Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh/Archive 6

Edit request on 13 April 2013, to change the word from "Extremist" to "revolutionary"

Please change the word "Extremist" to "revolutionary"

Reference: Please kindly refer the history of it's origin, And in Indian history from time to time almost all the Prime Ministers of India has condemned the word Extremist in Indian Parliament.

Aravindhkilaru (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The sources say extremist. First, you'll need sources that describe it as "revolutionary"; if those are reliable and of due weight, then we can add both descriptions. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

References to Hitler

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh does not derive inspiration from Hitler. This is a derogatory reference and should be removed. There is no cited source for this remark. The quoted statement from M S Golwalkar's book has no mention of Hitler and this comment has nothing to back it. RSS organization is non violent and wants to teach good values based n Hinduism like in a yoga center. It is also non political and has no philosophy to obtain power. IF nothing can be quoted from RSS literature or speeches, then it can not be ascribed to RSS, for this topic. Referring to Hitler on this page amounts to following Hitler's hatred inciting methods. Let us follow path of love and understanding and not of hatred and maligning.

There is also a reference criticism as extremist and paramilitary organization. This is again 'opinion' based on desire to portray a peaceful organization in negative light. Provide objective information and let the readers conclude the 'extreme' or 'cuddly, lovable' nature of organization.

The following paragraph is also incorrect and derogatory. HRA resorted to path of 'violent freedom struggle'. RSS is completely non violent and has mission of 'character building'. RSS was not even chartered with removing British from India. And then mention of 'implemented forcibly in RSS' is untruthful and meaningless. He founded this organization on very different principles and goals and there is no question of 'forcible implementation'. One does not have to be 'Hindu' to attend RSS shakha and membership is informal and there is no formal membership list. All are welcome in RSS to participate.

"Since Hedgewar was primarily associated with the Hindustan Republican Association, he adopted the full constitution of erstwhile HRA and implemented it forcibly in his newly established organisation RSS later"

My children and I have developed trust in Wikipedia. Let us keep it objective and not a tool for political vendettas and continue to be trustworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsagdeo (talk • contribs) 21:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Uh...yeah, I was with you at the very beginning, but as you went further, you lost credibility for me. There is no doubt that major, influential people whose opinions matter classify RSS as an extremist group, so that is certainly not going out. Saying that they respect Hitler is just another way of saying that they respected the Nazi movement, which, in fact the quotation says exactly. So if you think it's better to change that to "Nazism" or "Nazi Germany" or "the Nazi German position of ethnic cleansing", then we coudl do that. The rest of what you say are unsourced claims that do not match the numerous, respectable sources we do have that classify RSS as somewhere between extremist and terorrist. Of course, if you can provide sources independent of the group that state that they are non-violent, then we could consider adding those as a counterpoint, but we can't remove the sourced info already here. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest making a separate article for Criticism of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh‎ where references both independent of the group and the corresponding viewpoint of RSS can be added. It is wrong as you say that "no doubt that major, influential people whose opinions matter classify RSS as an extremist group" but "most influential people" like major buisness leaders are associated with Indian National Congress and most newspapers are either Pro-minority or Pro-Congress and they generally tend to potray RSS as an extremist group due to some unknown reason. Solomon7968 (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You would need to show that there is a major body of high quality work which would count as criticism. You would, in fact, probably need to show that there was an academic topic devoted to criticism. Otherwise, you'd fall directly under WP:POVFORK. Your points about other groups are just opinions, unsubstantiated by facts. Again, the best approach would be to find sources that establish the opposing opinion. Should enough of those be found, we could look towards a major rewrite. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not necessary to be an academic discipline. Take for example Criticism of Human Rights Watch. It gives list of criticisms on Pro-Israel, Arab-Israeli conflict etc etc. To create Criticism of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh‎ it is necessary first then to create a full fledged Media bias in India adding chunks of info to Media bias in South Asia and its biases of say topics like Minority Appeasement, Pornography, Reservation in India, Westernization to name a few. Then proceeding we can give sources about the prominent Media barons who are associated with Indian National Congress or Communist Party of India like M. J. Akbar, Seema Mustafa, Shobhana Bhartia and others who tend to brand RSS as an extremist group. It needs work since coverage of Indian politics is low. We don't have articles on the biographies of a number of Imam's who are Member of Parliament. I generally try to avoid my own political views on wikipedia but if RSS is an extremist group then why not Akbaruddin Owaisi and others are extremists. Solomon7968 (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

HRW in the Lead

Driven to the talk page after a revert warrior bent on lawyering forced my hand. I have indeed if you check the archives written multiple posts on Undue Weight given to ideas/events that are tangential to the RSS' notability in the lead. The onus is on those adding material to demonstrate its legitimacy. First, HRW is a controversial advocacy organization, and Secondly the RSS was not even banned for its (alleged) role in the riots, and thirdly, the RSS is not central to the media coverage of the 2002 riots and conversely 2002 is tangential to the notability of the RSS. Pectore^talk 04:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Fine I'll take the matter to RSN. HRW is, of course, not reliable on issues of politics, history, etc. But on human rights abuses? They're practically the authority. Maybe I live in some sort of weird spin bubble. I'll leave the info out for now. Also, I could see a justification for moving the info out of the lead into the body of the article, but I suppose we should first get to RS issues. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as I was about to post, the issue isn't RS; there's an archived thread in at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Human Rights Watch clearly establishing them as RS. The question is, as you point out, one of due vs. undue. If we agree to move the point out of the lead will that be sufficient to satisfy your UNDUE concerns, Pectore? This material must be in the article; as the general consensus at RSN said (and matching my own opinion of them), HRW is not only considered a good source for Human Rights Abuses info, they're one of the top 3 (with AI and parts of the UN being the others). If it is to be moved, where shall we move it? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Claims_that_the_RSS_has_been_party_to_Violence_and_to_RiotsPectore^talk 04:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

So it is. Okay, then, sounds fine by me. I hadn't realized it wasn't covered elsewhere. I'm inclined to accept that even though HRW has a very high profile, it is just one organization's opinion, and without later substantiation, and thus more appropriate out of the lead. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation?

