Talk:Bajrang Dal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Controversial

User[69.199.165.162],Pls explain your reasons for adding the POV term "controversial" to the subtitle. Bharatveer 05:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I think that it's ok. It is controvertial because, in reality, Stanines was executed by a lone culprit, Dara Singh, and it's disputed as to whether he is involved with BD or not.Netaji 22:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sabrang+Indian Muslims

Neither is a source of authority on BD.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. These are partisan sources. If they can be cited then so can Hindu sources, but they are not allowed.Hkelkar 00:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

About us - sabrang - It has an agenda to combat "communalism" (Hinduism). Indian muslims shouldn't be cited, if thats cited, I might as well quote Hinduunity.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[1] is a letter to al jazeera, not a news story. Its written by someone who probably has more than sympathy for SIMI and al-qaeda.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please give a Wikipedia policy/rule on why those sources would not be allowed. Thanks. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 00:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:Reliable Sources. If these are allowed then why isn;t hvk.org or Hinduunity.org not allowed? Is there a double standard against Hindus? The al-Jazeera article is unreliable per Bakaman above.Hkelkar 00:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Indian muslims disqualified as partisan. Sabrang disqualified as partisan/extremist. The al-jazeerah letter is almost apologetic for extremist philosophy, so it is disqualified.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

: Religious/ethnic/ethnoreligious-based websites are allowed. So are most partisan websites. Only Extremist ones are not. Indian Muslims in in no way an extremist organization. They only provide news on the lifestyle and Muslim-related incidents. However, hinuunity and hvk both have an anti-Muslim agenda- "Muslims out of india will result in peace" and the like. Provide one extremist or hateful quote from IndianMuslims, and then you disqualify the site. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 00:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

HvK merely cites news sources. Its called compromise and treating partisan sites with caution. We both should cite reputable sources, and we all know exactly what the reputable sources are (Hindu, TOI, TiE, Pioneer, Hindustan Times, REdiff, sites in that mold)Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

US govt has declared al-Jazeera to be a terrorist front. Plus, hvk is not extremist (maybe HinduUnity, but not hvk). I'm afraid it's still a double standard. Plus, al-Jazeera articles also attest that Jewish people are cannibals etc. and other such anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic cartoons are also there on al-Jazeera so it is also hate.Hkelkar 00:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Al-Jazeerah is of course biased. Still, you haven't proved why Sabrang or Indianmuslims are extremist. Sabrang is opposed to communalism, which includes both anti-Muslim and anti-Hindu communalism.Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 00:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And HVK is fine to quote, although as Bakaman said, they only quote other news sources. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 00:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No it is not. I looked at the diff of several articles and any refs to hvk were removed. Plus, indianmuslims is partisan and does not have the required criteria for reliability (no fact checking teams, no qualified journalists etc.). It is, at best, an advocacy organisation and, at worst, an extremist front. If it is to be cited, it must be done so with appropriate qualification.Hkelkar 01:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And strangely enough, there appears to be a HU reference on this very article. It's best if you found another reference providing the same info. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 01:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but that is cited with qualification as a statement of BD's intentions and agenda, which it IS because HU is BD's website.Hkelkar 01:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The first comment is wishful thinking, Indian muslims is still partisan though. HvK has debunked Sabrang [2]. I almost never quote HVK, I always try to dig up the place HvK quoted from, though they always copy and paste.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your assertion that Indianmuslims is an advocacy organization without the teams etc. is still without proof. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 01:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And HvK has its own biased agenda, so you would need to get other sources to debunk Sab rang. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 01:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is the manifestation of another double standard. The site clearly says "Indian Muslims" so they present the muslim POV, not the objective POV.Hkelkar 01:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

They are not recognized as a news source unlike "the Hindu", ergo they do not have any qualified journalists cause qualified journalists only work for recognized news sources, as do fact checkers etc. Can you point to any?WP:Reliable Sources demands that proof be shown to the opposite of what you suggest. Reputable news sources like Times of India, CNN, BBC, the Hindu etc are easily established as such. indianmuslims cannot be readily established as such.Hkelkar 01:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Reliable_Sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources

Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them.

