1984 riots RSS never has anything against Sikhs (if you go through the history you would know). I am sure you know that Guru Nanak founder of Sikhism was a Hindu. It was only because of INC (Congress) the Hindu-Sikh conflicts occured. Like you stated above I am sure there are hundreds of such saying in favor of and against RSS. But what you stated above is not enough to say that RSS supported the pogrom. We can't believe a report by a sikh man when Khushwant Singh stated differently. So lets just try to find reliable sources and if there is none, lets remove the dubious contents. I found this which I already have cited in the article and this here it is mentioned (Heading:PAST HISTORY OF THE RIOTS) that Its the only Hindu-Sikh conflicts (i.e. Congress- Sikh conflicts) in whole history which was by Congress. Let me come with few more sources. -- ɑηsuмaη  ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 08:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here also it is written "The RSS cadres protected the Sikhs in 1984." I found something solid "Mr. Sajjan Kumar's secretary drew us aside and dropped a hint that the RSS workers had been behind the arson. He however could not name any particular RSS leader or activist". which means It was a setup by Sajjan Kumar againt RSS. -- ɑηsuмaη  ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 09:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever the ideoligical differences between Sikhs and the RSS, there are countless exampes/articles where the RSS sheltered Sikhs in 1984. Thanks S H 14:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright I rescind that part about the 1984 violence against Sikhs. Now what about the issues of Stanley Payne's and Cyprian Blamires' identification of the RSS as being related to fascism. As well as other sources that identify the movement as ultranationalist and that it has participated in communal violence in the 1960s and violence against Muslims in northern India? As the article currently stands, it is disputing whether or not the RSS has even committed any violence, plus it essentially depicts the movement as merely being a moderate philanthropic organization while largely ignoring or dismissing sources that say that it is a militant organization.--R-41 (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. So has Stanley Payne also written about involvement of RSS in 26 11. Maybe, we can add that too.--nids(&#9794;) 20:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Mumbai attacks were initiated by Muslim Pakistani militants. The RSS is a Hindu nationalist organization.---R-41 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Why has the lead been edited to remove any mention of extremism? a few months ago it was very well sourced.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems to confirm what I suspect, that pro-RSS users have removed material about the movement's known extremism. Stanley Payne and Cyprian Blamires note that the RSS closely resembles fascist movements and Blamires says the RSS advocates a unique Indian variant of fascism. Its leader Golwalkar admired the Nazis' racial "purification" policies of purging Jews from civil society, and Golwalkar said that the Nazi model of purification should be applied to India. Golwalkar publicly stated that Muslims did not belong in India and that Muslims should be denied all citizenship rights because he claimed that India was a Hindu land. Also there are multiple sources that say the RSS is ultranationalist movement. This is far different from what is currently in the article that tries to present their organization as merely a benevolent philanthropic organization.--R-41 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead is a reflection of discourse on the RSS, and anyone with knowledge of Indian politics, knows that the RSS is hardly the extremist group of the Sangh Parivar. Nevertheless, there are five sources in the lead citing the word "militant". We quite simply, are weighting heavily, the view that the RSS is allegedly militant. I apologize on behalf of all of us editing this page that we have not bashed the RSS to the level that you desire. However, if you read the page, the criticisms section provides ample sourcing, examples, and text that paints the RSS in a negative picture.Pectoretalk 00:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not what "I desire", It is not about "positive" and "negative" depictions - it is about what the movement really is and this article is currently trying to protect the RSS from being labelled as being militant and is trying to put into question whether it even has been violent. I am not of any descent of people of India, Pakistan, nor any territory of South Asia, I have no vested interest in portraying any political faction in India outside of what I have studied it to be. And please don't respond with some xenophobic remark I sometimes hear when I seek to resolve disputes over contentious issues outside of my country, like "it's none of your business because you are not involved", I don't pretend to know everything - but I carefully analyze, and I can tell a biased article when I see one - and others here say that the article is biased. I first discovered the existence of the RSS from respected historian on fascism, Stanley Payne who refers to it as the most powerful authoritarian nationalist movement in the world, and that it has strong similarities to fascism. I searched up other sources to see if this claim was verified - it is, multiple respectable academic people and books have referred to the RSS as having historic links with fascism. Stanley Payne is a respected historian and his book A History of Fascism book mentions the RSS as highly similar to fascism, and Cyprian Blamires' World Fascism encyclopedia - that is available in English-language universities' libraries, describes the RSS as a fascist organization. This is completely different from the intro that largely portrays them as merely a philanthropic organization while questioning whether the movement is even militant, and questioning whether it has been violent, when the sources that I have read all say that it is militant, ultranationalist, and has committed substantial violence. --R-41 (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your perspicacity is unparalleled. I'm astounded that you can tell this article is biased based on your judicious study of two casual mentions of the RSS in random books. What's more amazing is that you claim you "seek to resolve disputes over contentious issues" when you've done little to resolve disputes, instead attacking "pro-RSS" users for not adhering to your POV. However the most amusing statement above is: "please don't respond with some xenophobic remark...." which assumes that others are bad faith trolls that want to keep this page Indians only. So, back to what you have presented. You start out with Ram Puniyani, a self-published non expert with an ideological axe to grind with Hindutva and Hinduism in general. Then you cite Golwalkar incorrectly, forgetting the fact that he praised Zionism as well. Most scholarly treatments of the Sangh note a continuum. Next you continually cite two authors who casually mention the RSS in a certain vein, and extrapolate from these non-experts in Indian politics that this must be the truth. It unfortunately is not. The RSS is most notable as the political hand behind the BJP, and as a particularly large volunteer organization. The article's lead currently puts a strong emphasis on the alleged militancy, providing 5 links to show that this term is used to a wide degree. It also notes the fact that the RSS actually does engage in large amounts of charity work, which surprisingly is also an established fact. The RSS is ensconced somewhere between the BJP on one end of the violence/illegitimacy spectrum with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal constituting the other end. Muthiah Alagappa has a great treatment of this in his book 'Civil Society' on page 213. I for one would love to bash on the RSS for its antiquated, exclusionist, and extreme views but edits need to be done with a view of neutrally portraying the organization for what it is famous for. Pectoretalk 04:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Profitoftruth and you are also wrong about the lead being rewritten by pro-RSS users in the past few months. If nothing, the lead is 'less' pro-RSS now than it was in July 2011, or in November 2011, or January 2012. And to jump the question of cherry-picked diffs, feel free to check other 'consensus' versions. You will find that the lead is much more neutral, and I have taken the time to remove even more RSS-friendly and unsourced material from the lead even now.Pectoretalk 04:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * R-41, aren't anti-RSS and pro-RSS a selective term from your side? The authors quoted are experts on fascism, not RSS. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011   13:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Pectore, when I edit something about a nationalist militant organization I rationally expect negative remarks - I have encountered them before from xenophobic nationalists who tell me "it's none of your business" - even though anyone is allowed to edit Wikipedia - and remarks from supporters of the organization. Your angry reaction to my queries and the serious references I have cited is not a good sign - it sounds like defensiveness. For Golwalkar to praise Nazi purification policies as a model for India, regardless of his views of Jews themselves, is a good indication of his intentions. I have read material that says that the RSS uses its philanthropic measures to draw in supporters into the movement from poor populations - particularly young people, and to indoctrinate them with its views. Here is another source that specifically says that the RSS shares features of fascism, including violence against minorities who refuse to be assimilated, that it views "the nation or race above the individual,...intensive indoctrination of members, [and] strict internal discipline.", see here: . India's principal independence leader Mohandas Gandhi called the RSS a "communal body with a totalitarian outlook". Yes, Stanley Payne is an expert on fascism, and he specifically notes the RSS has having close resemblances to fascism though notes that it has more emphasis on religion than most fascists do. It is important to note that of the variety of political movements with similarities to fascism that he could mention, Payne specifically chose to mention the RSS - Payne is a reliable source - what is your evidence that his work is flawed? --R-41 (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

