Talk:Hindu Students Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Criticisms by "Campaign for Stop Funding Hate"

This is a group with unproven/unpublished credentials. Please stop publishing this useless criticism. It violates WP:RS. Kkm5848 06:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you point to the bit of WP:RS it violates? Thanks. Hornplease 07:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
HSC is a registered 501(c)(3) organization and is separate from any other group. The source of the ATOL article and presumably also the Himal article was the CSFH report on IDRF, which violates WP:SPS. The new report on HSC by CSFH also violates WP:SPS Akx256 13:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think kkm584's version (which I reverted to) has the correct statement. It is true that HSC was started back in 1993 with support from VHP. But to say that HSC is the "student arm" of VHP implies that VHP has some sort of legal or organizational control, which is simply not true. Akx256 14:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Reliable Sources

Please note that Himal and Asia Times meet WP:RS. If they choose to base their information on what you believe are self-published sources - a claim which I see no basis for in this case - that does not change the fact that that is precisely how reliable sources work. Hornplease 00:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure how Himal and Asia Times meet WP:RS...please explain this. Furthermore, how do their reporting/editorial meet WP:RS when the report they cite clearly doesn't!. What is required for you to believe that citation of a report (one which clearly isn't WP:RS) is a violation of WP:RS??? Also, doesn't The CSFH report fit the WP:Fringe category of a claim that is not well-known. Thus requiring exceptional citations...which means not multiple sources pointing to the same base material, but multiple reports? Kkm5848 05:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not exaclty sure how the report fails to fall under the self-published source heading; it was a "report" created by the CSFH published on their own website. And the reliability of that report is at best questionable (http://www.letindiadevelop.org/thereport/). And for that matter, the document CSFH wrote about HSC isn't accurate, either (http://www.hscnet.org/fact.php). Just because something appears in a newspaper (and in the case of Himal, at least, a fairly obscure one) doesn't make it true - does the name Judith Miller ring a bell?
If there are legitimate criticisms of HSC (and I'm not saying the CSFH report counts, given CSFH's record), they belong in a "criticisms" section of the article. Go take a look at the articles on groups such as the Muslim Students Association, or Hilel, or or the Anti-Defamation League. To take an inaccurate document and use it as a basis to change the very first sentence of an article about a group that you have obviously never been involved with is simply unfair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.234.182 (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
sorry, I forgot to sign my last post. The stuff from "I'm not exactly sure....is simply unfair" is me 71.235.234.182 02:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
d'oh! Let's try this again. Here we go, 4 tildes: Akx256 02:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you miss the point. If you have been involved with the HSC, you should perhaps avoid this article: see WP:COI. Further, I am not quoting the cSFH report in this draft, as I have attempted to meet your objections; I am using only reliable sources, namely Himal and Asia Times. The onus is on you to demonstrate how those are inadmissible. We cannot second-guess the editorial process here. Hornplease 04:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If you're quoting articles that use CSFH articles as their souces (and the ATOL article openly states that it does so), you've still got the SPS problem. I think the compromise I proposed above is a fair one (moving this debate to a criticism section), since it matches the way other groups are treated on Wikipedia. Put a "criticisms" section right above the "Refernces" section (the way they do for the other groups I mentioned) and people can duke it out there to their hearts' content. Akx256 05:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it is quite unacceptable. Compare the VHP article, which clearly states its associations upfront, as does the HSS article. The scholarly work in particular does not quote the report. In any case it is irrelevant, as it is not criticism in any case, so it would be misleading. Please see Wales's remarks on criticism sections, as well. Please do not continue to remove this content. It is quite clear you have a serious WP:COI here. Hornplease 05:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Just comparing to VHP doesn't quite suffice...as Akx256 is stating that the comparison to the Muslim Students Association & Hillel is a better comparison--both religious student groups. VHP is not a student group by any stretch of the imagination. Kkm5848 05:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, let me clarify that last bit. I certainly don't want to simply move an edit war to another section of the article. I think a criticms section is a valid place to put criticisms, so I think it would be fair to put the sources you cited down there. This seems to be the accepted norm on WP, and all I'm saying is that it should be applied here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.234.182 (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC).


Sorry, mentioning the link, which is accepted by an overwhelming number of RSes, isnt a criticism. It's a statement. It is not the accepted norm to put anything that people within a particular organisation object to into a section. A section about the links can very well be introduced, but any summary of the subject, which is what the lead must be, cannot but mention this well-documented link, whether or not you think its criticism. Hornplease 05:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Further scholarly RSes:
  1. "Transnational Movements, Diaspora, and Multiple Modernities", by Stanley J. Tambiah, in Multiple Modernities, ed. Shmuel Eisenstadt, Transaction Publishers.
  2. "Nationalism by Proxy", by Bidisha Biswas, in Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, Volume 10, Issue 2 June 2004 , pages 269 - 295. Hornplease 05:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. "Being Young, Brown, and Hindu: The Identity Struggles of Second-Generation Indian Americans", by Prema A. Kurien, in the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Vol. 34, No. 4, also her forthcoming book
  4. Namaste America: Indian Immigrants in an American Metropolis By Padma Rangaswamy, Penn State Press.
  5. "Negotiating Hindu Identities in America", by Diana Eck, in The South Asian Religious Diaspora in Britain, Canada, and the United States Raymond Brady Williams, Harold G. Coward, John Russell Hinnells eds., State University of New York Press.
  6. New Roots in America's Sacred Ground: Religion, Race, and Ethnicity in Indian America by Khyati Y. Joshi, p88, Rutgers University Press. Hornplease 06:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. "The Promotion of Impunity in India", by Sachit Balsari, Harvard Series on Health and Human Rights, The François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights, Harvard University
  8. "The protean forms of Yankee Hindutva", by B. Mathew and V. Prashad, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Routledge, Volume 23, Number 3, 1
  9. "Mapping Political Violence in a Globalized World: The Case of Hindu Nationalism", by S Kamat, B Mathew, Social Justice, 2003.Hornplease 06:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. "The Struggle for India’s Soul", by Mira Kamdar, World Policy Journal, New School University Hornplease 06:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. "Hindu Diaspora and Religious Philanthropy in the United States", by Priya Anand, Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the International Society for Third Sector Research, Toronto, July 2004

