Talk:Hindu American Foundation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Press release

This article relies too much on a Press release. Please review WP:RS in order to avoid drastic cuts. Hornplease 19:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In particular, some form of neutral review or RS evaluation would be useful. Compare to, for example, the article on CAIR. Hornplease 22:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

As explained here the following was deleted in the article by Hornplease (talk · contribs) but no reason was put on the talkpage. Why was it deleted, and how could it be improved.. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_American_Foundation&diff=125596610&oldid=98002055 The report documents the long history of anti-Hindu atrocities in Bangladesh, a topic that many Indians and Indian governments over the years have preferred not to acknowledge. Such atrocities, including targeted attacks against temples, open theft of Hindu property, and rape of young Hindu women and enticements to convert to Islam, have increased sharply in recent years after the Jamat-e-Islami joined the coalition government led by the Bangladesh National Party.The report concludes with:

“ Some Indians may feel uncomfortable with this report because they do not want to be reminded about the problems of Hindus outside their milieu. And for some in the Indian intelligentsia, it is a badge of honour to distance themselves from these pogroms as a mark of their supposed enlightenment, oddly trashing their own ethos in the process. Many more Indians are reluctant to speak out against atrocities committed against Hindus for fear of being labeled "communal". Merely speaking about human rights for Hindus is for them a form of communalism ”

The people whose persecution is amply documented in this report are being persecuted because they are Hindu, not because they are poor or because of their political views. Human rights activists in Bangladesh and Pakistan, many of whom are not Hindus, have painstakingly documented the violations of basic human rights of Hindus in their country.Librorum Prohibitorum (talk)

Merger

HAF has been advocating other causes, and is not just involved in the California textbook controversy. They had successfully challenged a license with religious overtones; see, http://www.hinduamericanfoundation.org/issues/legal?q=media/pr/20081211_sc_plate_blocked

Raj2004 (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not support merger of the two articles because HAF as an organization should be the focus of a distinct article, and I think that it is useful to keep the details of the California textbook case around as a separate article. My sense is that there may be a need for another article related to the issues that HAF addresses that show up in other contexts, such as the opposition to some Western academics. Examples of HAF activity not related to the California textbook issue include:

• Overview article on HAF from Hinduism Today explains the general operations: [1]
• The Texas textbook issue: [2]
• Participation in Council on Foreign Relations roundtable on "Hindu Activism in India and America: Implications for US-India Relations" [3]
• Interfaith efforts with Jewish community regarding academic bias: [4]

Buddhipriya (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

POV

This article makes the HAF appear as the Indian-American counterpart to Amnesty International. It completely misses the organisation's links to the VHP (see Times of India). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

VictoriaGrayson, why do you keep reverting to the propaganda version? The version I posted contains a description that is backed by reliable sources that are independent of the subject, rather than the HAF's self description, which is less informative (by the nature of such descriptions) and inconsistent with what outsiders report on the HAF. "Consensus" among a bunch of WP:SPAs and IP editors is no excuse for ignoring policy. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I agre with Qwertyus that the article should include criticism found in reliable academic source, and not rely on the organizations own selfrepresenation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

·maunus - including criticism is one thing - but "just" writing criticism starting with lead is wrong. The article lead is now completely looking like it is a neo-nazi organization - which is factually incorrect. It is a lobby group and not a pressure group. I have updated to reflect it as such . --Sdmarathe (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The term "pressure group" has no "nazi" connotations in English as far as I know. It means "lobby group" or "advocacy group", calling it a human rights group is however obviously misleading.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you see the lead statement of "takes a Neo-Hinduist, monotheist stance.[2]" ? That is not how it really is. It is a lobby group and not pushing for neo-hinduism or monotheist stance - which is factually incorrect since Hinduism is clearly polytheist religion. You can not allow POV statements in the first lead statement. --Sdmarathe (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The source cited for "neo-hinduist stance" is a reliable source. Presumably you can support your claim that the description is erroneous with another reliable sources?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with VictoriaGrayson and Sdmarathe. HAF should be treated like any other advocacy group. HAF was modeled after, and started with help of, American Jewish Committee. It is just another advocacy group.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedpov (talk • contribs)

VictoriaGrayson has not commented. And no one has argued that HAF should be treated different than any other advocacy group. Just as with any advocacy group that has been subjected to significant criticism in reliable published sources, that criticism will go in the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The lead is indeed a bit over the top. "Neo-Hinduist" and "modern-Hinduist" don't appear in the source. The source actually says "non-profit human rights organisation for Hindu Americans." There is no evidence that HAF's Hinduism is different from Hinduism elsewhere. So this is not the place beat the "neo" drum.

I have located much better sources. I will rework the lead. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Both terms appear literally in the source, Pyong Gap Min (2010). I'm curious what better sources you have than a scholarly monograph. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sdmarathe, Unbiasedpov and Kautilya3.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Qwertyus: The term "Hinduist" appears nowhere in the book or, in fact, in any scholarly source. You or whoever wrote the lead made it up.

If you read the text on p. 32 without any POV, it is clear that the text is talking about "modern Hinduism" (written in quotes) that is said to have come up in the 19th century, and it is using HAF's explanation of it as an illustration. The text is nowhere saying that this so-called "modern Hinduism" is different from just Hinduism. To use it as a label for the organisation is a gross distortion.

Whether this so-called "modern Hinduism" is different from Hinduism or not, is a big scholarly debate. It is undue COATRACK to get into that issue here. If you have a source that says that HAF's Hinduism is different from ordinary Hinduism, please produce it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I seem to have made the mistake (based on my native language's use of terms) of presuming "Hinduist" is a neutral adjective form of "Hindu"/"Hinduism". If that's not the case in English, I won't use it anymore.

