Talk:Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad

POV

Doesn't this seem like a pro-BJP, pro-RSS POV? I'd appreciate it if anyone can write a meaningful article. MikeLynch (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

How come ABVP, BJP and vandalism don't occur in same article

Indianelectron (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

All views to be shown, not just POV

While the ABVP is a Student organisation, there have been criminal acts of violence and extremism from their side for many years - only 2012 has been highlighted. This part of the ABVP has been completed shunned in the article. Moreover, the details added previous details have been removed - they could have been edited instead.

Editing helps improved the articles; however removal of certain details robs the neutral WP user of the facts and truths. So, please edit for betterment; biased blanket removal goes against the WP spirit of truth Huhshyeh (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There are many good things done by abvp which are not mentioned hear but only criminal actions have been highlighted to send an negative image of the organisation .This is done to get political benefit by the opposing people and left leaning groups.

Avijaiswal7 (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Verifications

@Kautilya3:, could you please verify the recent additions of @Givemeplease: ? Ghatus (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, tomorrow. I am kind of tied up today. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no doubt that there is ample room for improvement, especially with access to more good sources. I will look for them when possible. In the meantime, feel free to make any changes that are warranted. Givemeplease (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear both, the edits are certainly on the right track (why wouldn't they be when excellent sources are being used?). But I think the ideology needs to be explained in a lot more depth. The Vidya Bharati page is a good model of how this page should be eventually. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

All of Sangh Parivar exists for one and only one reason. To spread the RSS ideology to all those people that don't have the energy to go to daily shakhas. (The Vishva Hindu Parishad, on the other hand, outgrew the RSS by becoming a home to Hindu chauvinism. The VHP now calls the shots and the RSS follows.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, I mean this line for a student union: "Various branches of the ABVP have reportedly been involved in riots against Muslims since 1961". I know about VHP, but this is about ABVP??? Any example??? Isn't it a sweeping statement without backed by any source/example by the author (which riots?). This line indeed is the most grave line in the article.Ghatus (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the sentence says "reportedly" and is supported by a scholarly source. It would of course be useful to know more details but it is always hard to document who participates in communal violence. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I am stunned, after visiting ABVP page and all information regarding its membership, and it being largest in India are being removed without referring what critic of sangh parivar like Chitropher Jefferolet has written in his books, and in various sources during emergency and in the ongoing JNU issues there is one organisation which is there in JNU and in general colleges. Left is totally fragmented in pieces and NSUI is nowhere to be found in prominent university campuses or play second fiddle to the leftists in those campus. Do learned guys on WIKIPEDIA need anymore references, as we had given already, that ABVP is the largest. I think it must be some commies who are feeling painful that it is written in WIKIPEDIA. Shame on you commies.

I would like certaily thank @Kautilya3 to clear doubts of many guys here. Warmly, @ashishsainram (to reach me just google this) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishsainram (talk • contribs) 19:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Your thanks are due to Givemeplease, who created the content based on the reliable sources I posted a few days earlier. Everybody is welcome to create such well-sourced content. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I also think ABVP's role during The Emergency should be touched upon.Ghatus (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2017

ABVP is not smallest students organization. Infaxt it is the largest.. 14.142.118.68 (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done - some vandalism before the article was protected - Arjayay (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Duke University sources

One of the sources removed here is published by Duke University press, and written by scholars of this topic. It meets WP:RS in every sense, and I do not see why it is being repeatedly reverted. Vanamonde (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad. 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/20140914001411/http://www.jknewspoint.com/newsdet.aspx?q=12780 to http://www.jknewspoint.com/newsdet.aspx?q=12780

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) 02:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Organization of section on Controversies

Would it be more appropriate to sort these by topic (censorship of arts, vandalism, assaults) or by date? I have them currently organised by date but any input would be appreciated. R1988 (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:VALID is relevant here. Giving attention to every single event where they are involved is not useful. Capitals00 (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have undone all my edits, which were a curated selection of significant incidents, and not a random list. I would appreciate an explanation of which of those several incidents you feel are not in conformity with :WP:VALID. I'm restoring my edits until then. R1988 (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the new section title and the description you wrote, when they were already under "activities" with appropriate description. Your edits are not helpful anyway. There are 1000s of incidents of such protests, attacks, where every political party has been involved, for example, Youth Congress has been also involved in many of such activities.[1][2][3][4] Now by making a POV heading and a POV description by treating allegations as convictions and listing minor incidents that were covered for only one day or two by media is a violation of WP:VALID. List before your edits was provided only for giving an idea of the activities, but it doesn't means we have to list all incidents. You should not be treating your edits as the final word. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@R1988: WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Giving long catalogue of incidents serves no purpose. Wikipedia prefers prose to lists. People should be able to read it with interest and understand something. I don't have an easy solution here. You just need to read all those sources carefully and figure out what is significant and what is not, and construct a narrative. It is also not necessary to label them as "Controversies". They can be discussed under Activities just fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

"Controversies" is a POV title best avoided. The "activities" section should be written in a manner that conveys how reliable sources see these activities, including whether or not they are controversial. If there are specific themes to these activities (I'm sure such can be found) grouping them would make sense, but the categorization has to be based on reliable sources, and even in this case prose is preferable: EG "The ABVP has often carried out activities [of type X]. Examples include [1, 2, 3]." Not the bare lists we have at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2018

CHANGE X

• 30 December 2014 : PK, the film, was obstructed by ABVP.<ref>

to Y

• 30 December 2014 : [[PK (film)|PK]], the film, was protested by ABVP.<ref>

Two changes

- link would help - additional details are at the article  Semi-done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC).