Hornplease 06:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


I seem to be missing the point of the scholarly RSes above...please explain why they are relevent? Kkm5848 05:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course you are. It is to indicate that there is no doubt about this connection. Not mentioning on WP would be a massive violation of WP:UNDUE, and shunting it away from the lead would be as well. Hornplease 06:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that all of the above RSes mention that HSC is run by the VHP and that the above would countermend the government which states that it is not!??! Kkm5848 13:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The government states no such thing. An independent financial and adminstrative structure for the purposes of tax law has nothing to do with actual hierarchical structure. Otherwise Catholic charities, for example, could not exist.
And yes, I am saying that the above RSes all conclude that the links are close, and six of them use the phrase 'student wing'. Hornplease 07:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's analyze the claim that the link is "well-documented". HSC is legally separate from any other group under federal law (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3)). So as far as the federal government is concerned, the claim is false. To sustain a claim that it's a "student wing" of some other organization, therefore, you'd have to show that the leadership of HSC is controlled by those organizations. Since HSC is run by a committee of 50-odd representatives from various chapters (see the HSC fact link I posted earlier), you'd have to prove that at least a voting majority of those people are "controlled" somehow by the VHP, or are VHP members, or something. To my knowledge nobody has managed to prove this (the CSFH report has made allegations about a handful of known HSC members, but these are hardly proven and even then aren't enough to demonstrate that a majority of people in leardership positions are VHP members). The only statement you can make that has any solid foundation is that HSC was founded with the support of VHPA, which is exactly what I said up front. 71.235.234.182 06:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to show any such thing. (In fact, I shouldnt). I can merely quote a dozen scholarly sources that say something, and a dozen more that meet RS but arent peer-reviewed. That is all I need to do. OK? To keep it out on the basis of the above argument - ah, now that is not permissible under WP:OR. Also a million other WP policiies. Hornplease 06:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I note that you're still editing, without addressing these questions. Am I to suppose that you concede the point? Hornplease 06:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The first reference, (I have removed it), does not claim that HSC is a student wing of the VHP. It just says that HSC has activities and that students invite speakers that don't countermand VHP's viewpoints or something to that effect. I have also removed the reference to Himal Mag since you have yet to answer hte question as to what makes it a WP:RS? http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/global/Publications/Yearbooks/2003/2003Chapter7e.pdf does not even mention HSC. What kind of references are these? I have removed all of them and the statement. Please explain here before reposting.
Congratulations on your close reading. Since you mention the LSE yearbook in particular, please see Figure 7.2:International funding for Sangh Parivar, on p181, which clearly identifies the HSC as the 'student wing' of the VHP of America.
I find your comment absolutely disturbing...I am participating in this debate with you in good faith and find that you are not acting in good faith! You are congratulating me on my close reading indicating that you knew that they were irrelavent references!!! Kkm5848 14:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I was being sarcastic. Adobe acrobat has a 'find' button, and that comes up as a result of searching for 'HSC'. You made no effort whatsoever. That's not participation in good faith. Hornplease 07:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Himal magazine has been used as a reliable source frequently (see [1]). It has an editorial board, is and significant editorial intervention; it has a reputation for fact-checking. Please cite if you have other information.
I think this discussion has already proven that the reference is already incorrect and something slipped through the cracks of Himal magazine. Quoting a flawed report does not make it correct. Kkm5848 14:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The discussion has made nothing of the sort clear, and making that kind of assumption is not really permissible under WP:RS.
The first reference, which you ahve removed, says that "The HSC, modeled on the Vidyarthi Parishad of India, organised by RSS and VHP-A supporters, has become a major presence..." on p251. p 252 makes the links clearer "...the political implications of an association with the VHP and the BJP are by far not clear to these students...".
The assertian that it is modeled on does not imply that there is a linkage! What kind of logic are you using? Kkm5848 14:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Err, are you reading the whole thing, or are you jumping to try and reply before comprehension sets in? "organised by RSS and VHP-A supporters...."; "an association" - no linkage? Hornplease 07:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I am unclear why the Asia Times post or the Diana Eck article are also removed. These are unequivocal in their declaration. What is your point? I await a reply. I will revert if I do not receive one. Hornplease 14:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Please clarify what you mean by unequivocal in their declaration? I deleted all links since you were not posting references in good faith and I won't waste my time going through all of them when I know that alot of them are plain incorrect. Kkm5848 14:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It's your job to go through them if you wish to remove them. Hornplease 07:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


The Mathew-Prashad journal article is particularly useful :

"Take the case of the organization of the youth, the HSC. In 1987 Hindutva ctivists formed the Žrst HSC at Northeastern University (Boston), but by 1998 there were over Žfty chapters across the USA. The typical HSC is organized and run by an immigrant graduate male student who has connections to the Hindu Right in India. However, in what is an increasing trend, many new HSCs are being organized and run by secondgeneration male or female students who may have immediate family connections in the VHPA. Each HSC is fairly hierarchical with local ofŽcers and with local chapters subordinated to the National Coordination Council of Chapters at HSC HQ. Nevertheless, ‘the top leadership of HSC has ceased to be students’, said one disaffected member, but is headed by those who have long since graduated from college. These graduates ‘run the show and work in close cooperation with their “superiors” in VHPA’. The VHPA, then, is the primary organization, run by an older generation of petty-bourgeois and professional migrants who give the entire Hindutva complex direction and who control its resources."