In this case, that's a specific ethno-religious group, not unbiased and secular.Hkelkar 01:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As I remembered, IndM provided newspaper sources (which were established ones) they paraphrased from, and you still haven't found out why IndianMuslim is unreliable. All the info on it was correct. And worse, you also stated that the words Indian Muslim itself proved an Islamic POV, forgetting that the recognized news source the Hindu did not prove a Hindu POV. You said that on account of your own prejudice, unless you also think that the words the Hindu prove a Hindu POV. So unless you can firmly disprove IndM, please dont claim it unreliable. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 01:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the Hindu is often and regularly cited on wikipedia and is recognized as a legit source. The Hindu does not make any Bias towards Hinduism because in "the Hindu" Hindu means Indian (from "Hind" ie the Indus) not those people who believe in Hinduism. In fact, many Hindus accuse "the Hindu" of being anti-Hindu (heh!). Since there is no ambiguity in the term "Muslim" it is clear that they have an Islamic POV (else they wouldn;t say "Muslim" in their title). I'm afraid I'll have to stand by my claim of unreliability and double standards on your part. This is similar to the debate over the "Christian Science Monitor", which is often accused of Christian POV. However, it is established that they have professional journalists etc. It is also established for Israeli Newspapers with Judaistic names like Haaretz in Israel etc. It is NOT explicitly established for indianmuslims so, until it is, it's POV. However, it can be stated with qualification (Indian muslims allege that...). That would be ok.Hkelkar 01:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have found another piece of info, which I have added. The source is a report from pucl, which is a credible organization. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 15:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Milli gazette is not. Since this article is now extremely controversial, milli gazette gets the boot.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Pucl is somewhat partisan section on religious intolerance. Is there a reason why every thing on there is "Hindu poison"? Its as if Muslims/Missionaries/Marxists are tolerant, good, and secular. Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Take the Milli gazette out if you'd like, but it was based on the pucl one. And PUCL is slightly partisan, but it is no means extremist. It has received many awards, and it has been mentioned by both the hindu and the times of india [3]. So PUCL is a pretty reliable organization. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 15:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your PUCL citation failed verification. If this continues we may have to request for comment.Hkelkar 17:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

2nd to last paragraph, since you didn't notice it. "However we have come to know from the police sources..... seized maps of a few Mosques..." Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 20:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That para makes no accusations on Bajrang Dal.Hkelkar 21:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the article admits to the ignorance of the contents of the documents seized.Hkelkar 21:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Support your claims. And the sentence you reverted only makes mention of "one of the deceased", which, from other sources, is linked to Bajrang Dal. And it is best to settle the argument before reverting. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 21:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So you admit you have inferred a conclusion from several sources. I believe that it is a violation of WP:OR. None of the reliable sources explicitly accused BD of having mosque plans.Hkelkar 21:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

12th paragraph, towards the end:

...police have not revealed any of these documents to the press or the public yet.

Hkelkar 21:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not claim OR, since I never explicitly stated that the maps were directly related to BD, just that they were found, "at the house of one of the deceased". And the source itself stated that the houses were of BD and RSS activists, so even if I did state that, it would have been properly cited and not OR. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 19:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid your edit drew a conclusion from the article not stated explicitly in the article. That counts as OR.Hkelkar 19:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I only stated the facts from the article. What conclusion are you talking about? (And going further back, OR doesn't say anything about "conclusions", only new neologisms, ideas, or terms) So I am under the impression that you are fabricating Wikipedia policy Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 20:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

1. You deleted my qualification of a biased source.

2. Your edit:

"A report claimed to have found maps of mosques at the home of one of the deceased" does not pass verification from the more reliable PUCL source. From the article:

However we have come to know from the police sources that police has seized maps of a few Mosques situated in nearby districts from the houses of the accused which give credence to the rumors.

Which is different from your statements.

3. Your conclusion drawn (even from the doubtful milligazette source) is not stated by milligazette explicitly, so it is a conclusion drawn on your part.Hkelkar 21:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Then mistake on my part, it would be "a report claimed that maps of mosques were seize by police at the home of the accused." Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 22:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement is ambiguous. Do they mean that the maps were seized in houses near the houses of the accused, or that the maps were of mosques that were nearby to the house of the accused seized AT the houses of the accused? Find multiple sources (reliable non-partisan ones) to confirm.Hkelkar 01:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take apart the sentence for you.

• In "maps of a few Mosques situated in nearby districts", they are talking about the mosque not the house. Otherwise they would use "from houses in nearby districts" or something like that.
• It is clear however, that "nearby districts" refers to the mosque. They were seized "from the houses of the accused", not anywhere else. There is no way that "nearby districts from" would refer to near the houses. "Nearby from" is not generally used in English that often.
• And anyways, "situated" directly means that the mosques were "situated in nearby districts".
• My last point is of logic: Why would the police care to check houses near to the accused? And why would pucl note that the accused's neighbor(s) had maps of mosques? Logic tells us the maps were "from the houses of the accused"

I really thing the quote is pretty clear, and that your argument is not well supported. And please don't try to get this debate off track into the depths of English sentence structure, and just throw away human logic. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 20:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that the analysis above is YOURS, not that of a reliable source and so constitutes WP:OR.Hkelkar 23:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I still don;t follow many things here:

• It is a question of subject/object. I"ll have to look at my Wren and Martin to see what actual grammar rules say.I'll get back to you on this.
• Why should "nearby districts" to the mosque?This is not clear to me at all.Bear in mind that Indian English is often subject to it's own grammatical rules.
• So?
• The problem is that Indian media, as well as Indian Authorities, are not exactly known for their great leaps of logic. Often, statements that, in on themselves, make absolutely no sense whatsoever are touted by Indian media solely on the basis of their authority.Thus, if certain statements contain ambiguities, then they should be handled with care on wikipedia.Hkelkar 23:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My views were a logical interpretation of the sentence, and not any type of "original research". Let othe Wikipedians decided if the statement is clear or not. Your concern about Indian media and Indian knowledge are really shallow since the sentence makes perfect sense. Your claims on the meaning of the sentence really do seem to be a way of sneakily discrediting the information. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 23:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Any kind of interpretation is original research by definition. The sentence has many grammatical errors per Wren and martin canon of English grammar. The subject and object are ambiguous, for one.I believe your last sentence is a violation of WP:AGF, making a characterization of my motives, of which you have no knowledge.Hkelkar 00:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

To Basawala - <sarcasm>good job</sarcasm> making veiled personal attacks and insults.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, but I really doubt there's any wrong with the grammar. So I'll try to find a grammarian Wikipedian, and see what that person thinks. And Bakaman, the manner in which you are accusing me is uncivil. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 16:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And grammar isn't the only thing to interpret the sentence, from the context of the article, you would know that the maps were found at the houses of the accused, not in a nearby district. Nearby districts would be irrelevant to the topic of the article, since they article dealt with only some Bajrang Dal members, not an entire community of houses. Context is undeniably important. And may I ask if the language of the sentence is so unclear, why didn't you bring it up earlier when you first saw the sentence? Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 17:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:AGF, does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.

On that basis I retract my apology. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 19:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Article has been protected to slow things down a bit. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Whoops. I didnt realise there was an edit war going on. Can someone please lay out the exact points of disagreement below? If there is constant editwarring, perhaps an RfC is in order. Hornplease 03:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nanded

Some newspaper op/eds accuse BD for it. Others imply Islamist Lashkar involvement:

http://www.flonnet.com/fl2301/stories/20060127006800800.htm

http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/portal/2006/08/536

Partisan editors are using the contradictory, unprofessional and substandard quality of Indian Media to promulgate a bias.Hkelkar 05:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

And you yourself are non-partisan, right? BhaiSaab ^talk 06:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of my views,my edits are scholarly and follow wikipedia policies of WP:V and WP:RS. Yours follow the policy of "Whatever I can do to whitewash Islamism and point it all to the Hindoos".Allahu w00t!Hkelkar 06:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean Allahu Akbar? BhaiSaab ^talk 06:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen "Allahu w00t" in Islamist chat rooms.Hkelkar 06:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of it. BhaiSaab ^talk 06:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You have now (it's mostly in Pakistani Islamist chatrooms; Deobandis, that sort of thing). L33T and terrorism. Nice combination.Hkelkar 06:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like Deobandi interpretation - but anyway, I say "Allahu Akbar." BhaiSaab ^talk 06:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated on a talkpage elsewhere, the first of the above linked articles discusses an earlier event, in 2000, and the second clearly implies that there has been a police coverup (without mentioning the LeT in that connection), which possibility has already been indicated in the article. They are irrelevant. The above editors should note that exchanging personal attacks can easily be done off Wikipedia. Hornplease 07:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't play the fool. The articles clearly mention LeT to allude to the possibility that it is they who were involved in Nanded. Furthermore, the statement:

In April 2006, two Bajrang Dal activists were killed in nearby Nandhed in the process of bomb making

Is POV as the articles say that BD is a SUSPECT, not FORMALLY ESTABLISHED or indicted as the perpetrators.The article cites constantly says "IF BD was involved then... IF BD made the bombs then...",always the conditional. As such, the statement in the wikipedia article is wrong as it uses the affirmative. The affirmative was used only once in the article cited. The fact that they keep switching from affirmative to conditional shows A) that the article is typical shoddy journalism from the liberal left, and 2)They are not sure that BD actually did it. Hkelkar 07:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Very simply, your interpretation is simply wrong. There's nothing more to it, and nothing more I can say. You admit that the article says the BD was involved.

Here's what the article says about Nanded:

In April, Bajrang Dal activists Naresh Raj Kondwar and Himanshu Phanse were killed while attempting to fabricate an improvised explosive device along with their fellow extremists Maruti Wagh, Rahul Pande, and Ramraj Guptewar. Investigators later recovered a second bomb from the Nanded home where the bomb-making exercise was under way, and evidence that the extremist had struck before.

Maharashtra Police found that Kondwar and Phanse were the key figures in the April 2006 bombing of a mosque at Parbhani, in which 25 persons were injured. Bajrang Dal operatives linked to the Nanded terror cell, investigators believe, also carried out the bombing of mosques at Purna and Jalna in April 2003. Eighteen persons sustained injuries in these twin attacks.

What disturbed the Maharashtra Police most about the Nanded explosion, though, was that it demonstrated the Bajrang Dal's growing bomb-making capabilities. In an interview to the magazine Communalism Combat earlier this year, K.P. Raghuvanshi, Joint Commissioner of Police, Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad, admitted that the Nanded incident could have "frightening repercussions."

