Talk:Abhinav Bharat

reorg. reverts

In response to "of course, but that doesn't mean we remove the cat. Added wikilink, restored original, correct wording for VDS' group," I have restored the organizational cleanup of the page because there was no reason given for undoing it. The editor only [validly] said that doesn't not mean remove the category, fair enough on that point for restoring it, it should also be put of for discussion.

Following that however it makes the assumption that it is restoring the original for no reason given. The page was cleaned from a stub to organize for better reading and w/o the said explanation it was reverted simple because "doesn't mean we remove the cat. Added wikilink, restored original, correct wording." After re-reading, still don't understand how "restored original" fits with the established logic. The debate has now been placed in talk, so let's discuss any reasons for changes. Lihaas (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

article status

How was it made a "B-class" article? According to WP:ASSESS that should mean "No reader should be left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher." However, it is "left wanting" for significant lack of info. especially in its History. "C-class" could be good, better than a start, as it is "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study." Lihaas (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(202.159.224.144 (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)). Factual Position In Respect of “Abhinav Bharat”

Abhinav Bharat was and is in no way a Hindu communal organization. Prosecution of certain individuals for acts of terror who are connected with an organization that is supposedly called Abhinav Bharat has given rise to adverse publicity to a Noble name and hence this write up to set the record straight

Abhinav Bharat in the 20th Century

Abhinav Bharat was the name of a secret revolutionary society formed in the first decade of the twentieth century by patriotic Indians who dared to dream of a United – Non Sectarian Independent India. The organization took its inspiration from “Young Italy”, led by the Italian Revolutionary Mazzini, which was instrumental in unifying and freeing Italy from the yolk of Austrian slavery during the Nineteenth Century.

Prominent amongst its leaders were Madam Cama and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The ideal of unity and non sectarian nature of Abhinav Bharat was inherent in its flag that included Hindu Saffron as also the Muslim Moon and Crescent on Green joined together by a band of red signifying the blood bond between the two communities.

Madam Cama unfurled this flag on the International stage in Stuttgart, Germany on August 18, 1907. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar went to write his epic “ The Great War of Independence of 1857” which propounded the revolutionary theory that the Hindus and Muslims had become blood brothers from 1857. Not surprisingly, the book was banned by the British colonial power until the dying days of its Raj in India.

Once the existence of Abhinav Bharat was discovered by the British Raj – its members suffered terrible ordeal. The organization itself was destroyed – though it continued to serve as an inspiration to all those who took up arms against the British Raj like Bhagat Singh and Netaji Bose.

Madam Cama suffered long years of exile from India, while Vinayak Damodar Savarkar suffered years of penal imprisonment. Later he took up the cause of “Hindutva” and worked for eradication of the caste system. He did seem to have abandoned the flag of Abhinav Bharat in his later years as he worked under the banner of “Hindu Maha Sabha”.

In 1952, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar dissolved Abhinav Bharat in a public function since the objective of Independent India had been attained. There is no record of any movement or Group that sought to adopt the name Abhinav Bharat during the subsequent 48 years of the 20th century

Historical authenticity of the above account is in no doubt and can be verified from any historical account of the period

Abhinav Bharat in the 21st Century

On 29th January 2002, “Abhinav Bharat” was registered as a Public Charitable Trust under Bombay Public Trust Act 1950. Its original Trustees were Manjiri Phadnis, Meena Prabhu and Pankaj Phadnis. Maharashtra Executor and Trustee Company, a subsidiary of the Bank of Maharashtra – a bank owned by the Government of India, was appointed as the Joint Managing Trustee.

The Trust seeks to work for an economically and socially independent India by taking up such pubic causes as Education, Health and Sports. It believes that the way to a better future lies in learning the right lessons from the past.

We believe that Recurring communal riots in an Independent India and poisonous relations with Pakistan are some of the big road block in development of a Just Humane Society. We believe that if People of India and Pakistan realize that Bahadur Shah Zafar was their common national sovereign in 1857 for whom the Hindus and Muslims fought and died, much of their present animosity will dissipate .

We have therefore published the following research books:

• Freedom Struggle – The Unfinished Story • War for Truth • The British Mutiny of 1857 • Moving Away from Gandhian Monopoly • Abhimanyu Betrayed.