Hornplease 15:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(Removed ridiculous claim per WP:BLP.) Hornplease 07:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the background of HSC, There were no Hindutva activists that started HSC. There were students that reached out to the community for help in starting it. They found it via folks in the VHP. The rest is pure speculation with no basis in fact. Kkm5848 14:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. Find an RS. Hornplease 07:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and also, from the Padma Rangaswamy book, p250: "The student wings of the VHP are the HSCs which have sprung up in universities with sizable Hindu populations. They have thrived especially where C or J or M councils have set precedents for religious based organisations. The HSCs are not to be confused with Indian students organisations.... the organisation keeps its VHP connection low-key... most students who belong to the HSC have no idea of its VHP political connections." This is fascinating stuff. I can see why you don't want any reliable sources in the article. Hornplease 16:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
What does C or J or M councils mean? HSC is not a indian student organization, that is correct, it is a hindu student organization. it proudly declares that in its name. and it doens't deny that it has cordial associations with VHPA (not VHP!) and other hindu organizations around the country Kkm5848 14:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Christian or Jewish or Muslim. Are you even bothering to think? The point is that this clearly states that the HSC is a student wing of the VHP-A, and, to my mind, indicates why you're here arguing to high heaven that all reliable sources be ignored. Hornplease 07:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
How, exactly, did Mathew-Prashad determine that HSC is "organized and run by an immigrant male grad student who was connections to the Hindu Right"? Did they interview the officers of every chapter? Or did they just make it up? As for your earlier reference to WP:OR, I didn't make up the standard I mentioned; the federal government did. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akx256 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
Alright, so completely independent of any substantive arguments people are having with each other, is anyone else seeing weird behavior when they load the page? Sometimes I'll load the page and see one person's version of the article, but if I check the history page it indicates that some other person's version is the most recent version. Is there something about browser settings that I'm missing here? Am I the only one having this problem? Akx256 03:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


AKx, I'm sorry, but we don't need to confirm that they interviewed everyone. We can't exclude them on the basis of whether they interviewed everyone. On Wikipedia, even if every reliable source is lying, its the truth as far as WP is concerned. If this bothers you so much, stop editing this page.
Every single reference above links the VHP and the HSC; six or so of those use the phrase 'student wing of the VHP'. There's nothing you or I can do about it now. It has to be in the article. Hornplease 06:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That's BS. The WP:RS policy has to bee seen as creating a REBUTTABLE presumption of reliability. Otherwise I could write a WP article and cite a Jayson Blair column as a source and say it is reliable just because it once ran in the NYT. That is clearly not what the WP creators intended. Akx256 13:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That is what the WP creators intended. If you thijnk it isnt, then please go make your arguments about that on the policy page and not here. This article isnot going to wait for you to catch up with what WP:RS means here.
Until you have reliable sources to add, do not revert again, or I will have to seek administrative action. Hornplease 15:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Sources -- starting May 2

Last revert was done since the sources do not match up to the statement. I do not have the time to go through all sources listed since this list was not created in good faith. A random spot check shows that 1. How does "International The News" meet WP:RS? 2. It does not say that HSC is the student wing of the VHPA, it says that it was initially. the initial part is not denied by anyone...HSC claims that it was started with the help of the VHPA. Kkm5848 02:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have the time to read the sources I have stated above - including the News, Pakistan's second largest paper, and a RS, which you didnt even bother to check - you should not revert. I have mentioned that the LSE, the Rangaswamy book, the Mathew-Prashand peer-reviewed papers, Himal magazine, and several others including Diana Eck all have used the phrase 'student wing of the VHP'.

If you have nothing better to do than to allege bad faith, please seek a thrid opinion.

The News clearly discusses the new CSFH report, and quotes its allegations. Hence it is a supporting reference for the claim, discussing the issue further, as references are supposed to do.
You simply can not revert after you have claimed to have not read the references.

Hornplease 07:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, you can if you post multiple claimed RSes and there is proof that you are not editing in good faith. My previous removal and your subsequent agreement 'congratulating me on my reading' shows your lack of good faith. Kkm5848 00:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

hornplease, if I understand your earlier statement correctly, you're claiming that a cite a source you claim is a WP:RS 'has' to be treated as a fact even if it's not true. This seems like a pretty crazy idea. Consider the consequences:

I could write an article about black people and cite as a source racist "academic research" from the Jim Crow era. By your logic, this cite would have to remain valid because academic sources are WP:RS.

Or I could write an article about Judaism and cite one of the many state-run media outlets in the Arab world that routinely slander Jews. Do you really think that sort of thing is appropriate just because it's in a newspaper?

Of the 7 references you cited, 1, 4, 5 and 6 make a number of claims about HSC without any sort of attribution whatsoever. 4, 5, and 6 were all written by the same authors. #7 cites back to the same Himal article you cited previously. I will admit I haven't read #2, but given the questionable pedigree of the other sources you cite, I'm betting I'd find the same thing.