- also suggest "protested" rather than "obstructed", which seems to come close to implying that there was a successful shutting down

3o3 (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The remaining part of your request is Done per your rationale. I also changed the sentence structure from passive voice to active voice per WP:MOS. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Many Issues

@Kautilya3: I don't think the summary This edit threw out the baby with the bathwater. is a valid statement. The first line says Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) (All Indian Student Council) is a Hindu nationalist all India student organization affiliated to the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). It is a student organization with more than three million members. While the source [5] clearly mentions:

Deshpande vigorously denied that the BJP had any say in its functioning.

ABVP maintains it is independent of the BJP, although many party leaders, including government ministers Arun Jaitley and Ravi Shankar Prasad, were members..

ABVP has cleared that it has nothing to do with BJP or RSS and even sources confirm that but still, the Lead section states the wrong information.

The second line states

ABVP is a right-wing all India student organisation affiliated to the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). It participates in joint activities with the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP, an Indian nation-wide political party) official youth wing, the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha..

While the source [6] is about the protest of ABVP but it doesn't mention any relation between ABVP, BJYM or RSS. The news says Protests by BJYM, ABVP mar ICET counselling. While the news is taken out of context. It is WP:OR as well as WP:CHERRYPICKING, while the second source for the same text is [7] which is about the protest against China, It has nothing to do with the affiliated text.

The line states as follows

Various branches of the ABVP have been involved in Hindu-Muslim communal riots since 1961 and the source cited is [8], While the source mentions about the riots but is unable to provide the whole picture of riot, adding this is adding half-truth which clearly violates WP:NPOV.

And in last I am not aware of the policies of Wikipedia about adding the day to day activities of an organization, ABVP protest almost every day on some issue, or has some news on TV, so does that mean we will add every protest or news. My Lord (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I am also seeing that users had already objected this huge list of non-notable incidents above(Talk:Akhil_Bharatiya_Vidyarthi_Parishad#Organization_of_section_on_Controversies), and since the original editor of this content[9] did nothing to fix these issues, I think we should remove it now. My Lord (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not object to trimming the "huge list". But I have objected to you removing material from the lead and the History section, under the cover of trimming the list. That is not acceptable.

If you want to raise "many issues" with the other content, again you are welcome to do so. But please keep in mind that

• What the organisation says about itself makes no difference to what we write. We depend on WP:THIRDPARTY reliable sources.
• RSS and BJP are separate organisations, and you should absolutely not substitute one for the other.
• You also need to check what other reliable sources say about those issues before wasting everybody's time.

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not removing material from the lead and the history section under the cover of trimming the list, I have provided rational reasons for the removal of content from lead and history. Though I understand that there are valid objections not to remove the content from there. Secondly, La Times is a third party source itself for saying that it is an independent of BJP, since they have reported this information.[10] Here is another third party source [11] stating ABVP is an independent organization of BJP. This[12] scholarly source also say "The ABVP is not affiliated to BJP". I think that these sentences or at least their statement that they are independent of BJP can be mentioned in the section,before "It participates in joint activities with the Bharatiya Janata Party's..." and I hope there is no objection to removing the items from list. My Lord (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not see the article claiming that the ABVP is a formal affiliate of the BJP; only that they have participated in shared activities. Trimming the list of controversies may be necessary; but removing material from the lead at the same time is inappropriate. I see no significant policy-based issues being raised here. Vanamonde (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead corruptions

Since this article gets periodically white-washed by the fans of ABVP, e.g., this edit by Shiv10chaudhary on 30 July 2016, I will endeavour to reinstate the original version of the lead always, unless the changes have been discussed here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Violence caused by left wings

On 5 Jan, 2020 the masked people were none other than left students, who attack ABVP activists and other students who want to register themself. As a list released by the Delhi Police, 7 out of 9 members were from left wing who attacked students of JNU. Ritik Padha (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that say that? Please provide them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't Aishe Ghosh, President of JNUSU seen walking in a hostel with masked men? Even JNUSU twitter handle admitted that. Aishe Ghosh walking along with masked men--YoloSCIS (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Table of leaders

Looks like the Students' Federation of India article has a "table of its national office bearers", supported by secondary (independent) sources. I believe we can have a table here as well supported by reliable independent sources @RegentsPark and YoloSCIS:? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing! The organisation must def have well documented record. YoloSCIS (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2021

It is written in that "Various Branches of ABVP has involved in Hindu Muslim Riots" which is just an allegation, but it is not made clear that which branch is involved and it is also not mentioned the word 'allegation'. ABVP's motto is 'Knowledge', 'Character' and 'Unity'. ABVP is an independent organisation whose main aim is to solve the problems of students and to eradicate the problems related to education and educational institutions. ABVP is involved in various social work which is not mentioned her. Main point is, ABVP made it's stand clear that it will stay out of party politics so BJP introduced 'BJP Yuva Morcha'(student wing) Therefore BJP Yuva Morcha is the student wing of BJP and not ABVP. There are so many points where Right wingers hesitated to make their stand but ABVP's stand about particular matter was always on national interest and never hesitated about it.

Next, ABVP is an independent student organisation and not the 'Hindu Nationalist' It is Indian Nationalism and not Hindu Nationalism. Countering communism is one of the part of ABVP. ABVP counters through ideologically and not by attacking physically.

Being a true Congressman, I would like to request you to make the above changes because There should be a healthy competition. 2402:8100:282F:25E8:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. The content is reliably sourced. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)