We have also filed Public Interest Litigation in the High Court and Supreme Court of India to get Government of India to publicly recognize that Bahadur Shah Zafar was the De jure Indian Sovereign in 1857. The Ministry of Home Affairs vide their Office Memorandum No 12014/4/2005-SR have accepted this position.

The research findings have been examined by a Committee of the Experts and Historians of the National Archives of India and not disputed. Office Memorandum F No 11-7/2005-R-I of 17th February 2006

The Ministry of Law and Justice vide their letter No L 15012/1/2009-Jus have requested the Supreme Court of India to look into our views.

In addition we have sponsored a Doctoral Study on Universalization of Primary Education in India being conducted in the University of Mumbai

The Trust is in discussions with the Government of Maharashtra for running a Rural Health Center in Public Private Partnership

Violence and Sectarian activities of any kind have no place in our scheme of things

The Imposter Abhinav Bharat

It appears that another Trust was registered in Pune by certain individuals in May 2007 and was wrongly allotted the name of Abhinav Bharat. This Trust could in law not have been given the name “Abhinav Bharat” since the name was already in use since 2002..

Many people connected with this Trust are currently being prosecuted by the State of Maharashtra for their alleged involvement in certain acts of violence in Malegaon. Wide spread publicity to this prosecution has tarred the name of Abhinav Bharat. Further more one Himani Savarkar who claims to be President of Abhinav Bharat has issued certain objectionable statements against all minorities in India further vitiating the atmosphere.

Actions Taken by the Real Abhinav Bharat against the Imposter

• A Public Notice stating the correct facts has been put up on our web site www.abhinavbharat.org which has been accessible without any interruption

• The Police Authorities have been informed of the facts by a letter

• Several Press and TV Interviews given to disseminate the right information

• A Public Interest Case filed in the Bombay High Court (PIL 2 of 2009) seeking:

• To restrain Himani Savarkar from issuing any statements against the Minorities

• Cancellation of the wrongly allotted name Abhinav Bharat to the Pune organization

The matter is pending hearing and disposal in the Hon’ble High Court in Mumbai

Pankaj Phadnis Settlor and Advisory Trustee Abhinav Bharat June 1, 2009

Disambiguation

This article cannot be about two different groups. It has to be disambiguated. --Againme (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Y Done.Edmondhills (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources needed. Most of the links are dead and not available in archive also so not verifiable. Putting appropriate tags.

I had recently deleted a major chunk of the article because the references do not exist (not even in archive so impossible to verify). It was reverted and I was requested to find alternative sources instead of zealously deleting them. I will try to find secondary sources and verifiable links. Meanwhile I am tagging the article appropriately and adding tags to terms I consider weasel terms like "several functionary" , "several attack", "several officers", "believed to have been", "some of whom". Please make specific edits over these and do not revert all changes en-masse. I am careful not to remove content even if they are not verifiable. Please share any secondary sources that my benefit this article. Jyoti (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You even removed referenced sources from the article like this[1]. Please, do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. Edmondhills (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I think my edit summary explains why I removed it:"Removing original research. The reference does not have anything to this effect. You cannot add this with the reference provided.". Jyoti (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you distorted the sources. If there were peacock terms then you could have fixed them according to sources instead of removing them as a whole. Please, read the sources again and reply particular where is the original research in the article? Justify how this source[2] from The Times of India requires to be removed? Edmondhills (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all these are quite old edits and I made appropriate remarks in each corresponding edit summary and also put it appropriately in this talk page. Please read them and give specific diff link where you have issues. I replied to your earlier query. Instead of concluding that discussion you have pasted another link this time. Anyways, can you please give me the context and the diff link for this second so called unjustified edit? Jyoti (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I have already provided a diff and you cannot just remove a reference if its dead. See the article, I have fixed the dead links you removed. I have changed the weasel words you pointed out according to source and have no issues with current revision but if you have any issue then lets discuss here. Thanks, Edmondhills (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to take your permission for edits. It is you who have re-inserted content without having any discussion here when a discussion already existed on this talk page. If some edit is contentious I will open a discussion but I need not start a discussion for obvious mistakes. Jyoti (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Where did I say that you need my permission for edits? No, I re-inserted for valid reasons which already been discussed on this talk page. Edmondhills (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The lead