I don't care much for the "Neo-" or "Modern" label, but I find it interesting to note that the HAF takes a theological stance, as the (removed) source establishes by citing its particular exposition of Hindu mono-/henotheism. Hindu diaspora organizations have stressed both mono- and polytheistic aspects of Hinduism, depending on political circumstances [5]; which of these is "ordinary Hinduism"? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, Hinduism is both mono- and polytheistic. See Hinduism#Concept of God. So Hindus are in fact in a happy position to claim both. Whether doing so in a particular circumstance is politically motivated or not, is not a judgement that Wikipedia should make. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Prema Kurien's book, which I have included in the sources and intend to draw upon in further edits, is quite excellent when taken as a political sociology work. But I wouldn't depend on it for an accurate treatment of theological or religious aspects. For those issues, there are plenty of excellent sources cited in the Hinduism article. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to make the claim that the HAF's position is politically motivated, just to provide the information and let the reader decide what to make of it. If you think that goes against WP:UNDUE or WP:SYN, I'll drop it. The new lede is much better than what we had, btw., so thanks for that, and sorry for the confusion. Only thing is that the source for the VHP is now missing, and I preferred Maunus's more carefully hedged formulation... QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, what was mentioned in the original source is not visibly different from an ordinary Hindu's understanding of Hinduism. If a source says otherwise, we can include it. Prema Kurien does seem to say it, but I will need to dig deeper to see if there is substance in her criticism. Regarding the VHP links, the source I used is the page 159 of the Kurien book. The strategy of taking over the leadership is typical of the Sangh Parivar. HAF is not a member of the Sangh Parivar, but it may yet become one some day. The framework is in place. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed

Kautilya3 is {{r|whospeaks}} the source for the "axis of countries" bit? There's a {{cn}} on that now, and I can't access the full text of that source. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Somehow irritatingly this article didn't show up on my watch list yesterday. In any case, the nearest citation is what applies, in this case the Prema Kurien article. It is on JSTOR. So you should be able to get it if you sign up to Wikipedia library. Or, you can send me email via my user page, and I can send you a copy. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that is in the Vinay Lal book, p. 122. The citation was lost when our friend deleted the sentence in the middle for reasons he knows best.

Incidentally, should this article be in EngvarB (British English) as most Hinduism articles are? - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I checked to see where else this "axis" idea appears and came upon this article [6]. Also loads of other links [7]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent review

@HemaChandra:, Welcome to Wikipedia. I am reverting most of your edits to the article. Here is why:

• Your citation needed tags were spurious because you didn't look at the citations that existed.
• Take Yoga Back is controversial because it was opposed by a number of scholars and commentators. Including Ramesh Rao's support for it is WP:UNDUE unless you can show that he is representative of significant supporting opinion among scholars.
• Yoga was "secularlised" according to the citation I have given, not "appropriated". Using it in a school without a religious slant is secularisation.
• For the California textbook controversy, a main article link has been added. That should be enough to check for sources and details.

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 Fair enough. BTW, I'm still not convinced about California textbook controversy. I have edited it again. HemaChandra88 (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@HemaChandra88: The protocol we follow is WP:BRD. When an edit is reverted, we discuss the issue on the talk page and come to a consensus before making the same edit again. In this particular case, you haven't yet told us what you are not satisfied about. You have been referred to the main article on the California textbook controversy over Hindu history. Any further issues you have with it should be taken up on its talk page. As far as this page is concerned, the only thing that matters is whether the summary included here is faithful to that article. I think it is. If you disagree, please state your objection. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: My objection is about the phrase 'multiple organization commented the textbook issue as revisionist'. The citation only refers to DFN as the party stating it as revisionist. I have stated this in my edit summary.HemaChandra88 (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand, but you seem to have ignored the edit summary provided here [8]. It seems that you are quibbling on form rather than substance. Since this is a summary of another article, the entire article should not be copied here, just the main points. So, your objections, if they are substantive, should be raised at the main article, not here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 How is using 'DFN' instead of 'multiple organization' hampering summarization? Infact, there's an error of cardinality. HemaChandra88 (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It is misleading and inaccurate to suggest that a single group was involved when multiple groups were involved. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• WP:BRD is not a Wikipedia policy.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No, but it is the recommended protocol, designed by editor with loads of experience. You would violate it at your own peril. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hindu American Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928044606/http://www.pacificislands.cc/news/2006/07/18/washingtondc-second-annual-report-on-hindu-human-rights-released to http://www.pacificislands.cc/news/2006/07/18/washingtondc-second-annual-report-on-hindu-human-rights-released

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Advertisement

• Wikipedia shall not have an "About Us" page. The strategic inclusion of one/two single positive review(s) among tens of critical ones runs afoul of WP:NPOV.
• A major chunk of Activism section is sourced to Press Releases or outright unreliable sources.
• A major part of Human Rights section is sourced to the website of the subject or outright unreliable sources.
• The lead does not mention any of the significant criticism.
• The criticism section has been watered down over the years including by you, LovaLova. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Reception

• In the final section of the chapter I briefly illustrate how religious groups deploy multiculturalism and claims to authenticity to stifle internal contestations within communities...

  The episode [California Textbook Controversy] underlined how the framing of authentic and exclusive religious identity promoted by a multicultural discourse ignores the internal contestations within the community about religion, identity, and representation. It illustrates the problems associated with using an exclusive religious framing to mobilize against racialization, as evident in many campaigns led by organizations such as American Hindus against Defamation (AHAD), Federation of Hindu Associations (FHA), and Hindu American Foundation (HAF).

  These groups, actively engaged with the California textbook issue, have projected Hinduism as characterized by its greatness, antiquity, tolerance, pluralism, nonviolence, and theological sophistication. The groups have also worked against the negative stereotyping of Hinduism as “polytheistic,” “idol-worshipping,” “caste-ridden,” and “misogynistic.” However, they used the language and ideology of multiculturalism and recognition not only to partly challenge U.S. racism but to also impose their narrow and orthodox interpretations of Hinduism that was not open to the issues of caste oppression and gender inequality. To the extent that they challenged racism and ethnocentrism, their opposition was through a narrow prism of “authentic” religious identity that is not conducive to broader panethnic antiracial mobilizations...

  HAPAC is a relatively small and new entity, but it has some of the same donors and supporters who are actively involved with the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), a well-established organization that has been criticized for its alleged closeness to Hindu nationalist politics in India.
  — Mishra, Sangay K. (2016-03-01). Desis Divided : The Political Lives of South Asian Americans. University of Minnesota Press. p. 101-103, 215. ISBN 978-0-8166-8115-0.