There are no two ways of interpreting those passages.

And as for your statement that the articles you quoted imply that the LeT was responsible for the 2006 Nanded blast, that is simply not borne out by the articles. I cant imagine what might make you think that it is other than wishful thinking. Hornplease 10:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you here to debate or flame?Hkelkar 10:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep it civil, please. I have tried to explain to you three times what is wrong with your interpretation, and all I have been told in return is to "stop playing the fool". You're supposed to be taking the time that you're blocked to reflect on your behaviour. Hornplease 21:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

HKelkar, your sources only briefly mention Nanded and only say that the LeT have operations in Nanded, and not the Bajrang Dal bomb blasts. Until you can pinpoint where you think they mention that, then your statement is false. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 13:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I take it that this is settled? Shall i let BL know? Hornplease 23:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC

No it is not settled. It is a false consensus.Hkelkar 23:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you an answer, then? The 2006 Nanded blast had nothing to do with the LeT according to your sourced articles. Do you agree to that much? Hornplease 23:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't agree with you.See above.Hkelkar 23:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have been proved wrong about that. Do you understand? There is nothing in those articles that supports your statements. The article is about two different occasions, and the history of Nanded. About the particular explosion, there is no mention of the LeT. you have not been able to cite any articles that do mention the LeT in that context. Can we move on now? Hornplease 23:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Random sentence

"We do oppose the activities of the Missionaries because we think they dupe the poor into embracing their religion by allurements and false promises of faith healing,"

This sentence seems to be inserted randomly into the Controversy section. Does anyone know the sentence's significance in that part of the section? Thank you. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 21:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you're back. Well I put the quote in context.Hkelkar 22:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Tehelka Exposure?

Perhaps there should be some mention of the recent investigation conducted by Tehelka in relation to the Bajrang Dal's activities in the 2002 Gujrat violence. link Tehelka website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.7 (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

== "Army of Apes" ==langur sena

Bajrang Dal is also known as "vanar sena" or 'army of apes'. Please add it in introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.165.164 (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC) their ancestors are apes (langur species) having no sense there name suits them. langur

vanar

bandar

gorilla

Art 48 & prevention of cow slaughter

I have added ref now. Dont remove the sentence unless you have valid refs-Bharatveer (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a question that comes up is how references to the constitution should be dealt with. I read the passage in art 48, it points to a general ambition that cow slaughter should be illegal. howver, there are many passages (for example regarding socialism and secularism) that Bajrang Dal are not in line with. Should that be mentioned as well? --Soman (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Article 48 is apparently a Directive Principle, a section of the Indian Constitution that lays out a suggested agenda for future government policy. That is not applicable to a private organisation, and so is irrelevant, unless it is cited as the BD's prime inspiration. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

SA in Lead

Why is one moniker, given by one researcher, given credence over numerous other more fitting descriptions that are more will sourced? The Bajrang Dal are a very chilling organization, but tying them to Nazism (when such a tie is not mainstream and off of spurious allegations), as otolemur crassicaudatus wishes to do does little but draw more POV-warriors to the page.Pectore^talk 21:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Militant party?

None of the sources, [4] and [5] says that the Bajrang Dal is a militant party. If you do not agree, then please discuss it here before reverting. I am removing the word "Militant" for the time being. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 11:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This one does. You will find more references here. The word "militant" may also refer to: " An individual or group who engage in violent or overtly aggressive actions, verbally or physically, on behalf of a cause."
Bajrang Dal's activists have been aggressive and often violent, that's why this word is being used here. Abhishek ^Talk 12:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have raised this discussion here. Please respond there regarding this. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 13:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war over image

I see the recent edit war going on over that image. I am not supporting anybody. But just discuss on the both sides that what is wrong with this image? Why can’t we use it in the controversy/criticism section since it is significant to the topic? Please discuss. --Googlean ^Results 09:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is just feeding the trolls. The photo is obviously not that of Praveen Togadia, and the IP is just trolling around. --Soman (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We can't use the image in the controversy section because that's not the real Praveen Togadiya. Abhishek ^Talk 10:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If it is falsely claimed, why do we need such an image. It should be removed, WP:IFD, else, I strongly feel that it will be back soon. --Googlean ^Results 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it for speedy deletion. --Soman (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Militant

{{editprotected}} The introduction says that they are a Hindu organization in India. However, the reference linked to the term militant by BBC & TOI. To make it NPOV, the Criticism or Controversy section should have it (the term militant) at any rate with the given BBC & TOI refs. Also, there is no consensus formed in INB to remove it completely from the article. --Googlean ^Results 05:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

 Declined Get a discussion going and achieve consensus here first then re-flag.--Tznkai (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that there was no consensus formed at INB on fully removing the term militant from the article. Even the user who [the thread] himself has not concluded to remove it completely from the article, which was supported by reliable sources like BBC, NY and one of the India’s national reliable sources - Times of India etc. --Googlean ^Results 06:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Criticism in lead