The source does not appear to support "by K. B. Hedgewar, a revolutionary and doctor from Nagpur, as a socio-cultural group in British India" this at all, and Hedgewar is not even mentioned in the book. I have removed that and replaced it with content that is in the source. Whoever reverts my changes may do well to actually read the source before misrepresenting it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The source doesn't say what you wrote either. It says what i wrote now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Erm, the source did say what I had written, so why did you revert? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything on that line on page 111. However i did find what i wrote, which was similar to what was present initially, on page 2 of that same source, telling of why RSS was established. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You might want to look again, the source says exactly what I have written. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Does it not say what i have written, which is very similar to what was already written? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Not on the page given, no. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I cant help if you cant see. Am i reverting to my revision. Whatever you want to add, add, without removing what i write. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not on the page given, that is source misrepresentation. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You saying it so doesnt make it so. You are claiming and pushing various half-baked stuff on various pages. Please stop that before you banned/blocked again as you clearly have a history of doing this for a long time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You wrote above that the stuff you added was supported on p2 of Encyclopedia of Modern Worldwide Extremists and Extremist Groups The RSS is not even mentioned on p2 of that source. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

For clarity. The Andersen source says what DD has inserted (p. 2) and says nothing about Hitler. It does say (p. 82 and 83) that while there are elements of fascism in the RSS (specifically: the primacy of intuitive knowledge, the existence of a 'national soul', the presence of a divine purpose, and collective consciousness), it also differs from Western fascism in its rejection of unitary authority. Though, the author also adds, in practice the RSS has tended to have a single leader. The Atkins source does say what DS is saying. That inspiration for the group came from the Italian fascist party and that during WWII, its leaders were open admirers of Adolf Hitler (page 264). --regentspark (comment) 19:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight tag

The section Protection of Sikhs during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots is sourced to a news article I think? The publisher is down as "Publik Asia" which in turn is quoted in Who is a Hindu? by Koenraad Elst a known supporter of the far right movements in India. "Belgian Koenraad Elst, two Westerners who decry the historic distortions of Hinduism that Westerners have created, and who are without hesitation, the key ideological supporters of far right-wing Hindu nationalism in India" Performativity & Belonging Sage p77. Can he be considered a reliable source for this article? And does anyone have access to either the book or newspaper article, the news source itself seems not to exist online as the paper does not seem to have a website, can someone check the book to verify the source? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Elst is at best a reliable source for his own pro-hindutva viewpoint. Not for objective facts.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It gets worse, the publisher for the book is Voice of India Publications, this is from there about us "Hindu society and culture are faced with a crisis. There is a united front of entrenched alien forces – Islam, Christianity, Communism, Nehruism – to disrupt and discredit the perennial values of the Indian ethos." This is not even remotely a reliable or reputable publishing house. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You can argue about Kushwant Singh. But why remove Maharashtra gov site sourced text? neo (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY that sentence was sourced to a primary source and what was in the primary source was the testimony of a single individual, that is not RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 July 2013

In the section "Structure" in the line: "According to the official website, a Hindu male can become member by joining the nearest ‘Shakha’, which is the basic unit." Please change "a Hindu male" to "anyone" (source: http://www.rss.org/faq.aspx) Manik.mayur (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ip request

Remove the sentence that "The RSS carried out acts of violence against Muslims when founded in 1925,[8] and have since, formed militant groups who engage in attacks on minority groups throughout India."Because there is no proof of this till now and this is shameful statement to use such king of statement for a patriotic organisation. From the independence till now Congress and UPA are in government and they are totally against this organisation. If any of such would happened then they would not leave this organisation. Even supreme court removed the ban from this organisation against the unlawful act of government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.93.121.214 (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the content is reliably sourced. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, You should removed it. As till now no court or government of India come with any statement like that. Another thing if you want to site someones personal thought then you should write this in different section like "Controversy" or any thing else, but you wrote in introduction as facts. So remove it from this section and put it in some other section if you wish to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.169.67.81 (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No, please read our policies on WP:RS. Academic sources are used for statements of fact as there are no arguments over this from other academic sources, or any other sources for that matter. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Darkness shines is right, there is no basis for removing this. The fact that they were banned and the ban was later removed means nothing ion this regard. Sources clearly and unequivocally describe them as a an extremist nationalist group that has used violence on several occasions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

World's largest organization?

I am seeing some online sources stating it is the world's (India's) biggest voluntary organization. This claim should probably be mentioned here, if reliable sources can be found (or debunked). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a problem, it only a claim and having 5 million members and many affiliate bodies has been reported many times but they lack a formal record. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Defining "voluntary organisation" might be tricky. The congregation of the Roman Catholic church, anyone? - Sitush (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

New lead

I've redone the entire lead, and I think this gives a good summary of the organisation till the rest of the article is done up. Also added more refs which can be used for further expansion, removed some opposing biased statements from both viewpoints and hope it's WP:DUE enough. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it is shite. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Care to elaborate, D? ;) Aside from the obvious, ie: leads should reflect articles and therefore it would probably be best if "the rest of the article is done up" first. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the type of pants they wear have no place in the first paragraph of the lede. It is also factually wrong, "its sometimes aggressive stance against religious minorities in the country, alleged role in religious violence" hahahahahaha. Also they are still a fascist group, not criticized because the founder was an admirer of Nazi policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well the "type of pants" and "alleged role in violence" were mentioned in the NY times and BBC article, I couldn't help it. Let's face it, that is their trademark and they don't directly blame them for violence. Whether we are of the opinion that they are a fascist group or not...majority of the leading news agency did not have the nerve to directly brand them so which I think, should be echoed in the lead. If DS still thinks this is absolutely wrong but doesn't want to refer to faecal matter again, I'm willing to have this examined by the rest of the community. What's wrong with the lead showing what majority of the news agencies think?...The opinions of various authors can be in the rest of the article.

I've been preparing an outline for this shabby article, and decided to fix the lead up first temporarily till I finish the rest and then append that to the lead, there is hardly any new information added apart from new references (which can be expanded further upon). If this itself is that bad, then I will abandon my plans for renovating this article. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of removing the academic sources used in the article as you had then the use of newspapers which discuss their pants would not have been needed? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I like how this discussion is getting constructive. The academic sources were only in the lead and as I said in the summary, the ones used elsewhere were moved below. Most of them were used only to source things like "it is a paramilitary, extremist...it has been criticised...it started violence", it seems like cherry picking to me. Of course, use the academic sources for in-depth analysis below and if majority of the them agree on the above statements, I wonder why this has not been echoed in regular leading news agencies. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Newspapers are not exactly renowned for their in depth analysis of anything, let alone the history of an organization such as this one. The academic sources used are the best, you must know that academic sources are better that newspapers? The fact of the matter is that this group are extremist, they are violent and they are fascist. The sources say that, so so we. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

DarknessShines user is defaming this organization by restoring the pages that don't even have enough references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkWikiUser (talk • contribs) 10:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You are removing academically sourced content, how am I "defaming" this organization? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Want to question the claim made in the article saying "RSS has formed militant groups who engage in attacks on minority groups throughout India"