  TrangaBellam (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  Audrey_Truschke#Litigation can be copied to this article. As can Anti-Hindu_sentiment#Definitions be. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  User:Kautilya3, you can prob. use this source. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  User:Vanamonde93, I have restored this edit. Mishra makes the same point. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Hindutva § Adding new section on Dismantling Global Hindutva Conference

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hindutva § Adding new section on Dismantling Global Hindutva Conference. 2405:201:D01B:6A8D:79EE:DEE8:A99C:F871 (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Lalit K. Jha

This brief bio describes himself as the "chief U.S. correspondent" of PTI.

He wrote this article on the HAF complaint on the DGH conference, which the Outlook taglined as a PTI newsfeed. The Print ignored marking it as a newsfeed.

The article says:

Organised by several groups, many of whom are known for their anti-India stand, the Dismantling Global Hindutva was held virtually around September 11 and was sponsored and co-sponsored by several American universities, the HAF said.

Who are these groups? As far as I know, they have not published the names of the organisers. Only the sponsoring Universities have been named. They can hardly be labelled "anti-India". What is going on here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3, the italicized portion is quoted to the HAF. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but that is not the way to quote a dubious statement evident propaganda from an involved party. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This man has a history of tom-tomming the HAF happenings. In cases like this, we have to go to truly reliable sources, such as The Hindu, The Stateman and The Telegraph. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I prefer sources carry statements of different sides verbatim, even if they are ridiculous. But, one's report must make it clear to the reader about those claims which are unsubstantiated or outright nonsense. Which is clearly missing here. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

How is the Hindu a truly reliable source when it openly vilifies Hindus and Promotes Islamism in India? Jonathankent673 (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent deletions

WP:RSP notes our editorial community to consider Al Jazeera as a generally reliable news organization. The Bridge initiative is a multi-year research project on Islamophobia housed in Georgetown University and runs under the tutelage of a very reputed scholar. Your opinion on their funding or quality of articles is irrelevant. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hildebrandglossop: - As alerted at your talk page, you have breached 3RR. Please self-revert and discuss your issues. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The content added here also fails our policy on no original research, as it's not explicitly supported by the sources. I've restored the sourced version; I do not see an issue with the sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hildebrandglossop: You seem to be repeatedly calling the source as biased; it is by policy that a source can be biased. Neutrality and WP:DUE doesn't apply to the reliable sources, but to the article text. Please read the relevant policies. WikiLinuz (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Chaturvedi

https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/hindu-right-academic-freedom/

At some point of time in near future, we need to state outright that HAF is an advocacy organization of the Hindu Hindu Right in USA. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3, do you know of this report (see penultimate paragraph) by a Hindutva organization in California? TrangaBellam (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Another article in The Hindu. But I still don't know which organisation he is speaking of. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Again why is the Hindu being considered a reliable source? It openly vilifes hindus and advocates Islamist Politics. Jonathankent673 (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Is CAG scholarly?

@TrangaBellam: Regarding this edit; Should we say Coalition Against Genocide as a scholarly group? From what I can tell, CAG isn't exactly a scholarly collective, and taking a quick peek into their site, we can see strong opinions against the Modi Govt. That's why I attributed the accusation to CAG in adherence with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. WikiLinuz (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not acquainted enough with CAG - you are probably correct. Sangay Mishra of Drew University makes the same points. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Recent kerfuffle on caste

HAF has taken a quite interesting line of legal argumentation, which needs to be described in our article. They are caste-apologists at the end of the day (or night) but the details are important. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I was going through their tweets wherein they claim that being the perpetrators of caste discrimination is only reserved for S. Asian (Hindu -?) faculties, unlike other clauses which affected everybody, and a minority immigrant community was subject to a greater risk of being penalized. That concern is understandable but can an Australian (or Nigerian) student raise a complain of caste discrimination against an Indian? I do not think that it is allowed and the complainant needs to be a S. Asian (Hindu -?) as well. So, ... ?

I set out on writing a NPOV paragraph but it is so difficult to obtain a coherent point from HAF acrobatics. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiLinuz, if you are acquainted with the discourse, can you summarize the arguments of HAF in a paragraph (that makes sense to a reader outside of their own coterie)? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The crux of the argument that HAF and the faculty members of CSU are that, singling out a micro-minority Indian (and South Asian) diaspora would (unfairly) target Hindu faculty for policing and disparate treatment. They further claim it to be unconstitutional as there are already federal laws that'd include ancestry and culture. Anyway, it's already amended in the current version of CSU's policy.

Rough draft

HAF has objected the inclusion of "caste" as a protected category in California State University's anti-discrimination policy; they had sent letters concerning the issue to the CSU Board of Trustees and Chancellor, and the California Faculty Association President. More than 80 faculty members of CSU had also protested the insertion of caste in its system-wide anti-discrimination policy stating that, "this addition is a misguided overreach [...] it will cause more discrimination by unconstitutionally singling out and targetting Hindu faculty of Indian and South Asian descent." According to Thenmozhi Soundararajan, executive director of Equality Labs, "although caste is already covered by other categories, making it an explicit category would spur institutions to actions, including collecting data." She further adds, "once it's listed, institutions then will build competency around it." Sunil Kumar, professor of engineering at San Diego State University, claims the study by Equality Labs to be "unscientific" and "biased". According to a report produced by Institute of International Education and the U.S. State Department, India is second to China in sending most international students to the United States; thus, various student government associations representing the 23 colleges in the CSU passed a resolution to counter caste discrimination. According to HAF Executive Director, Suhag Shukla, "Combatting discrimination of all kind is a shared goal, but mandating disparate treatment of only Indian and South Asian faculty with a non-facially neutral class is discriminatory and not a solution." However, Soundararajan accuses HAF of "caste bigotry, disinformation, and attacks on cast oppressed people [...]" She adds, "Their leadership is dominant-caste and often uses intimidatory tactics to peddle falsehoods." Nevertheless, recognition of caste as a dimension of discrimination is gaining institutional support in the US academia; for instance, Harvard University signed an agreement with its Graduate Student Union in December including caste as a protected category.