User R-41, could you point out some fascist movements for my knowledge, so I have better understanding of what fascism is since you seem to have better read about it. Also, please note regardless of genocidal pogroms against Jews in Europe, in India there is hardly such incident in general against Jews for thousands of years or in particular by RSS. The idea of fascism coupled with religion does not therefore work exactly the same in India as in European fascist countries. This link or [| this] for reference. However I make no promise that I will understand fascism completely at all. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011   21:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all I agree with Stanley Payne who states that the movement has many fascist characteristics but not all of them - Payne notes that its emphasis on religion is unlike most fascist movements. It has fascism's ultranationalism, it emphasizes the collective nation above the individual, it accepts political violence - its members regularly training for potential violence is an example of this, it is led by a dictatorial "supreme leader" position, and it is militaristic. Also its organization is known to have been inspired by Italian Fascist youth organizations and later influenced by Nazism . Prominent French historian on India, Christophe Jaffrelot describes the RSS's ideology as being a unique Indian version of fascism and notes that it was strongly influenced by fascism Not all fascist movements have to be anti-Semitic - Italian Fascism was originally not anti-Semitic until it adopted anti-Semitism to appease the Nazis, the Italian Fascists up until the late 1930s had Jewish Italian members within it such as Margherita Sarfatti and Ettore Ovazza, Italian Fascism was admired by the Revisionist Zionist movement Betar - though Betar completely abandoned support for it after Fascist Italy allied with Nazi Germany. The RSS is known to have been strongly influenced by fascism that is noted by multiple academic books on the topic of fascism, and it is a militant ultranationalist organization that has committed violence, and this should be mentioned in a brief but clear manner in the intro.--R-41 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You started off your arguments with "first of all I agree with Stanley Payne". I wondered then if I needed to even read any further in your comments. Do take the time to familiarize yourself with WP:UNDUE. There is a reason Jaffrelot is given a large amount of text in this article, and no editors working in good faith have removed it. Its because Jaffrelot's thoughts on Indian politics are respected, being an expert in the field. Stanley Payne is an expert on fascism, great. Is he an expert on Indian politics? The answer is no. Did it not cross your mind perhaps, that Indian politics are far more complex and varied than those of 1930's and 1940's Europe, and that perhaps, writers on the subject who are actual experts on the field are cognizant of that? Multiple users have disagreed with your logic, and your obsession with Payne and disregard for more 'mainstream' and more 'relevant' treatments of the organization. They have brought less tangential sources in contrast to your myopic obsession with two casual citations by persons whose views you agree with. There are already sources in the article disputing the tag of "fascism", and I can provide multiple sources that would contradict any casual mentions of fascism in non-geographically relevant literature. Of note are Chetan Bhatt's "Hindu nationalism" (page 124 provides 5 sources that rubbish allegations of fascism), James Lochtenfeld's "New Wine, Old Skins" (p 320 of the "World Religions Reader") for starters. I deal in my edits quite frequently with users hoping to promote their ideological mentors. Hence it is only natural to get slightly vexed when I see a user ignoring mainstream discourse on a topic, instead trying to make the page what they 'perceive' the organization to be. You still have not provided any justification for why allegations of fascism and actual physical violence merit the same treatment as common claims that the RSS is selfless volunteers, and (words which still have a requisite negative connotation, no one perceives as something positive) and the obvious fact that it is a volunteer organization. Please do not conjure up allegations about my political views when you have no evidence to back up your silly assertions, and furthermore no knowledge of what these views are.Pectoretalk 00:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Pectore, you are are largely stating original research and disrespecting the work of scholars. You are also being highly disrespectful to me for providing respected academic authors for this. You are resorting to character assassination attacks against me, in violation of WP:NPA, such as accusing me of "myopic obsession", calling the material I provided "rubbish" without explaining why, saying that I have "silly assertions" - all dismissive, offensive personal attacks when you could have simply explained to me exactly why the points I made were wrong without the condescending attitude you have used towards me. Why do you mistrust Stanley Payne's research that describes the RSS? - he didn't just decide to pick the RSS out of a hat of multiple movements to discuss - and what evidence do you have that Payne never investigated the RSS? By even mentioning this movement that hardly ever is mentioned in Western media and that he notes its specific distinctions, I would come to the conclusion that he did investigate it. Plus I have provided multiple examples of other books that clearly state that the RSS has close connections with fascism - even direct inspiration from the Italian Fascist youth organizations and Nazism. If you do not cease to use character assassination attacks against me, calling the academic research that I provided with dismissive aggressive remarks such as "rubbish", "silly assertions" and accusing me of "myopic obsession", I will report you for making personal attacks.--R-41 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's stop resorting to personal attacks and try to resolve this. I am asking for three clear sentences in the intro that use academic sources that acknowledge the controversial aspects of the RSS, and I support the option of having follow-up sentences that challenge these claims that also use academic sources - the first sentence "The RSS has sought the creation of a purely Hindu India and removal of citizenship rights for Muslims" - Golwalkar's own statements can attest for this." The second sentence: "The RSS has repeatedly taken part in anti-Muslim violence." The third sentence: "The connection of the RSS' ideology to influence by fascism has been a serious topic of discussion in many academic works, such as Marzia Casolari's 'The Fascist Heritage and Foreign Connection of RSS: Archival Evidence' in Chaitanya Krishna's Fascism in India: Faces, Fangs, and Facts, Stanley Payne's A History of Fascism, 1914-1945, Cyprian Blamires' and Paul Jackson's World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia, Walter Laqueur's Fascism: Past, Present, Future, and Christophe Jaffrelot's The Hindu Nationalist Movement in India." Later in the main body of the article it should say: "Stanley Payne's A History of Fascism, 1914-1945 that claims it is related to fascism but differs in its emphasis on religion. Cyprian Blamires' and Paul Jackson's World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia that says it supports a unique Indian variant of fascism. Walter Laqueur's Fascism: Past, Present, Future, describes the RSS as an extremist far-right Hindu nationalist movement and notes that "It shares with fascism its intolerance, aggressiveness, and disregard for human rights, and democratic institutions", and notes the similarity of its organization and its cult of the leader to that of fascism, but claims that its religious nature makes it regressive in comparison with fascist movements. Christophe Jaffrelot's The Hindu Nationalist Movement in India acknowledges political connections between the RSS and European fascist movements, but claims it is not fully fascist though could be described as proto-fascist." Pectore, you are welcome to include sentences after these sentences after this that involve academic sources that refute these claims of RSS association with fascism.--R-41 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will begin by addressing the baseless allegations of personal attacks directed against you. I have commented on your content and your editing pattern, not you. If you take issue with my adjectives, please note that you are calling India's largest volunteer organization "fascist" based on two books you read. Secondly, I have yet to find a statement that you have written that does not mention Stanley Payne, asserting your 'editing pattern' displays obsession is certainly justified. Thirdly, please review what original research actually entails before you misidentify that as well. Writing comments like "he didn't just decide to pick the RSS out of a hat of multiple movements to discuss" is actually characteristic of original research. The onus is on you to prove that his view is sacrosanct among observers of the RSS, else his view certainly does not belong in the lead. Citing relevant academics (and pointing you to the relevant page numbers) surprisingly does not constitute original research. Continuing on to the crux of this dispute. I, and other users in this discussion have stated ad nauseam that allegations of fascism are not central to the notability of the RSS. However your second paragraph brought some interesting points, some of which may have a place in the article. I will address that separately.
 * You are advocating three things to have a place in the lead. These are obviously paraphrased:

