Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Objection to changes to sourced content

I object to the following edits which change material that is sourced by a WP:RS: [1]. The book by Nussbaum is the source for the quotation, which is directly relevant to the subject. Buddhipriya 06:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The quote is correct, and has not been removed. It is appropriately placed in the criticism section (where it is now), and henru's view paraphrased in the history article. Putting Nehru's quote in box while not doing the same to others is hijacking wikipedia to propogate an anti-RSS POV and is using wikipedia as a soapbox.Khilafat Osmania 06:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The quotation is cited by Nussbaum specifically in context of the Gandhi assination to help explain the political thinking in place by Nehru immediately after the assasination, and to explain his communication to the regional governors about his concerns. Moving it away from the assasination confuses the issue and gives no context for this. Nussbaum's context is very specific in showing that Nehru believed that the RSS was behind the assasination. The issue is not whether or not that was true, but what Nehru believed and acted upon, based on his communication to the regional governors. Buddhipriya 06:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Which is why the sentence was paraphrased in the Gandhi Assassination section. It is both an attack on the RSS from the point of view of Gandhi's assassination and an attack on the RS in general (see Godwin's law, comparing people to Nazis constitutes an attack meant primarily to censor debate). The present version keeps Nehru's views in both context, and not giving undue weight to it keeps the article free of WP:POINT. Khilafat Osmania 06:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree, so let's see what other editors have to say. Buddhipriya 06:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
That's not enough. You have to explain why you don't agree. There isn't enough of a dispute in progress to necessitate some sort of third party intervention yet. No information that you added was removed, so it is not a content issue, but an issue of Undue weight and WP:POINT. Khilafat Osmania 06:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the text that I feel should be added to the section on the Gandhi assasination, which you have objected to:

After Mahatma Gandhi's death in 1948, the RSS was accused by the Government of India for taking part in the plot to assassinate the Mahatma. Nehru believed that the murder of Gandhi was part of a conspiracy on the part of the Hindu right to seize power, and he believed that the RSS was the power behind this conspiracy.[1] Nehru saw the situation as analogous to that in Europe on the eve of the fascist takeovers and in December 1947 he wrote to the provincial governors saying:

We have a great deal of evidence to show that the RSS is an organization which is in the nature of a private army and which is definitely proceeding on the strictest Nazi lines, even following the technique of organization....[2]

I think it would be best to ask the opinion of other editors to judge if this material is relevant to understanding the political climate following the assasination and Nehru's opinions regarding the involvement of the RSS in that assasination and his suspictions of of a more broad conspiracy. The material sets the events of the banning of the RSS into historical perspective, following shortly after World War II, when events in Europe were fresh in the minds of world leaders. The quote establishes a historical context for the banning of the RSS following the assasination. I see that another editor has agreed with the version as I inserted it, but that you have now reverted that editor's changes as well.

Also note that your reversions and changes are impacting several sections of the article at once. To reduce the complexity of the edits being discussed, would it be possible for you to focus on one item at a time rather than changing many things at once? Making multiple simultaneous changes makes it more difficult to collaborate on editing, as the issues for each edit may need to be discussed independently.

For example, you have also objected to the use of the Quotation template in the above material, since it is not used for other Quotations. That is a formatting objection rather than a content objection. The benefits of using the Quotation template are that it makes it easier for the reader to visually see which statements in the article are quotes. See: Template:Quotation. Its use in this article probably should be discussed independently so editors can make a conscious decision regarding whether or not it should be applied consistently to all quotes in this article. It is not a critical issue, and thus can be handled as a separate question. Buddhipriya 17:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article

REQUEST :- THIS IS VERY RELEVANT PLEASE DONT DELETE.

There seems to be an inherent contradiction in either the total number of Members or the number of SHAKHAS (Branches). It is said here that the number of members of RSS is 4.5 million and Shakhas is 50,000. If the number of Shakhas is (as mentioned here) 50,000 all over India, the number of members enrolled in each Shakha comes to only 9 (nine) per Shakha, which is too low to be called as a Shakha or Branch. Generally in RSS system one Shakha is run for one area (called as Locality, Peth or Munciple Ward in Indian terms). If this is so, one area (which may have minimum 10000 population) has only Nine members enrolled in one Shakha, which is again too low. Something some where is wrong. It is also possible that the number of Shakhas and Members mentioned here is bit exaggerated without any logic. The number of Sangha Shakhas was at peak after Emergency was lifted in India in 1977. After around 1985, due to Socio- Economical changes in the life style of Indians the attendance at Shakhas drastically reduced resulting into closer of many Shakhas. At present there may be only 10,000 Shakhas mainly in smaller cities or rural areas with an average attendance of approx 20 Members in each Shakha , totaling to only 2 million active Members. It is noteworthy that the attendance of Youth is very low. In bigger cities having population morethan 15 million the Shakhas are virtually wiped out. It is also because people now a days don’t like wearing old fashioned Khaki Short and don’t want to play Indian games being the backward system adopted by RSS. The popularity and membership of BJP is much higher than of RSS and that is why BJP is overshadowing and dominating RSS, which is supposed to be the mother organization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.211.246.141 (talk • contribs) 13 Jul 2007 (UTC)