Your view is AT BEST a criticism of this organization, and it should be treated as such in the article. Brownwalrus 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

the formatting of my previous post was funny, so I cleaned it up Brownwalrus 18:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Please note that if you were to do anything of the nature that you outline above, I would be able to quote an overwhelming number of reliable sources that call into question your conclusions. Furthermore, your racist/whatever sources would be disqualified under WP:FRINGE. This is not the case here.
About your actual points, the point of reliable sources such as I have quoted is that we do not seek further attribution. This is a tertiary source, an encyclopaedia, and we rely on secondary sources, journal articles, academic books, or editorial-reviewed periodicals. We do not question further.
If you wish to cast doubt on the sources, you must find other reliable sources that do so. They can then be quoted as well.
Further note that I have quoted many, many additional sources above. I can add all those references if necessary. The overwhelming number of reliable sources bears out the current version of the article.
Please familiarise yourself with these policies first. This is getting tiresome. Hornplease 18:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the COI notice, all postings must be notable. That means that there must be independent discussions around the topic. All the postings you make refer to the CSFH, thus making the point you want to push accross not notable by WP guidelines. Thus, I am reverting. Instead of undoing my revert, please continue the discussion here.

"In order to have a neutral article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors." [WP:NOT]

I think you need to review the policies you claim to be adhering to. Kkm5848 00:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

They do not all refer to the CSFH. Clearly you have not read them, or even this discussion.
Every single reliable source says the same thing. If you think they are all biased, that is unacceptable behaviour here on WP, per the very policy you are quoting. Please leave this article alone if you have a conflict of interest. Hornplease 10:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a COI, but you do considering the POV you keep pushing and teh type of references you are using and you lack of good faith in editing! Kkm5848 14:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Himal Mag

This magazine's article is not admissible for this since there is a COI. The authors of this magazine are also involved with CSFH and are writing about work that they did themselves. This amounts to WP:SPS. Kkm5848 01:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that is absolutely no evidence of that assertion. It may not even be relevant. (Bob Woodward writing in the Post about his own investigation is still a reliable source, because he is still subject to editorial oversight.) Hornplease 10:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the same two people writing in multiple sources does not make their comments notable Kkm5848 14:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Sources, May 3rd

The single most reliable source has already been cited by kkm5848: 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). That's not WP:OR or WP:FRINGE - that is the law of the United States of America. The standard for determining shared control that I mentioned above are standards set by the federal government. If honrplease has a problem with that standard he should take it up with Congress. If he want to make a legal claim about any organization and he can't back it up using the standards created by the federal government, then I'm afraid he's the one on the fringe. Akx256 02:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion. Your interpretation of the relevance of the law is not shared by every single reliable source. Hornplease 10:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Adding references to reliable sources is not in any way OR! Nor has it anything to do with "fringe" theories - which means stuff like "colored auras" and "the CIA blew up the World Trade Center". Also, threatening legal action, even obliquely, is a no-no. There is no problem listing what the organisation says about itself and what other - notable - commentators have to say about it. Paul B 10:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Paul, I'm not exactly sure how you are inferring a threat of legal action merely because I cited that one statute. I was in no way threatening legal action. I was merely presenting (or rather, re-presenting) the source for the standard of proof that I had argued for earlier. Given that the government does have a role in the creation of non-profits, I don't see any harm in arguing that we follow their lead in evaluating claims of relationships between nono-profits. Akx256 13:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I was not aware that Hornplease was making any "legal claim". It is clear that the HSC was set up by the VHP and that it was initially funded by them. It is now financially independent, but clearly states that it has shared values with them and Sangh Parivar. Some critics see the HSC as a VHP "front" organisation. The difference is really a matter of interpretation. WP can't say what the truth of the matter is, but we can reasonably report controversy where it occurs. Paul B 14:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, the Sangh Parivar article lists the HSC as a Sangh Parivar organisation. The listing was added by User:Babub, a Hindu editor who, judging by his other edits, is a supporter, not an opponent. Paul B 14:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biju Mathews & Vijay Prasad

Biju Mathews & Vijay Prasad are founding members of FOIL and members of YSS, the group that brought out this report.

Mathew, B., Prashad, V., “Hindutva For a Few Dollars a Day”, People’s Democracy, Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Vol. XXV, No. 12, March 25, 2001. http://pd.cpim.org/2001/march25/march25_biju_vijay.htm

http://www.asiasource.org/society/Prashad.cfm Kkm5848 14:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well add that information if you think it is important. Paul B 14:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. If you can demonstrate a link in reliable sources between this YSS thing and whatever. Note that there are more than enough reliable sources even if no Mathews-Prasad things are included. Note also that no reliable sources that I have found examine the link and decide that no such link exists. Hornplease 14:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The point being that using sources that they have published about their own report (CSFH) amounts to WP:SPS and invalidates the inclusion of their articles as fact on the HSC article. Why don't you read the initial CSFH press release about HSC -- where they clearly state the link between YSS & CSFH! Kkm5848 14:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
That is a misunderstanding of WP:SPS and WP:RS. Any journal article publishes the research of the authors; but they are peer-reviewed, and so qualify as WP:RS. Ditto for newspaper articles by them. Please try and read these policies first. Hornplease 14:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not now presented as a fact, but as a claim. Paul B 14:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The article looks much improved. However, as it stands now, it makes it sound as if the only evidence of a link are Mathews-Prasad and this latest report; whereas the several other reliable sources I detailed above all claim a link. I'm waiting to hear about that, otherwise I'll add those in the article as well. Hornplease 23:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I read the online preview of the book, but the passages referring to the HSC were not in the preview. Most others are news reports concerning the CSFH report. It would be good to have commentary independent of the report. Paul B 09:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
There's the LSE report and the Diana Eck paper, and the Kamdar paper. They're all indepndent, as are the Prema Kurien book/journal article. Hornplease 16:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The LSE text is good. The Eck papaer is not online, but it is in my local library, so I can check it tomorrow. What is Kamdar? From what I can gather, the VHP seems to have been quite open about its role in the HRC until the CSFH report. Ironically the HRC has been listed for many months in the template of Sangh Parivar origanisations that appears automatically in several Wikipedia articles by adding the code {{sangh}}. Only since the recent report does there seem to be an attempt to deny it, which, oddly, is the very accusation made by the authors of the report! From having it proudly listed, it is now transformed into an outrageous claim by ultra-leftists. Paul B 21:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I added that. It appears that obfuscation of the link is important to the leadership, judging by some of the journal articles I read on the subject. Perhaps that is relevant to the article as well.
The other articles I mentioned above - including Kamdar, in the World Policy Journal - I have pdf copies of, and can send you if you like. Hornplease 23:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I saw you'd added it, which is why I crossed it out above. Paul B 23:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Diana Eck's article states the following:

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America and its loose affiliate the Hindu Students Council are well aware that the issues of Hindu identity that have perplexed the soul of India and generated the Hindu nationalism of the 1980s are, in a very different context, the issues with which students wrestle in the United States. The Hindu Students Council has developed what is unquestionably the widest network of Hindu college students in the United States with campus and regional conferences, summer camps and work projects - all emphasising a strong sense of Hindu identity. While many American Hindus would explicitly reject the religious nationalism of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in India, they have developed no alternative organizations to address the issues of Hindu identity in the United States. (p.234)

Paul B 20:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] coi

pleasse discuss why it should be there. I see no reason for it.--D-Boy 19:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see the earlier part of the talkpage, where the anon/puppetmaster editing much of this says "To take an inaccurate document and use it as a basis to change the very first sentence of an article about a group that you have obviously never been involved with is simply unfair." I have interpreted this to mean that he is involved with the group, and have thus assumed a conflict of interest. On being asked, he has not replied. Do you disagree with my inference? Hornplease 20:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering that you seem to have already accused a number of users of being sock puppets simply because they have agreed with someone else's edits, the inference I make is that you're desperate to find excuses to get rid of people whose views you don't agree with. Anyway, it looks like people are debating this in the criticisms section now, and since that's what the COI guideline suggests, I've removed the tag. Brownwalrus 08:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Brownwalrus, the COI guideline nowhere says crit section > no COI. It suggests to those with a COI how to handle criticism sections that they may come across. Incidentally, I have no opinion on your views, only your use of the sources. Hornplease 09:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Brownwalrus, the edit you refer to merely indicates your own and your confreres's naive misunderstanding of the FOIL position. They object to the term Sanatana Dharma as a synonym for Hinduism because they see the term as a way of obfuscating the fact that Hinduism has a history - that is continues to change and has competing articulations and schools - that it is a network of traditions not an eternally revealed truth with an equally eternal order. They see the preoccupation with this term as a specifically conservative and nationalist version of the complex and often contradictory forms of Hindu identity. As leftists coming from a Marxist tradition they take the view that this is an an appropriation of Hindu tradition(s) for an obfuscatory reactionary ideology. You can of course say that they are wrong, or are reading too much into a particular phrase, but it is not a "misunderstading". They know what they mean. You quite evidently have no idea what they mean. The extraction of this quote is a very simple-minded attempt to discredit the report. If you wish to discredit it point to published criticisms. Also you have deleted evidence from the very reliable LSE and the very well-established Diana Eck. Paul B 08:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Taking your own views of what the CSFH report means amounts ot WP:Original Research and is thus invalid. I have taken what they have writen--quoted in fact. Compare that to the "Sanatana Dharma" wikipedia page to get your answer. Kkm5848 14:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Your argument is a characteristic misrepresentation of policy. Comments on the talk pages do not come under the OR rule. My comment was a explanation of why you have misrepresented the meaning of the passage in your adolescent attempts to understand the point that they are making. Your comments in the article are therefore the original research, since you - not a Reliable source -are making the claim that they misunderstand the meaning of Sanatana Dharma. Your other attempts at quote-mining and wild claims about McCarthtyism are in the same category. Paul B 16:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Good, now we come down to namecalling....why don't you read the reportKkm5848 01:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reverts

why are my edits reverted w/o explanation despite requests for discussion?!? Kkm5848 17:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VHP not the same as VHPA

These are two different organizations. Therefore, the link to VHP instead of VHPA is incorrect. Kkm5848 17:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

They are not two different organisations. "World Hindu Council"? Hello? Hornplease 17:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this something you believe in or can cite? Kkm5848 19:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
http://www.vhp-america.org/ -> states "World Hindu Council of America" Kkm5848 19:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Just having the similar names does not make the same organization. Ever hear of the "Jet Airways" case? A company with this name filed a lawsuit which has prevented "Jet Airways" (major airline carrier in India) from flying directly to the US. Kkm5848 19:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

there is an assertion that the VHPA is an arm of the right-wing Indian sangh parivar. This is not cited.

