Talk:M. S. Golwalkar/Archive 1

Not Self-explanatory

Please address article to a non-expert in the field. As it is, this article is very difficult to understand for anyone not familiar with Indian politics. Some explanation of what this man's position was and what his party represented would be a start. Feeeshboy 07:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This person wasn't a political personality. He was the head of a cultural organization. Though, he did influence the political leaders, he wasn't directly involved in the politics himself. He never ran for any office or stood in any elections.Sjain 22:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have submitted a partial history of his life,pls pass on your comments....akarkare 23 Feb 2007.

his death place is mixed up on table and in article

article highly biased

The article seems to be heavily biased towards Golwalkar. "Guruji" used as a mode of reference is not neutral but is highly deferential and not in keeping with the standards of a reference work.

What is wrong with the use of "Guruji"? Its a sort of nickname, isn't it? It's kinda like "MJ" for Michael Jordan.

"Guruji" is another name for someone who imparts education and knowledge. Madhav Golwalkar was a professor at Benaras University. The students called him "Shri Guruji".Somehow the title remained with him throughout his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.38.33 (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

For those who don't know better, 'Guruji' in this context is the equivalent of Respected or Honourable, even thought it means Revered Teacher. It clearly shows bias. Golwalkar is one of India's most divisive historical figures. Most histories mention him as a 'Guru of Hate' Article here must reflect controversies - J99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokester99 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We or our Nationhood is over used

I think the refereces to "We or our Nationhood" are overblown. Considering, "The fact is that the book ‘We…’ neither represents the views Page 4 of the grown Guruji nor of the RSS. He himself acceded this when he revealed that the book carried not his own views but was ‘an abridged version of G. D. Savarkar’s work Rashtra Mimnsa’ (Keer : 527)." (http://www.golwalkarguruji.org/download/books/en/Shri_Guruji_and_Indian_Muslim.pdf) ...

Besides, this book was diaowned by Golwalkr in 1947. No edition of the book has been printed since 1947. Over 99.9% of the current RSS workers have never heard of this book, let alone read this book. Sjain 22:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

repudiated etc

The quote should clarify his position amply. Interpreting it as 'repudiation' etc is the privilege of the reader, and not one we should usurp. Suggestions for alternate wording would be helpful. Hornplease 06:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have changed it to "denounced".-Bharatveer 10:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

very nice article

This article is of good quality. Thanks for this nice article. --Swaminworld (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Biography Section

I had removed the biography section as it was looking like a copy edit and was not written as per the wiki rules. If some one feels that it was a really useful section to be added then please discusses it hear before adding the content again--Sandeep (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What's your problem, respected Indopug?

Respected Indopug ... You are not responding on your talk page. So I am compelled to write something here. Respected Indopug, I just want to tell you that if you want to do a fair analysis of a personality, then you must talk about both his critics and supporters. Why are you trying to delete what Narendra Modi and Taruna Vijaya want to say about Golwalkar? I am not deleting what Ramchandra Guha said about this social activist! If I am comfortable about the criticisms, then why are you deleting the opinions of the followers of Golwalkar? Please don't turn Wikipedia into a battleground. I have referenced to credible sources. If Ramchandra Guha's book is credible, then Taruna Vijaya's book is also credible. If not, do clarify why not. Why should one think Guha is unbiased and Vijaya is biased? Why both sides of the story cannot be presented before public? Please visit the Wikipedia page on RSS, and you will find that Taruna Vijaya has already been accepted in general as a credible scholar to refer to. Another thing. Please read the RSS page in Wikipedia. You will find out that RSS did actively participate for India during the Indo-China and Indo-Pakistan Wars. And you must know that the multicultural and multi-ethnic Indian Army never complained about RSS' role. Then why blame the contemporary RSS chief like that? If some people criticise Golwalkar, that is okay. If some people praise Golwalkar, that must also be okay. Who are I and/or you to decide what is to be written and what is to be omitted? If I don't delete the criticisms by Guha, why do you delete the kind words from Modi? Strange!!! I humbly appeal to your leaned cooperation that please stop deleting the counter-views, when criticisms are being left untouched. I think you will understand my humble entreaty. Thanks AGAIN in advance. Arghyan Opinions (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that your edits are not written from what we call a "neutral point of view", nor do you use reliable sources. Please go through these two links about Wikipedia's central philosophies. When a reputed scholar criticises Golwalkar, doesn't mean we should "balance this" by giving weightage to Golwalkar's supporters, especially when they aren't scholars themselves (for example: India's current prime minister).—indopug (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Indopug: Well, Indopug, I think I must now use the language you are using. Go to the Wikipedia article on M.K. Gandhi (and not Gandhiji, be careful), you will find what Congress thinks about him. Go to the Wikipedia article on M.A. Jinnah. There you will find what Muslim League said about Jinnah. Go to the Wikipedia article on Hitler. You will find what Churchill or Roosevelt thought about Hitler (they were not scholars either). Go to Wikipedia article on Kennedy. You will find what Democrats thought and still think about him. Go to the Wikipedia article on W.J. Clinton. You will find what Hillary Clinton thinks about him. Go to the Wikipedia page on Carriappa. You will find what Indian Army things about him. Now go to the page on M.S. Golwalkar. You will NOT find what RSS, the Sangh (Golwalkar's organisation) thinks about him. And finally, why did you delete the part where I wrote about RSS' role during Indo China War (1962) and Indo Pakistan War (1965)? If I write that RSS was being captained by Golwalkar when it served as paramilitary during Indo-China War, what wrong do I do? I did not write these things in order to BALANCE Ramchandra Guha. These are historic facts. I even did not write these facts in the section titled Views on the role of minorities in a Hindu India. I wrote these facts in the section titled Criticism and counter-criticism. And from there also, you deleted everything. Why respected Indopug? Last but not least, I am not going to present any impartial views on Golwalkar. I want to present what his supporters and admirers say about him. I have no problem if you write about the views of Ramchandra Guha. Then why do you think I am trying to reach a BALANCE by quoting an organisation, that was led by Golwalkar for about 30 years? What is your problem? PLEASE, PLEASE EDUCATE ME ON THIS MATTER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arghyan Opinions (talk • contribs)

Opinions don't only have to come from scholars as the subject seems to be a popular rather than historical figure. If the subject's views influence contemporary notable figures and/or thought then that can be added. As long as the text is neutrally written. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

indopug, Arghyan Opinions's edits may not be polished, but you can trim and polish them instead of complete reversal. S/he seems to be new around here and edits seems to be done in good faith. I will try to see if some of it can be re-worded and made worthy of inclusion. --Jyoti (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Arghyan Opinions I did not find much to be retained here, you need to bring better source. WP reflects sources, original-research/inference is not allowed. I ended up doing a major cleanup though I still don't really like the state of the article I believe it is much cleaner than before. --Jyoti (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Is writing M.K. Gandhi not better than writing Gandhiji?