The lead section was biased. Abhinav Bharat is a right-wing Hindu extremist organization and the lead was changed to prvide false information about it. How can the lead of a particular organization describes 3 separate organizations? There is already a separate article on Abhinav Bharat Society then why it is needed to put this into this article? Edmondhills (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Your series of edits basically moved the article to an old state. I have roll-backed them. Please make edits with descriptive summary text and avoid peacock terms. Yes, I agree with your point about the lead section here. I will put back your changes for this after locating that specific change. Jyoti (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Which peacock terms I used? I see lots of vandalism and removal from you and IP editors so this has been restored. You removed sourced text from the article. Why? --Edmondhills (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead label my edits as vandalism if you please! Some other ip edits were not in line with your perspective does not justify putting the article into an earlier version wholesale. I gave my reasons for what I did. Can you please provide me the context for "You removed sourced text from the article. Why?" I already mentioned I will incorporate the specific changes -- you didn't give me time! :-) Jyoti (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if I offended you but I have no intention to label your edits as vandalism but when you require time for changes then you have your sandbox for editing instead of removing sourced material from an article on mainspace. Edmondhills (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You didn't respond to my question- instead wrote generic stuff! Repeating again. Can you please provide me the context for "You removed sourced text from the article. Why?" I already mentioned I will incorporate the specific changes -- you didn't give me time! Jyoti (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You removed many portion from the article and as I already told you if any of your edits need time then use your sandbox instead of removing the whole section like you did here[3]. Edmondhills (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

you have given me this diff link probably the fourth time -- Can't you read the edit summary or read my replies? Jyoti (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because you're repeatedly asking for diff when I have already replied on your talk page regarding this. Edmondhills (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

you have lost me here. When I have responded to you then why are you bringing it up at different places? Is my response lacking, is the edit summary not clear? What is your specific query, you want me to elaborate my response?Jyoti (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Are we on the same page here? Jyoti (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Disbelief section being re-inserted, please discuss here

Edmondhills you are re-inserting this section repeatedly ignoring earlier edits (and their comments) please justify. Here are links from four previous times: 1, 2, 3, 4.Jyoti (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Firstly all the diffs are not mine. Secondly, when you removed it (i don't know why) here[4], I didn't put it back. Edmondhills (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I put the diff each time I had to put it back. Here is the diffwhere you re-inserted it most recently. So, are we on the same page now? Jyoti (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know you just have this one diff of mine where I restored to an older version because you removed several text from the article because the references were dead which is also against Wikipedia's WP:404. Edmondhills (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

lol! one diff is sufficient to over-write the entire article! So, what are you trying to say? That you overwrote in one-shot so it is fine? Jyoti (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I said why I restored and you did the same by removing sourced text. Is that so difficult to understand? Edmondhills (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hereis the diff of my edit. What is your objection? What is wrong with my edit? What sourced content did I remove? You yourself have re-inserted the whole stuff and made same deletion later here. Why are you still harping that I have removed sourced content? This is willful lying on your part. Stay to the point with this diff -- keep other discussion to respective sections. Respond what is your objection in the above diff of mine -- stay to the point. Jyoti (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This wasn't the only diff of your edit. You made diffs like[5], [6], [7], [8]. Why you removed sourced materials in those diffs? Edmondhills (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Respond to my question. I have accused you of willful lying. Jyoti (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You have reverted all my edits here[9] when I restored the article back to previous stage and after that I have not reverted you so stop asking this question. You should have asked that question before reverting. Now, it is clear that you are the one who is not abiding by sources and removed the sourced material from the article and made the links dead again. Please, tell me why you made this POV edits[10], [11], [12], [13]? Edmondhills (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Read this section heading "Disbelief section being re-inserted, please discuss here". Stick to it in this section. Read your diff. You re-introduced it and made accusation. I have accused you of willful lying above, please respond to that. Jyoti (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have already responded but you're not responding to my questions. Tell, me why you did this[14] and [15] and this[16]? Edmondhills (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You have not. Stay on the content discussion under this section. My response to the diff you give are present in the edit summary, I have nothing to add. Jyoti (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

no haven't because your edit summaries were bogus and you proved it yourself like here[17] and adding back here[18] so its hard to rely on your edit summaries. Respond to my questions. Edmondhills (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOC. This section title is "Disbelief section being re-inserted, please discuss here". You claimed you have responded. Now you say you haven't? --Jyoti (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed original research or derivation.