The first point does not belong in the lead because there are no sources that say that Golwalkar ever advocated denying suffrage to Muslims. Some members of the Hindu Mahasabha no doubt held those beliefs, but academic treatments of Golwalkar generally dissect what he said, and come to conclusions far more nuanced that the reductionism you advocate. The contemporary RSS certainly does not advocate that and you will be hard-pressed to demonstrate current reliable treatment of the RSS that alleges this. The second point does not belong in the lead because it is not sufficiently notable or agreed upon, as previously stated. You have misrepresented sources to "prove" this. Jaffrelot for one says the RSS is not fascist and I had provided page numbers above to display the same. I read over Blamires "World Fascism" and the section on India, while beginning with the view the RSS is fascist, moves on to statements like "this image of "fascism" in India is disputed". Stanley Payne himself said that there are multiple differences between the RSS and "fascist" groups, such as the RSS' emphasis on religion. This of course pales in relation to the wide ranging literature that criticizes allegations of "Fascism" against the RSS, including those of Paul Brass and Christophe Jaffrelot. More importantly the literature on the volunteer activities of the RSS and their involvement in the assassination of Gandhi which are far more notable. The third point had already been addresses in one of my responses above. The RSS is not notable for violence, while other members of the Sangh Parivar are. Do provide sources that show the RSS 'as an organization' was involved in violence. Considering it is India's largest volunteer organization, and a fairly extremist one at that, there is no doubt some members have engaged in violence. Your goal, to justify inclusion, is to prove that this is violence abetted and sanctioned by the RSS.Pectoretalk 01:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The RSS supports ethnic cleansing of Muslims and denial of suffrage
 * 2) The RSS is fascist
 * 3) The RSS has repeatedly taken part in anti-Muslim violence.
 * Here is evidence from the Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide on page 186 includes evidence compiled by Human Rights Watch that says that during the 2002 Gujarat violence, "A plot to uproot the Muslim population of the state had been underway for some time: the RSS had circulated computerized lists of Muslim homes and businesses that were to be targeted by the mobs in advance." --R-41 (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting what I am proposing and being extremely condescending to me - I happen to be interested in history, including the history of fascism and nationalism in the world - it is none of your business insulting my interests as "myopic obsession", please rescind that offensive comment. What I have added is not merely based on two books that I read - just look at my post above, I just gave you multiple examples, from multiple books, by multiple scholars. Now, here is a quote Golwalkar himself on the issue of Muslims rights: "Muslims living in India should be second class citizens living on Hindu sufferance, with no rights of any kind." - quote from Golwalkar. You are portraying the group as merely a benevolent philanthropist organization even suggesting that there is no evidence that the RSS was involved in violence I promoted a compromise sentence between the views that it is related to fascism or that it is not by stating the fact that its relation to fascism is a serious topic in academic literature - and you can see above that multiple books on fascism and India itself discuss this. The fact is that its relation to fascism is a matter of serious discussion in multiple books about fascism by scholars and by books in India. And those who say it has differences with fascism due to its more traditionalist religious nature, still note its strong resemblances, Walter Laqueur's Fascism: Past, Present, Future, describes the RSS as an extremist far-right Hindu nationalist movement and notes that "It shares with fascism its intolerance, aggressiveness, and disregard for human rights, and democratic institutions".--R-41 (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

R-41 do not misquote to justify your argument, this is what Golwalkar said ... in a word they(non Hindus) must cease to be foreigners, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment—not even citizens' rights. I hope you understand what he says. what I understand is that non-hindus should not consider themselves as foreigners.--sarvajna (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not misquoting - I am literally quoting exactly what I read, and this is the source: Neera Chandhoke, Praveen Priyadarshi. Contemporary India: Economy, Society, Politics. New Delhi, India: Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2009. Pp. 316. Where is the source for that other rendition, it does not sound much different in intention anyway.--R-41 (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I got the quote from Golwalkar, you can check it there, there is a lot of difference between the meaning --sarvajna (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it not possible that he said the quote that I mentioned at another point in time?--R-41 (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * May be or may be not. Lets not speculate it --sarvajna (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The quote you have provided is not much different than the one I found, what he means by that they "must cease to be foreigners" - is that they must assimilate into Hindu culture or else they are foreigners in India, the second part of what he says those who refuse to do so will lose all of their rights including citizenship because they are "foreigners". I would include the quote you provided as an example of the RSS demands for a Hindu-only society that excludes non-Hindus from being citizens and denying them any rights or privileges.--R-41 (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He said that non hindus should cease to consider themselves as foreigners not cease to consider themselves as Muslims, Jews etc. I can go on but you see this is not some chat forum. Moreover I do not think that there is any document published by RSS which states that it likes to see only Hindus in India. Get some good sources and make the edits you want. --sarvajna (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a quote from a document by the RSS as recorded in Peggy Froerer's Religious Division and Social Conflict: The Emergence of Hindu Nationalism in Rural India, page 60 :

"Hindus alone constitute the Indian nation, since they are the original inhabitants and sole creators of its society and culture. Hinduism is uniquely tolerant, and hence superior to any other faith, but its tolerance has been mistaken for weakness. The Hindu nation has been repeatedly conquered by aliens, particularly Muslims and then the Christian British, and must acquire strength through RSS sangathan to counter all present and future threats. The subsequent entry and takeover by foreigners created the illusion that India was a land of many different and equal cultures. In truth, however, all cultural traditions survived by Hinduizing themselves—otherwise they remained alien, distanced, oppressive."