Dear Editors ... (several editors are watching this page now I think) ... isn't it a good idea to write M.K. Gandhi instead of Gandhiji? I am just thinking about Wikipedia's policies ... Arghyan Opinions (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done. You may not have to initiate a discussion for every change but do remember to not get into edit war if your edits are reverted, then you should definitely come to talk page directly and discuss. WP:BRD --Jyoti (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Jyoti, I have not edited any thing in this article after the last edit by you. Arghyan Opinions (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I want to add an altogether new section to this article on Golwalkar

:@NeilN:
:@Indopug:
:@Jyoti.mickey:

Now I want to add an altogether new section to the Wikipedia article. The name of this section will be: Opinions of Admirers of Golwalkar. In this new part of the article, I wish to write the following things:

In this section, we will discuss what the admirers of Golwalkar have to say. Although scholars like Ramchandra Guha have criticized Golwalkar for being anti-minority, or more precisely, anti-Muslim, Golwalkar’s admirers do not think so about him. For example, on Golwalkar’s birth centenary, Rashtriya Swamsevak Sangh or RSS wrote the following words in its website: “The birth-centenary will be celebrated in the form of various functions throughout the year. All these functions are aimed at reaching out to all sections of our society, bringing them together and tying them in a single thread of Samarasataa (synchronized pathway) and Ekaatmataa (unified thought and self).” It should be noted here that RSS was led by Golwalkar himself for around 30 years. Another admirer of Golwalkar, that is Tarun Vijaya, has written the following: “M.S. Golwalkar, second sarsanghchalak of RSS, wrote in his celebrated book Bunch of Thoughts (1966), ‘… the so-called minorities have nothing to lose but everything to gain by the rejuvenation of Hindu rashtra.” Prolific writer Jaideep A. Prabhu claims that he does not have any personal liking for Golwalkar and positions himself at the centre-right of political spectrum. Yet, he has written the following words regarding Golwalkar: “In his 678-page book, Vichaardhaara, Golwalkar devotes barely 15 pages to a discussion of Muslims in India. His objections are purely of a nationalist nature and not religious.” Also, according to the current Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi, Golwalkar’s life has inspired him for national service.

I will insert the citations wherever necessary. Now you please tell me that whether I should do this or not. And please explain if not, why not. If I intend to talk about a particular viewpoint, I don't think I must look for impartial sources. And I just want to highlight those people (not necessarily scholars all of them) who think Golwalkar was a constructive social activist. NO PERSONAL VIEWS PLEASE Arghyan Opinions (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That title does not look appropriate, can you come up with alternatives? Check other similar pages. My first suggestion about the entire thing would be 'take-your-time', don't rush into making changes. Reliable sources are a must, yes they may not be neutral sources at all times but you have to be very careful about it. Can you propose the entire section with citation in the talk page first? --Jyoti (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jyoti.mickey: I can do so, but I will have to use Harvard referencing style. Actually, Wikipedia notes on citations are not automatically coming up in the Talk page. That is why I prefer to use Harvard referencing, so that everything remains at one place. Arghyan Opinions (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

More neutral tone please and you can show citations on a talk page by adding {{reflist-talk}} after the text with cites. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you very very much for your empathetic and utterly civilized guidance. I am completely beholden. I will keep writing on the talk page regarding this matter. Arghyan Opinions (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

By a more neutral tone I mean dropping terms like "admirer" and phrases like "In this section, we will discuss" (which belongs in a paper, not an encyclopedic article). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

:@NeilN:
:@Indopug:
:@Jyoti.mickey:
I thought a lot and now I think there is only one way to solve the whole debate. With your permission, let me create 3 new sections.
Opinions of critics
Opinions of supporters and followers
Death and legacy
Moreover, I feel that the present section Criticisms and counter-criticisms has got only criticisms, almost no significant counter-criticisms. A prime achievement of Golwalkar is that he led the RSS during Indo-China War of 1962 and RSS acted as a disaster management organization during that period of time. This historical truth must be mentioned. Moreover, if Golwalkar admired Nazi Germany, then he also opposed persecution of Jews. But that is not enough clear from the present reading. Finally, I request all the respectable editors to kindly REPHRASE the titles of the sections I wish to create. Please don't just delete or refute my suggestion. I assure you that I will write the whole thing in the talk page first, then I will touch the main page. And yes, I will touch the main page. Yours Sincerely
Arghyan Opinions (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Partial restore of the lead to the stable version

The subject of the article is popularly known as "Shri Guruji", a google search of "Shri Guruji" also brings up this person only. Five six different publishers and authors:

• Shri Guruji: Pioneer of a new era
• Shri Guruji - Drishti aur Darshan
• L. K. Advani (2008). My Country My Life. Rupa & Company. ISBN 978-81-291-1363-4.
• Shamsul Islam (2006). Religious Dimensions of Indian Nationalism: A Study of RSS. Media House. ISBN 978-81-7495-236-3.
• Narendra Modi on MS Golwalkar
• Jaffrelot, Christophe (2007). Hindu nationalism a reader. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-2803-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Note: I had done a major cleanup in June and it has been largely stable since then and on my watch-list. --AmritasyaPutra^T 16:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not good enough. Find a non-RSS source that says he was popularly known as Shri Guruji. Most of the sources you've given are RSS affiliated, and the one that is not has no ebook, and is unverifiable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Are all the above authors, publishers and google search RSS sources? What does that even mean? You are inserting "among his followers" to the stable version, can you give a source that says he was called so exclusively by his followers (what does that mean?) and non-followers (what does that mean?) did not call him that? You are changing the stable version and reverting to your changes without discussion. --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not how BURDEN works, as you should be aware by now. You are making the more general claim; that the general public, not just his followers, referred to him as "Shri Guruji." You know very well what "guruji" means, and so the notion that non-followers used that to refer to him requires a source. You have given me 6 sources, of which four are RSS affiliated. The others are entire books; you need to provide a quote, or at the very least a page number. You keep saying your version is "stable," but stability counts for nothing when the content is unsourced. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Add a specific non-RSS source saying that he was known among the general public as "Shri Guruji." That is all I have asked for. A specific citation from Jaffrelot or Islam would be good enough. Modi, Advani, and those other POV pieces are not. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have given reference of six different authors and publishers spread over 50 years. I am open to discussion and had asked some questions to understand your pov, according to you what does "his(Golwalkar) follower" mean? Are all these authors and publishers "followers" of Golwalkar? Can you provide a reference to substantiate your objections to this phrase: also known as Shri Guruji? --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You are being tendentious; I specifically said that Jaffrelot and Islam were acceptable in principle, so why do you continue to pretend I did not? Two of the authors (Modi and Advani) are RSS members, and hence useless in this context. The other books are non-scholarly as well, and hence non-reliable. And if you are not seeing that BURDEN requires you, and not me, to provide a citation in this case (because your claim is more general) then I am going to ask for input from JJ. Also, you still have not provided a quote; the book you are using has no ebook. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:HONORIFIC. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