Has any court in India or abroad has held RSS responsible for militant activities or funding for militant activities in/outside India? If so, then please present it to the public. If there is no evidence then how can Wiki allow people to post such objectionable content in their portal? Many read Wiki and will read false information. It has to be changed to "RSS has been alleged of........" because there are not cases against RSS or conviction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.93.130.1 (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death, please look through previous conversations. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

How is this edit even close to neutral? The first paragraph now reads like a fanboy page. Do I really need to point out that Its volunteers are also known for their killing and kicking the crap of of minority groups? The POV push is loading the beginning of the article with fluff, and as such I intend to revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

and the second and third and fourth paragraphs of the lead outline how controversial they are politically and how they were banned. Point? Pectore^talk 00:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The point is it ought to be spread evenly, not buried at the bottom after all the gush. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

And now Pectore is again reverting academically sourced content from the article, perhaps he would be so kind as to explain why no criticism of this bunch are allowed in the opening of the lede but all the lovely self sacrificing crap is? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Holy Grail!! We ought to rearrange the whole material. How the hell has this happened when the crusaders of neutrality still stay alive. This is blasphemy and anti-what-not of wikipedia. I propose to change the order of lead paras. We ought to put the Muslim pogroms in 1st para, then followed by Holy Saint Gandhi's murder, and the the Hitler worship and then all the crap of what RSS allegedly claims it does at the bottom of it all. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and will do it in a bit. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Bingo! Like §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Format for the lead

I've noticed the little edit-warring over the lead for quite some time now, I usually shy away from controversial articles but let's just all see if we can agree on a final format and order of the lead. I'll start by putting a template which anyone can edit, we'll finally get a draft which everyone agrees on and put it once and for all in this article. Please let's all try to remove that stupid POV tag which has been there for more than a year. After this, if everything goes well (sure everyone here wants that) we refer to this when future conflicts arise. If all this seems silly and pointless, at least humour the newbie here, I did take time to post this.

Overall in the lead, I think User DarknessShines, the content you added is a bit too far heavily worded and can be made more neutral. I don't think putting "extremist organisation" in the infobox is a wise idea. I could be wrong but the ban has been lifted for a reason. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is the template, (If you disagree, change it but mention/justify your edit, maybe better if everyone uses bolding and striking out).

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ... is a right-wing, paramilitary, volunteer Hindu nationalist group. The RSS states that its ideology is based on the principle of selfless service to the nation. Its volunteers have given undertaken relief and rehabilitation work after natural disasters, but have also been accused of attacks on religious and ethnic minorities.

The RSS was founded in 1925 as an educational group to train Hindu men by character-building to unite the Hindu community, to counter British colonialism in India and suppress Muslim separatism. They drew their inspiration from European right wing groups during WWII. RSS volunteers have participated in various political and social movements including the Indian independence movement, and the group became one of the most prominent Hindu nationalist groups. The RSS has helped with more than 100,000 charities and eductional/service programmes in the fields of education, health care, rural development, tribal emancipation, village self-sufficiency, rural farming and the rehabilitation of lepers and special needs children.

It has been criticised as extremist and as xenophobic. The RSS carried out acts of violence against Muslims when founded in 1925, and have since, formed militant groups who engage in attacks on minority groups throughout India. By the 1990s, the group had established numerous schools, charities and clubs to spread its ideological beliefs. It was banned by the British Colonial Authorities, and then thrice by the Government of India after independence — first in 1948 when Nathuram Godse, a former RSS member, assassinated Mahatma Gandhi; then during the emergency (1975–1978); and after the Demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992. The bans were subsequently lifted.

1. First point, I agree with DS in this part. It may seem excess but search any newspaper agency and this is the first point which they bring up. Maybe something could be added here explaining it's current state. (Recent years, I think, it has refrained from controversies)
2. I suppose it looks in order here IMO but this point can be made more precise without them weasel wording. Looking at the contrast between the two points, the thing which comes to my mind is, "Putting an completely opposite view in an already biased article does NOT help getting a NPOV".

As I said before, please feel free to edit and put your justification in the template above. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: I gave it a go. Darkness Shines (talk

Thank you for replying. I still feel there is a striking contrast between the two points and I have italicised where it's obvious to the reader. We need to neutrally word both sides better and reduce adding equally biased sentences of the opposite view, that should improve the flow and seem neutral. The second para needs about its relief work needs to be made more factual, does not seem clear. After the first introductory para, we need to arrange them in chronological order. What do you think about this? Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Go for it, I will try and help once you are done. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It is most justified.. please go ahead for an edit. Users are requested to refrain from severe accusations like terrorists, terrorism and that too without any proof.. If any organization is currently running and working in front of law and is not prohibited by government or court, then please discuss Organizations positives and negatives with proper citations, Don't try to prove your own perception. KLS 05:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kswarrior (talk • contribs)

Lead and History

• "In 2004 it was designated a terrorist organization by the Terrorism Research Center". '=' The Terrorism Research Center, is really notable for the lead?
• On History, the praise about Hitler is mentioned. But we can add the praise/support for Israel as well? Bladesmulti (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Bladesmulti, things need to catch up.

KLS 03:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Being designated a terrorist organization is highly notable, I was surprised it had not already been added, it caused quite the furore at the time. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Content removal

Would Kswarrior be so kind as to explain his removal, twice, [1][2] of reliably sourced content? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• First I would like to ask Darkness Shines, is he provoked beacuse I repealed his edits?

What I feel is, it is the case because he just posted severe false accusations and 'warning to be banned' on my talk page. This behaviour is strongly condemned and I advice him to follow User Conduct rules. Be patient otherwise you may become patient.

• Secondly I like to inform all other users, if this article is already having a section named as "Criticisms and accusations" where all points are already explained according to section, then there is no need to keep same points every where in the article. I found it out of the section, repeatitive by means and same accusations over subject, so i removed two lines, if the same or alike sentence is cited by two or many sources, then according to best practices of Wikipedia Editing, all citation should kept together citing single statement. although i mentioned that in my action, unencyclopedic edit and repetition.
• If an article is having all sections, stating different perspective, including postive to negative points, citated by resources, also not an own research, then how is it not Neutral? This article don't looks like biased, hence POV tag should be removed. Will user Darkness is able to justify it as Biased?
• This article needs work to be done to improve it, refrence for some statements in article is clearly needed. so i had tagged article for refrence issue, and after providing refrences i had removed that to. But it seems User Darkness is happy seeing uncitated sentences, so he removed it too.