 * --R-41 (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so what does it say? where is it written that non Hindus should leave India? Whatever is being discussed has no relation to the statement provided above. In truth, however, all cultural traditions survived by Hinduizing only disproves your point that RSS is fascist. Also this discusssion is going in a wrong way. --sarvajna (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The RSS is pressuring people to be Hinduized. Promotion of Hinduisation alone doesn't indicate fascist characteristics - but it does not disprove association with fascism -not all fascists call for physical extermination of other cultures like the Nazis did, Italian Fascism is known for pressured Italianization of Germans in the Tyrol region as well as Arabs in Italian Libya. Now, regardless of issues of fascism, the fact is that the RSS promotes Hindus alone as citizens of India and explicitly says that non-Hindus should not qualify for citizens' rights - that is depriving non-Hindus of rights granted to Hindus - that should certainly be mentioned in the intro, because the intro as it is now, does not even acknowledge that the RSS views Hindus alone as citizens of India.--R-41 (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to page 316 of Chandhoke . Yet again R-41 misrepresents a source. Note that the purported Golwalkar quote is not cited to Golwalkar himself, it is cited to Kesavan. There is absolutely no justification for inclusion of this doctored quote. Pectoretalk 16:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Pectore, you are accusing me of bad faith of "misrepresenting" for putting in a "doctored quote" - this is completely in violation of Assume good faith - I sought a source by scholars and found one, if they misquoted the source, blame them - not me. Pectore, I am now going to request that you immediately rescind this comment "Yet again R-41 misrepresents a source" - that is accusing me of bad faith and I did not "misrepresent" what I read from a source, the fault is with the authors - if you do not immediately rescind this comment I am going to report you for uncivil behaviour, failure to adhere to Assume good faith and failure to adhere to Please do not bite the newcomers - as I am a newcomer to this topic.--R-41 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * R-41 check the source properly even the author has cited it as Kesvan's work. Do not blame the author because you overlooked--sarvajna (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I quoted a source I thought was reliable - how do you know and Pectore know that Kesvan's work is a "doctored quote". I am a newcomer here to this topic, I am doing as best as I can - how am I supposed to know if a referenced source in an academic book was misquoted? I am asking Pectore, not you, to rescind his remark "Yet again R-41 misrepresents a source" that assumed bad faith on my part - it is entirely negative, personal, and not constructive. Pectore's attitude towards me since the beginning has been negative and hostile - refusing to take anything that I contribute seriously, Pectore has failed to adhere to Assume good faith and failed to adhere to Please do not bite the newcomers - as I am a newcomer to this topic.--R-41 (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said that Kesvan's work is doctored, all I am saying that the source you provided itself is using some other source to give the quote of golwalkar. Referenced source is not misquoted as you say it is credited to Kesvan's work. Please check it again --sarvajna (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize to you Ratnakar.kulkarni, I was referring to Pectore's statement.--R-41 (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see that there is a growing tension between Pectore and I over this issue and this will not result in a constructive resolution of the dispute here, thus I am leaving discussion here - though I am going to request assistance for this article from administrators. I admit that I have made mistakes earlier that others have noted, but that does not mean that my efforts to put in academic sources into this article deserve snarling remarks by Pectore that "Yet again R-41 misrepresents a source" (bolding is my emphasis), or the condescending remark by Pectore that my interest in the study of fascism and the academic discussions by scholars about the RSS's relation to fascism are a "myopic obsession" - my interests are of NO BUSINESS of another person to make a condescending remark about! Regardless, before I leave this conversation, I say that there is no excuse for the intro nor the article to so blatantly dismiss the multiple sources that demonstrate RSS participation in violence, and this evidence from the Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide on page 186 includes evidence compiled by Human Rights Watch that says that during the 2002 Gujarat violence, "A plot to uproot the Muslim population of the state had been underway for some time: the RSS had circulated computerized lists of Muslim homes and businesses that were to be targeted by the mobs in advance." --R-41 (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

बाबरी मस्जिद म्हणून आम्हि समस्या वाढवली आहे
बंधुनो राममंदिर विवादात आम्ही वेओवेली बाबरी ढाचा चा उलेख बाबरी मस्जिद म्हणून केला जी चूक मा. नर्सिन्हाराव यांनी केली तिच चूक आम्ही कसली व तसे इतरांनी करू नये म्हणून काहीच प्रयत्न केले नाही ज्याचा परिणाम असा झाला कि हए वाद वाढत गेला याचा गंभीरपणे विचार केला पाहिजे-अभ्युदय  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.78.184.201 (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Aseemanand's statement
Aseemanand's statement blaming RSS for the blasts was later retracted by him and said to have been made under duress. Source So the links have been removed. WBRSin (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Man making process
Freedomtalks (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not done. Copyvio from cited source which can be viewed online here. -Nathan Johnson (talk)

Edit request on 5 November 2012
راشٹریہ سوینسیوک سنگھ (RSS) રાષ્ટ્રીય સ્વયંસેવક સંઘ

59.161.10.57 (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * . Format as "add x" or "change x to y". gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 19:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Sikh outlook
Nanaji Deshmukh, a prominent RSS ideologue was fiercely anti-Sikh in his outlook. This should be included in this article.

Here is the content from the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanaji_Deshmukh#Anti-Sikh_outlook

After the 1984 genocide of Sikhs in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi's assassination, Deshmukh, on November 8, 1984, authored and circulated among prominent politicians, a document outlining his viewpoint on the genocide. This document was published in the Hindi Weekly Pratipaksh on November 25, 1984 titled Indira Congress-RSS collusion.