JJ, I'm not sure that that is the issue; neither of us wants to include it in front of the name. Honorifics can be discussed in the body; the issue here is whether it needs to be attributed to his followers (as I am saying) or whether we can say that the general population used the honorific to refer to him (as AP is saying, but refusing to provide a quote for). Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What's the problem? The article says "also known as Shri Guruji". I don't know what "the general population" is; not me, for sure, and frankly I don't care if he was "also known as Shri Guruji" by his followers, or by the population in general. I think that "also known as Shri Guruji" suffices. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's an NPOV problem, IMO, but if you think it's not a big deal, I am willing to drop it; this version is certainly an improvement over the earlier one which said "popularly known," and has addressed most of the issue. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Some 10 edits and 3 cites for a single phrase! You guys are nuts. Here is the real story (Jaffrelot, 1996, pp 40-41): Hedgewar, more or less against wishes, was recognised as a guru by his disciples.... Golwalkar... was unquestionably regarded as a guru by members of the RSS.... On the campus his beard, long hair and simple robe had earned him the nickname of 'Guruji'.... A Bengali pracharak explained that 'emotionally [he] had associated that slender bearded face with the highest ideals of purity and abstinence'. He tended to be regarded as a genuine guru by the swayamsevaks... Van's wording was exactly right! Kautilya3 (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Could be worse. See Talk:Dharmacakra#Hindu origins up to [[Talk:Dharmacakra#Vedic/Indo-European origins, and then User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2014#Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts plus User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2014#January 2014. This is the reason why I keep hammering on the need to keep on speaking terms... Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree I could find another six unique authors and publishers in Marathi, Hindi and Tamil (I can read first two and barely understand Tamil) in library with the book title itself refering to him as Shri Guruji, a simple phrase as "also known as Shri Guruji" was reverted without discussion. Few books on Golwalkar with Shri Guruji in title --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Side-tracking the argument again? The discussion was never about the sobriquet; it was about who used it. In any case, Kautilya clarified in the body that it was among his followers, and the problematic "popularly known" was removed from the lead, so I am willing to let it rest. Does somebody else want to close this discussion? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sidetrack: dharma

@Joshua Jonathan: Gosh, I never knew that the Dharmachakra could generate so much heat! But, I guess when the Hindi-speakers started using "Dharma" to mean "religion" (a decidedly un-Hindu concept), I guess the die was cast. I have seen passages of Arthashastra quoted on the web, with "dharma" uniformly translated as "religion." It still made sense, but it was absolutely nothing like what Kautilya meant.
An American friend of mine, a famous Sanskrit linguist, once went to Varanasi. The local pandits were very happy to see a white Sanskritist, and started speaking to him in Sanskrit. He says he couldn't understand a word of what they were saying. Later, he asked his host why it is that he couldn't understand them despite having learnt Sanskrit for so many years. His host replied that they were using Sanskrit words with the present day Hindi meaning. So obviously they were speaking Hindi while they were pretending to speak Sanskrit! The whole big change from the Vedic religion to Hinduism is in what Dharma means. If the Hindi-speakers have no clue what "dharma" means, obviously they won't know the difference. [End of rant] Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a great story! I guess I agree with you that "religion" is a poor translation of "dharma". Dharma is much broader; actually, it's a beautifull word, just like "satya". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"Hierarchy dominated by Hindus"

I made an effort to explain the oft-quoted and usually misunderstood passage from We, our Nationhood Defined [1]. There is a bit of synthesis there, but I believe it is an accurate paraphrasing of Jaffrelot's explanation. The phrase "hierarchy dominated by Hindus" sums it up nicely, I think. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Shri Guruji

@Indopug: You have edited against the consensus here where 4 editors participated. Kindly revert and put your points here before making that change. See Few books on Golwalkar with Shri Guruji in title also. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant. 1) None of those books are reliable sources. 2) Wikipedia articles' leads aren't written on the basis of book titles anyway.—indopug (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Indopug has removed "also known as Shri Guruji" because something of this sort did not happen on Hitler's article! (As if that was the law we followed.) So, if at all we were to include "Shri Guruji", what framing do you suggest? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The sobriquet is discussed in the body. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06

10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Van, you just went back on your words and reverted a fourth time or so (not in 24h), we had all settled with your remark of "so I am willing to let it rest. Does somebody else want to close this discussion?". --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Willing to let it rest is different from being okay with it. Moreover, the reason I reverted you was not so much because of strong feelings I had on the subject, so much as when you reverted Indopug, you cited a consensus which did not exist. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Pointy. The consensus version has been restored. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you two (or three) saying that the term "Shri Guruji" should not be mentioned in lead? If yes, why? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there was concensus. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument. Golwalkar is also known as "Shri Guruji". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOLDTITLE:

"Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles are placed in bold: "Mumbai, also known as Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra.""

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Eleanor Zelliot, Maxine Berntsen (1988), "The Experience of Hinduism: Essays on Religion in Maharashtra", SUNY, p.197: "M.S. Golwakar, who later came to be known as Guruji". Done. This discussion is finished. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me state my two cents. There was no consensus, because Van and I wanted to say "called Guruji by followers" but we didn't care to push the qualification, and we merely acquiesced in the face of AP's adamant stance. If somebody else objects too, then we are free to side with them. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I see. Well, "also known", "later known": does it really matter? Both are neutral. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I second Kautilya's comment; if the sobriquet is mentioned at all, it should be qualified. Guruji is not a generic term of respect; it means "teacher," or "guide," as you are probably aware. Ergo, attributing that to the general population is problematic. I let it rest because it was not worth the time and effort I was putting in, but that does not mean I agreed. In any case, a good reference has now been provided, and I have not the stomach for this fight. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice guy

I've just read the article itself; nice guy:

""The non-Hindu people of Hindustan must either adopt Hindu culture and language, must learn and respect and hold in reverence the Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but of those of glorification of the Hindu race and culture ... In a word they must cease to be foreigners, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment—not even citizens' rights."

I remember a conversation with a couple of British school-teachers, on British right-wing politics; we had a good laugh about those white supremacists who believed in the purity of the British people. Just like India, Britain has seen wave after wave of immigration. It's not even undivided right now, with lare areas of Celtic people. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, for India, this is not a laughing matter. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya3, we totally agree here. My apologies if I seemed to be making fun of this. I try my best here at Wikipedia to avoid editors clashing on India-related articles. It's very simple: either we live together, also, especially, if we don't agree - or we don't live at all. There's no choice. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. I understand you fine. I was just pointing out that the dangers for India are very real. I am not too concerned about how happily we live together as Wikipedians. How happily Indians live together matters a lot more. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Please maintain one citation style

I see different citation style mixed up in recent edits. Please see WP:CITEVAR. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is the point? Kautilya3 (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh gawd! You people and your fetishes with citation styles! This is gonna get ugly now. [RED ALERT]. People stay away. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Subrahmaniam, Gurumurthy and Jaffrelot

User:AmritasyaPutra raised queries as to why I replaced content sourced from Gurumurthy by new content sourced from Subrahmaniam and Jaffrelot. Other than the fact that S. Gurumurthy is a Sangh Parivar leader (not just a member) and, therefore, expected to have bias in the matters concerning the RSS, there are also more substantive issues, which I would like to mention.

The debate in The Hindu seems to have started with this article on 8 October 2013, where Vidya Subrahmaniam questioned how RSS was getting involved in politics, given that its constitution, Article 4(b), says that it is supposed have "no politics". To explain the importance of this condition, she went into the history of how the constitution came into being as part of the negotiation with the GoI, Sardar Patel, to get the 1948 ban lifted.

This provoked S. Gurumurthy to write an opinion piece, which was published on the 16 October, 2013 labelled as "Debate@TheHindu" Subrahmaniam was given a chance to respond to it, as appropriate for a "debate", which was published on the 17th October.

