Talk:Hindu Forum of Britain

Relata Refero misrepresentation

The edits by the above user are invalid on a number of counts. Firstly a definition of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh as extremist does not meet WP:NPOV and also violates WP:WTA. Then reverting 3 times in 24 hours is a violation of the spirit of WP:3rr, and of course its not civil to call people's edits displays of ineptitude, unless working for WP:NPOV is ineptitude to a revert warrior.Bakaman 23:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's ineptitude if you don't realise that you're only reverting the lead, when the lead should summarize the article, and a large subheading in the article is 'allegations of extremist links'. It's almost funny. Here are several very mainstream references calling the RSS 'extremist':[1][2][3]; WP:WTA says 'extremist' is fine as and when it is qualified by the who is calling them extremist, it should not be done in wikipedia's voice; in this case it is clear it is being done in the voice of the 'accusers'. If you're unsatisfied put quote marks around extremist.

Finally, reverting the edits of a sockpuppet/proxy of a banned user is hardly relevant in terms of 3RR. Read WP:3RR. Relata refero (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not a proxy of a banned user, as was noted by arbcom. I was unaware that anyone that called you out on your despicable edit-warring ways merited such accusations. I have obviously read WP:3RR, and your behavior is unjustified, but I'm sure that won't stop you from trolling on this and related pages. The correct term for the RSS is Hindu nationalist, one that they would agree to, and one backed up by an incomprehensibly large number of sources.Bakaman 02:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR specifically makes exceptions for reverting proxies of banned users.

Possibly, Hindu nationalist is a preferred term. Have you shared this with the critics of the HFB? No? Then there's nothing we can do, because that's what's referenced and relevant in this article. Relata refero (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not a proxy of a banned user. I edited this page much before Hkelkar, and obviously am editing it post-Hkelkar. Invoking some canards and claiming they are policy isn't going to work here.

The RSS is noted in most reliable sources as a Hindu nationalist organization. A few select Commies term it extremist. Adding unsourced sentences that misrepresent and slander these organizations violates WP:LIBEL and as such really merits no discussion.Bakaman 03:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The HFB-RSS connection claim has not been substantiated in the main body of the article. It makes no sense to mention the link between the organisations in the lead, but not explain it further later on in the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

www.HFB.org.uk

see and update good work done by the HFB 2A02:C7C:6755:A000:F997:929:D575:476A (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Libel

I am concerned the phrase "It has been accused of links to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, an extremist Indian organisation" may be libelous. While the above argument by Relata refero is correct in its conclusion the reference to RSS can be applied to label it "extremist", there is no reference cited linking HFoB to RSS. This could (falsely?) lead the reader to associate the two in a way that has not been established.

As the statement is sure to be challenged, it must cite a reference. I have left it for now, but if one is not provided, that statement will need to be removed under WP:Libel until the statement can be sourced. --BizMgr (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Its in the lead, so it shouldn't cite a reference if it merely summarizes a statement referenced elsewhere in the article; some of the relevant references are here. Relata refero (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I tagged this article for NPOV. The lead is not in violation (although it is almost entirely unsourced as of 3 Feb 08), but the balance of the article, if it can be called that, is certainly in need of a rework under WP:NPOV - Balance and WP:NPOV - Fairness of Tone. Anybody up for that challenge? I have a pretty full plate, but may come back to it. --BizMgr (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It had more material till a little while ago; unfortunately all of it was a copyvio from the HFB's website. I'm removing the other tags per my remarks above, but leaving this one one. Relata refero (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I did notice it's long history of editing. Hopefully someone can give this article the love it deserves. It may be hard, since most of the western (English) coverage seems to be heavily biased against (same issue the Palestine/Israel has). Thanks for your help on this! --BizMgr (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually a search looking for "Hindu forum of Britain" + extremism netted a meagre 3 sources discussing the "extremism" of the HFB (vis-a-vis MF husssain) and plenty more discussing Islamic extremism.

Most sources discuss its advocacy (cows, terrorism, pujas, etc) which should dominate the article.Bakaman 04:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. Relata refero (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"criticism"

Anwar's libellous version is wrong on numerous points.