Nana Deshmukh in this document is seen outlining the justification of the massacre of the Sikh community in 1984. His defence of the carnage can be summed up as following:


 * The massacre of Sikhs was not the handiwork of any group or anti-social elements but the result of a genuine feeling of anger among Hindus of India.
 * Deshmukh did not distinguish the action of the two security personnel of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, who happened to be Sikhs, from that of the whole Sikh community. From his document it emerges that the killers of Indira Gandhi were working under some kind of mandate of their community. Hence attacks on Sikhs were justified.
 * Sikhs themselves invited these attacks, thus advancing the Congress theory of justifying the massacre of the Sikhs.
 * He glorified Operation Blue Star and described any opposition to it as anti-national. When Sikhs were being killed in thousands he was warning the country of Sikh extremism, thus offering ideological defense of those killings.
 * It was Sikh community as a whole that was responsible for violence in Punjab.
 * Sikhs should have done nothing in self-defence but showed patience and tolerance against the killer mobs.
 * Sikh intellectuals and not the killer mobs were responsible for the massacre. They had turned Sikhs into a militant community, cutting them off from their Hindu roots, thus inviting attacks from the nationalist Indians. Interestingly, Deshmukh would not mind having militant Hindus. Moreover, he treated all Sikhs as part of the same gang and defended attacks on them as a reaction of the nationalist Hindus.
 * He described Indira Gandhi as the only leader who could keep the country united and on the killing of such a great leader such killings could not be avoided.
 * Rajiv Gandhi who succeeded Mrs. Gandhi as the Prime Minister of India and justified the nationwide killings of Sikhs by saying, “… when a mighty tree falls, it is only natural that the earth around it does shake a little”, was lauded and blessed by Nana Deshmukh at the end of the document.
 * Shockingly, the massacre of Sikhs was being equated with the attacks on the RSS cadres after the killing of Mahatma Gandhi and we find Deshmukh advising Sikhs to suffer silently. However, it is a fact that the killing of Gandhi was inspired by the RSS and the Hindutva ideology whereas the common innocent Sikhs had nothing to do with the murder of Mrs. Indira Gandhi.
 * There was not a single sentence in the Deshmukh document demanding, from the then Congress Government at the Centre, remedial measures for controlling the violence against the minority community. Mind this, that Deshmukh circulated this document on November 8, 1984, and from October 31 to this date Sikhs were left alone to face the killing gangs. Deshmukh was just not bothered about all this.

This page discusses the neutrality of section "Criticisms and accusations". The sub-section on ideology is based on what one author has written in a book. Except reference 105, the references 103 to 107 in the whole section do not work. I believe this section needs to be balanced to present RSS's Point of view as well. Also, there is no point in putting accusations if they are not proven in such long time.nitin (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The arguments and references cited seems bogus. Are you saying RSS favored Indira Gandhi whom they fought against during emergency to save country to authoritarian rule and restore democracy. Are you saying RSS was in agreement in principle to massacre of Sikhs incited by congress, it is naïve to think two fundamentally antagonistic parties agreeing on such a think.110.172.28.208 (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Abhijit Ajmera

defamatory content against RSS should be removed
The first para of the article - "Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) (pronunciation: /rɑːʂʈriːj(ə) swəjəmseːvək səŋgʱ/, Literal translation: National Volunteer Organization[4] or National Patriotic Organization[5]), also known as Sangh, is a right-wing, nationalist volunteer[1] and militant[6][7][8][9][10] Hindu nationalist organization in India. RSS ideology is based on the principle of selfless service to the nation." - refers to RSS as organisation which is highly inaccurate and hurts the religious sentiments of Hindu population.

RSS is a lawful organisation ,working under the ambit of Constitution of India and following law of land, for welfare of Hindu society. The word "militant" to describe such a great and noble organisation is highly gross and hurts Hindu sentiment. I would request Wikipedia and author of this page to kindly remove such inflammatory and provocative remarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaibharat2012 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * RSS is a militant organisation. May be you dont know the meaning of the word militant. And inaccuracies about RSS will hurt will never hurt hindu sentiments. It will hurt sentiments of some hardline hindus only.--Praveenkoramkottil (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jaibharat2012. The word "militant" does not go with selfless service to nation. Please consider changing this.nitin (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If RSS is a militant organization, it would have been banned by Government of India and the courts would be running trials on the organization. Since it isn't banned by Govt., the move isn't even being considered, there are no court cases filed to prove RSS is militant, it is not right to call an organization militant just because you may not agree with its ideology. Praveenkoramkottil comments seems not logical. Is he saying Govt. of India or the Supreme court also doesn't understand the meaning of militant. - Abhijit Ajmera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.172.28.208 (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * http://books.google.com/books?id=fHj0HAAACAAJ&dq=rss+paramilitary&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cmgDUcGYNon89gTB64CwBQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ - There are many people who have called RSS a militant organization. It has been accused of carrying out progroms against muslim populations -Veri Tas:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.29.75 (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

RSS is a communal party or community
RSS is not for benefit of Hindus but it is Anti minority and it always stood against minorities

I request author to be more neutral and do not just look in archive news papers but also research in understanding the RSS

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahdavi786 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticism in the header section
Why does the header section contains accusations from Human Rights Watch when that itself is criticized which is not mentioned. See Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch.

111.91.95.22 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The RSS has not made any direct comments or accusations against Human Rights Watch, which is what would be relevant to post here. Criticisms of Human Rights Watch that are not related to RSS belong on the Human Rights Watch page. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC))


 * Human rights watch is a biased organization. Can not be used to malign something on Wikipedia. The issues as clearly mentioned are "

2 Poor research and inaccuracy 3 Selection bias 4 Ideological bias 5 Fund-raising policies 6 Accusations of bias for or against particular nations

6.1 Allegations of bias concerning Latin America 6.1.1 Haiti 6.1.2 Venezuela 6.1.3 Honduras 6.2 Allegations of bias concerning the Arab–Israeli conflict 6.2.1 Anti-Israel or pro-Arab-League bias 6.2.1.1 Garlasco incident 6.2.1.2 Criticism of fund raising in Saudi Arabia 6.2.1.3 Allegations of anti-Israel bias 6.2.2 Human Rights Watch responds to criticism 6.2.3 Anti-Arab-League or pro-Israel bias 6.3 Ignoring Islamic laws 6.4 Allegations of bias concerning Africa" - as per index. How can anyone in a right mind include this here. 111.91.95.229 (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Human Rights watch is an NGO and they have stated their criticism of RSS. The criticism of RSS is stated on the RSS page because it is related to the RSS. Criticisms of Human Rights watch are on the Human Rights Watch page. If you know of any responses to Human Rights Watch by RSS we can post them on this page similar to the way Human Rights Watch did on its page in "6.2.2 Human Rights Watch responds to criticism" on the  link you provided above (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC))
 * Is the criticism of RSS by an organization which is accused of bias be included at all? Its not about the placement of the "Criticism" but the matter itself. --sarvajna (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Should we exclude any and every organization because some people accuse it of being bias? The United Nations is accused of being a bias organization too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_United_Nations

Please refer to this in order to get a better understanding of a reliable source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