Gurumurthy's piece claims in its title that the lifting of the ban was "unconditional", which alludes to some myth that the Government banned the RSS just by mistake and lifted the ban when they realized their mistake. But the entire article actually describes the negotiations for the constitution of the RSS! And, these negotiations were meant for lifting of the ban. How does all that discussion support the myth? The only support given for the idea of an "unconditional" lifting of a ban is in the last paragraph, where some statement of Morarji Desai is mentioned. But Morarji Desai was the Home Minister of the Bombay province, not part of the Central Government. Somebody asked in the Bombay Assembly whether there were any conditions to be fulfilled by the RSS for lifting the ban (within the Bombay province) and Desai's response would have been obviously "no" because the RSS was just expected to implement its Constitution which it had negotiated with the Central Government. So, Gurumurthy has clearly taken a provincial announcement out of context and distorted it to propagate a myth.

In her response, Subrahmaniam exposes the lie that has been propagated by Gurumurthy. She states point blank, a written constitution with specific undertakings was a pre-condition for lifting the ban, and provides the Government notification lifting the ban as evidence. (No such evidence was needed in my view because Gurumurthy himself extensively discussed all the negotiations on the Constitution that preceded the announcement.) She has also provided the newspaper clippings from 1949 [2], which are enlightening to read.

Christophe Jaffrelot has said in his book that a written constitution was an "absolute pre-condition" imposed by Patel for lifting the ban. All these contradictions came to light when I evaluated the article's content a couple of days ago in the light of what I had read in Jaffrelot's book.

I think this episode also teaches us important lessons on how not to write Wikipedia. If there is a two-part debate explicitly labelled so in a newspaper, we can't just pick one part of the debate and use it as a source without reading the other part. It is possible that there are two equally legitimate views on a subject, in which case we would need to represent them both. When there are other academic sources that contradict newspaper opinions columns, we have to take the views of the academic sources. So, judging the Gurumurthy's column on these grounds, I find that there is no place for it anywhere on Wikipedia. It contradicts material evidence, it contradicts academic judgement, most of all it contradicts itself!

Consequently, I am reverting this spurious reinsertion made by AmritasyaPutra [3]. If he or anybody else wishes to question me on the above points, I am always happy to discuss. Hopefully we won't need any more edit-wars to settle debates here. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Undiscussed deletion of referenced text

The edit summary says "Replaced S. Gurumurthy by reliable sources" there is no discussion that says he, or "The Hindu" is not reliable and it was in the article for long. The referenced content was deleted and new content added which imho is highly selective and not neutral in tone. Only recently four editors checked and modified the entire article. Van, Dharma, Blade and me. I will undo the edit, discussing the significant changes to stable content before reverting it will be highly appreciated. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Stability and age counts for little if the source is poor. The Hindu is in general a reliable source, but this particular piece is an opinion piece, and therefore has no editorial oversight; it is also written by a Sangh member. These two things are enough to make it highly dodgy in this case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I use "opinion piece" in a very specific sense. I don't mean that it contained his opinion; most articles reflect the author's opinion in some way. Every newspaper has an opinion section that is not subject to oversight, and this was published in such, so it is an opinion piece, and unreliable. It certainly should not be given weight above the other sources that Kautilya added. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not think SG is a "Sangh member", can you please provide a reference. Thank you. It certainly should not be given weight above the other sources does that mean you do not want to delete it but only give less weight? --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean that he can be used in situations where he does not contradict a more reliable source. And he is the convener of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, which is a Sangh Parivar member. So he is not a pracharak, but certainly very closely linked. 1,2. -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2014 2014 (UTC)

Last I remember, Sang had nearly 60 branches and 1.5 lakh service activity and presence in 40 countries and a figure of 10 million members (I have no clue what qualifies as member). With highly scholarly and notable people like SG himself. "Closely linked" (or connected in any way) to Sangh does not inherently discredit these people. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

[4] was actually a good move. RSS' page was more relevant for those information. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Combined with a lack of editorial oversight, it does mean they are unreliable. A scholarly source from a Sangh member is fine, because it has scholarly peer review; likewise a news item, which has editorial review. An opinion piece has neither, and so the Sangh affiliation is a problem. Also, please don't delete the time-stamps; they may be in UTC, but they are still useful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither I have any problem with the edit, Kautilya3 found it on a website, although a finding book would be as better. If anything is wrong, it can be attributed nicely. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Blades, whose version do you not have a problem with? Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Both aren't bad, obviously Kautilya3's version was better, having the bigger amount of information sourced. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No, Kautilya3's AmritasyaPutra's version removed the scholar Jaffrelot and independent journalist Vidya Subramanian, and added the Sangh ideologue S. Gurumurthy's op-ed as a source. The "better" version is quite clear here.—indopug (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The Hindu only published Gurumurthy's opinion to get the RSS perspective. It cannot be considered an NPOV reliable source.—indopug (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Indopug, SG is not "RSS member" as you have noted in your edit summary, it has already been disucssed here. And the www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead article by Vidya Subramanian was opinion piece. SG wrote a response to it, yes, in the same article space in the same newspaper. The first opinion had no more editorial oversight that the second one and the factual mistakes in the first one were acknowledged subsequently. There is one more reference apart from SG there. Yes, Jaff is more academic source and I have added it myself. I broke my edit into into two steps checking the sources slowly(and hence I have reached 3RR). Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

SG is a membem of the Sangh Parivar for certain; Vidya Subramanian is an independent journalist. Therefore, even if they are published in the same space, VS is the more reliable of the two. You did not at any point have "consensus" for keeping the name in; you had people agreeing that it was not worth arguing over. You can say that if you want, but you're essentially trying to show more support for your version than actually existed. Likewise with the copy-editing; the fact that I corrected the grammar or your version does not imply that I am okay with your sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

(sigh) you deleted both the references again and hold that one opinion (which had factual inaccuracy too) is superior to other. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And you are unable to recognize, as elsewhere, that a person's affiliation with the RSS makes them unreliable when no external oversight exists. VS has no affiliation; SG does. Asymmetry. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Vidya Subramanian piece is opinion piece -- do you disagree? What is she notable for?
• What about "Times of India" reference, what is unreliable about it?
• S. Gurumurthy is a reputed journalist -- do you disagree? He worked with Ramnath Goenka after whom Excellence in Journalism Awards is given. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an article on Golwalkar, not Gurumurthy. So Gurumurthy's credentials are not of any great interest. All that matters is that he is a Sangh Parivar leader and, therefore, counts as a primary source in the matters of the RSS and the Sangh Parivar.