First, even RSS doesn't keep count of it's members or track them centrally. So even RSS doesn't know the exact count of its member and they only estimate also. Thus I personally wouldn't trust any outsider even trying to guess the numbers. However, RSS does keep exact count of other things such as the number of Shakhas (Daily/Weekly/Monthly) ... 45,000 this year. So trust the number of the Shakhas but not the members. Addtionally, RSS recently claimed that ~1,76,00,000 or 17.6 Million people attended its various programs held throughout the year 2006 all over Bharat. So this gives an estimate of the size of Sangh supporters.
Also the definition of RSS's member or swayamsevak is different. They consider anyone who has attended Shakha as swayamsevak. So that number can vary widely. Sjain 20:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

BJP quote

The BJP is not the RSS. The quote is meaningless to the article.Bakaman 00:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If the following BJP quote is relevant and meaningful then how come not the other?
"However, it feels this society has been threatened by repeated persecution of Hindus, especially by Muslims. According to the BJP, a member of the Sangh Parivar: Thus, the seeds of today's Hindu Jagriti (awakening) were created the very instance that an invader threatened the fabric of Hindu society which was religious tolerance. The vibrancy of Hindu society was noticeable at all times in that despite such barbarism from the Islamic hordes of central Asia and Turkey, Hindus never played with the same rules that Muslims did.[9]" Please dont cherrypick quotes to PROJECT a particular view favored by you of BJP. Either take out mention of BJP altogether or leave this one too. --TomCat111 05:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Its still irrelevant.Bakaman 18:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it irrelevant because you say so? Have you even read my response above? If you cannot support your contention with reasonable argument then please stop vandalizing. Time and again you are violating POV. --TomCat111 19:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Since your editwarring tendencies are your prime factor for editing the pedia, there is really no reason to respond to your rants. I'll humor you. Your quote from some obscure part of the BJP website, never even mentions the RSS. It doesn't even mention the BJP, and there is no case from placing it in even the BJP article. Your edit summaries are even more petulant than your talk page "Statements".

Social Activities

I dissected the Social Activities section and here are a few changes I was forced to make-

  • Sewa Bharati has also collaborated with several relief groups, such as the Catholics Bishops Conference of India to conduct relief operations in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Activities included building shelters for the victims, providing food, clothes and medical necessities
The article from which these details are sourced very clearly explain that the Sewa Bhararti "was ready for the mission and preparing to send relief material to the affected areas". It does not say what or whether any aid was actually given. Also collaboration with the CBCI is misinterpreted.
  • In 2006, RSS participated in relief efforts to provide basic necessities such as food, milk and potable water to the people of Surat, Gujarat who were affected by massive floods in the region
Here the source was The Organiser, a pro RSS mouthpiece. Not reliable by any means.
The two sources are just links to news articles on the disasters. Not verifiable, therfore invalid.

--EGGman64 18:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The intro paragraph has a line numerous social, service charity (sic), and relief works, which I have removed.

  • A single verifiable act of charity cannot justify "numerous".
  • "Relief work" is also ambiguous because it is not mentioned in the cited article whether the Sewa Bharati actually did ground work in TN post Tsunami.
  • The term "charity" has the connotation of repeated altruistic endeavours. This too is not verifiable.

Hope this prevents my edits from being undone. If removal was unjustifiable, please explain claely so some middle ground can be reached. Thaks. --EGGman64 09:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


Israel and Zionism

I have begun a reworking of the Zionist section. Certain key points were left out and relevancy was lost, although citations are present. Allow me to elucidate-

A recent issue of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-backed weekly Organiser has gone out of its way to support the Zionist cause, arguing that the recent violence was the result of Palestinian intransigence.

  • This was quoted in reference to the GOI's decision to ratify a UNGA resolution condemning excessive force used by Israelis in Palestine.

This has invited scathing attacks on the party from anti-Zionist elements

  • There are NO scathing remarks on the cited page rather a clear dissemination of the ideals and objectives of the RSS. This has no relevancy to the previous sentences. However, when clubbed together these take on a different (and almost propagandist) meaning.

In addition. RSS welcomed the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to India in 2003.Sharon's visit was widely condemned.

  • Here reasons for condemnation of Sharon's visit (i.e failure to uphold the Oslo Accords which has led to a systematic breakdown of the middle east peace protest) were conveniently left out.