VHP is part of the Sangh Parivar. Please see [2].Hornplease 17:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no statement of equivalance on the website. Kkm5848 19:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
“ an arm of the right-wing Indian sang parivar ”

is WP:OR. it is also not relevent Kkm5848 19:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you are being silly. This is called wikilawyering. You know very well that it's not original research to state that thr SP is right wing. Footnoting it would be as pointless as footnoting the fact that Julius Caesar was a Roman. Paul B 07:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
it is also well known that CSFH is not taken seriously and the only people writing about their reports are people involved with CSFH! Kkm5848 16:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not well known, it's a POV. However any fool can find Reliable sources which state that the SP is right wing. e.g. The Sangh Parivar, A Reader, published by Oxford University Press. Paul B 16:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you find any _independent_ WP:RS sources talking about the CSFH report or organization for that matter? Independent means not published by members of the FOIL/SABRANG/YSS/CSFH combine Kkm5848 02:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Independent from what? It has been reported in numerous newspapers. Remember, the report is not being presented as fact, any more than reponses of the HSC spokespersons are presented as fact. The report makes claims. The claims are reported by Reliable Sources, as are the reponses of the HSC. Paul B 10:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
What is OR? The claim that the Sangh Parivar is "right wing" or that the VHP is an arm of it? Neither of these are seriously disputed. It's odd that you want the left wing affiliations of the HSC's critics to be included, but seem coy about mentioning right wing identity. Has it occurred to you that the left wing tends to criticise organisations becuse they are right wing (and vice versa)? Paul B 15:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Serious dispute or agreement is different from being written about by a WP:RS. Kkm5848 02:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
"There are VHP Units, registered under its name according to the laws of the respective countries, in USA..." - from the website of the VHP [3], which lists the VHP of America as the unit in question, in case further confirmation was needed. This is the self-definition of the VHP, and is relevant. Please note that the HSC is considered by all reliable sources to be the student wing of the VHP, so the affiliation of the VHP is highly relevant. Hornplease 19:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hinduism Today, a magazine that meets WP:OR states that it is independent. Which basically means that not ALL WP:RS say what you say.
(from its archives: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2001/9-10/60_college.shtml) Kkm5848 02:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FOIL

FOIL/YSS/CSFH associations are continuously reverted. by hornplease & Paul Barlow Kkm5848 17:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? I added the reference to FOIL in the first place. Paul B 17:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
"Campaign to Stop Funding Hate, an initiative of the Federation of Indian Leftists (FOIL)[1], to date has only published reports targetting Hindu groups and released the now-debunked report against the IDRF entitled "A Foreign Exchange of Hate: IDRF and the American Funding of Hindutva." Kkm5848 19:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The part upto and i ncluding the footnote has never been removced. The csecond part presents opinion ("discredited") as fact. Paul B 15:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] inaccurate citations

“ In response, the HSC asserts that has been financially and administratively independent since 1993, and that it works with various other groups from time to time, including the VHPA. The HSC accepted that it "shares many values" with a range of Hindu organizations, but insists that it is not being "secretly (or not so secretly) run by any of those organizations."[17] ”

This is incorrect. HSC asserts it is _independent_ it does not qualify the statement in the press release that is being cited!Kkm5848 17:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please quote the line from HSC website in the footnote, and link to it. Hornplease 17:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Financially and administratively is not a "qualification", it's added detail. Paul B 17:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
What you are saying is WP:OR which is why it can't stay that way in the article. Kkm5848 19:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] details about the report

The report is full of factual inaccuracies as seen in WP:Reliable resources. Yet, quotes from the report are reverted repeatedly by hornplease & Paul BarlowKkm5848 17:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not for you to say that it is factually inaccurate. It may well be. Report an RS that says so, or that conveys the opinions of critics of the report. Paul B 17:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that what I did--albiet in an indirect way? Didn't we have a similar discussion around PN Oak? Where he is a fringe author that not enough people take serously to write critical reviews on? Kkm5848 19:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sources have covered the report. Hornplease 19:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sources linked with the report. Not independent, reliable sources. Kkm5848 02:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSFH report Notable?

Does the CSFH report even count as notable? The only people writing about it are people associated with it in papers & publications where they have pre-established relationships. Kkm5848 19:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, those papers and publications are reliable, and they have editorial oversight.Hornplease 19:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
from the WP:not page: "The topic of any article should be notable." So, i think this is a discussion we should have. Kkm5848 02:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Are there any sources that have evaluated the CSFH report that are both independent and WP:RS? Independent means not written by members of the FOIL/YSS/CSFH collective. Kkm5848 01:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not received any responses on this topic about CSFH report being notable. I am going to delete references to CSFH next week if I don't hear from anyone. Kkm5848 15:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't be dumb. It's been widely reported by mainstream news outlets. That's what makes it notable. Paul B 23:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Resorting to namecalling will not get you anywhere and is in violation of wp guidelines of behavior. There are no mainstream news outlets that I am aware of that have cited this where the writers/authors are not members of the groups publishing the report. If you know of some, please provide them. Kkm5848 13:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


The press releases from WP:RS do not make this report satisfy WP:Notable.

“ The Primary Notability Criterion

An article's subject is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself.

 ”

—User:Uncle_G/On_notability


“

Independence of the sources from the subject The requirement that sources be independent of the subject ensures that notability is not gained through self-promotion. A company, for example, can have thousands of its own press releases and other material re-printed in magazines and newspapers. But it is only when a source other than the company writes and publishes a non-trivial work about the company that the primary notability criterion is satisfied. A person, for example, can publish xyr autobiography on the World Wide Web. But it is only when someone else writes and publishes a non-trivial work about that person that the primary notability criterion is satisfied

 ”

—From: User:Uncle_G/On_notability

(emphasis mine). The articles presented from WP:RS to show that the CSFH article should be mentioned on the HSC article amount to self-promotion since the authors are all involved in the CSFH report and senior members in the organization. Based on this, these news articles do not make the CSFH report Notable as defined by WP:Notable and elaborated upon by User:Uncle_G/On_notability 203.145.159.42 14:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