Nothing of the old text has been deleted except for the mention of Venkatarama Shastri. But it is not exactly clear from Gurumurthy's article what Shastri's contribution was. My guess is that he helped reach a compromise between Golwalkar and Patel (which perhaps involved Patel yielding to the demands that the Sarsanghchalak position need not be elected and that minors should be allowed to join the RSS). These are details. The main point is that Patel demanded a written constitution as a pre-condition for lifting the ban and RSS delivered it. Gurumurthy declares in the title of his article that the lifting of the ban was "unconditional", but his article doesn't actually support that claim. The Government announcement that I have now added as another source amply demonstrates the conditional nature of the lifting. Vidya Subrahmaniam is absolutely right that the RSS has found ways to subvert the spirit of the agreement reached with Patel. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The Times of India piece is a quick summary for the babies. It is neither a news article nor an analysis piece. It is too vague on details to be fit for our purpose. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The Hindu explicitly mentions it is an opinion piece. She is a non notable person and worked in the editorial team of same newspaper previously. The inaccuracies in the opinion were printed in the same space by same newspaper by reputed journalist S. Gurumurthy. Another article saying same thing. --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding opinion pieces here is what the policy WP:NEWSORG says: When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[6] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. There is nothing about notability. Nothing about editors being excluded. A senior editor of a newspaper is certainly a "specialist" in processing facts and information as well as a "recognized expert". (I would agree she is not a specialist in the subject area, but the information taken here is basic facts: What did the Government and Patel say? The deeper specialist analysis is all taken from Christophe Jaffrelot.)

If Gurumurthy has pointed out "inaccuracies" in Subrahmaniam's piece, please tell us what he pointed out. The reference you have given does nothing of the sort. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: You have asked previously what is wrong with the Times of India piece. To start with, nothing is known about it. When was it written? Who wrote it? For what purpose? Is it news or is it history? What are the credentials of the author? A newspaper is a reliable source for news. This article is not "news".

Your insertion of it in the article is also poor. It is sticking out in the middle of a separate discussion as if a vandal put it there! Kautilya3 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Publication: The Times Of India Delhi; Date: Aug 31, 2009; Section: Times Nation; Page: 13. Times of India is a reliable source, you can take it to WP:RSN if you disagree.
• You are right, Vidya has no subject expertise here, her linkedin profile shows no expertise either (I could find no info about her except on linked-in), she works in the editorial team of the same newspaper where her opinion piece was published. S. Gurumurthy has subject expertise, which is noted by the publisher also (S. Gurumurthy is a commentator on political and economic affairs) and he is a reputed journalist. Here are four publication, each with an independent editorial team that discuss the inaccuracy (1, 2, 3, 4). --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: These responses are totally unsatisfactory. You haven't answered the substantive points raised.

• Times of India article is not reliable because it is not news. It is not obviously reporting the events of 1948 in 2009 as "news".
• The Vidya Subrahmaniam article is reliable because she is a senior editor of a mainstream newspaper (and now she is an academic) and she can be relied on to report facts accurately.
• Gurumurthy is not reliable because he is a leader of a Sangh Parivar organisation, and after the rant that you have pointed us to [5], I don't think he is fit to be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia.

Consequently, I am reverting all your changes. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have provided due details for Times of India article. I have told you before you can take it to WP:RSN if you think it is unreliable.
• You are trying to promote opinion of a non-expert who got it published in the same paper where she worked in the editorial team. You have yourself said: I would agree she is not a specialist in the subject area.

• S. Gurumurthy is a reputed Journalist with subject expertise and he is a co-convenor of the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch (Which you are re-interpreting as RSS leader). You are also ignoring four publishers with independent editorial teams. You have yourself quoted: The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. By your logic, Narendra Modi is Indian pm so anything he says with a context of India is unreliable? Swami Vivekananda was a disciple of Ramakrishna Paramhansa so anything that he says concerning him is unreliable?

• In the light of your response "Consequently, I am reverting all your changes"; you had deleted long standing content referenced to reliable sources without discussion, I only restored one of the reference and removed opinion piece. I have responded adequately and you can expect me to revert to the stable version without answering rehashed points. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment by JJ I'm trying to understand what's happened here, but I don't, except for this edit: instead of removing a piece of information, and at the same time adding another piece of information, it would have been better. to first remove, and then adda nother piece of information. It would have kept the discussions separated. Also, Kautilya3's edit was opposed by AmritasyaPutra, so the discussion should have proceded, instead of the re-revert of Indopug. Especially since Bladesmulti had already stated that he didn't object to the inclusion of the "In 4 February 1948" part. It's a pity that this interaction escalated; I think that AmritasyaPutra is not the only one to blame here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think what happened here is particularly important, except perhaps for figuring out how to advise Amritasya. My edit that you mentioned was at 1:01 UTC and then I went offline. Note that my edit wasn't a "deleteion" as Amritasya billed it. Rather it was a "replacement" of content sourced from S. Gurumurthy by content sourced from Jaffrelot and Vidya Subrahmaniam. The subject was still covered and, I believe, in an improved and more accurate way. Amritasya didn't know why Gurumurthy had to be replaced. So, he asked the question here at 1:28 UTC and Vanamonde and Indopug seem to have answered it. But, looking at Amritasya's logs, he also reverted my entire edit at 1:34 UTC and wrote on my talk page at 1:40 UTC. I believe his revert caused an edit war between him and Vanamonde/Indopug. When I came back online, I responded to the messages on my talk page, as you know, asking him to discuss content rather than just the sources. But he hasn't yet done so.

So, I would fault Amritasya for two things: (i) premature reverts (ii) failure to discuss content. And, I believe the two issues are related. He fails to discuss content because he thinks he can get his way by doing reverts. He hasn't yet said a single word about what should be included from Gurumurthy's article and what should be excluded from Subrahmaniam's article. Has he even read either of those articles? If he has, there is no evidence of it here. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

JJ, I would agree that the last few reverts could have been avoided (though I would point out that AP's text is still in the article). My chief problem with AP is this; AP refuses to acknowledge that a source with ties to the Hindutva movement is a questionable one. This is a problem that has cropped up repeatedly in our interactions; it came up at ABISY, it came up at the Muslim Rashtriya Manch page, it came up here. Above, he first denies any connection; he then says the Sangh has too many branches for us to exclude all its authors; and then refuses to talk about it altogether, insisting that SG is a scholar, and hence reliable (which would be true in a scholarly publication, but that was not the case). Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 explicitly said Kautilya3 does not get a license to revert. But he reverted after 24h. The content is verifiable and referenced. I could not have participated in discussion. --AmritasyaPutra^T 14:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya3, you have reverted me blindly once again? Can "you" stop the edit war? If you want your newly added content which has been objected-to to remain while we chat then why do you insist that the earlier snippet of long standing referenced text must me removed at the same time? --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a "blind" revert. I spent more than an hour giving a long explanation of why Gurumurthy's text doesn't belong here. (See section 17 below). You need to read it and, if you have objections or questions, state what they are. Your reverting is a continuation of the old behaviour. I don't think the admins will take kindly to it if it goes back to AN3. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, the old text based on Gurumurthy has been replaced with new content that says completely different things. Even if Gurumurthy is to be put back, you can't just reinsert the old text. It doesn't fit. Can't you see that? If and when we come to a consensus on what to keep from Gurumurthy, if any, we will also need to think about harmonize the various sources. This is not a cut-and-paste exercise! Kautilya3 (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)AP, why is it that your only defense of Gurumurthy is that he has been in the article for a long time, and why are you absolutely unwilling to discuss the fact that he is a leader in the Sangh Parivar (NOT the RSS)? Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Since there are already four sections on this and this section has reduced to more or less comment on me by you two I will open a new one for clean start. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on two snippets of content attributed to The Hindu and TOI

• Sangh’s association with Godse could not be proved in court.