• And at last I want to ask Darkness Shines, if he went too hyper after his edits are repealed so that he removed all my creative edits, also where citation was needed and I provided that?

This is not the way to response to an User Mr. darkness, Please refrain from bullying and abusive behaviour. I had replied to you at your talk, have a look.

KLS 12:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC) User:Kswarrior (talk)

What? You removed content, you were reverted. Do not remove it again. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think that it should be removed from the lead paragraph. Because it is sourced. RSS itself never denies. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Bladesmulti, its not the matter of sourced, neither right nor wrong. Lead para can contain description about the article's subject like what is it? Any other information regarding subject or related to Subject must be mentioned into sections and sub-sections according to Wikipedia Article best practices. Right tagging, right sectioning and non repetition is necessary condition for Article's class of writing. Mr. Darkness please give a logic or reason for justification of your action instead of useless comments. Changes are proposed to be made on 26th Jan. All users are invited to participate in discussion regarding the same before 26th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kswarrior (talk • contribs) 11:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I restored it due to WP:LEDE and WP:MOS. Remove it again and you will be reverted, I suggest you get consensus for your changes rather than trying to force them through. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Then why lead is so big? Unless it should be 1 -6 lines. Or it should summarize the whole article on Lead. Any 2 things, for this article, 2nd option was selected, probably, since its popular and relevant. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Honestly speaking, Terrorism Research Center on lead, can be argued, they dont seem to be that notable. Also the whole Hitler thing should be limited with one line. As per its seen on History, because it makes this organization look very anti-semitic, when they are not, they have supported Jews big time. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead is supposed to summarize the article that is policy, not a choice. Read WP:LEAD. The affinities between Aryanism, HIndutva and National Socialism are extremely notable and have a large body of literature.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Dark, please understand, neither you are page owner nor Wikipedia owner, Wikipedia is not a place to prove your perception. You can't just remove edits by all other users and do edit what you want. If you want to edit a thing, you have to explain. Please refrain original research and unreliable resources. If you want to edit, produce proper reliable source and proper sectioning. Now, I am Warning you, next time you will be reported.

KLS 18:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who has it backwards KSwarrior. You cannot remove sourced content just because you don't like it. You provide your reasons and you discuss and then consensus decides what to do. There is no current consensus to remove the sourced content that you are contesting.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What original research? What unreliable sources? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't ask kiddish questions, if you know about them, read and learn at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Mr. Unus, although i caughtup your intention, yet i want to inform you that lead section must be the same what it was decided consensus in the article's talk page, have a look over above of talk page. Additional comments of yours needs to take consensus from users, so it was removed and again it will be. Criticism must not be more than 1 para. Extra points should be move to Criticism section. There is no way required to add all points in lead section. Moreover, the whole article seems to be distorted heavily towards criticism and yes POV required in that way. For them..they never want to live in peace... It needs Admin intervention for overhauling the article.

KLS 03:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"Kiddish questions"? What are you on about, you claimed above that there are OR and unreliable sources used, so again, what original research? what unreliable sources? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Undue bias in the lead?

I wonder if the following deserves to be placed so high up in the lead, leave alone whether it should be there at all:

Its volunteers are also known for their efforts in relief and rehabilitation work during natural calamities[6] and for helping with more than 100,000 charities and educational/service programmes in the fields of education, health care, rural development, tribal emancipation, village self-sufficiency, rural farming and the rehabilitation of lepers and special needs children.

Also dodgy are the sources; while the rest of the lead is cited to scholarly works, this bit makes do with media articles related to specific events. Thoughts?—indopug (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I had previously mentioned this, see section at the top. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The very first section here? That discussion seems to have petered out; I think a relook at the issue is warranted. The sentence makes out the RSS to be the Red Cross, Amnesty International and Médecins Sans Frontières all rolled in one.—indopug (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I would have to agree, the RSS is best known for being fascist, attacking and persecuting minority religious groups and generally being nasty, violent people. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Really?? But history didn't say so. If you don't know about it, then please go through any of the cited resources, give proper time reading articles, books, choose either topic wise, history wise or any way you means. RSS may have bad face but it have good face too. This will Change your perception and come on facts. Yes, RSS is recognized as extremist organization but it also popular for its Patriotic image, national Volunteer, Relief works & self-service image etc and in this article all points are mentioned about them. The point is, what you think is not always true. KLS Kswarrior (talk • contribs) 18:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent additions

The sources being added are not RS. Please stop restoring them. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Those all are well cited reliable and recognized resources, you are continuosly engaged in reliable and cited resource removal without proper justifications. you can't unanimously remove any cited content and simply claim to unrealiable. It seems you are repeaditly critising only the article's Subject and removing other points by any user which conflicts your thoughts, hence you are doing biased editing. I again suggest you to refrain from these practises. However, i will provide more citations to justify my edits. KLS 10:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Kswarrior (talk)

Erm, no. I am not unanimously removing the sources, another editor also removed them. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The refrences which you are calling to be unreliable according to your views, Let me clear this, maximum of the citations, which are used for critics or other points are taken from those books, which had refrenced sources from those books which i had provided. For example = Atkins, Jaffrelot & alot more, I provided parental resources, if it is not reliable then all points cited to these books must be removed, which is largely used in providing citations. If not then citations in my edit are itself proved true. Don't become blind in hatred, all are toning same. Well, I can still use the citation which other users had provided, I don't need to provide more. If any user understand the fact, is invited to rollback to previous version. If not, then Sorry, I have to edit it my own.

KLS Kswarrior (talk • contribs) 13:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You did not cite Atkins nor Jaffrelot. Feel free do do so. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Here you come, So you are suggesting refering the parent source is invalid, but derived source is valid. Wow, how can you judge the reliablilty of resources out your own? Do you have any logic other than NPOV regulations? Questioning others too.. "Article Wants to Know!!!"

KLS Kswarrior (talkcontribs) 13:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

What? How can a source which purports to cite, say Jaffrelot, become a "parent source"? I honestly have no idea what you mean by this. Why not cite Jaffrelot rather than an RSS publication? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well if don't know about the Subject RSS, the books which i cited were not "RSS Publications". You didn't notice that, then refrain yourself by editing things you don't know. RSS publicates Paanchjanya, organiser or rashtradharma prakashans etc.. but those books were free work of an individual as thier editor. This questions your knowlege and judgement for the article. "You Need to Know" KLS Kswarrior (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:INDENT. I meant RSS commissioned publications as was pointed out by @Vanamonde93: Darkness Shines (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That's what I had asked Vanamonde, How he just jumped to conclusion without proper justification or proof and removed the cited content? so i had reverted his edit, and after that you reverted me based on vanamonde's allegations. how RSS commissioned those authors or publishers? How can anyone say like this, this is what they believe, not fact. Wikipedia is place of fact, not perception. You must not act upon what you think is true, but on what is true. Well, I will be editing by selecting proper references and try to use ref, which are already in article. Thanks KLS Kswarrior (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Kswarrior, I mentioned this on your talk already, but just so that everybody is on the same page, I'll repeat what I said.