Here is the diff. Please justify that the statement is supported by the reference. I think it is original research. It has be re-inserted without discussion and ignoring earlier edit summary. Jyoti (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Please, just read the reference at least for once.Edmondhills (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that and re-inserted it within minutes before your response here. What is the justification in over-writing the same stuff from much older edit when it was already present? Jyoti (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Please, show me where you re-inserted minutes before I responded here? Edmondhills (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Here within 15 min of removal _and_ much before your response. Jyoti (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Edmondhills please do not bulk revert. Your edits have reverted the content, including section heading and adding no new content and lost intermediate edits.

What was the justification of rewording the heading in these two cases(1, 2) and the content remained an older copy and intermediate edits were lost? Can you not edit the content in place and provide justification in edit summary? It is not possible to cleanup behind you - unless you make edits that are not whole sale changes taking the article back to an older state. You can probably re-instate some of your changes. But in the present bulk edit I do not see any merit and excruciatingly painful to do the cleanup and preserve earlier contributions behind you. Jyoti (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You have basically copy-pasted from a much earlier version of the same article and lost intermediate edits. Please do not do so. Even simple one letter edits in between may be preserved effortlessly if you can edit on top of the latest version with proper edit summary. Jyoti (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You have put back all the content making the article non-neutral. You even removed the Caravan magazine section! And please, stop creating long sections on the talk page to make a view like you're the one doing constructive edits to the article.Edmondhills (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I have put back the article to last good state before you bulk copy-pasted the entire article from a very old state. You have already mentioned this on the ANI page, I am not sure how to proceed, I believe we have to keep the discussion on that page. Jyoti (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

If the old state is what your reason then okay, I did not reverted it but added text with proper references and also re-worded the texts you tagged as weasel words so don't delete again the sourced material. Edmondhills (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You overwrote with an older copy. Let us not extend discussion here since you are cross posting in ani as well as continuing to edit the article. Is it okay to do it in less than 24h of you having raised an objection in ani, can we not wait to reach a consensus? You have made 9 more edits and I do have several objections to it like 'dictator', the opening over-surcharged statement "Abhinav Bharat is an ultra-right-wing Hindu extremist organization", writing irrelevant stuff under sub-section 'history', adding the caravan story here as encyclopedic content and much more but you are tiring me with nonsensical arguments and raking up the same diff even when I have corrected it before you point out and also responding to you at every place you are mentioning it. Jyoti (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

What older copy? You removed cited information and now arguing because of older copy? Its not about older or newer. Its about verifiable and what I wrote is backed with references so I am not buying your original researches. I didn't put my thoughts but I put what is cited in sources. Edmondhills (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I have responded in previous section. Lets keep this discussion at one place. Do you have any objection? Jyoti (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I won't have any objections unless you remove any sourced materials or references because they are dead. Dear Jyoti, please, try to be neutral when editing an article and we both should go only by references. See I have added text with references and you can do so but please, don't remove what is sourced and the change of heading here[19] from Alleged activities and arrests to Allegations of involvement in terrorist activity as the heading should have the word arrest in it. Anyways, I leave that to you hoping neutral editing from your end. :-)Edmondhills (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Why can't you simply keep the discussion to the point? You asked diff I gave you diff! If you agree to keep discussion at one place respond there not here. Jyoti (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I am just replying you so if you post here, I will reply here and if you keep discussion at one place then I will respond there. Edmondhills (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Oaky. Discussion about your current objection is at previous section. You haven't responded there! Jyoti (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure which section you're talking and please its you who opened several sections instead of one regarding your and my edits. Edmondhills (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

For the third time 'previous' section. Amazing level of willful ignorance! Jyoti (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

lol! stop with troll please ;) Edmondhills (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

What is this? Jyoti (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent allegation added in the section "History" and earlier history removed