Pectore (talk · contribs) repeatedly removed criticism by United States Department of State and Paul R. Brass from lead [6], [7], [8]. I think this criticism is valid in the lead. Paul R. Brass is an authority in this field and has authored several books on region in India. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That may be correct but Pectore's reasoning is sound too. I would advise to find more sources that claim the same, because as long as there is only one source, it looks like a single scholar's opinion and thus POV when included in the lead. I think there is no real need to include it there anyway, as there is a whole section of criticism and you'd have to summarize it completely in the lead, not only one of them. So#Why ^{review me!} 15:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bajrang Dal is a right-wing religious fundamentalist and proto-fascistic organization the sole activity of which is anti-non Hindu and anti-non India agitations and violently. The sentence is:

“ Paul R. Brass, Professor Emeritus of Political Science and South Asian Studies at the University of Washington, described the Bajrang Dal as Indian equivalent of Nazi Germany's Sturmabteilung. ”

Paul R. Brass is noted for authoring books like The Production of Hindu-Muslim Violence in Contemporary India, The Politics of India Since Independence, Caste, Faction, and Party in Indian Politics, Language, Religion, and Politics in North India etc. The criticism I added is from the book Theft of an Idol: Text and Context in the Representation of Collective Violence. The book is published by Princeton University Press. It is the mainstream view that Bajrang Dal is a violent, militant and Nazi-style organization. You will find plenty of Islamic sources which simply label this organization as a terrorist group. The criticism is neither coming from any Muslim scholar nor from any Christian fundamentalist, the criticism is coming from a neutral third party academic. This article is about religious extremism. If you simply search google with Bajrang Dal + Nazi, you will find 4,510 ghits [9]. The criticism by an authoritative and neutral source like Brass have enough weight to be mentioned in the lead. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing. Again has anyone else made a comparison to the SA? No. While checking your ghits, nearly every link pointed to a blog. That is meaningless. Academics see the BD as a xenophobic, violent, regressive group (which is obvious and something the lead indicates) but only a tiny minority see it as Nazi.Pectore^talk 18:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Are we arguing for the inclusion of some comparison to Nazis or the comment by US Department of State? The violence initiated by Bajrang Dal seems pretty lame to be honest. The word extremist is used for groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, Al queda, insurgents in Iraq, etc. This group does not deserve to be put into the same category. I think the statement by the DoS should remain in the criticisms section, though more mention of their discriminatory activities and violent nature in the lead I think is appropriate. AzureFury (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Otolemur crassicaudatus will pov-mine sources that cite all Hindu religious bodies as terrorist movements if he could find citations. Trips (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no question that Paul Brass, one of the foremost political scientists studying India, represents the scholarly consensus, and so is quotable in the lead. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. He is the only researcher brought forth that makes the comparison to the SA. Scholarly consensus obviously depicts the group as militant and regressive (which it is), but throwing around comparisons which are real logical stretches takes away from the educational value of the page. Also, a quick google news search indicates most allegations of Nazism are trown around by groups hostile to the Dal such as "secular", "Christian", and "muslim" groups, all of whom regard the Bajrang Dal and other groups as "communal". The Bajrang Dal throws around some spurious accusations of its own, so we get this nice volley of insults none of which belong on wikipedia.Pectore^talk 16:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, Paul Brass is the foremost political scientist studying India, with the possible exception of Rajni Kothari. If he makes a comparison, it can be taken to represent mainstream thinking on the subject. That other people of less encyclopaedic usefulness may also have made similar statements is irrelevant. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipolicy says nothing on scholarly consensus, however WP:LEAD does state that "relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources" meaning that what is written in the lead should summarize the most notable aspects of the Dal. The Dal is famous for being: militant, regressive, nationalist, and fundamentalist. It can be argued who the proper political scientists are, but quantity and notability outweigh "respectability" in this regard because we cannot let this page become a soapbox. Putting terms like this in the lead, while not only being against wikipolicy, also undermine the purpose of balanced editing because they are sure to attract trolls on both sides of the spectrum.Pectore^talk 19:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. Sources are ranked according to reliability. The most reliable source has clearly pronounced on the scholarly consensus, so the discussion is closed. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. It is illogical to assume one person represents any form of consensus. If the comparison to the SA is made by one person alone, it certainly does not belong in the lead because it is hardly representative of what the Sangh is notable for. Also, just because a researcher says what you want him to say does not make him more reliable than any other (otherwise we would of course have Koenraad Elst and ilk as "respected experts"). The Dal is notable for being many things, the Indian SA certainly is not one of them.Pectore^talk 17:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Completely and utterly missing the point. He is reporting on the consensus in the academic community, not representing it. Is he capable of doing so? None better, whether or not I agree with him: he is "the leading South Asia political scientist in North America" and "the most distinguished political scientist working on Indian politics today" according to various scholarly reviews of his last book but one. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sri ram sena