The first source is published by a house that essentially publishes RSS material (go look it up) apart from being titled "Shri Guruji Golwalkar," clearly a POV source.

The second is Advani's autobiography, ie. written by him, therefore POV.

The blurb for the third says the book talks about the RSS role in the "cultural rejuvenation" of Indian society. Once again, POV.

The fourth is by the same publisher as the first.

Aside from this, none of the sources I removed are from academic publishers. In case you did not notice, I DID keep the two sources that seemed acceptable, I'm not simply reverting everything you add. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Kswarrior, you are being ridiculous. I saw this discussion, and repeated my reply here, but you get worked up that I posted on your talk page. You refuse to discuss any of the points being brought up, instead you complain about how people are being "rude" to you. Cut the crap, and keep the debate to the content. I explained, in detail, why each of the sources I removed was not acceptable (and I repeat, I DID NOT REMOVE THEM ALL). A google search is a terrible method for finding RS. It shows popularity, but nothing else, not rigorousness, not NPOV, nothing. If you have any response to make to the other points, make it now. Otherwise leave. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? Did you post the same what you have post here. There is a problem in your understanding. My talk page is not for discussing RSS or any other article, please do write here if you any point. Your tone was not good that you had written on my talk page, neither here so i blobbed you of misbehavior. Please follow UserConducts Regulations, I think you should leave and learn the WP:TALKNO. Regarding your comments, you should follow my comments and answer that first, however i will reply to your clarification in separate. Users also have others things to do, except being 24x7 in here. Be patient for getting reply, don't anonymously post here and there. Kswarrior (talk) KLS 06:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Kswarrior What in Bloody Hell are you talking about? I posted on your TP at 20:58 UTC. I posted the same points here at 21:14 UTC, or 16 minutes later. If you don't believe me, look here. I signed every damn post of mine. I DID anser your comments; google searches are not reliable, etc. So what on earth are you complaining about now? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me clearify you Vanamonde93, those all are third-party resources.

• Again you are accusing publisher without any facts, according to you publishing company should be banned. Please understand that the "sahitya sindhu prakashana" is independent and self standing publication and is no way should be related to RSS. The editor is independent and had written Biography of Golwalkar. Alot of authors had cited this book in their work, so there is no questioning for reliability and thus, it can be used as Refrence. I wonder how a publications can't be used for citation, if you have a book to publish, you can approach them and get published. please read WP:CITE
• This Article is not about Advani or his life, this article is about RSS not biography of advani, for any other article opinion can be taken as reference, but not for Advani's article. please read WP:RELIABLE WP:POV
• Please read the whole book, there are many things in that book like accusations, charges. BTW if they write about their work what they had did, which is a fact taken from history. so how is it POV? Can't understand what is POV? please feel free to read WP:POV
• And for that news link. had i cited through Google search engine? I had given proper address of news agency web page, have a look for that. also if you are not aware of the Google search engine, let me tell you, it omits the result based on words you have entered, if you copy paste the editorial article headline or words, then it will give you the result based on maximum matching words, obviously.

All though, don't lead article towards negativity, it is becoming negative, biased by your edits. Removing cited positive points and weighing highly on negativity will make it suitable for speedy deletion.

Mr. Vanamonde93, I am now warning you of misconduct, really there is problem in your understanding, I told you not to use my talkpage for discussion of any article, how you had responded again in above comment, this is last & i will report you next time. Study & Learn WP:PA. Kswarrior (talk) KLS 07:17, 30

January 2014 (UTC)

• If you falsely accuse me of anonymous edits, then the least you can expect is strong language. Moreover, I posted on your TP only once, and that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. I repeated myself here without being asked to. So enough of that.
• I have read WP:NPOV thoroughly, and I am getting tired of this. Advani is/was a member of the RSS, so his writing is not a good source for RSS related stuff.
• The publishing house is technically independent, but all they publish is RSS work. Go look at a catalogue of theirs.
• The "news" item is not from a well-known publisher; besides which, even a first reading of the page shows that it is POV.
• I am not alone in making these points, DS agrees with me, so YOU are the one going against consensus right now.
• I will henceforth only reply to content related posts from you. Any more meaningless accusations will be ignored. If you want to, go ahead and report me to ANI, because it's not likely to do you any good. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not false accusation for your behavior, you did & you deserved it. Again i am trying to say, posting on my talk regarding article and discussing topic once or twice is no where legitimated, this was not retgaridng action/edit, don't justify it by self. Why you are being reluctant in understanding this? your response is not needed in this. I would suggest you to read my above comments, where me & DS discussed and I agreed to provide proper citation from the sources already used in article or tertiary sources. As I cited from secondary sources,which can be used for citation but after conflict/disagreement I self agrees for Third party sources, please follow WP:PSTS .

The question is upon your edit, you just removed citated content from secondary source, without taking proper consensus. You should have tagged for {{better source}}, {{self-published inline}} or {{third-party-inline}} and appealed for reconsideration. ComeOn! You are saying, books are unreliable according to you because they published by that publication, if author should have reached for other publishers and printed the same, then how will it convert from unreliable to reliable? This is not the problem, the actual problem is acting on your own, according to your suspicion, you are declaring the citation to be primary source, which in fact are secondary source and illegally removing it without discussing on talk page. Instead of you, User Darkness had started discussion. Further in future, don't get involved in these activities. Kswarrior (talk) KLS 10:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If you had actually read my edit summaries, you would have noticed that that is exactly what I asked you to do, a long time before you began this argument. If you have finally come to your senses, be my guest and use those sources. I am not going to respond to your other comments, since they are utterly meaningless. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I am having mine, you need to come to, BTW do you have it? Again read carefully what had i written, you should not remove any cited contents without consensus. Why can't you understand such simple things? This reflects incompatibility & immaturity editing Wikipedia. Also, you need to learn how to respond to other users. Discussing and suggesting you is really meaningless, I had tried my best. Do you need mentor, another 93? I said already your comment is not required, but you did. I still can use those references, it doesn't disagrees any point mentioned by Wikipedia, but consensus. Kswarrior (talk) KLS 18:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