Diff link. Actual mention of historic information is removed and recent allegation is introduced under 'History' section by Edmondhills --Jyoti (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Actual information? How did you say that? You have removed plenty of text as they weer not cited like this[20]. The actual mention is just your original research unless you have a reference and the recent allegation I added is from reliable sources. I also mentioned the reason on edit summery. So, what is wrong? You're willfully pushing POV. Respond me what was wrong with that edit? Edmondhills (talk) 06:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Open new section if you have problem with any of my diff, do not clutter this section. There was a citation needed tag, did you try to find one before deleting it? Here are four links about Savarkar and Mitra Mela and its historic connection to Abhinav Bharat which you have removed and instead added recent allegation on its individual members under 'History': 1, 2, 3, 4. This section heading is "Recent allegation added in the section "History" and earlier history removed", read the diff mentioned. It is your edit. Jyoti (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, you're advising me what you don't do yourself (funny). You removed many texts including cited sources without leaving a {{cn}} tag but asking me to do so. It is wrong! Secondly, read WP:BURDEN and also WP:CITE. You are free to add whatever is cited in reliable sources plus the article is not about Abhinav Bharat Society. Edmondhills (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You are not responding on the subject here. Open new section if you have problem with any of my diff, do not clutter this section. Are you saying the content can be added back? Can we talk about the content and come to a common stand about the content? Are you saying the history section can be added back with above reference? Jyoti (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No dear I am responding to what you said. Read you earlier message again. This is a talk page and when you accused me of something that you did yourself, I will obviously post the reply here. While you removed references text and dead references then how can you agree to leave other text with citation needed? Isn't this a one sided edit? And for the sources you provided, this[21] is unrealible and these [22], [23], [24] are about the organization during British rule in India not about Abhinav Bharat which is accused of bomb blast in the country. So, those sources will be helpful for Abhinav Bharat Society but not Abhinav Bharat. Edmondhills (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOC. This section title is "Recent allegation added in the section "History" and earlier history removed". Those links mention Abinav Bharat, that is History and should be under History. Jyoti (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Addition of original research

Diff link of Edmondhills. These are the three references used: 1, 2, 3. Here are my objections.

1. Use of 'dictator' is a weasel term not present in any of the cited reference.
2. The threat to sue the magazine is original research not present in any of the cited reference. Late Correction/Clarification: Only Aseemanand has made the threat, present statement attributing it to Bhagwat and the Sangh Parivar is original synthesis.
3. "Abhinav Bharat was a terrorist front for the Sangh Parivar" is original research not present in any of the cited reference.
4. There is no mention of NIA rejecting the magazine's claim in further legal action in the article although present in the reference. Assemanand denied that such interview happened and Sangh refuted the claims made in the magazine article. Both are not same. Bhagwat never commented on it. "Aseemanand, Bhagwat, the Sangh Parivar have vociferously denied these reports" is a misconstruction.
5. This whole episode has got undue presence in section "Relationship with Sangh Parivar groups".

--Jyoti (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that 'dictator' can be removed as not present in sources. Rest of your objections are willful lies. All of them are present in sources so stop the fuss. Edmondhills (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You earlier said dictator is your bold edit or my original research? Others are also not present in the source, they are original derivation. Jyoti (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If we may not come to an agreement about the content then I would prefer to take this to WP:NORN. Lets not forget WP:FOC. Kindly keep the discussion relevant to this subsection. We agree that dictator should be removed, right? Can you please respond to my other points quoting from the cited references if needed? Jyoti (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, the term 'dictator' can be removed but as I already said rest are your personal views so please, feel free to open a discussion at WP:NORN and I will respond there. Edmondhills (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. This section is closed. Jyoti (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Change of lead

While I see the current lead is absolutely fine backed with references please, do not insert information about the Abhinav Bharat Society started by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar on the leaad however such information may be helpful for Abhinav Bharat Society article. Abhinav Bharat is different from Abhinav Bharat Society as Abhinav Bharat Society is a defunct organization after independence. Edmondhills (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You agree that what I added was backed by reference. Right? I believe I added it in correct context. I had also added reference for a citation needed tag. That is also removed now. I removed extra information about the second Abhinav Bharat which is not the subject of this article. How should lead section of alpha(the subject of the article) have more content on beta(another organization with same name) instead? You put back 'ultra-right-wing' which is not in accordance with MOS:BEGIN. WP:LABEL also applies. It is far from a good lead presently. I have reverted, please make corrective edits instead of reverting the entire edit. We can discuss(WP:AVOIDEDITWAR) about the content WP:FOC. If you insist on reverting entire edit and do not want to discuss about this revert then you may seek assistance in WP:DRN. --Jyoti (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:LABEL also mention using of contentious words if backed by several sources. I have presented sources so do not change again. --Edmondhills (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on purging sourced content