Sri ram sena redirects to this article, but it is not mentioned in the article, so that someone like myself, who knows practically nothing about Sri Ram Sena and who is looking in the encylopaedia to find out something about it, is none the wiser. Because of the redirection, there should be some mention in the article about what Sri Ram Sena is and what the relationship to Bajrang Dal is. Coyets (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC) I don't undrstand how Bajrang Dal members are wearing western dresses and talking about preserving Hindu culture ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.108.3 (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sri Ram Sena now has its own article which explains the relationship, and no longer redirects to this article. So this omission has now been rectified. Coyets (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Bajrang Dal is a terrorist organization

Bajrang Dal is claimed as a terrorist organization from many sources... A lot of its members are facing trials in courts for Mumbai riots, 2002 riots, and recent anti christian riots. bajrang dal should be called either terrorist or anti-national organization . 96.52.193.72 (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither. Get the government to ban them and give it such a moniker, if you want us to call it terrorist, a la LTTE.Pectore^talk 19:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are. According to home ministry that they are a terrorist organization and the Government of India is in lookout of banning them soon as they already banned SIMI ([TOI ref]). On the other hand, Bajrang Dal chief dares government to ban the group (NDTV ref). --Googlean ^Results 05:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a quite simply policy here, namely WP:TERRORIST. At wikipedia, no organization should be labelled as 'terrorist'. If the government of India bans BD as a terrorist group, that should be mentioned in the article. If prominent persons/organizations demand that BD should be banned for terrorism it could be mentioned, but it should stay clear who is making the demand and in what context. --Soman (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Home ministry has made no such comment, only the home minister (who is a partisan of the INC, I might add). Lookout and action are two different things in India; i.e. the government is also supposed to provide education, healthcare, security and such (be on the lookout for the safety of citizens), certainly nothing has come of that. But I digress, the Government definition is "peacetime equivalents of war crimes", so unless the Govt calls it a terrorist group (different from banning it) theres no way to list it as such.Pectore^talk 02:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Not only by home minister alone, there are mounting pressures from many parts to ban/label them terrorists. (ref 1, ref 2). Can we consider killing minorities or burn people alive (Graham Staines & Orissa violence etc), raping and attacking others religions is a part of terrorism? Or only people who involved in bombing activities (like Al-Qaeda) are called terrorists? At any rate, Bajrang_Dal#Controversies much underlines their bad hand in those areas too. --Googlean ^Results 05:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(deindent). Your first link doesn't display anyone calling it terrorist, merely a prominent analyst stating they are getting too wild (which everyone agrees with). Your second link is laughable, Brinda Karat? She is diametrically on the opposite side of the political spectrum, of course she would call them "terrorist", she is a master of polemic. Next off, Dara Singh was not part of the BD when he murdered Graham Staines, neither were the accused Hembram's. And lastly, neither Hindus, Muslims, nor Christians (and by that I mean affiliated groups) in India have a monopoly on rape, killing, or attacking religions. If that was a criteria for terrorist, then most of India would be considered terrorists. And the last sentence of your reply just about sums up why we dont need to call them terrorist. Since nobody authoritative is doing so, we can pass our own judgement by reading about their zealotry and stupidity and come to our own conclusions.Pectore^talk 05:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Defeat<> You said above that only the home minister who is a partisan of the INC have commented it. Why laughable? I proved it saying with there are other fighters too in the line. Do you think that any BJP politicians would come & comment against them? And about Dara Singh (murderer) were too in the affiliated group (Dara Singh was earlier involved in the cow protection movement of the Bajrang Dal and had earlier targeted Muslim cattle traders.). --Googlean ^Results 07:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

googlean,pectore Please see talk page guidelines. This discussion is irrelevant here. Please remove this section as it in no way helps WP project.-Bharatveer (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a Militant Organisation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.32.110 (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

BD is not listed or regarded as a terrorist org by any government or international agency

'Nuff said Netaji 10:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

NO, look at the BBC reference. It is a terrorist organization. Your only making this defense of animals harder for yourself. --Disinterested 06:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I just read the bbc reference and the word terrorist is not mentioned anywhere. Try this sort of crazy jingiost propaganda into the article and it will be reported.Netaji 07:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I perused the BBC reference, and I agree with Netaji in that they have never been branded as terrorists. The other reference is from Times of India. The Left-wing media has always tried to establish them as a terrorist group, and the the first reference is one such example. It is a biased presentation (uses words such as "transpires" to associate Bajrang Dal with bomb blasts) that should not be regarded as evidence, especially so because the article title itself is in the form of a question, indicating that the journalist was merely suggesting a sensational idea.Banerjee.ritwik (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Militancy is an extremely serious accusation. The word "militant" appears on extremely visible portions of the Internet (e.g Google search snippet), and many casual Internet users who invariably take Wikipedia information at face value are continuously being misled. I urge the Wikipedia administrators to omit the "terrorist" word from this article until and unless such an accusation is legally proven. This being an apparently controversial topic, I would even go so far as to request Wikipedia make this page inaccessible unless this issue is resolved. The only hard evidence found by the police so far is confined to acts of hooliganism. The Graham Stein murder was carried out by a mob led by Dara Singh, who was a member of the Bajrang Dal. That does not implicate an entire organization. Several politicians and activists have been accused of crimes in the past, but we don't blame the entire political party they belong to, do we? The appearance of an unproven militant tag has severe consequences, especially since this same article also links to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in the same paragraph. The VHP has been responsible for various acts of good faith such as relief work in cases of natural disasters. Details of such charitable acts can be found in the book Divine Enterprise: Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Movement by Lisa KcKean. An encyclopaedia cannot simply blame a sub-organization of such an entity of militancy.Banerjee.ritwik (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Terrorist category