This follows the rise in support for Israel in India in recent years. This has invited scathing attacks on the party from anti-Zionist elements

  • This statement is irrelevant because the cited article refers to India as a whole. What difference does the country's stand on Israel make to the RSS and Israel? Furthermore, it is implied that anti-Zionist factions are opposed to RSS because they claim Palestinian intransigence. This is a blatant misuse of a citation. The article on Ghadar's site is with reference to the Freeman Center's stance and the site is clearly NOT Anti Zionist. I propose that the above lines be removed or reconstructed.

--EGGman64 12:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page until the disputes are resolved via discussion and consensus, verifiability, and other relevant policies. Thanks. --Ragib 04:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Archives

Can we have the earlier discussions archived? I'm using Misza Bot --EGGman64 07:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

eggman reverts

Eggman I see you use an op-ed done by a Marxist (Praful Bidwai) and partisan rags (countercurrents) for the page. Any informed reader would laugh if you asked them whether Bidwai could say something objective about the RSS. Usage of these are not acceptable under WP:V or WP:LIBEL.
Also, the adding of irrelevant sections on Communism and obscure poojas really is not central to the RSS' notability. Undue weight is being given to esoteric things in an obvious attempt to skew this page
Reliable info is being removed at a striking pace, such as references from mainstream literature discussing their charity projects, which are notable, considering the RSS is the largest volunteer organization in India. As a counterview to marxist polemicist Bidwai, Sandhya Jain goes into quite a bit of detail on the RSS charity work after the tsunami.Bakaman 22:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


  • I do agree that an oped should be questionable. But addition of the Bidwai reference is in context to the all male inclusion. I should think you are aware that the RSS is all male. since that was the first link which propounds that information.
  • I agree that counter currents is not reliable. It was not MY inclusion. I agree that it should be removed, however it must be noted that most of the sources in the page are opined or defunct.
  • I think that an entire town filled with posters of condemnation by the RSS merits a mention as a controversy.It is an insight into the lack of religious tolerance(?) that the RSS is so famous for.
  • The brutal attack by RSS workers on a person belonging with ideological difference (which is very different from, as you say "an irrelevant sections on Communism"). It is neither a section nor one on Communism. It was a valid controversy which featured in all major Indian newspapers.
  • "you say "reliable info", please enlighten me.- believe every bit of info I removed or edited was accompanied by an explanation.
I do not wish to engage in a battle of opinions, rather I'd like some neutral ground to be found. However, first I must acknowledge that the provocation comes from you. My first edit to this page was reverted. In an attempt to bring to your notice to the Talk page where I had provided reasons, I posted on YOUR talk page. Once again, no reply but a quick revert. Even edits where I pleaded for you to open a discussion before reverting, went unheeded. The points you've discussed in this post do not grant you the right to changes I made (also with explanation) on the Zionism section and the social activities section. You've reverted all my changes regardless of their content. This was unwarranted and unjust. Why not remove the Counter current link and with the reminder that it is a biased site? Why not remind us that Praful Bidwai is a provocateur and then provide a link which states that the RSS is all male? Why not add the Sandhya Jain's op-ed column (hypocritically) as a verifiable link and keep the line on RSS work during the tsunami? Why not allow verified content to stand even though it may not show that RSS in good light because it is verifiable?

I'm sure you've seen it before, but please take a look at this.--EGGman64 05:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Again you give undue weight to random unrelated events which are really unrelated to the RSS' notability. The attacks in Kannur were reported I agree, but the RSS is not a force in Kerala, neither is this of any equivalence level on par with their political views, which are central to its notability. The section on Tamil Nadu is so obscure it is a testament to your mud-digging skills that you found one incident like this is a news archive. Ramanathapuram is little more than a village, which RSS is a national organization. Verified content would be like the material in The Hindu referring to their charitable activities during the tsunami. Of course, you wouldnt let that stand would you? Its better for you to talk about communal fights with arm chopping and villages in the middle of nowhere to prove a point.Bakaman 01:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Bakasuprman time and again vandalizes the page by undoing without giving any explanation at all. Other times, he invents excuses like ‘popups’ without ever clicking on the link. He shows total disregard about the discussions and at his sweet-will vandalizes the page to propagate his narrow vision; for example, please take a look at the [BJP quote] discussion. He needs to be counseled so he can show some more of an ethical responsibility; or else he should be banned.--TomCat111 22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:POPUPS, TomCat in case you never got the point.Bakaman 01:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

So on, so forth, and thanks for all the reverts

Verily, my patience wears thin. Your constant reverts indicate a chronic inability to overlook the most lucid explanations. A flick of a wrist, a tap of a button...voila let grammar, syntax and factuality be damned. But my sarcasm is lost, I'm sure as it tries to weave its way through an impregnable cranium.