All those citations are already in the article's reference list, Vanamonde93 (talk) please do have a check before removing cited content. Both Vanamonde93 & DS are allegaly entering in Bad faith edits by removing all positive contents and heavily adding negative points and mostly of unproven and baseless allegations. Make the article neutral. Kswarrior (talk) KLS 17:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

KSW, I am gettin sick and tired of this. You should NOT remove journal sources against consensus, even if it is "negative." Also, you should NOT edit war to put in content other editors have legitimate concerns about. At this point, two editors (DS and myself) are pointing out problems with the sources you are using. You are not answering those problems. You are not finding new sources. I am not going to repeat the points I made above, but the sources you put in are NOT RS. What do you mean "the article are in the reference list?" Of course they are; you bloody put them there, when you add them to the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all mind your language Vanamonde93, you both users are acting as auxiliary forces, giving each other consensus at various articles, both of you are heavily biased editing against particular section in society or religion. At all that resources are well published are third party articles except few, which are secondary and need not to be removed. Administrator intervention is needed. Kswarrior (talk) KLS 17:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

As per users & Consensus all secondary resources had also removed, now new additions are represented only by third party resources. Kswarrior (talk) KLS 18:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Content removal II

How is Economic and Political Weekly, The Hindu and the AIOFDR unreliable? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You need to know that allegations are made by 'Caravan' magzine, not by Economic & political weekly and The Hindu, New papers just printed the news regarding the issue as controversial remarks by Caravan magzine claims to be taken aseemanand's interview, however there is no proof or evidence they had provided to justify their claim, moreover aseemanand had also denied any type of this interview to anyone and also denied by Indian Intelligence bureau. There is no point this to be in wikipedia. That all is itself written in those news links, please have a look. Kswarrior (talk) KLS 17:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You have removed an entire section five times, enjoy the block. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2014

Relatedness of RSS thoughts to Nazism is in dispute,this view is expressed by communist writers but RSS views are totally inline with swamy vivekananda,sankaracharya,Dayananda saraswati,Aurobindo ,Tilak http://www.newsbharati.com/Encyc/2013/2/4/The-Mission-of-Swami-Vivekananda-and-RSS-is-similar-Bhagwat.aspx Glnmurthy (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The sources used are not "communist". Darkness Shines (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you like to discuss why your sources are neutral as you claim and not POV as claimed otherwise? Sonarclawz (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really, take them to the RSN board if you think them no good. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Text added

I have added this text in this edit

(cur | prev) 18:06, 9 March 2014‎ Clapkidaq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (76,264 bytes) (+1,821)‎ . . (v deletion by pov warrior see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.wikipedia/u4dJIwvCQc4) (undo)

Vincent Kundukulam, a Christian priest at St. Joseph Pontifical Seminary in Aluva, Kerala, has written a Ph.D thesis in Sorbonne University, Paris, France, that claims RSS to be neither nationalist nor fascist . He states that that RSS cannot be considered as a nationalist organisation in the sense in which the term 'nationalism' is generally interpreted in India. He points out that Indian nationalism and religion are mutually exclusive. Since RSS's primary loyalty is to the Hindus, it can't be called 'nationalist'. He also argues against branding the RSS ideology as "Fascism", "Nazism", "Fundamentalism" and "Communalism". He said the terms fascism, Nazism, and fundamentalism are much abused terms in India. They have a different connotation and meaning in the European context that don't apply to an Indian sociopolitical context. He argues that since communalism is not a part of religion, RSS can be called "communal" only in a limited way.

It looks like sources are ok for this. The Christian Post and Indian Express is reliable. Thanks. --Clapkidaq (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted you, the main reason is that content seems to be a copyvio from here The second is half the links do not work, the third is you are giving to much weight to one persons opinion. That content needs to be trimmed, a lot, and working sources given. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the reasons for reversion. One Dissertation that contradicts 25 others should only have 1/26 of the total coverage. One dissertation that contradicts dozens of peer reviewed books and articles shoud perhaps not have any weight at all.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

RSS an Extremist Organization ?? Has the standard of Wikipedia fallen to a new Low ?

This page has been subjected to Muslim Extremism for Quite Some time now.

References Such as

[3] Horowitz, Donald L. (2001). The Deadly Ethnic Riot. University of California Press. p. 244. ISBN 978-0520224476.

are Highly Controversial. If Wikipedia has to take Reference, it should take References from Credible SOURCES. There are books that even mention Barack Obama a Practicing Muslim Extremist, will such books decide the content of Wikipedia ?

Hope the Admins / Moderators use their Logic to retain the Quality of Wikipedia. It will be the Wiki to lose its Credibility, NOT THE RSS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.193.27 (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

How in the hell is the reference "Highly Controversial"? That is a solid ref. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, nothing controversial about a reference published by UCP written by a professor of Law.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert, why

This appears to be a copyright violation, the source is also not RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Administrator must take a serious look

• Administrator must take a serious look at this article which is filled with flawed references many of which do not exist at all,this page is being edited by a muslim extremist to show Hindus and RSS in as poor light as possible, take strict action against this vandalizer shinning in darkness who is on a mission to delete and falsify all pages relating to Hindus and blocking just about everyone.

Rim sim (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines is neither a muslim or an administrator and cannot block anyone. Those who end up blocked are people who are unable to abide by the wikipedia community rules regarding how to edit controversial articles in a disinterested manner.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted to the last stable version, issues? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not helpful to revert to the last stable version when there has been made improvements since then. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Haven't checked the rest, but the "To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world..." quote is verified easily enough. Just google or search for it in a pdf of We: or Our Nationhood Defined (also googleable).

Also we should note that per WP:LINKROT, "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." Thus most of the recent edits should be reverted.—indopug (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Indopug: There were no URL`s, the stuff he removed was sourced to academic books. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Using "high profile gang rape in Delhi" for "2012 Delhi rape case" -- is okay to embellish so in wikipedia?