The Bajrang Dal has not even been accused of terrorism, so discuss its inclusion in the "Hindu terrorism" cat, which (if it serves any purpose at all) should only be used for terrorist attacks attributed to religious Hindu motivation.Pectore^talk 12:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Aatma Sarva Bhut hum hain bhut"

What does this part of a quote mean? I Googled it and there were only 148 hits, about the lowest I have ever seen. Any information on this as its' meaning should be explained. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 15:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Bajrang Dal is a 'Hindu' organisation

I think that is an incorrect label, Bajrang Dal should be called a 'Hindutva' organisation, not a Hindu org. Most 'Hindus' dont consider BD their organisation. Does anyone have an objection to this?--Pk1122 (talk) 05:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Bajrang Dal is a Hindu organization. Much like perhaps most Muslims don't consider the Indian Muslim League their political party, but we still describe it as Muslim.Pectore^talk 01:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

this is a fake and corrupt organisation. these type of organisation make the name of hindus dirty. this organisation is a black stigma on hindu. this organisation has no right to interfere in common peoples life. this is "pathang dal"

this organisation is a shame on hindus. these are criminals .how can they use the name of hanuman. who are they, these are illiterate persons having no sense,mentally ill, dirty, smelly hindus.

hindu peoples are peaceful peoples, are they.is their father give them the right to interfere in common mans life. this organisation is full of criminals, anti-hindu activists. shame on this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punisher86 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 February 2012

this is a fake organisation making the name of hanuman dirty. i am a hindu and worship this diety. this organisation has no orders to interfere in others life.half the members in this organisation are criminals. this type of organisation is a black stigma on hinduism.this is " pathang dal" Punisher86 (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 April 2012

The word 'militant' in the first paragraph should be replaced by 'religious and cultural reformists/activists/ warriors'. Few journals & media citations cant declare it as a militant group; unless, it is recognized by any respective government. The Bajarang Dal is neither recognized by government of India as militant group nor banned its activities(only a request is being made my minority groups to the government to ban it). Also, Tagging the word "militant" is religiously discriminatory, partial, and provocative.

1.23.43.133 (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: The use of the term militant is not well supported in any of the sources, but your recommended substitute is not acceptably neutral. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Dicitonary.com defines the term militant as (mil·i·tant  - vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of acause: militant reformers.) Now I dont find a reason or a substitue for this word as lets just say my vocabulary aint that strong. So help me here. I was the original person who got the word militant in this article, my inactivity on wikipedia has led to not only this page but many dozen others being edited in favor of fundamentalists and chauvinists. I revert the change militant - there is no consensus here. ALSO MILITANT DOES NOT EQUATE TO TERRORIST.....PEOPLE DEFINITELY NEED AN ENGLISH LESSON.

ALSO if the thought of editors here is that militant might cause a same negative effect on readers as it has on the editors...then lets change the word militant with an "organization that often uses violence to accomplish its objectives" THE INTRODUCTION SHOULD SUMMARIZE THE ARTICLE....AND THE CRITICISM IS HARDLY SUMMARIZED... Governments of the world might describe organizations as terrorist......i am just using the word militant...so please open up Oxfords dictionary and correct your vocabulary! Pranav21391 --Pranav (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Woah, calm down and remain civil. There is no need to all others "fundamentalists", "chauvinists" and insist that they "NEED AN ENGLISH LESSON". All Celestra said that the term "militant" is not supported well by the references -- and he is 100% correct -- the BBC news item doesn't use the word "militant" to describe Bajrang Dal at all. The word "militant" has strong connotations, and if you use it loosely ("someone engaged in aggressive _verbal_ or physical combat"), you can use it to describe probably half the organizations in the world. If you want to add something like "the organization has often used violence", feel free to do so with references. On a side note, here's a tip from a fellow atheist: be wary of violating WP:NPOV in your zeal to prove your non-religious credentials. utcursch | talk 22:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Edit request on 5 May 2013

Add the other national persident of Bajrang Dal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakashbd (talk • contribs)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. - You need to describe exactly what text in the article you are proposing a change to, and what your proposed new text would say. Also, please provide reliable sources which support the change. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 15:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 September 2013

I feel there is a mistake in the last line of the opening paragraph,where it describes Bajrang Dal's opposition to communal-ism; I believe that the word has been mistaken with communism.