References

HAF, on their site, claims that The State of California (on Cisco System's case) asserted the caste system as a "strict Hindu social and religious hierarchy", and therefore an integral part of Hindu teachings and practice, meaning if you're a Hindu, you must discriminate. But at this point, this isn't a social issue anymore; rather a theological one. Theological assertions (being a different sphere) can only be dealt with theological corroborations; and, there are enough verses from the primary Hindu scriptures that'd disapprove the current discriminatory Indian caste system. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 01:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

They are caste-apologists at the end of the day - caste favory is a real issue, and it's vital to amend explicit policies in place where the concentration of casteism may be higher. We should be vigilant when these "caste oppression denialist" claims come from a Brahmin cartel, as no one would like to show themselves in a bad light. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 01:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Claiming Caste Apologism and Brahmin Cartel are ad hominem attacks. You could just as well be called a Caste Shamer or a Caste Industrialist. Jonathankent673 (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'd remind participants here that we ought to focus on the content, not on general discussion of caste in the US. I think it is worth including HAF's activity related to this issue, but we shouldn't be including commentary from individuals who are not a priori reliable sources. Sunil Kumar's comment, for instance, is undue weight. I would recommend a sentence summarizing CSU's action, followed by a couple of sentences about HAF's activities, followed by reactions to HAF's activities. Any other content is tangential here. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. We could refine the rough draft before writing it to the mainspace. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 18:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

See Caste discrimination in the United States where all this has been covered. I have't seen HAF being mentioned in any secondary source. So I don't see any need to add anything here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Equality Labs study is unscientific and biased. In fact, they have toned down their own findings in their headline figures, so as to not totally ridiculous. (They say 25% of Dalits faced "verbal or physical assaults". But inside the report, the figure for verbal assaults is a lot higher!) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Not really read through all of the sources but I agree that Equality Lab's survey is junk. That being said, HAF has got coverage wrt the CSU anti-discrimination policy. About two or three lines are all, that is needed. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Unbalanced article

Hi, everyone! I invite everyone to improve this article to make it more neutral and re-organized. More than 50% of the information in this article is focused on negative news and it is hard to understand if the organization is about nationalists who use it in the US to achieve their goals or this is the organization that defends Hindu rights in the US but has some controversies related to its founders and other activity. Since HAF is not an extremist organization, I believe this doesn’t reflect the activity of the organization in full making this encyclopedia article biased and one-sided. For example, most of the summary section is related to negative information and half of the Establishment section, which is supposed to be on the milestones of the organization’s development is also negative. I found a lot of articles that might help to re-balance the article and make it look more neutral and encyclopedic. I would like to share them in the coming weeks and open a new discussion on how to improve this article here. If you have your own ideas, please, share. Also, if we don’t reach consensus, maybe it would be a good idea to go to the Noticeboard of appeals, where we can invite more editors to improve it. --Evilfreethinker (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written by summarising reliable sources. So "unbalanced" means an unbalanced coverage of those published viewpoints. Your own viewpoints are immaterial here. So, I am afraid your spiel above does not establish anything is "unbalanced". Unless you are ready to bring published reliable souces, the banner template you added will be removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

If anything, the textbook section is quite mild and deserves a rewrite. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Attacks on Academic Freedom vs Controversies

I actually agree with Unbh that "Attacks on Academic Freedom" should be renamed to "Controversies". The reason is that the wording Attacks on Academic Freedom is in itself controversial while the HAF has the same constitutional freedom under the US laws to file lawsuits in the civil domain. The same can be said about any lawsuit when one side files a lawsuit legally but somehow attacks the other side's freedom to do something different. Ultimately, it is the US courts who decide who is right or wrong in each case, so the organization doesn't do anything unlawful here. So, this section's name is more an opinion about the subject, which is controversial. The new section "Controversies" encompasses all the lawsuits and make the article less opiniated.2601:1C0:CB01:2660:B433:771F:24C2:833C (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be something more neutral than the current title. 'Controversies' may be too vague but something like 'academic influence Controversies' might be better than the current, which is very loadedUnbh (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:B433:771F:24C2:833C (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

We are primarily beholden to scholars, a vast majority of whom find HAF to attack academic freedom in a variety of ways. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

we are beholden to reliable sources, not opinions, and none of the sources in the section even appear to explicitly call these 'attacks on academic freedom' thiough some cite opinions which come close. The title of the section as it stands is not sufficiently neutral. Clearly the HAF undertake some very problematic activities, but this presentation is not in line with policy.Unbh (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Caste

It's been a long time but probably, somebody had taken the onus of writing a decent paragraph summarizing HAF's recent positions on caste - what happened since? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

HAF objected the inclusion of "caste" as a protected category in California State University's anti-discrimination policy. This policy change was enacted in 2021 after years of effort by Dalit activists, including self-identified Hindus, who argued that caste-based discrimination is a pervasive problem in the United States and that it is under-reported due to a lack of existing protections (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-20/csu-adds-caste-to-its-anti-discrimination-policy). According to Thenmozhi Soundararajan, executive director of Equality Labs, "although caste is already covered by other categories, making it an explicit category would spur institutions to actions, including collecting data." She further adds, "once it's listed, institutions then will build competency around it." (https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/group-opposes-protection-from-caste-discrimination-in-california-varsitys-faculty-union/article38319866.ece) HAF maintains that caste-based discrimination is a social ill but opposes any policies to specifically address the discrimination, claiming that such policies target upper-caste Hindus (https://time.com/6146141/caste-discrimination-us-opposition-grows/). HAF's leadership is predominantly upper caste (https://theprint.in/world/misguided-professors-at-us-university-want-caste-removed-from-anti-discrimination-policy/811727/).