1. Rabble-rousing? The source never mentions such a phrase (I have read it before), anyway the link is dead, and therefore is unsourced.
2. Lord Desai's supposed statement is uncited, and per WP:V does not exist if it cannot be cited
3. The source on insider trading has nothing to do with HFB, other than Sunil Sehgal being a crook. Ricky Sehgal and HFB are not criticized
4. The word extremist is uncited, and since a majority of sources do not refer to HFB as such, it violates WP:WTA
5. AwaazSaw is a partisan source in and of itself and cannot be cited per WP:RS.

Bakaman 18:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The word extremist is cited here. HFB itself admits that the Evening Standard called them as extremist and gave a reply in that context here. The link clearly says that Sunil Sehgal controls the company jointly with Rickie Sehgal who is the secretary of HFB. US authorities accuse him of being central to the insider trading ring, not secondary. Lord Desai' views are published in HFB's own web site here. Whether Awaaz is partisan is not is your POV and irrelevant anyway. Rabble-rouser is one that stirs up (as to hatred or violence) the masses of the people like in the case of HFB who has nothing better to do other than talk and waste the time and money of Welsh government and taxpayers to protect a infected bullock. The link is live.

Also, why did you blank sections on vandalism of art galleries and threats to blockbuster French hits without edit summary? Kindly, stop edit warring in this article.Anwar (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

1. I will invoke Hanlon's razor here. Hindustan Times said that the head of HFB tackles extremist ideologies in his post with the Government of Britain. Nothing on HFB being extremist, except Kallidai responding to some allegation that wasnt made.
2. The source says nothing of HFB being connected to this ring in any form except tangentially
3. Unless some newspaper of repute publishes Desai's allegations as fact, they dont stand.
4. AlqaedaSAW doesnt meet WP:RS. Its not my fault your edits violate policy.
5. This page is not your soapbox for slander

I am not edit warring on this page, in fact I am the only user that has had any sort of constructive influence on this page, as opposed to people like you and RR above, using this page as a trash can for slander.Bakaman 19:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV/Criticism

The two (fairly outdated) discussion sections above talk about neutrality issues in the article. I think most of the POV has been removed. For example, the claims both for and against HFB have been put in more context. If there are any more queries, please say so. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 09:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Good move on your part, Gizza. This will definitely move the page away from being a lightning rod for edit wars.Pectore^talk 13:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Source for the text

My 2 edits

(cur | prev) 21:23, 28 February 2014‎ Clapkidaq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,102 bytes) (+4,957)‎ . . (add text deleted withouth explanations , see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.wikipedia/u4dJIwvCQc4) (undo)

(cur | prev) 21:20, 28 February 2014‎ Clapkidaq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,145 bytes) (-30)‎ . . (rm pov introduced by pov warrior, see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.wikipedia/u4dJIwvCQc4) (undo)

were reverted because the source is not good.

But these should not be so diffult to source. I suggest to editors of theis page to look at the website of the HFB for sources on this. THANKS>--Clapkidaq (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hindu Forum of Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930055334/http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=db942155-5814-4b10-bce7-659b75d7e21a&MatchID1=4488&TeamID1=8&TeamID2=10&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1120&PrimaryID=4488&Headline=Hindu%20Forum%20of%20Britain%20condemns%20report to http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=db942155-5814-4b10-bce7-659b75d7e21a&MatchID1=4488&TeamID1=8&TeamID2=10&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1120&PrimaryID=4488&Headline=Hindu+Forum+of+Britain+condemns+report
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930041239/http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=18f83799-43c0-45fc-a1ea-119e9958823b&ParentID=db942155-5814-4b10-bce7-659b75d7e21a&MatchID1=4488&TeamID1=8&TeamID2=10&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1120&PrimaryID=4488&Headline=British%20Indian%20official%20linked%20to%20VHP to http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=18f83799-43c0-45fc-a1ea-119e9958823b&ParentID=db942155-5814-4b10-bce7-659b75d7e21a&MatchID1=4488&TeamID1=8&TeamID2=10&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1120&PrimaryID=4488&Headline=British+Indian+official+linked+to+VHP

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)