I do not find that phrase used in the entire article that it references or that this incident is addressed like this in news articles. The phrase also misses the time context 2012. Wikipedia article should be neutral. @User:Darkness Shines is of the opinion that it was a high profile case so he is justified in putting the phrase "high profile gang rape in Delhi" in Wikipedia. He has reverted my edit twice so I have started a discussion here. Jyoti (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"a notorious New Delhi gang rape and murder of a 23-year-old medical student" "in perhaps the highest-profile case, a 23-year-old woman was raped and horrifically brutalized by men for hours on a bus in late 2012," Still of the opinion it was not a "high profile" case? Darkness Shines (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That was not the popular way to address the incident. Otherwise why was the article not named so in the first place? And why is there no such decorative phrase in the article itself? I am not disputing that it was covered widely and there was lot of discussion about it -- yes it was notable and it was covered widely -- that is why there is a Wikipedia article also about it. You have to represent it in an unbiased way. Why is the need to remove the time context and put an embellished phrase when the wikipedia article already offers you a term for addressing it? Jyoti (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

So you agree it was a high profile case, in which case that content can be restore. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not how it works. :-) It was 'brutal', 'violent', 'horrible', 'inhuman', also -- so, would we want to add all these adjectives? My point is there is an entire article for this incident and it has a article name which is "2012 Delhi rape case" and nowhere in that article we chose to word it as "high profile gang rape in Delhi". Similarly the common phrase used in media was not exactly "high profile gang rape in Delhi". I think there should be other editors commenting on this for us to reach a consensus. I am _not_ saying that the content can be restored. You are for one usage and I am for another. :-) Jyoti (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you have consensus to remove it? Nope, so why do I need consensus to restore it? UCN has nothing to with how an event is described in an article BTW. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

By that logic the reverts can go on, that is why the consensus. I chose to discuss only this change and none of the others that you have reverted because I was not convinced with this one and I feel I have a valid point here. Jyoti (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

What is the reason you consider it a problem to refer to the only gang rape case in India that people all across the world have heard about as "a high profile gang rape case"? Try to explain what it is you find misleading here?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not about how you and I perceive it. We should avoid adding adjectives on our own, if that was not how it was addressed in general then we should also use the more common term "2012 Delhi rape case" in Wikipedia. Jyoti (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you not see the sources that Darknessshines provides?. It was not the only gang rape case in Delhi in 2012. It was just the one that got most attention, i.e. the highest profile one.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

By that logic how about "most brutal inhuman ..."? That was not how it was addressed in general. Jyoti (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I already told you, UCN has nothing to do with how we describe events. I have restored the content, you had no consensus to remove it, and I have passed the burden here by providing sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Fine, it makes the article all the more funny. Your wish prevails I don't want to reason. You can revert and edit your way I need to have permission for every change, eh? Jyoti (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Anti-RSS bias evident

This article talks about RSS indulging in riots and violence. These accusations are baseless as no court of law in India has ever indicted the RSS, in spite of successive Congress Party governments banning them (the RSS). I suspect the writer(s) of this article have a pro-Islamist agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.221.99.95 (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't exactly disagree. The lead needs to be re-written to feel coherent. Right now it's an assembly of dissociated statements with over citation. And I see one page being referenced 7 times in the lead! Better replace that page itself here? It won't be easy though -- I am not dipping my hand! Jyoti (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the lead needs a grammatical overhaul + redundant lines need to be nixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.174.115 (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2014

This article has multiple wrong informations. Please allow me to edit. You can verify them. Pratikindia (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2014

Please change 'paramilitary' to 'cultural' because there is no para-military aspect to RSS. The name RSS means 'Nationalist(Rashtriya) Voluntary (Swayamsevak) Organization (Sangh)'. the organization has never participated in any military activity ever. It does not even conduct neighborhood watch. It does not have any agenda to fight anybody using any kind of force. it is organization for teaching values such a patriotism, discipline, learning, spirituality and independence. Its daily 1 hour program consists of playing games, yoga, singing songs, story telling and discussions and lectures. The celebrated event are mainly Hindu festivals. Vsagdeo (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2014

Please change 'extremist' to 'nationalist'. RSS does not preach or practice any extremist practices. It is committed to constitution of India and works within its framework, aiming to increase effectiveness of the country by teaching patriotism. It does not have any characteristic that can be viewed as extremist. It is based on Hinduism which is a broad umbrella of practices and is tolerant. There is no monotheism and is more about self respect and nationalism based on long tradition. Vsagdeo (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

POV tag.

User:Darkness Shines, I believe this editbrings back pov and tagshould remain or para rewritten to affirm to npov. Jyoti (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines has been blocked for two months. Jyoti (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Revert, why

I just reverted a change to the lead, not because the current version is any good, but because the lead needs a complete re-write, and that re-rewrite needs to take the anti-Muslim aspects of the organization into account (because there are more than just accusations that have been made). I will be happy to work with you to develop a new lead, the current one is certainly POV. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to do a comprehensive rewrite at the moment. However, "its only activism was expressed in anti-Muslim violence" is unambiguously POV and factually incorrect. There are other aspects of activism explicitly cited, such as "RSS volunteers participated in the Bhoodan movement" (land reform activism) and "Dr. Hedgewar asked all the RSS branches to hoist the Indian flag and organize lectures on the need of independence" (independence activism, even if not necessarily at the same level as the Indian National Congress).

You haven't proposed any specific text. So, I've made another edit. If you're not satisfied, please improve it, with sources, rather than making a wholesale revert. The text before did not just say they had an anti-Muslim ideology, but that their sole activism was anti-Muslim violence. Discussion of anti-Muslim violence requires strong sources. Superm401 - Talk 00:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Vanamonde93 why did you not tag the article with POV? Your edit is POV. WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies. I have put the tag now. You may respond to User:Superm401. Jyoti (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

As I have already explained to Super401, their edit looked at first like the standard POV pushing that happens around here, which is why I reverted it. In any case, that has been sorted out, and you have added the tag. We need to create a new lead, but I do not have the time for that right now. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I agree with you, it does need a rewrite! I had expressed before in this talk page "The lead needs to be re-written to feel coherent. Right now it's an assembly of dissociated statements with over citation." but I also stay away for lack of time and knowing that this is a highly controversial article. Jyoti (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Bajrang Dal

There is currently a sentence in third paragraph of the opening section reading: "It was set up as an alternative to the politics of mass anti-colonial struggles and has since formed militant wing Bajrang Dal." Is this correct? The article Bajrang Dal says that it is a "Hindu organization that forms the youth wing of the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP)." The VHP is a separate organisation from the RSS - though there are some affiliations. Factually, was the Bajrang Dal set up as a wing of the RSS or of the VHP?. If the Bajrang Dal is a wing of the VHP and not the RSS then this sentence should be removed. Chris Fynn (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The present statement is incorrect. What you are suggesting is right. The problem is there are reference that say otherwise and there will be some editors who will insist on 'high-reputation' of the cherry-picked sources and forcibly represent the selective version in Wikipedia's voice itself -- not even agreeing to attribute in the text to particular sources! "Encyclopedia of modern worldwide extremists and extremist groups" has been referenced seven times in the lead! And it is WP:TERTIARY. You may wait for comments from other editors here and do the correction yourself. Jyoti (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2014