Let's be clear. The mere fact that someone somewhere once claimed something does not mean we can present it in the article as fact. It would be easy to produce numerous citations that George Bush is an eco-criminal and warmonger, but that would not justify having the article on Bush saying "George Bush is a notorious eco-criminal and warmonger [1][2][3][4][5]". We would have to say that in the opinion of certain people this is the case, while also presenting the alternative POV. That's what NPOV means. It is NPOV to describe them as anti-Hindutva, since "Hindutva" is shorthand for Hindu nationalism. It's not an insult, just a description of a particular position. It's comparable to describing an enemy of Islamic extremism an "anti-Islamist" rather than "anti-Islamic". Paul B 22:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you referring to specifically? CSFH is anti-Hindu as per my citation. The citation meets wp guidelines, so I don't know what you are talking about. Kkm5848 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You mean this article Four-fold menace - A nexus of enveloping evil-II, a transparent personal opinion piece presenting a conspiracy theory? If you really think that represents NPOV you have a very distorted view of the world and you certainly don't understand the policy. This author also considers the current government of India to be "anti-Hindu",[4] so are you going to add "anti Hindu government" as factual information to the UPA? Paul B 13:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Clearly you hold this publication (which meets wp:rs) to different standards than csfh. The publication that has published this article is a major newspaper--unlike the publications you have cited in support of the CSFH report. It meets wp:rs and We cannot second-guess the editorial process here. Do you feel that your opinion is superior to other people and that only you can be correct? What makes you feel that this is an opinionated piece of work and that the CSFH report (which has no attributed authorship) is different? Kkm5848 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Jezz, how difficult is this? Read the policy for crying out loud. It states that we need to source statements to reliable publications, not that every statement recorded in a reliable publication should be treated as truth. The CSFH report is not treated as truth. Its findings - right or wrong - are reported by reliable sources and hence repeated - as the opinion of the CSFH, not as fact. The rebuttals - right or wrong - of the HSC can also be presented as their view, but not as fact. Matters that are accepted by consensus in reliable sources can be presented as fact. Paul B 16:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Searching for News Today shows that it is used 64 times [5] which makes it a source that we can use regardless of what you think about it. Kkm5848 06:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The relevant policy is WP:RS. FOIL as an advocacy Communist group, is already unreliable. Also the Verifiability guideline states
“ Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libelous claims the source has made about third parties ”

. HSC is a third party, this "report" has been treated as libel by HSC, therefore it shouldnt be in the article.Bakaman 00:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You transparently did not read what I wrote. If the report is taken seriously by news outlets then the views in it are notable. Lots of opinions in reports by advocacy groups are recorded on WP pages. We present multiple points of view. There are right wing advocacy groups too. Right wing think-tanks produce reports. They too can be referred to. Paul B 10:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I am categorically against the inclusion of the link. The website does not qualify as an RS. It is an advocacy site of dubious reliability. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The website is simply a link to the report itself. The report has been discussed in various outltes such as the Asia Times [6]. Paul B 12:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The articles mentioned by Paul have been written by the authors of the CSFH report in newspapers/sites that the authors have pre-existing relationships in--amounting to WP:SPS. While not explicitly mentioned in the WP:RS policy, it seems to me that self-publishing in otherwise WP:RS publications is also WP:SPS due to the above mentioned pre-existing relationships. (This would be different in the case of peer-reviewed research, but CSFH has not been a part of any peer-reviewed research). Furthermore, there are no news articles supporting the CSFH report where the author is not associated with CSFH. Additionally, read the notability criterion mentioned in the discussion on the CSFH report being notable. 202.75.200.7 09:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The articles I am referring to are reports on the CSFH report, most notably the Asia Times report, which puts both sides. Anyone can be "associated with" the authors if you try hard enough to say they are. Other reports by the CSFH have also been discussed by The Hindu and other mainstream publications. Yes, the CSFH is clearly an advocacy group for a particular POV, but the point is that they are recognised as a legitimate avocacy group whose reports are discussed in mainstream media. Paul B 12:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
what both sides are you referring to? The asia times article simply is a rant against the IDRF & the RSS in general and sounds like an advocate for CSFH. Furthermore, this article has nothing to do with CSFH's report on HSC. Furthermore, not all major newspapers consider them to be a legitimate advocacy group. News Today, another major news paper, seems to consider s CSFH's founders (FOIL, and other groups to be anti-Hindu. [7] 202.75.200.7 05:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Both "sides" are agreement and disagreement with the CSFH position. What it "sounds like" to you is beside the point. News Today is an incredibly biassed paper which also insists that the government of India is anti-Hindu. Paul B 11:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
And Asia times has been criticized for pro-Sinhala coverage. CSFH is still extremely partisan and unrealiable no matter how you look at it.Bakaman 00:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Very simply, Asia Times is RS. Several other sources have discussed the report. There are multiple other scholarly sources documented above. Hornplease 21:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The report is not reliable. FOIL is not a reliable source for anything other than themselves, and using them as any sort of source/authority violates WP:LIBEL.Also by, denying that they have ended their affiliation to the VHP and connecting the VHP to the Sangh Parivar on a whim, you are merely poisoning the well. Bakaman 21:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Please re-read the above points. The report was notable, and was covered in the mainstream press widely without indication that the body was unreliable. We have presented it as such. If the FOIL report is taken out, any number of quotes from mainstream papers discussing it will be included. Give up.
Your legal threat has been noted. Hornplease 21:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
What legal threat? Did I use the word libel? Oh, thats just the name of one of those pesky policies. They apply both to FOSA and HSC, like it or not. Extremist sources and extraneous information do not belong in this article. Bakaman
Please indicate why the source in question is extremist, when it is not mentioned as such by the various mainstream outlets covering its research. Hornplease 04:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Read the News Today article...a mainstream news outlet that labels FOSA/et al as extremist, anti-Hindu organizations. Kkm5848 04:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
And is says that the Indian government is on an anti-Hindu crusade. Are you going to add that as a "fact" to the article on the UPA? Paul B 15:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
that is irrelevant.202.75.200.7 17:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Er, no. It's indicative of the reliability of the judgements made by the source. Paul B 17:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
So, you feel that you can interpret the reliability of sources despite them meeting wp:rs guidelines? By the same token, CSFH report is not reliable since it states many falsehoods about Hinduism in teh report and any report discussing CSFH has not properly analyzed the report...and hence, also fails the same test. Kkm5848 19:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
You miss the point entirely, if unsurprisingly. Almost all newspapers have political points of view, some more extreme than others. We don't present points of view expressed in newspapers as facts. We don't quote an editorial in a newspaper that is opposed to - say - the invasion of Iraq as a "fact" that the invasion of Iraq was stupid, illegal or whatever. A report in a reliable source indicates notability. If all reliable sources agree, we can present information as fact, but only if there is general agreement. Opinion remains opinion. Opinion doesn't become fact just because it is published in the NYT or anywhere else. The same applies to the CSFH report. It is not presented as fact, but as the opinion of that that group. This point has already been made. Does it have to be repeated ad nauseaum? Paul B 20:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New sources.