(Lowkeyvision (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC))
 * Thanks I know about WP:NPOV and WP:RS, I take your point Should we exclude any and every organization because some people accuse it of being bias?. However according to the wikipedia page of Human Rights Watch it is not having any office in India so should we consider its Criticism as a reliable one ? I am not against including the criticisms by various organizations in this page but just questioning Human Rights Watch. --sarvajna (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

How did Human Rights Watch come up with its report? Do you think if a newspaper has correspondents in a country, but does not have a physical building address in that country that we should remove all article citations from that newspaper on Wikipedia? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC))


 * Criticism about UN centers on inaction due to lack of resources and will of UN members. UN also has ways to deal with bias as nations are members of UN. The Human Rights Watch on the other hand has clear criticism that includes direct anti-semitism bias, inaccuracy, questions of transparency and intolerance and lack of accountability, leftist ideology and ignoring radicalism, and so on and on. Also note this in the main article of HRW:

HRW has been criticized by national governments, other NGOs, its founder and former Chairman Robert L. Bernstein, and the media. It has been accused by critics[25] of being influenced by United States government policy,[26] in particular in relation to reporting on Latin America;[27][28][29][30][31] ignoring anti-Semitism in Europe or being anti-Semitic;[32] biases in relation to the Arab–Israeli conflict; and unfair and biased reporting of human rights issues in Eritrea and Ethiopia.[33][34][35] Accusations in relation to the Arab–Israeli conflict include claims that HRW is biased against Israel[36][37][38] and that requesting or accepting donations from Saudi Arabian citizens causes it to be biased;[39] it has also been accused of unbalanced reporting against Palestinian militant groups by Jonathan Cook.[40]

HRW has publicly responded to criticisms relating to its reporting on Latin America[41][42][43] and in the context of the Arab–Israeli conflict.[38][44][45][46][47] Such a clearly biased organization should not be used to malign other topics. Also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section#Introductory_text .111.91.75.36 (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. All alleged criticisms of HRW are on their page and will always be there, please feel free to contribute. Similarly, criticism of RSS are on their page. If you feel that the source is bias, please cite sources that state HRW bias against RSS for some reason(race, religion, etc) and we can add that to the page to give the point balance.

Please refer to this in order to get a better understanding of a reliable source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (Lowkeyvision (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC))


 * Can't mention a biased org's views anywhere, regardless of how much biased it is against one organization and how much it is less biased against another.111.91.75.36 (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to explanation on bias and the example of United Nations above.

Please refer to this in order to get a better understanding of a reliable source and neutral points of view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

(Lowkeyvision (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC))


 * Already mentioned how criticism of UN is irrelevant here. Apparently that is not read already. One can not put some biased organization rubbishing other organization - RSS here - in the lead of the page. Wonder where others are not able to clarify this at all.111.91.95.197 (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malik-siraj-akbar/pakistan-human-rights-watch_b_2612306.html it seems the RSS and Pakistan Army have something in common (Lowkeyvision (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC))

Full protection
I have fully protected this article for a week due to somewhat slow but definitely continuing edit warring. Normally I try to find the version before the edit warring started, and protect that version, but I can't figure out exactly what that is from the history. In any event, please discuss the matter, and use dispute resolution to get outside opinions if you need help. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it is very easy, just check the section that is above this section on the talk page. The problem is that the editor lowkeyvision is indulging in WP:SYNTH. I have explained it to him on his talk page and this talk page as well but all he keeps saying that I am trying to censor the article. I am not trying to censor any as I have told him few times, there is a separate section for Shinde's comment. I even gave a suggestion that he has to reword the sentence but he just doesn't care to discuss anything. I would request you review lowkeyvision's edits and if you feel that I am correct change the revision and then protect it.--sarvajna (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't actually do that. I cannot act as both an admin and an editor on the same page. If you can come to a consensus among yourselves about the correct way to phrase the information (or to remove it entirely), you can use the template with the preferred wording. I will note two things, however: first, per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus does not require 100% agreement, and second, I think a helpful step would be for lowkeyvision to read WP:SYNTH and then explain why his edit does not fall under that policy. As always, if you can't decide among yourselves, please seek dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat Violence - Need more sources
Human Rights Watch says that the RSS has plotted to uproot the Muslim population in India, and that during the 2002 Gujarat violence, "the RSS circulated computerized lists of Muslim homes and businesses to be targeted by the mobs in advance". Can we remove this until we find additional sources supporting this statement? I believe more sources need to be there to verify the veracity/credibility of this issue.Rockthemind (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This is accurate the finding of international organization found a clear linkage between RSS and 2012 Riots. Narrendra Modi (R.S.S Member) being cheif minister and his inability to crub the riots. Evidence has proven multiple times. SIIT evidence has been tampered it took 8 years to come to investigation by then even bone of victims get decayed. Stand of truth  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zisskhan (talk • contribs) 00:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

LOOKS WIKI IS MORE PRO RSS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.0.115.158 (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The SIT report has not implicated RSS, courts haven't implicated RSS. Innocent till proven guilty. What is more credible, comment from some person in Human Rights Watch sitting in office or SIT,& court proceedings investigating the incidence for years. - Abhijit Ajmera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.172.28.208 (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Editor indulging in WP:SYNTH
The editor lowkeyvision is indulging in WP:SYNTH as can be seen in here I had reverted him and had given proper edit summary but doesn't look like he cares to read them. Lowkeyvision, we can discuss here if you have anything to say. Also I have mentioned the same thing on his talk page User_talk:Lowkeyvision as he accused me of censoring. --sarvajna (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC).
 * I have informed the editor about why its WP:SYNTH and that there is a separate section in the article about shinde's comments. He is not ready to discuss on any of the talk pages, not sure what to do.--sarvajna (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It isnt synth, if it is a fact (Lowkeyvision (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC))

Added more citations for you (Lowkeyvision (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC))


 * It is not the question of citations, there is one source says that RSS is an extremist and a group and there is another source where a politician says that it indulges in Hindu terrorism. Now you should not mix both, the criticism of Hindu terrorism should be attributed to Shinde, your sentence looks like the author Eric S. Margolis has accused RSS of indulging in Hindu Terror, also if you put Shinde's remark in header than remove that from the bottom of the article.Hope you get the point.--sarvajna (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * WP: Synth is defined as “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.” The sources cite terror trainings camps. Do you think running terror training camps doesn't make it a organization?


 * If you think maintaining terror training camps doesn't make it a organization, we can change the sentence to "It has been criticized as a organization that organizes training camps to promote Hindu Terrorism" to avoid WP:SYNTH.


 * "Two days after stoking a controversy by accusing BJP and RSS of conducting terror training camps and promoting ' Hindu terrorism', the Union home minister Sushilkumar Shinde on Tuesday got an official backing of his remarks from home secretary R K Singh."