This line is absolutely not true: Along with other extremist organizations the RSS has participated in a wide range of riots, often participating in organizing and inciting violence against Christians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.119.247 (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done. The statement is cited so we can't remove it. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 15:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"wide range" and "often" may be replaced with better choice of words is all I can say (consider WP:WEASEL) at a quick glance... Jyoti (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the source is offline. However, I was thinking of verifying the current statement anyway so give me a couple of days. --regentspark (comment) 16:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, no rush. I just put a quick suggestion. I am not experienced editor -- my understanding goes like such words are avoided on Wikipedia and if used they are attributed. Jyoti (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I had forgotten this discussion and happened to be validating the same thing. I could not validate it. "wide range" and "often" has to go and it has to be attributed or specific incident mentioned. It is a vague sweeping derogatory claim. I will be doing the same after few days. --Jyoti (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The Parashar reference says nothing about the RSS. But the Horowitz reference supports the wide range part saying "Involved in an enormous range of riots, alone or in combination with Jan Sanghis or BJP members ...." (p. 244). --regentspark (comment) 12:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I quickly went through another reliable academic source from oxford that has an entire chapter on RSS which and does not say such thing! In The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s Ordered Society Bhatt, Chetan. Hindu Nationalism : Origins, Ideologies and Modern Myths. Oxford, GBR: Berg Publishers, 2001. I did not get time to collect more or read more but I am still inclined to believe such sweeping comment in lead is definitely unwarranted. --Jyoti (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

And I do not find an "enormous range" of news coverage to the effect, I should be able to find at least 4-5 separate rioting news where rss 'participated in organizing and inciting violence against Muslims' if 'wide range' (I do not know what it implies here) and 'frequent' is the case? Otherwise the second reference is in better standing, No? --Jyoti (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A search on google scholar for "RSS involved riots" or a similar set of keywords pulls up a lot of results. The numbers count for little, but it does show that the statement is not a fringe POV. Moreover, RSS involvement in specific riots is not disputed; the question is over the general statement; so for us to include an opposing view, we need a source explicitly saying that the RSS has been an entirely peaceful organization, or has been falsely accused of rioting, or something along those lines. A source merely discussing the RSS without mentioning riots is not enough. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Vanamonde93. We have an academic source, a respected one, that makes the statement so it can stay in the lead and doesn't need specific attribution. --regentspark (comment) 13:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that is fair. I will see if there are such references otherwise I don't have any problems. --Jyoti (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Guruji?

Who is Guruji? --regentspark (comment) 14:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Profound question! You have to seek an answer for yourself dear RP. :-) --Jyoti (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That would be good - but I can always look into a mirror :) Still wonder who the guruji in the image gallery refers to--regentspark (comment) 15:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Its Golwar I think -- there in Bibliography of the article. --Jyoti (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2014

[[ RSS participation in 1963 Republic Parade ]]

Jayeshvfx (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources on lead

Lead is overloaded with many references, it is hard for a reader to grasp content. You should remove references from lead and keep them in other sections. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request: RSS is not just a cultural organization

In the opening paragraph of the page, it is mentioned that RSS is a cultural organization is not at all true. It is the mother organization of Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), a political party in India and currently in power. There are numerous links to credible sources to prove this point. Therefore, I request an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katyaan (talk • contribs) 06:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Sarsanghchalak

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge. Redirect created to Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Sarsanghchalaks. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Sarsanghchalak has meaning only in context of RSS. This article cannot be expanded beyond a definition and list of people who held the post. It is better to club it in RSS page. Jyoti (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support per proposer. A cursory search of sources does not show me anything that would be too detailed for this page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Jyoti, why don't you go ahead and boldly merge the page? You're not getting much response. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV tag

Is the POV tag still needed? If so, what are the concerns? Kautilya3 (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you ask our mutual friend? S/he put it there in the first place. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you name and tell him/her? Bladesmulti (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: I was being vague for a reason; if you are curious, I could mail you. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You can. I wasn't active when this tag was inserted. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

A search for "POV" in the talk archives turns up multiple hits. Last I remember Vanamonde93 and Superm401 having content dispute and there were POV accusations. That is when I put back the POV tag. I was not party to that dispute. Kautilya, talk archives should be a good place to check. Cheers! --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Why POV tag is still needed? Because the donations, activism, relief acts are not being recognized on article's lead but the usual controversies(people are aware of). I am not saying that we have never improved this article, we did. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the original issues that gave rise the POV tag have been resolved quite some time ago. I think it would be a good idea to to write here something about the outstanding issues when a POV tag is put up so that we know what to work on. Since User:Bladesmulti mentioned a bunch of issues with the lead, it seems best to leave it on. But when the lead is fixed, the tag should be removed in my opinion. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Bajrang Dal

Regarding this edit [3], it is not so easy to say that Bajrang Dal is a separate organisations and so it is not relevant. All these organisations are linked and the RSS is the mother organisation. VHP was after all founded by an RSS pracharak with Golwalkar's blessing and, until recently, headed by an RSS pracharak. Secondly, anything sourced from a reliable source can be reported as fact unless it is contradicted by other reliable sources. It is not necessary to say "alleged". Kautilya3 (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sangh Parivar

@Ghatus: Thanks for your interest in this page. Regarding your recent addition of the Sangh Parivar members, I think we should mention only a few important organisations so that we don't lose focus from the RSS. So, duplicating the entire list from the Sangh Parivar page is no good. If you don't agree with the previous list, please tell us which organisations you think should be mentioned. This is a judgement call, and it is best to discuss it first.. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Organizations that have Wikipedia Pages would be best and some important organizations like Bharatiya Railway Sangh, Shiksha Bharati & Vishwa Samvad Kendra(though they don't have seperate wiki page). Others can be deleted. Ghatus (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ghatus: Have halved it.Ghatus (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

(Please use : for indentations, and let me know what happens if you ping your self :) I thought the old list was pretty good even though I can't say that I have looked at it closely. I think any list with more than, say, 5 entries is counter-productive, because people won't look at it. They will just skip it and go on to the remaining text. Or they might get put off and quit reading altogether. I think the list is important here for two reasons: (i) to indicate that the total membership of the Sangh Parivar is much larger than the membership of the Sangh itself (probably 10 times larger?) and (ii) a lot of Sangh's work in mobilising Hindus is done through the affiliates. So I would like to keep just the organisations that are needed to convey these points and remove the others. Ideally, all the organisations mentioned in the list should also be discussed in the text. But that is probably a larger job than you have time for at the moment. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)