TOI is reliable. There are at least 10k reference to them on Wikipedia.

Do you have a source contradicting this? If not then how do you claim it is incorrect?

• T. R. Venkatarama Sastri stated the suspicion of the RSS’ complicity in Gandhiji’s assassination were “recognized to be without any real foundation” and the charges against the RSS in some cases were found unsustainable.

Both The Hindu and S. Gurumurthy are reliable. Are you saying they are making up facts?

Do you have a source contradicting this? If not then how do you claim it is incorrect?

--AmritasyaPutra^T 15:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• If you expect us to discuss it here, the least you could have done was create a neutral section heading. This I have now done. Wikipedia sourcing policy does not work like that. If there are legitimate questions raised about the reliability of a source, then those need to be addressed by the person seeking to use it. By legitimate, I mean that the source does not a priori fit the RS criteria, because it had no editorial oversight, and the author has a link to the Sangh. Both these issues, together, are enough to make the source unreliable. If you find a journal article by SG, that would be fine (academic journal, not magazine). I don't even want to talk about the TOI source. As currently used, that is not a source. Where is the author? What is the context? What section of the paper was it published in, and did it have editorial oversight? A TOI journalistic piece, with all this info, would be good enough; a url with none of it is absolutely not. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

To amplify that point, if TOI is running a "news" article in 2009 on the events of 1949, it must be really slow. That is not actually what happened. The piece that has been referenced is merely an explanatory article for readers who might not understand the context for the current happenings. So, it is not news. It is not "opinion" either, because it is not attributed to an author. So, I don't really know what it is, not even having the full source to look at. I have mentioned in the past that, according WP:RS, only news reports from newspapers can be reported as fact. As for Gurumurthy, I have given a long explanation above (in section 17) as to why I don't regard him as reliable, on top of the fact that he is a Sangh Parivar insider and so a primary source, not a third party source. This is again a basic criterion of WP:RS Kautilya3 (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Do you mean to say The Hindu checked the article by Vidya but not by Gurumurthy? Vidya is in the editorial team so that is similar to self-published-source while Gurumurthy definitely had a better or at worst equal editorial oversight. Are you saying Gurumurthy, a reputed journalist and subject expert has manufactured lie and The Hindu let it pass? Having worked as co-convener of Swadeshi Jagaran Manch does not make him unsuitable for anything related to RSS, I am not buying that, you may as well stop repeating that, it is sort of saying we cannot trust Sachin saying anything related to cricket because he is a cricketer? Most importantly can you produced any source to contradict the information?

• TOI published it in printed newspaper on 31 Aug 2009 on page 13 in "Times Nation" section and yes it had editorial oversight (it goes without saying for information published in newspaper unless there is an explicit disclaimer, do you think each article has a footnote saying it underwent such and such editorial oversight?) Most importantly can you produced any source to contradict the information?

--AmritasyaPutra^T 16:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Both the Gurumurthy and Vidya Subrahmaniam articles were "opinion" pieces. Neither of them had editorial oversight. We take them or not take them on the basis of the reliability of the authors and by cross-checking information. Vidya Subrahmaniam's claims (which contradict Gurumurthy's claims) were backed up by old news articles published in 1949 and the Government communiques, which are the only authoritative sources for what the Government did what it did. Her claims are also corroborated by Jaffrelot, a world-leading academic on the matters of Hindu Nationalism. I have explained all this in detail in section 17 above, which you have refused to read and respond to.
• TOI needs to show its old news articles from 1949 to back up whatever it says now. It can't "invent" history. It needs to demonstrate it. Once again, what it said is contradicted by Jaffrelot. Specifically, Jaffrelot has said that RSS was banned for violence and subversion, not for Mahatma Gandhi's assassination. So, while the assassination provided the context for the ban, that was not the reason for the ban. In fact, provincial Chief Ministers had been asking Sardar Patel to ban RSS for at least 6 months prior to the Gandhi assassination, but he had been holding them off. When finally Gandhi was killed, by a former RSS member, it had to be done. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not how editorial oversight works. Editors have a degree of control over journalistic, or "news" pieces. They have no control over the opinion section, because that is what the opinion section is meant for; to have views that the editors may or may not agree with. I have already explained that I don't need to provide a contradictory source. If you cannot see that Sangh affiliation is a problem, then I suggest you open an RfC or take this to RSN, because your insistence that it is not an issue is not enough to put the content back in. I might also remind you that your misunderstanding of WP:BURDEN caused a lot of collective grief some time ago. As for the comment about Sachin; I am not well acquainted with the man, but he is not a scholar, and therefore he would not be a reliable source for an un-attributed statement, either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I told you I don't buy that. He is a reputed journalist and a subject expert while Vidya is not a subject expert and she was in the editorial team of the newspaper which published her opinion piece, how does her opinion piece become so worthy while a subject expert is assumed incorrect to begin with? Gurumurthy's opinion has credibility because of his subject expertise and journalistic reputation and no hand in the editorial process. He also backed his argument with references going back to 1949. Do you mean to say The Hindu didn't bother with claims about themselves too in a response to their editorial opinion piece published in print by themselves? They may not agree with opinion but do they allow factual mistake? Jaffarton does not contradict what I have written above and referenced to The Hindu article. Do you have any reference whatsoever contradicting it? Do you mean to say the starting assumption must be that it is incorrect despite being written by a subject expert and published in a reputable newspaper? I have replied to all your objections but you have not replied to any of mine. I have given ample details about TOI, do you have any reference contradicting any of the info whatsoever (not merely the half line I have referenced) in that article to doubt its credibility? Of course the paper carries things other than current affair too! The context is explicitly set at the beginning of this section, the exact particular statement are there with reference. Do you have any reference to contradict them? --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