HAF maintains that caste is not part of Hinduism, even while they acknowledge its reality as a social practice. Despite HAF's opposition, recognition of caste as a dimension of discrimination is gaining institutional support in the US academia; for instance, Harvard University signed an agreement with its Graduate Student Union in December including caste as a protected category (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/harvard-adds-caste-bias-protections-graduate-student-workers-rcna7279). Shahinshah121 (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam ready to post? Shahinshah121 (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

No - this is poor drafting. How is Thenmozhi Soundararajan significant enough to get so much coverage? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It was from an earlier draft, by someone else. Draft 2:

HAF objected to the inclusion of "caste" as a protected category in California State University's anti-discrimination policy. This policy change was enacted in 2021 after years of effort by Dalit activists, including self-identified Hindus, who argued that caste-based discrimination is a pervasive problem in the United States and that it is under-reported due to a lack of existing protections (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-20/csu-adds-caste-to-its-anti-discrimination-policy; https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/group-opposes-protection-from-caste-discrimination-in-california-varsitys-faculty-union/article38319866.ece). HAF maintains that caste-based discrimination is a social ill but opposes any policies to specifically address the discrimination, claiming that such policies target upper-caste Hindus (https://time.com/6146141/caste-discrimination-us-opposition-grows/). HAF's leadership is predominantly upper caste (https://theprint.in/world/misguided-professors-at-us-university-want-caste-removed-from-anti-discrimination-policy/811727/). Despite HAF's opposition, recognition of caste as a dimension of discrimination is gaining institutional support in the US academia, at Harvard and other institutions.(https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/harvard-adds-caste-bias-protections-graduate-student-workers-rcna7279). Shahinshah121 (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam Shahinshah121 (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

since no more edits, put on main page Shahinshah121 (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Re-drafted. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

updated to include mention of October 2022 lawsuit. Shahinshah121 (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

"Visa to Narendra Modi" section

Weirdly, the current revision of the article has a period and two citations under section Hindu_American_Foundation#Visa_to_Narendra_Modi (to be expanded in the future?) It seems like it was added by TB on this diff. I wasn't sure if there were a guideline that allowed this format. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 16:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Though it ought be merged to the section on Hindu Nationalism? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that's more apt (since it isn't much significant to have its own sub-section, is it?). --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 23:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

"Lead too short" and "POV" tags

Hi, just wanted to mention some issues this article probably needs to work on:

- The lead needs to be expanded to talk more about HAF's history, activities, etc.

- The article focuses a lot on HAF's Hindu nationalist activities / ties -- which are important -- but doesn't really talk much about HAF's other work -- for example, their advocacy around recognition of the Bangladesh genocide. We also need to include / summarize some of HAF's rebuttals to some of the criticisms discussed in this article.

Llightex (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

No issues with the lead tag, but if you wish to tag this for POV, you need to show evidence that reliable sources cover their other activities in similar detail. Due weight determined by their activity, but by what RS have to say. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Here are some:

- https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/their-masters-voice-in-washington/289551 - "The Hindu America Foundation was started in 2003 to serve as an advocacy voice for the estimated two million Hindus in America. Before I moved to Washington DC, I often wondered what is the need, for example, for a separate Filipino America group or a Baha’i American group. But I realized that as US politics changes, it still manages to stay the same. Many people land their first internship because their grandfather went to Yale with a particular Congress member or because their father hung out at the same yacht club as a Senator. If you are a son of immigrants like myself, groups like the Hindu America Foundation are critical—they help you find your way, they connect you to a network, and most importantly, they give you encouragement, something often uncommon among Indian Americans"

- https://www.tmz.com/2021/03/23/simpons-creator-apu-pushback-hindu-american-foundation-stereotype-bullying/ - "Matt's getting pushback from the Hindu American Foundation for his recent comments on Apu -- he told USA Today he's proud of the character, despite HAF and many others claiming Apu is a walking stereotype."

- https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/pakistan-threatens-hindu-american-body-for-exposing-1971-genocide-in-bangladesh-2450908 - "A prominent Hindu American advocacy group alleged on Thursday that it has been threatened by Pakistan for recently launching a website exposing the role of the Pakistan Army in the 1971 genocide in Bangladesh."

- https://newsd.in/hindu-american-foundation-writes-to-tom-lantos-panel-on-kashmir/

- https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/hindu-american-kp-groups-urge-us-to-take-action-against-jem-masood-119022100292_1.html

- https://www.journalinquirer.com/news/activist-objects-to-museum-selling-toys-of-hindu-deities/article_bff6c984-5151-11ed-a886-d3cfeef1ea04.html Llightex (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

(admittedly, some of these straddle the border between Hindu nationalism and non-Hindu nationalism activities, but they aren't all focused on the former) Llightex (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Apu/Simpson - trivial mention.

Newsd - See the disclaimer at the bottom. Unedited IANS feed.

Business Standard - See the disclaimer at the bottom. Unedited PTI feed.

The Outlook article is decent and I will put it to use. Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. What’s the issue with IANS/PTI? Aren’t they like the Associated Press? Llightex (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

ANI/IANS feed has been held to be unreliable by the community. Unsure about PTI, tbh. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

More articles (some seem to be on blacklist though):

- https://organiser .org/2022/10/30/97479/world/the-proclamation-of-hindu-awareness-and-appreciation-month-in-usa/amp/

- https://www.wbur.org/news/2022/10/19/peabody-essex-museum-hindu-plush-toys-modi-toys

- https://www.opindia. com/2022/06/increased-security-for-hindu-temples-in-usa-demanded-after-robberies/ Llightex (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they are on a blacklist after being held to be blanket-unreliable. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

- https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2022/11/03/election-related-hate-at-center-of-news-conference-held-by-greater-houston-coalition-for-civility-in-elections/— Preceding unsigned comment added by Llightex (talk • contribs)

Local news of no significance. Our article is not their "Media Coverage" section. Btw, you have declared a COI with our subject and I appreciate the transparency; can you let me know whether (1) you are a volunteer/employee of the HAF and (2) you have been required or requested by HAF to improve this article. [Even if you answer both in affirmative, you can continue to propose changes at t/p.] TrangaBellam (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I have not declared a COI with HAF. I declared a COI with Hindus for Human Rights because of my past work with them; HfHR is literally being sued by HAF. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I have not been requested or required by any organization for my contributions to this article. Llightex (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

To answer your first question, I am also not a volunteer/employee at the HAF. Llightex (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah; my apologies. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

No worries! :) Llightex (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Lightex, I do not oppose all of your changes but the new lead is NOT okay. Please post your proposed changes to the t/p. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I have not examined the rest of the changes made, but we should not be relying on their website for any substantive content; this is true for any organization really, but for an advocacy group in particular. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I just posted the new lead in a new section on this talk page. Do note that per WP:PGBOLD, it's always best when reverting an edit due to lack of consensus to explain the reason for reverting in the edit summary beyond just "no consensus". Moreover, if the issue is only about a particular section such as the lead, you should consider reverting just the lead as opposed to all the subsequent edits in other sections. Llightex (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You shall not expect that a lead, drafted using random news sources, will pass muster. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Defamation Suit

Judgement. Can also be obtained from PACER.