92.22.159.130 (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done: Good catch on such a glaring mistake, that too in the lead. I won't be surprised if there are more mistakes in the rest of the article since it currently is in a bad state. Thank you and note that you shouldn't replace other people's posts, instead click on 'add topic' button above (See Wp:Talk page guidelines). -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

logo image

Please crop the logo image to exclude texts and website link. If possible than add more clear image of low resolution corresponding to fair use rationale. Regards. Nizil (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

done myself. -Nizil (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

POV terminology

@Ghatus: Why are we replacing neutral terminology with POV terminology here [10]? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, "Islamic Invasions" is not a PoV term. It is accepted worldwide. It was even used by socialist and Marxist like Nehru and Historian like R. Thapar. On the contrary, the previous terminology, "Invasions by Muslim Conquerors" was a PoV one. However, the most appropriate term would be "Turkic Muslim Invasions". Regards,Ghatus (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry this ping didn't reach me and I am just getting to see your reply. I don't know about Nehru, but Thapar certainly doesn't use the term. I would like you to show me where. I am happy with "Turkic Muslim invasions." ("Islamic invasion" suggests invasion in the name of Islam. Muslim invasion suggests invaders who happened to be Muslim.) Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

POV text in the discussion page

The indication of BAJRANG DAL as a group and writing it as a "Hindu extremist group" is not legal and fare as it hurts many Hindus and in the same way there are many cases where the countries support a single religion and are they all extremist of that religion? if this is the how this works then there are many cases where many countries like US and UK have supported Israel war with Palestine and if that is extremism, then this is extremism of Christian majority to the Palestine that was severely damaged. There is another example where the Book "Alternative story of Hinduism" by Wendy Doniger and her group of people who read Hinduism as a subject, has discriminated Hindu religion and its beliefs, this is a secularist view then why don't you describe in her page as secularist? But your view and proof less political comments are not sufficient to say BAJRANG DAL as an extremist group. So I would request the Wikipedia to delete the word "militant" and the other words like Hindu extremist, otherwise this shows your views towards a religious organization and your religions. Many readers feel this as the great knowledge hub and don't make the view to perish away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.162.204 (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The text on the discussion page above is POV. I vote for Delete. doles 18:00, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

• I am not sure about what is the policy of deletion on talk pages and whether POV text can be deleted on the talk pages. But if you can cite me relevant guidelines i will be more than happy to support your delete request as i think the above text is just patent nonsense. kaal 19:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I guess policy is as similar on other things - put out a request, wait for a good amount of time (5 days?) and then do what you have to do. By the way, i just have a hunch that some anonymous person is relentlessly trying to bring in POV stuff onto the article and talk page. anyways.
    • well you can nominate it for VFD. Let me know if you have a problem with the process. This article is constantly vandalized by anon users one way or the other. It simple cannot be helped. So keep an eye on it. kaal 21:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Please don't clutter VfD more than it already is. I think it's reasonable to leave the text here for a week, and if noone has objected, delete it. If someone has objected, we'll just determine the group consensus. Foobaz·o< 23:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Good suggestion. kaal 23:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2015

Please remove the word militant organisation. This organisation is purely a social and nationalist organisation. I strongly oppose the word militant organisation. Narender Gaur ( Vishwa Hindu Parishad Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Tel +91 8006603232 ) 116.202.34.64 (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -- Sam ^Sing! 12:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2015

This is not a militant organization as mentioned. Please rectify 116.14.74.215 (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There are currently reliable sources that state that it is a militant group; you need to provide sources which contradict that, for starters. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2015

request#1 It's unfair prejudice to use the word "militant" in The first line of article --->> "The Bajrang Dal (IPA:Bajaraṅga Dala) is a militant Hindu organization" The members of this organization are not armed or does not do any combat with anybody. Then there is no justification in using the word "militant" there. I doubt some person with political dislike against this organization created this article. 117.207.233.181 (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The sources presented in the article state that this is a militant group. If you wish to change this, please find equally weighty sources which say otherwise. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2015

you should right there a [The Bajrang Dal (IPA:Bajaraṅga Dala) is a militant terrorist Hindu organization that forms the youth wing] if you are true people,because they r involved in killing of 720 innocent muslims.[According to the Human Rights Watch, Bajrang Dal had been involved in riots against Muslims in the 2002 Gujarat violence.[12]. Talha uzair (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this would run counter to Wikipedia's policy on using contentious words without wide-spread reliable sources. In addition, the Indian government does not list them on their list of terrorism organizations. Please see the discussions above as well. Inomyabcs (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Logo

The logo shown is incorrect, the correct logo is available here :- http://vhp.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Bajarang-Dal-Logo.JPG Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the logo that was present in the article. I do not have the technical knowhow to make the adjustments for fair use; if anybody does, that would be appreciated. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)