As always, discussion is getting us nowhere. I am not interested in discussing this further with you. Outside opinions are welcome. If you take this to RSN, or open an RfC, I am happy to hear what others have to say. The three of us are at an impasse, and until this gets resolved, questionable content stays out. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Why can you two not directly reply to my point? I questioned your content but that should stay in? While from the same publisher same article space, half a line must stay out even though it was there, and wasn't even added by me in the first place? You two have forced me like this in at least four articles already and it is exactly you two who have gone to ani five times against me (exactly you two and no one else ever). That is a mighty coincidence! with you two together of course you can force it easily. I know from previous experience rfc/rsn discussion will simply be derailed/hijacked by you two. --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think we are making progress. Hold on, I am writing a response and got into an edit conflict here. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Gurumurthy is an accountant and a part-time journalist. His subject expertise is corporate finance and his claim to fame is in investigating the financial accounts of corporations. He doesn't have any expertise in the RSS history or the 1948 Indian history. So, these are spurious arguments. As far as this article is concerned, his credentials are that he is an RSS member and a Sangh Parivar leader and these facts only have negative contributions to his reliability.
• In any case, if you want to talk about what ideas from his piece should be included in the article, that is more than welcome. You want to put in the claim that Venkatram Shastri has said that RSS complicity in Gandhi's assassination was "recognized to be without foundation." I am happy to concede that Venkatram Shastri has said that. But why is that relevant here? Since the ban was for violence and subversion (a point that has been admitted even by Gurumurthy), bringing in the complicity in the assassination is a red herring. If we actually want to discuss complicity in the assassination, then we need to look at all the sources that deal with that issue, and there are plenty of such. Venkatram Shastri is not a scholar on these matters. He is an advocate and a politician, and he was arguing his case. What he said can't be taken as fact. If he didn't know of any foundation, that doesn't mean that the foundation doesn't exist. If you want to cover all that ground then the Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi would be the right page to do it.
• All said and done, I also concede that there is a widespread perception that the 1948 ban was for the assassination of Gandhi, and it would be good to make some remarks in our article to dispel that myth. As for what could or could not be proved in court, we need to know first what charges have been made. Do you know what charges have been made? What are the sources for it? The Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi page doesn't say anything about it. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• That is a mighty start indeed! At least you concede that the information are factually correct! Since you agree that T. R. Venkatarama Sastri had said that then we are now only dealing with the relevance, right? That is Venkataraman's opinion explicitly attributed to him. And his opinion is notable because he was an important person in those events and highly reputed person. I have read his writing and I can tell you he didn't particularly love Golwalkar either.
• This much is agreed in any and all references that Godse was not part of RSS at the time of the assassination, he attended and left the organization at least a decade before that. And what I put in only that half sentence is explicitly supported by the TOI. I do have plenty of court proceedings accessible (National Library of India) but they are not reliable reference here and I can only say that half liner summary is accurate and undisputed (that is why I am mighty sure you cannot provide any reference to refute that).
• Aside: Btw, let me just point a small correction, Gurumurthy was a professional journalist with Indian Express first and later an accountant and he worked closely with Ramnath Goenka and was his mentor (after whom Journalist award is given). I can't support much information about the person from referenced sources... I can tell you that I have met him in person once and his work is unanimously considered of unimpeachable quality and integrity even by his staunch opponents. --AmritasyaPutra^T 19:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra:

• None of my content ever said that RSS was complicit in the Gandhi assassination. I steered entirely clear of that subject. That is also why Venkatarama Shastri's statement wasn't relevant. To add a statement of his saying that RSS wasn't complicit, we first need to explain who said that it was complicit. I also believe that, once we open that particular can of worms, all other assessments of RSS complicity need to be brought in as well. A lot more is known now than in 1949. What happened in the court is not the end of the matter. My suggestion to leave out the entire matter. Venkatarama Shastri's relevance to the present article is that he negotiated a compromise between Patel and Golwalkar. That particular mention is already in the article, along with a citation.
• As for Gurumurthy's career, my humble opinion is that the S. Gurumurthys page is the right place to cover it, along with proper sourcing, not here.

If you wait for a few hours, I can added a brief mention about the Godse issue and the fact that the ban had nothing to do with supposed "RSS complicity". You can look at it and tweak it if you wish. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• No, no I said that only as a-side-node because you said he is a accountant and part-time journalist, so I gave details about him, it would be indeed silly to write about him here and totally coatrack.
• Sure, I can wait, you might as well take a week, no issues with the time!
• Consider keeping both opinion or none as we both expressly agree on Jafferlot for neutrality. And both Patel and Sastri are deeply involved party and notable people and both opinions are highly charged. Or reword and balance in a way you find suitable, my objections is to present exclusively one while expressly excluding another. --AmritasyaPutra^T 19:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sticking to the two snippets at the head of this section, Imo, the first snippet is probably ok if used to qualify the Sangh's involvement with Godse. I'd like to see the specific location of the statement before committing myself though. The second is clearly an opinion and probably shouldn't be included unless Venkatarama Shastri is a recognized scholar on the RSS. (Additional note: I looked at the Shastri article and not only is he not a scholar on the RSS, he is a draftee of the RSS constitution. Hardly qualifies as an independent reliable source. Chuck it out without recourse to appeal is my opinion. --regentspark (comment) 18:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

For Godse snippet, you can check location in the given reference and the immediate history of this article.

The second opinion, is for two reason 1. because close to it another opinion by Sardar Patel is noted and this balances it 2. Yes he was closely involved in the events and is a noted scholar, at least as much as Patel as far as these events are concerned. Patel was the prosecuting party and suffers same defects, his criticism put as highly critical quote hardly qualifies as independent reliable source and we should remove both in that case. Criticism by Christophe Jaffrelot were reinstated by me with a thank you note in the edit summary as well as his talk page and summarizes appropriately the incriminating nature of the events. Only both the opinion statements are part of conflict, I believe instead of replacing one with the other we keep both or none. --AmritasyaPutra^T 19:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• My 2c: Why the hell are we using TOI, The Hindu, or Frontline as sources for this period of history?! These are not some recent events that have not been looked over carefully by historians and neutral scholars. For example, you can find much more detailed coverage of the events surrounding MKG's assassination, RSS ban etc in

• Andersen, Walter (1972). "The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh: III: Participation in Politics". Economic and Political Weekly. 17 (3): 673–682. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Jaffrelot, Christophe (1996). The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics: 1925 to the 1990s. Penguin Books India. ISBN 978-0-14-024602-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

and these are just two citations I recall using some time back for the Eknath Ranade article. There is no justification for using the newspaper or magazine articles and opinion pieces when we have superior citations complying with WP:HISTRS available. FWIW, I don't exactly recall what these sources say on the topic. So I'm not really objecting to the factuality or POV of any of debated text or involved editors. Only to the quality of the sources. Abecedare (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• I echo Abecedare. Both opinionated comments by involved people (patel and sastri) can be done away with (or both kept). Jaffrelot is already referenced. The content dispute was about keeping one opinion excluding other. --AmritasyaPutra^T 20:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The Anderson EPW article says that Savarkar was one of the nine persons to be charged for Gandhi assassination plot, but was exonerated by the court. It also says, "No connection, then or now, has been made showing RSS involvement", and "... the government's argument for continuing the band was that the RSS created an atmosphere conducive to violence". This should make the TOI snippet being discussed moot, and also provide a replacement for the Des Raj Goyal quote currently being used in the article. Of course, there is much more in the two sources that can be used to not only to replace the newspaper/magazine sources currently being used, but to expand and improve the coverage. Abecedare (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Thanks for pointing out the EPW article. I have been trying for a while to get hold of the Brotherhood in Saffron book but these articles have provided a nice summary for now. I was surprised to find in the Part III article, the statement pracharaks were, and still are, explicitly forbidden from being members of any political party. It is ironic to read this statement now when we have a pracharak as the Prime Minister. The article was written in 1972. We know from Jaffrelot that RSS loaded the Jana Sangh with pracharaks, who took full control of the party soon after S.P.Mookerjee's death. Do you know why Andersen says that pracharaks were prohibited from joining political parties? (This is an aside, not anything to the 1948 ban issues.) Kautilya3 (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that, till some point in time, RSS used to only lend/delegate pracharaks to Jan Sangh (and, other such affiliates) and these pracharaks were perhaps formally not regarded as "members" of the receiving organization. But I am far from an expert on the subject and Anderson possibly is more specific in part IV of his series. Abecedare (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I would also appreciate your opinion on the substance of the Vidya Subrahmaniam article. Andersen says that Patel insisted on RSS abjuring politics because he assumed that RSS was functioning as a wing of the Hindu Mahasabha. However, after Patel's death, RSS helped form the Jana Sangh and took total control of it, essentially making it its own political wing, exactly what Patel wanted to prohibit. So, it looks Subrahmaniam's point is valid, and it has been ignored by the academics. Do you agree? Kautilya3 (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The central thesis of Anderson's articles (part III and IV) is that the events of and around 1948 pushed/motivated RSS to enter mainline politics. Also reading the article, one develops a greater appreciation of how opinions on the topic differed within congress, RSS, HM etc, and how these opinions evolved over time.