I wonder if the guys at HAF do not really understand basic English or is it posturing before a far-right Twitter audience? Won't be surprised if their theatrics get treated as contempt. Kautilya3, fyi. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

In plain English (whose fan I am), it seems that HAF said "they lied about us". And the Court said, "no, they just expressed an opinion". Case closed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

In legal English, the Court "finds that HAF fails to plausibly plead that any statement made by any defendant is verifiably false". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Kinda true but the Court did find that the defendants (Vishwanath and Truschke) made certain non-opinionated claims which can be adjudicated as verifiably false (or true). However, the lack of proven malice meant that even if the claims were proved to be false at a fact-finding stage in trial, defamation could not be claimed. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

But, we care when people are lying irrespective of whether they have malice or not. So, what may be important in court (malice) is not important to us. Neither is it important to HAF. So, this is quite irrelevant. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, my point was that the Court did not determine whether the defendants' non-opinionated statements were true or false contrary to the portrayal by HAF. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

LiveLaw covered it nicely. I can't say that I agree with the court. Those statements alleging that HAF "spreads hate" seem defamatory to me. I would have liked to see whether they are true or not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed new lead

@Vanamonde93, @TrangaBellam, here's the proposed new lead -- feel free to edit the below or add suggestions:

---

The Hindu American Foundation (abbr. HAF) is an American Hindu advocacy group founded in 2003. HAF was the first Hindu advocacy organization to have a professional organizational structure and full-time staff and widely considered to be the most prominent Hindu advocacy organization in the United States. Areas of HAF's advocacy include highlighting Hindu persecution in other countries, education on Hinduism in the United States, and portrayal of concepts such as yoga and the swastika.

Founded in 2003, the organization has its roots in the Hindu nationalist organization Vishwa Hindu Parishad America and its student wing Hindu Students Council. Its current executive director is Suhag Shukla.

According to critics, HAF's activism aligns with Hindu nationalism and targets academic freedom, as evidenced by various actions such as its textbook revisionism in California and opposition to the Dismantling Global Hindutva academic conference. HAF has also pursued an aggressive legal strategy for its advocacy, which includes challenging bans on caste discrimination. In 2021, HAF sued various individuals from advocacy groups such as Hindus for Human Rights in a defamation lawsuit regarding their statements of HAF's ties to Hindu nationalist groups. In December 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the lawsuit.

---

Llightex (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The defemation suit is not lead-worthy. Quint, Religion News etc. are poor sources to draft the lead. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, scholarly sources broadly describe this organization as aligned with the Hindutva movement. That receives far more attention in scholarly sources than anything about their structure or their discussion of swastikas. We need to frame the lead based on scholarly sources. Also; their statement about caste is fundamentally at odds with how sociology sees it. The Kurien source I have access to does not examine their statement at all, presumably because the author assumes the readers know that; however, discussing it sans context isn't appropriate either. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Precisely. A few months ago, I wrote the last paragraph of the "Hindu nationalist ties" section:

Academic and journalists have also documented money trails linking HAF to other Sangh Parivar groups via their donors. Sonia Sikka, an academic specializing on the intersections of the religious and the political, notes clear alignments between HAF's activities and the politics of Hindutva Nationalism despite their claims to non-partisanship. Nishant Upadhyyay, a professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, specializing in gender and sexuality studies finds HAF's queer-friendly portrayal of Hinduism to be embedded within a discourse of Hindutva homonationalism. Chad Bauman, a professor of religion at Butler University, contends HAF's portrayal of Hinduism to be misleadingly monolithic and sanitized, in service of a political agenda. HAF denies these charges, claims to non-partisanship, and has filed a defamation suit against a wide range of organisations and individuals that alleged its links to Hindutva. Nonetheless, Arun Chaudhuri, an anthropologist of religion and politics at York University, cautions that such disavowals are not be taken as face value but rather as efforts at distancing from the negative connotations of Hindu Nationalism. Sailaja Krishnamurti, a professor at Saint Mary's University (Halifax) who specializes in religious traditions of the South Asian diaspora, summarizes that HAF has "earned a reputation" of being a conservative group purveying Hindu Nationalist politics.

I have not even bothered to rewrite the section on Cal textbook controversy. The lead shall be focused on their ties to Hindutva etc. Other aspects are secondary. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Earning a reputation has very little to do with ground realities. The claim of HAF's potrayal of Hinduism to be misleadingly monolithic is irrelevant to the discussion as Hinduism in itself is a very complex construct that is defined as an exonym and would not be an objective source as to what qualifies as monolithic if it actually matters at all in the first place. And this whole money trails is an ad hominem attack that would be far more damaging to all these academics if their funding and promotions are similarly sourced. Jonathankent673 (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93, which statement about caste are you referring to? In the lead? And how does sociology see it? Llightex (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm referring to the following statement: ""HAF has since portrayed castes as occupational guilds which had brought stability to premodern India before being reified under British colonialism; it has vehemently opposed drawing parallels between caste-discrimination and racism, and even any depiction of the caste-system as a rigid birth-determined pyramid of hierarchy." Sociological scholarship very much sees caste as a "rigid birth-determined pyramid of hierarchy", and so describing the HAF's contrary position without context isn't appropriate. I recognize this isn't in the lead, and should possibly be a different section, but I saw changes to this section within the same set of edits. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

There is barely anything objective about "sociological" scholarship given how far-left and post modernist it is. It can't be considered as a rational evidence for any claims. Jonathankent673 (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

New lead V2

@Vanamonde93, time to flesh out a decent lead. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Visa to Narendra Modi section

The source linked to here (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nana.12255) says:

Hindu and non-Hindu Indian American groups also mobilised differentlyaround the issue of the violence in Gujarat in 2002, referenced earlier. In2005, Narendra Modi, then chief minister of Gujarat, was invited to theUnited States by the Asian American Hotel Owners Association (AAHOA,an organisation composed almost entirely of Indian Americans, most fromGujarat) as the chief guest for their annual convention. Secularist, Muslimand Christian Indian American groups formed a Coalition against Genocide(CAG) against Modi’s visit and urged AAHOA to withdraw their invitation(Chatterjee 2005). At the same time, John Prabhudoss, an Indian AmericanChristian leader of FIACONA, was able to mobilise Christian evangelicalsupport against Modi’s visit and get two members of Congress, Joseph Pitts,R-PA (who visited Gujarat with Prabhudoss after the 2002 riots), and JohnConyers, D-MI (who has a large Muslim constituency), to introduce a resolu-tion in the House criticising Modi for his actions in India. The resolution ledthe State Department to deny Modi a US visa (Janmohamed 2013). TheHAF protested the resolution calling it‘Hinduphobic’and also expressedfrustration that the Congressmen had‘made India a focus of a resolutioncondemning religious persecution in South Asia while discrimination andviolence against Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh escaped mention’(HAF(Hindu American Foundation) 2005). However, organisations representingIndian Christians, Muslims and Sikhs hailed the decision (Rediff.com 2005a,2005b)

So the current wording has two problems:

- Congress did not prohibit Modi from entering the US, the State Department did

- HAF did not call the prohibition "Hinduphobic" in that source, it called Congress's resolution "Hinduphobic"

I proposed changing it to:

---

In the aftermath of 2002 Gujarat riots, when Narendra Modi was invited to address the Asian American Hotel Owners Association in 2005, activists including John Prabhudoss lobbied Congress to introduce a resolution criticizing Modi for his complicity in those riots. HAF deemed this resolution "Hinduphobic"; the resolution later led to the State Department denying Modi a visa to enter the country.

---

Llightex (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC) Llightex (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You might have a point and I do not remember the specific details to offer any wisdom. But we need to state that academic scholarship holds Modi to have been complicit in the riot. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to add that in, but the current statement in the article -- "whose administration is blamed by most scholars for its complicity" -- while likely true, doesn't have a source to back it up ("most scholars"? we just have a single scholar cited currently). Can you please provide some additional sources to satisfy WP:Verifiability here? Llightex (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Check the citations in the lead of Narendra Modi. I think there are enough tertiary sources (Jaffrelot '21, Kulke '16 among others) to state it in wikivoice. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Caste lawsuit edit

@TrangaBellam I noticed you reverted this edit, did you have any issues with this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_American_Foundation&diff=1128705335&oldid=1128704473&diffmode=source Llightex (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Nope; I did incorporate it back! TrangaBellam (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Llightex (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Other edit requests

@TrangaBellam can you let me know if you are fine with re-adding these edits as well, and if so, can you please add them in? Thanks!

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_American_Foundation&diff=1128703718&oldid=1128703322&diffmode=source

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_American_Foundation&diff=1128712083&oldid=1128707886&diffmode=source

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_American_Foundation&diff=1128692987&oldid=1128692727&diffmode=source

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_American_Foundation&diff=1128693048&oldid=1128692987&diffmode=source

Llightex (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam these were not incorporated in your latest edits. Also, I'm only adding these requests in because you keep reverting my edits, so in the future if you only revert what is objectionable, that would be best for everyone :) Llightex (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Why would you think that quoting a paragraph from the report, a primary source, for a controversial subject would be encyclopedic? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Rest are fixed. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! The edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_American_Foundation&diff=1128703718&oldid=1128703322&diffmode=source doesn't quote a paragraph from the report, it just links to it. I think we should be fine linking to primary sources like the caste report. This is especially important because it looks like HAF took it down from their website and it's really difficult to find on the Internet these days, so directing Wikipedia readers to read the original source is important. Llightex (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

- @TrangaBellam Should we add this to the defamation suit section? It lists the court documents, with link. https://www.audreytruschke.com/documentshafslapp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahinshah121 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

One can access via PACER (our ref). TrangaBellam (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

PACER charges fees. It is helpful to also link to a free resource? Shahinshah121 (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I am adding to main page. I will not remove any citations, but I think a free resource is worth adding. Shahinshah121 (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Casting caste

The HAF’s argument that the discriminatory practise of caste is a Hindu religious liberty, and that the state must not interfere with it, is the same as the wolf’s argument. The organisation’s plea to intervene amounts to an attempt to legitimise caste discrimination. There is nothing new in the HAF’s warped definition of religious freedom. When people from the oppressed castes in colonial India demanded access to public spaces such as water tanks, temples and bathing ghats in the early twentieth century, dominant-caste Hindus opposed them by citing an 1858 proclamation by Queen Victoria that the British should not intervene in religious issues.
— https://caravanmagazine.in/caste/cisco-haf-hindu-american-dalit-diaspora

TrangaBellam (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe that HAF could have ever said the "discriminatory practice of caste" is a religious liberty. I would want to see the original statements. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

You missed the more salient comparison:

When people from the oppressed castes in colonial India demanded access to public spaces such as water tanks, temples and bathing ghats in the early twentieth century, dominant-caste Hindus opposed them by citing an 1858 proclamation by Queen Victoria that the British should not intervene in religious issues.

TrangaBellam (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, the author is a founder of the Ambedkar King Circle! WP:PRIMARY. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The Hindu American Foundation Inc. announced Thursday that it sued the California Department of Civil Rights in federal court, saying the agency sought to define what Hindus believe by asserting that caste-based discrimination is integral to their faith and culture.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Where did CDCR say that "caste discrimination is integral to Hinduism"? The relevant paragraph in their filing (obtained via PACER) is:

[T]he "Untouchables" [] are the most disadvantaged people under India's centuries-old caste system. As a strict Hindu social and religious hierarchy, India’s caste system defines a person's status based on their religion, ancestry, national origin/ethnicity, and race/color — or the caste into which they are born — and will remain until death. At the bottom of the Indian hierarchy is the Dalit, typically the darkest complexion caste, who were traditionally subject to “untouchability” practices which segregated them by social custom and legal mandate. Although de jure segregation ended in India, lower caste persons like Dalits continue to face de facto segregation and discrimination in all spheres. Not only do Dalits endure the most severe inequality and unfair treatment in both the public and private sectors, they are often targets of hate, violence and torture. Of India’s approximately 1.3 billion people, about 200 million are Dalits.