 * "Taking on the BJP and its ideological mentor, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Union Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde on Sunday claimed that the two were promoting “Hindu terrorism” through their training camps"


 * "Shinde had said Sunday: 'Whether it is the BJP or RSS, their training camps are promoting Hindu terrorism.'"


 * "'This is saffron terrorism that I have talked about. It is the same thing and nothing new. It has come in the media several times,' the home minister said. "

Just a note: if you do this (and I'm not saying you should) put the citations next to each word being cited, not at the end of the sentence (this is not done often, but is allowed when different parts of a sentence are covered by different sources). Alternatively, break it into two sentences, each one verified by a different source. Will either of these solutions be acceptable to the two other editors? If not, why not? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The citation is to mark where the quote was taken from. I am okay with that idea of splitting it into two sentences. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC))


 * Let me tell you guys the first thing, I do not have an issue with the Shinde's comment of Hindu terrorism being present on the article as I have mentioned many times, so Lowkeyvision stop saying that I am trying to censor the article. One, the comment of Shinde was already present in the article here. Two, Lowkeyvision wants Shinde's comment in the very first paragraph of the article which is not a problem but lets look how it was, the first paragraph contained RSS states that its ideology is based on the principle of selfless service to the nation. It has been criticised as an extremist and a group attributed to two different google books. Now Lowkeyvision makes an edit and this is how it looks  RSS states that its ideology is based on the principle of selfless service to the nation. It has been criticised as a group that conducts Hindu Terrorism. and the whole sentence is attributed to google books, shinde which is wrong.The hindu terrorism thing should be attributed to Shinde explicitly.--sarvajna (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is to give the point WP:BALANCE. Mr. Shindes criticisms are fully backed by the congress party and has been prominently displayed in every major newspaper in India. Furthermore, I can find you multiple sources that accuse RSS of being a organization.


 * Second, it isnt cited to two google books but multiple sources. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC))
 * If you wanted WP:BALANCE you would have attributed Hindu terror remark to Shinde (hope you read before you cite), you did not do that but instead indulged in WP:SYNTH The first two sources in the sentence in question doesn't mention anything about Hindu Terrorism, the other sources are all the same, they just contain Shide's remark and the last source is where the Home secretary gives the list of people associated with RSS being accused in terror incidents, which is different from RSS as an organisation being accused. Among all the sources you presented only Shinde has accused RSS of terrorism.--sarvajna (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also even I do not have a problem if you split the sentence and attribute the Hindu terror remark to Shinde and if you say that congress party has accused RSS then attribute it to congress party. --sarvajna (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The congress party has not backed Shinde's comment officially, read this Congress distances itself from Shinde's remark--sarvajna (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Citing Shinde as the only source of claims is an attempt to minimize the statements. Here is another accusation by a prominent member of Indian Government(Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee): http://ibnlive.in.com/news/rss-involved-in-acts-of-terrorism-congress/134236-37-64.html . The meeting was a delegation of top congress brass two years ago.


 * http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4465781 <--Here is an article on how the RSS is trying to counter critics from calling it a organization, before Mr. Shinde made his comments this year. Facts are facts and many people have accused RSS of terrorism for a very long time.


 * You have accused me on WP:SYNTH and I have given you many sources that show that RSS have been accused of being a organization that maintains terror training camps. I am okay with splitting the statement into two sentences if you think it, but it is important that it is presented because of WP:BALANCE. I can also find you non-congress sources that accuse RSS of being a organization(http://www.amazon.com/The-History-Terrorism-From-Antiquity/dp/0520247094/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360529207&sr=8-1&keywords=history+of+terrorism) <--Page 188 of this book talks about RSS being a organization.(Lowkeyvision (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC))


 * I will look at the links once I reach home as I am at my workplace and cannot access link like amazon and ibnlive. Leaving these apart I still say that you did indulge in WP:SYNTH. The above links have been provided now.--sarvajna (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "The sun is yellow and the sky is blue"....do you think think is WP:SYNTH too? Please read the citations. I hope they are well enough cited for you to understand that it wasn't synth. As i stated earlier, I am okay with two seperate sentence if you are(one stating it is a organization and another stating it is a organization).
 * I would prefer to use the term Saffron Terror, but you had insisted earlier not to use that term. I think the term Saffron terror better describes "right wing hindu terrorism" which RSS is accused of and since the overwhelming majority of Hindus do not practice terrorism(which is what Hindu Terrorism implies). Saffron terror sounds better than Hindu terrorism because it puts the Hindu faith in a better light while acknowledging that there are some who abuse the faith for political purposes/manipulation. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC))
 * Looking at your sentence above I am very certain that you have not really understood what WP:SYNTH is, let me try to give you an example, we have two sources one source says "According to lowkeyvision the sun is yellow" and the other source says "According to Ratnakar the sky is blue". Now if you write "According to lowkeyvision the sun is yello and the sky is blue" this would be called a Synth. Yes we do need sources to say that the sky is blue and the sun is yellow. The Hindu terror remark mostly came from congress politicians, congress as a party is opposed to BJP and hence opposed to RSS. So it should be made very clear that its the political class which is opposed to RSS calls RSS a organisation. You have provided some other source, I will check it first before I comment on it. Also you are once again lying, I have never insisted on the usage of the term Hindu Terror over Saffron Terror. --sarvajna (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So we are in consensus that the term Saffron Terror is more appropriate than Hindu Terrorism as a description of the right wing activities that RSS is accused of? There are many people who accuse RSS of terrorism, it isn't congress alone and it is cited in textbooks like the one I showed you earlier. You are the only one who is claiming it is congress only. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC))


 * http://books.google.com/books?id=p9pIc_pJ5cAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Global+Terrorism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=T4MZUbO1C6qG2gXHqIHwAw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ <--Page 75. RSS is a cultural organization. It is is under the chapter "Religious Justification for Terrorism." I have brought you proof that the sky is blue and the sun is yellow :) (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC))
 * I do not have an issue over the usage of "Saffron Terror" over "Hindu Terror". The google book given by you is not available for preview however I can see snippet view of page 75 where it says violent defenders of Hindu culture go back to 1920s when the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh(RSS - National Patriotism Organization) began training . An RSS member assasinated Mohandas Gandhi because he was.... This is what I see, can you quote me exact sentence where RSS is called a organization? --sarvajna (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The book is called Global Terrorism. RSS is discussed under the chapter "Religious Justification for Terrorism." If you want to dispute it further, you can open up a dispute section. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC))