Discussing the current status of the HSC's affiliation with the VHP, I have added Wade Clark Roof, the major text in many divinity schools, as well as three more references from peer-reviewed scholarly works published by major presses or journals. I see no reason why these should be reverted by the sockpuppeteer. Thank you. Hornplease 17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your citations are incomplete. What was the year the textbooks you mentioned published? Kkm5848 19:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
NM, I found the dates myself. New edits now reflect dates of sourcesKkm5848 10:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but the 2003 date is unsourced. Find a date and discuss it here first.Hornplease
I note this revert[8] has taken place since that request. Hornplease 06:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Your citations took place prior to 2003. What are you talking about? Also, why don't you subject all of your changes/reverts to the same standard of citation? Kkm5848 04:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Please, you cannot keep on reverting like this. Edit warring is frowned upon. Wholesale reverts in particular are very disruptive. Second, that my citations are prior to 2003 is incorrect as several of the references in the section on connections to the VHP are post 2003. Finally, you have not provided a link as to why 2003 is a relevant date in the first place! Once you do, we can discuss matters further. Hornplease 06:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Only 1 citation was dated post 2003 and that has remained unmoved. The rest were as they were pre-2003. You have reverted w/o discussion on many occasions in a wholesale manner and I have also found it to be quite disruptive. As requested, I have added the citation about the relevant dates Kkm5848 10:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
2003 is still not cited, so obviously there is no reason for the wholesale deletion of all the scholarly work. In any case, that work should not be deleted in the manner in which it was. Please discuss each deletion of a source here point-by-point, or you will continue to be reverted, given your WP:COI.Hornplease 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no COI and your accusation is quite unfounded...given your edits in this and other articles, I feel that your edits are motivated by a COI arising from your involvement with one of the other "activist" organizations. Given your inability to read citations, I am restating some of the references here...do actually go through them instead of just stating that things are not cited.
  • http://www.hscnet.org/fact.php states the significance of the 2003 date and also the fact that HSC is not only composed of Hindu students. The fact is that in 1993, HSC became an independent organization but continued to have financial ties to the VHP. The last ties were severed in 2003 when it got registered as an independent non-profit.

Hence, the sources you cited in the association with sangh section were split into a pre & post 2003 period. The pre-2003 citations were collapsed and summarized in the intro paragraph. The one remaining post 2003 citation remains in its original location. Kkm5848 03:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it is not true that financially independent nonprofits are administratively or otherwise independent. In truth, financially independent merely means that they are independent entities with separate books, not even that they are no longer subsidised. Thus there is no reason to assume the 'pre-2003' citations are inaccurate or irrelevant. That claim is simply OR, and cannot stand. Hornplease 06:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it too much to ask you to read an actual citation? You seem to be doing OR by digging into what has been written against HSC w/o reading any other sources and at times removing/reverting said sources. Kkm5848 05:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
No third-party sources indicate the importance of the 2003 date. Thus the HSC claim is noted, and then scholarly sources are used. Hornplease 22:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
No third party sources refer to dates either...that does not mean that they are permanently true and the statements frozen in time. Refer to article publication dates to see relevance. 202.75.200.7 10:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Assuming they are untrue on the basis of your claims is original research, which is prohibited. Please produce third-party information or leave this article alone. It is clear you have a conflict of interest here and should follow the guidelines on editing in such cases. Hornplease 17:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no WP:COI, but you obviously do with the POV pushing you have been doing on this article. I have pointed to references which you have conveniently deleted on multiple occasions. You have also added irrelevent remarks and claims to this article on a number of occasions and refused to have a reasonable discussion in regards to the same. Please follow WP guidelines on NPOV presentation of articles. The edits have been made based on referencable material and are not based on OR--go read the reference.Kkm5848 17:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are saying. I have read the references, and there is still no basis for your claim. Hornplease 17:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Which references have you read and don't understand? Kkm5848 09:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
All of them. And you have no basis for the mass deletion of links to academic work on this body. Hornplease 17:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you read this very long discussion page for the basis! Kkm5848 23:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You have no basis for the deletion of references to academic work, other than your belief that things published as recently as a few years ago are 'outdated'. You have provided no countervailing references. Please do not revert without providing them.Hornplease 00:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Basis has already been mentioned earlier. Do read the discussion page instead of considering it a one way street.Kkm5848 16:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)