Vanamonde93: diff, with edit summary: "the source is terribly written, and most of the info is redundant". Do you mean to say the two references are not written nicely? Yes there is some trimming possible, rest should be salvaged. --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The articles linked in those two references are atrocious, in that their english is terrible, and the "information" in the articles seem highly dodgy. Moreover, much of the information that is accurate is redundant with the previous para, or else it is too much detail; some of that detail belongs in the article about the original org, not here. I had to override your edit because I'm engaged in re-writing the article at present; why don't you take a look once I'm done? Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean you want to revert and discuss everything later? Sorry, discuss what is raised, when it is raised. Your sentence formation used weasel words and was misleading in a way, I had already made three small edits to fix that. You are not supposed to "re-write" it in that manner. I know of a source with poor English which you treated like Gospel elsewhere because it suited your POV, these are far better. Is there any info that is contradicted in any other secondary source, if yes, then only we should consider dumping them so brazenly. --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't talk rot. The information is most certainly contradicted, which is why I am dumping it; both Jaffrelot and the outlook source contradict the first Indian Express source with respect to the founding of AB. All the rest of the information is covered by Jaffrelot anyhow. The second one I do intend to use, because nobody else mentions the website. What weasel words are you talking about? It's straight from the source, which you obviously did not read. The quote is as follows; "Savarkar's Abhinav Bharat believed in revolutionary violence and was, indeed, responsible for the assassination of several British officers. It was disbanded in 1952." Your edit borders on source mis-representation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

A few points:

• As per WP:HISTRS, newspapers are not reliable sources for historical information. Only academic sources are.
• For current events, where we might have both newspapers and academic sources, the academic sources trump the news sources. In this case, Jaffrelot has actually read the ATS report and published its summary. So, if newspapers say something different, they go. The idea of a "historian" having founded Abhinav Bharat seems to be misinformation, which wasn't corroborated by anybody. Jaffrelot's information is that Purohit founded it.
• All said and done, I would prefer to keep the newspaper sources around, even if they are redundant, because they are accessible to our readers. The EPW papers are not yet available on JSTOR.

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: This edit [25] ignores the points I made above, especially the first one. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I made two changes in it, which one do you suggest needs improvement and what is your suggested change? I am open to discussion. --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the two changes are, but you know what content you sourced from the Indian Express. This IE article with its mythical "historian" is contradicted by Jaffrelot. So, it is unreliable and shouldn't be cited at all. The phrase "revolutionary violence" is from Jaffrelot, and it is pretty accurate. I don't see any need to change it. The explanation for why Savarkar disbanded Abhinav Bharat is obvious and sounds silly to state it. The reality is that Abhinav Bharat was defunct a long time earlier, because Savarkar himself had started plenty of other extremist organisations without using Abhinav Bharat for those purposes. So, the whole edit is unnecessary. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. The article is about the current org, not the old one; so that level of detail is not needed. The IE source is terrible, as I've already explained. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140503000011/http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bhopal/malegaon-blast-focus-on-new-outfits/article1-347406.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bhopal/malegaon-blast-focus-on-new-outfits/article1-347406.aspx

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2017

Abhinav Bharat is a right wing Hindu Revolutionary organization founded by Retired Major of Indian Army Ramesh Upadhyay and Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit in 2006 in Pune, Maharashtra. It has a large base in Madhya Pradesh. The organization is believed to be the revived form the pre-Independence era Abhinav Bharat Society Kumar88.ram (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please explain why the change should be made, and please provide the references in question here. Vanamonde (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Terror organisation?

Is it not famous for terrorism? https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/hindu-rashtra-saffron-terrors-hall-of-shame-78870-2010-07-18 Zikrullah (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)