Barring the underlined portions, what is the issue? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Like the 2020 commentator said (below), it is essentialising Hinduism. "Strict Hindu social and religious hierarchy" is well over the top. Nobody even knows what the hierarchy is, nor is it clear that discrimination occurs on an axis of hierarchy. If I belong to one caste and my boss belongs to another, I might get discriminated against, even if I am of an "equal" caste or "higher" caste. It is caste prejudice at play, which may or may not have anything to do with hierarchy, let alone Hinduism. (By the way, I watched Nishant last year, spurred by some caste-related discussions here, and there it is a Reddy family that abducts a Brahmin teacher's wife and rapes her. Try proving that as a Hindu caste hierarchy issue! They wouldn't have done that to a Reddy wife, I can guarantee that.)

That whole paragraph is Ambedkarite propaganda. That is how the Ambedkarites think the society works. But it isn't real. So, instead of actually focusing on the facts of the case, the State of Caliornia is in danger of resorting to an argument that says, here is how Hindu society works, and we will presume that that is what happened here. Whether it works in court or not is a moot point. But in the process all Hindus are likely to get majorly defamed.

The facts of this case, as far as I can tell, haven nothing to do with Hinduism or caste prejudices. John Doe's bosses thought that he got into an IIT due to affirmative action. So he isn't as competent as a real IIT graduate. That is a prejudice of course, unless they had evidence of his underperformance, but it is not a "caste prejudice" or some religious gobbedygook.

The Ambedkarites want to establish a social reality in the US, just as they did in India, that all Hindus are presumed discriminators, and all Dalits are presumed victims. So, even if a Dalit worker is good for nothing, nobody can touch him or her.

If you don't believe me, try explaining why two-thirds of the Carnegie resondents say that they faced caste-discrimination from non-Indians?. The non-Indians don't even know what the hell caste is! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

By the way, notice also how all this is about the Hindu caste system. Presmably, the Sikhs, Muslims and Christians are gleefully joining the drumbeat. That is because they have no idea how their own co-religionists practise just as much as untouchability as the Hindus do. But nobody knows anything about it yet. Nobody knows because their Dalits are still stuck in the rut. They don't have any affirmative action, and they don't have any voice. So these religions can pretend that they don't exist at all! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I might get discriminated against, even if I am of an "equal" caste or "higher" caste [..] The Ambedkarites want to establish a social reality in the US, just as they did in India [..] - I agree; all these disingenous Dalits who have purchased media, government, academics and whatnot in India, thereby hushing discussions about the discrimination they had perpetrated against Brahmins, Reddys, and others! TrangaBellam (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• This was well-recognised as a problem way back in 2020.

"What (a judge) would effectively have to do is determine whether Hinduism as a religion is itself discriminatory," he said.

If the DFEH starts taking advice from the Ambedkar groups it is likely to lose big time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

And there was pretty good coverage of it The Wire too. Any chance that HAF will thank The Wire for fair coverage? I don't think so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The Wire reproduced their press-release; hardly any coverage! TrangaBellam (talk) 06:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The Wire is an openly hinduphobic Marxist Islamist Rag that has spread disinformation and far left conspiracy theories multiple times. Their top staff regularly abuse hindus and promote islamism on their twitter profiles. Jonathankent673 (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Draft of Cal. Textbook Controversy

[To do]. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Babri Masjid

The Executive Director of our subject writes (tweets):

Important analysis by @abhashankar1 on how orgs like CAIR and IAMC are using events like the Babri mosque anniversary to sharpen anti-Hindu rhetoric in the U.S. [ ] Btw, I am quoted.

Let's read the "important analysis" (parts trimmed out):

American Islamists are using a mosque’s destruction 30 years ago to cast Indian Muslims as living under a fascist threat. In particular, the Islamists attack the Hindu nationalist movement "Hindutva".

"In 1992, the world watched with horror as Hindutva extremist political leaders incited street mobs to demolish the Babri Masjid, a 16th-century mosque of incalculable historic and cultural value," Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Executive Director Nihad Awad said in a press release earlier this month. CAIR was not alone. For example, on Dec. 6, the Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) called the mosque’s demolition, "The darkest day in the history of independent India".

In contrast to CAIR’s simplistic and bigoted description of the Babri mosque issue, the truth is far more complex. The mosque was built atop a “grand temple” believed by millions of Hindus to be the birthplace of one of Hinduism’s chief deities—Shri Ram. Hindu frustration with the slow judicial process and a political establishment unwilling to take sides on the issue galvanized a movement to build a temple on the disputed site. The movement reached an “inflection point” in 1992, when the mosque was demolished by a group of kar sewaks (Hindu religious volunteers) who attacked the mosque’s domes with crowbars and hammers. A Sept. 2020 special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court ruling concluded that the “Babri demolition was spontaneous, not preplanned” and acquitted all 32 individuals accused in the case.

Suhag Shukla, executive director of the Hindu American Foundation, told the Investigative Project on Terrorism: "[I]t is telling that CAIR provides zero acknowledgment about the archaeological, documentary and testimonial evidence confirming the deeply sacred significance of that site to Hindus for millennia as well as the decades of legal deadlock over its status." Shukla also suggested the need for "truth and reconciliation that acknowledges the toll of iconoclasm throughout South Asia" and added that "if intercommunity-based compromises cannot be reached, legal processes should be utilized for restorative justice for past desecration and destruction of important Dharmic, i.e., Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and Sikh, sacred sites and temples."

Quite interesting. I will wait for scholars to take note. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Objectivity and Neutrality of the Article

The article reads like a long list of grievances from Marxists and Islamists while providing little reliable evidence for very tall claims. Especially the claim of death threats sourced by Qatari Islamist Propaganda Press i.e. Al Jazeera and Regressive Left media house Guardian which hosted ISIS-AlQaeda allied islamists to promote disinformation against hindus during Leicester Anti-Hindu Violence. Academic Freedom is a complex topic given the Conference openly spewed venom against hindus and hinduism, even going as far to give up the euphemism of Hindutva. Even more so that Academia is highly far left and islamist given the numerous well documented suppressions of dissent against islamism in Big Universities. Examples go from Hamline University in US to Bristol in UK. Sourcing openly hinduphobic academics is deeply disturbing for Wikipedia's Neutrality. Jonathankent673 (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)