Verified content would be like the material in The Hindu referring to their charitable activities during the tsunami. Of course, you wouldnt let that stand would you? Its better for you to talk about communal fights with arm chopping and villages in the middle of nowhere to prove a point

Rebuttal: Sandhya Jain's column in the Hindu is also an op-ed column. I'm sure you'd rather not be a hypocrite, so let's not reference it. (After all I did remove Praful Bidwai's, at your request.)

Take a look at the village in the middle of nowhere. Pretty cool huh! I'm sure it's not ALL that important...but somehow it seems to have a place here.

But why must I bother with this debate? Are not my additions factual? Mud-digging or not, WHO ARE YOU to decide what stays or not if IT IS TRUE?! And as Huxley says

Facts don't cease to exist because they are ignored

--EGGman64 18:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandhya Jain was used in the same spirit as Bidwai. I am quite aware of the fact that op-ed's are not the best sources, and I never used that in the article while you continue to use the Leftist messiah as a tool in your rather holistic defamation of the RSS.
Usage of countercurrents, a partisan source doesnt make the vitriol drive any more legitimate
The second word in a header is rarely capitalized. Syntactical errors?
You have not demonstrated why minor gang violence in Kerala and obscure regional edicts fit in the framework. It is obvious to an informed observer that these kinds of killings are not uncommon in Kerala with UDF, RSS, NDF, and LDF workers hacking each other on a regular basis. A district head of an RSS office in a small district is not a reflection of official RSS policy. Saying otherwise is a hasty and politically mischievous generalization based on an instance.
The aforementioned pale in comparison to substantive debates as to whether the RSS is fascist and serve to obfuscate legitimate criticism.

Bakaman 22:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not place your statements inside mine.Bakaman 00:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Do point out where I "continue" to use Bidwai.
Do point out where I've used Countercurrents. I just removed the link to CC in Gandhi's asas.., although I didn't add it there.
I refer to the sentences which you constantly revert. An example- They have engaged in numerous social, service charity, and relief works, and engaged in inter-community dialogues, as well as actively participated in the political process.
Maybe if you'd read the Indian Express article cited things would be clearer? UDF, NDF, and LDF workers constantly hacking each other have, with guile and ease, evaded the media. Lucky them. The RSS has not though and let's publish the facts as they stand.
Do read wikipedia's article on Fascism. Its a wonderfully ambiguous and thus, subject various points of view. A debate on whether (or not) the RSS is Fascist seems ridiculous when the meaning of Fascism is equivocal and obtuse. Facts rather than interpretation thereof is of more importance to an encyclopedia.--EGGman64 20:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reconstructed from series of diffsBakaman 01:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I see that the Ghadar.Insaf Marxist website is being used in an article on the RSS. Needless to say this doesn't meet WP:RS on partisan sources. Mentioning soapboxing in TN and minor communal killings in Kerala do not meet WP:UNDUE. Why not mention the killings on RSS members, or the fact that convicted terrorists support the government of kerala.Bakaman 00:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Why not remove the link to Ghadar Insaf, instead of REVERTING all the content. I'm pretty sick of this mindlessness. Also, if you feel that the articles [2] [3] are worth citing, by all means please add them. But do not circumvent the discussion. I'm requesting you NOT to revert stuf I've added since EVERYTHING has a source and reasons. Please do not use the revert buton. Change text, remove unreliable stuff, add more content but PLEASE stop arbitrarily removing content with a revert.
Thanks. --EGGman64 06:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
There is little rhyme or reason for keeping obscure events not germane to a holistic discussion of the RSS on the article. This is a violation of WP:UNDUE. The "atonement pooja" gets 82 ghits on a generous google search. The "RSS Ramanathapuram district president" is hardly a major figure in the RSS. The feud with the CPI-M is again a local four-way cesspool of political fighting better served in a Politics of Kerala article. You have not demonstrated how this pertains to the national/international RSS (Rashtrik/Antarrastrik) notability of the Sangh.Bakaman 02:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Calll for Wider Participation For Article British Raj

My apologies on this off topic post, but this is for asking for help in support from frequent editors here to correct bias in the British Raj article that paint the British Raj in a positive light. It appears that a small number of people have taken over that article while hiding all the atrocities committed by British Raj in India. See Discussion at [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desione (talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Looks like an ad for RSS. Must be re written in a neutral way. Madhava 1947 (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Vincent Kundukulam, a Christian priest at St. Joseph Pontifical Seminary in Aluva, Kerala, has written a Ph.D thesis in Sorbonne University, Paris, France". Restoring this section as it is sourced and perfectly relevant to this article.Nambo (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)