stop being illogical, just because RSS is mentioned in the book doesn't mean anything. Stop your POV pushing, I need not open a dispute section anywhere when you make some illogical statements and put the onus on others to disprove it. Please read WP:ONUS before you get some bogus source just like you did it now.--sarvajna (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have cited TEXTBOOKS and you have cited yourself. You just wrote above "just because RSS is mentioned in the book doesn't mean anything."  You are accusing me of pushing a POV? I have cited 2 Textbooks and MULTIPLE newspapers. You should be blocked from editing this page because of your bias. You refuse to allow facts to prevail no matter how well cited. If you have further complaints, open up a dispute and we can let an administrator decide who is pushing a point of view. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC))
 * You have cited Multiple newspapers and all those newspapers have Congress leaders' comments about RSS being a organization. I do not have any issue with those sources, if you want include those newspapers please attribute it to Congress leaders. Coming to text book none of us are in possesion of these books we just cannot blindly call RSS a organization until we really see what is written there. Although the probability is low but what if the book has praised RSS, what if the book says that RSS is a victim of malicious propoganda. We would end up using a wrong source. You have not cited the books but have shown me that RSS finds mention in that book, you want to use it as a source? Then would you be kind enough to let us know what exactly has been written in those books about RSS because onus is on you not me. --sarvajna (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have given enough proof and if you think that is not enough open a dispute. I have access to the book and I am citing what is read. I suggest you buy the book rather than ask people to scan books for you if you want to know what is in them. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC))
 * Great, can you please quote exact sentences here also can you please send me the scanned copy of just one page. Till then your exact sentences would be enough. --sarvajna (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL, you must be dreaming. You have accused me of Synth and I have given you sources that it is not Synth. As I said before, I have given enough evidence. If you have further issues, open a dispute and we can let the merit of those citations be judged.  (Lowkeyvision (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC))
 * LOL, I knew that you were lying about you having access to the books, I have told you so many times above and telling you again. If you provide some source the onus is on you to prove its credibility. So open whatever you want to. I informed you of indulging in Synth only after that you started searching for other sources and look you do not have any proper source here --sarvajna (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, open a dispute if you feel differently. Lying is a personal attack and one that is not merited because of the citations I have given above. If textbook citations, majors newspaper citations and magazines are not good enough, I think you really need to be removed from editing this page. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC))
 * I don't think you really read my comments at all here which is just above I had written that newspapers and magazines are good enough but because all are political comments lets attribute it to the politicians. Now that it is very clear that you do not have access to the above book but Voila I could access the book via an Indian proxy. This is what the page number 75 says also the page start with the title Hizballah and only the last para is dedicated to RSS/BJP and other this. This is written and I quote Extreme views have also appeared within Hinduism, and religiously motivated violence has resulted. Violent defenders of the Hindu culture go back to the 1920s when the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS - National Patriotia Organization) began training . An RSS member assasinated Mohandas Gandhi because he was willing to compromise with non Hindus on the new state of India(Juergensmeyer 2000:95). There have been Hindu grous and political parties that have sought to have Hindu practices(Hindutva) incorporated into national law since a large majority of the polpulation of India is Hindu. The bharatiya janata party that promotes Hindu practices has become the largest religious and nationalist movement in the world (Juergensmeyer 1996:6). While the party moderated its use of Hindu themes in the election campaign of 1998, it did not offer any real assurances to the religious minorities of increased tolerance(Chandra 1999:65-6). They feel that the members of the minority religions should be reabsorbed into the Hindu community (Greenwat 2001: 91). These efforts correspond to the attempts by Muslims to have the Sharia as the basis of national law or of groups in the United states to have Christian principles more directly incoreporated into... If you want a screen shot, I can email it to you. This book doesn't call RSS a organization, listening to you we would have ended up using a wrong source. Please, please verify the source.--sarvajna (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, read what I have written above. Read the name of the chapter and the name of the textbook. The name of the book is not Seaseme Street and chapter is not about the cookie monster.  (Lowkeyvision (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC))
 * I do not care what is the name of the book or the name of the chapter, I have given you the complete text. You just want to include a wrong source? The source doesn't say anything about RSS being a organization. --sarvajna (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Facts are facts. Nobody cares what you dont care about. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

Facts are facts? What are facts where did you read those facts, also Verifiability is more important than facts on wikipedia. I do not want to make any personal comments but I don't think you are really in your senses right now. You gave a source, first you claim that you have access which you did not have and then I prove that your source is useless and you start making some illogical comments and say facts is facts. Also one more request when I reply to your comment do not go back and edit the same comment, why would anyone go back and check old comments. You made a comment here and I replied and then suddenly you want to make a smart comment so you go back and edit that comment here. --sarvajna (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "You gave a source, first you claim that you have access which you did not have and then I prove that your source is useless and you start making some illogical comments and say facts is facts." ... tell me more about how you think Leprachauns are real....(Lowkeyvision (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC))
 * I'm going to do you both a favor: I'm going to ask about the matter at WP:RSN. This is a much more effective method than just bickering back and forth here. Give me a few minutes, as I'll need to copy and paste a few things. In the meantime, stop the sniping, especially Lowkeyvision, as your last comment here is clearly not civil. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think that will be best. After he started name calling, refusing to accept textbook explanation for things and personally attacked me by calling me a liar(see 17:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)) I became offended and got a bit off topic. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC))
 * Okay, I have opened the thread at WP:RSN; however, I would ask that the two of you do not comment there, at least until other, uninvolved editors have already commented, because the whole point is that we want to hear what others have to say (we already know where the two of you stand). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey thank you for your time Qwyrxian
 * Just wanted to add that the book quoted is named Global Terrorism. The chapter is titled Religious Justification for Terrorism. On page 75 it states: "Extreme views have also appeared within Hinduism, and religiously motivated violence has resulted. Violent defenders of the Hindu culture go back to the 1920s when the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS - National Patriotia Organization) began training. An RSS member assasinated Mohandas Gandhi because he was willing to compromise with non Hindus on the new state of India(Juergensmeyer 2000:95).”  I do not want to edit the page because as you have stated, it is improper to do so. Can you please update the name of the book to actual title(Global Terrorism)?(Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC))
 * Lowkeyvision, an editor has commented at RSN, this source cannot be used to call RSS a organization. --sarvajna (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that two uninvolved editors have commented at RSN that the book provided by Lowkeyvision cannot be used to call RSS a organization, I expect him to respect the concensus. Also when Qwyrxian will unlock the page or when it expires I would like to correct the synthesis added by Lowkeyvision, I would surely add the comments made by congress party leaders but will be attributing it to them. Thank you --sarvajna (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm also seeing enough support for not including that term that it should be removed; so far, only Lowkeyvision has supported its inclusion. I'm going to unprotect the article, and Ratnakar, you're welcome to remove the claim. Lowkeyvision, you can continue to pursue dispute resolution on this matter (either an RfC or DRN could be considered a reasonable next step), but until such time as you can show that consensus has changed, don't edit war to re-include it. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)