More specifically: Footnote 241 in Anderson's paper does support Subrahmaniam's take that Patel insisted that the RSS's constitution contain a "no politics" clause (although Anderson puts it, almost cheekily, as "must have"). But reading the Anderson paper, one gets a more nuanced and interesting impression of Patel's views: he assumed that RSS was acting as a political body; (rightly) thought that their greater involvement in politics was inevitable; and preferred that they enter politics through Congress instead of as competitors (page 678, column 1&2). But interesting as all this is, most of it is not directly relevant to the Golwalkar article.

Perhaps I'll take a stab at summarizing the Golwalkar-related content from Anderson into the wikipedia article this weekend. But I would honestly prefer it if someone beat me to it. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the 1948 ban precipitated the yes/no decision about whether RSS should "get into" politics. That much is quite clear from Andersen. But, according to the constitution that Golwalkar agreed with Patel, the answer was supposed to be no. It doesn't seem like Golwalkar cared much about the constitution. It was just a piece of paper to him and, after Patel's death, there was nobody to hold him to account. I have a feeling that Patel was right that RSS was acting as a political body prior to 1948 (and Andersen didn't look at all the evidence, e.g., no mention of the Kapur report in his articles). Mukherjee et al (cited in the next secion below) say that it was practically indistinguishable from Hindu Mahasabha. But I am still looking into the details about that aspect. Please feel free to write whatever you would like to. The article can certainly benefit from an extra pair of hands! Kautilya3 (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Have removed some irrelevant stuff to Golwalkar from the article. Please carry on your pruning too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I have tweaked the section a bit to tighten the prose, remove redundant content/less reliable sources, and keep the focus on MSG (can be improved further). I may look in once in a while but hopefully the regular editors of the article can continue with the improvements, now that the immediate issue of using The Hindu and TOI as sources has been (hopefully) settled. Abecedare (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi assassination

In the above section, AmritasyaPutra claimed, "This much is agreed in any and all references that Godse was not part of RSS at the time of the assassination, he attended and left the organization at least a decade before that." It turns out that it is not true that this is agreed in "all references". In the book by Mukherjee et al. we find this interview with Gopal Godse:

• Q. Were you a part of the RSS?
• A. All the brothers were in the RSS. Nathuram, Dattatreya, myself and Govind. You can say we grew up in the RSS rather than in our homes. It was like a family to us.
• Q. Nathuram stayed in the RSS? He did not leave it?
• A. Nathuram had become a boudhik karyavah (intellectual worker) in the RSS. He said in his statement that he left the RSS. He said it because Golwalkar and RSS were in a lot of trouble after the murder of Gandhi. But he did not leave the RSS.

Actually the term karyavah is used for a "secretary" which is an official position, not just membership or workership.

In another book by Puniyani we have another interview of Gopal Godse, where he states: "Technically and theoretically he (Nathuram) was a member (of RSS), but he stopped workings for it later. His statement in the court that he had left the RSS was to protect the RSS workers who would be imprisoned following the murder, on the understanding that they (RSS workers) would benefit from his dissociating himself." Puniyani also states that Nathuram Godse was a pracharak of the RSS, which is a life-time commitment. Stopping to do RSS work (like for example Narendra Modi at the moment) doesn't disassociate one from RSS.

Consequently, the current text of the article that says "RSS was banned for violence and subversion" is the best we can do. We can't give any more of a clean chit to the RSS. There is no academic consensus for that. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• From User:Sitush/Common#Gyan "Books published by Gyan and their stablemate, ISHA Books are never, under any circumstances, allowed as sources in Wikipedia articles".
• The content snippet that was being discussed was "Sangh’s association with Godse could not be proved in court" is that incorrect? do you think RSS' link to the assassination was confirmed and that is why the ban was lifted? Was it proved in court? Lets focus and resolve your concern on this very specific and clear content snippet and keep more general discussion aside. Shall we? --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: I don't know what part of the article text was under discussion. I was just responding to your direct statement about references. Even if we agree that one of these references is questionable (which I don't, because the interview was in Times of India, 25 January 1998 and Ram Puniyani is a perfectly fine scholar that is referenced in academic works frequently), the other reference stands. So, your claim is false.

Coming to your preferred text, Sangh’s association with Godse could not be proved in court, if you want to insert that into the article, you need to first establish that Sangh's association was charged in the court. I haven't found any sources that made such a claim. At the moment, the article says "no connection with Sangh has been made officially," which is a paraphrase of what is said in the Andersen article. The ban had nothing to do with what happened in the court. Patel always maintained that he had full authority to ban the RSS independent of any court. (I don't believe he was right, but that was his position. So, your idea that the ban was lifted because of what happened in the court is imaginary.) Kautilya3 (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It turns out that the publisher of the Puniyani book is not "Gyan Publishing House", even though that is what Google Books said! Kautilya3 (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Golwalkar quote

@RegentsPark: I was surprised to see your edit summary here [6]. The quote was chosen by our source, Ramachandra Guha, and I am pretty sure that it accurately reflects Golwalkar's views towards Muslims and other minorities. Why do you think it should be replaced? Kautilya3 (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Quotes are generally avoidable. It is better to clearly express what the quote is intended to convey than to leave it to the reader to draw the interpretation for themselves. If Golwalker's view was that non-Hindus should accept that they are subordinate to Hindus and 'become' Hindus culturally then we should say that in our own words rather than in his. But this is a stylistic issue and I'm not hung up on it. --regentspark (comment) 20:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is shamelessly biased

This article has become shamelessly biased. I cannot understand why critical scholarly resources are being used all the time. Whoever says anything different about Golwalkar is being typified as political. Why Golwalkar's leadership of RSS and its working as an effective paramilitary force during Indo-Chinese War of 1962 is being carefully omitted? Why RSS contributions in 1965 Indo-Pak War are being omitted? Why Golwalkar's view on Indian military protecting the minority communities of the country are being bypassed? Why opinions of politicians like L.K. Advani are not being written? If Wikipedia can contain Obama's views on Martin Luther King, then why can't we talk about Advani's views on Golwalkar? This is again taking an extremely serious turn. Wikipedia must not take up a task of wrongful propaganda. Editors like Amritasya or me simply want to present both sides of the story. But Indopug, Van, etc. are clearly arrogant and extremely unwilling to explain their edits. This is alarming. Arghyan Opinions (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have been here long enough, you would know that Wikipedia reflects the scholarly consensus on matters. When there is no consensus, we document the multiple views that might be present in the scholarly sources, suitably weighted according to their preponderance. Reading reliable sources guidelines is the first step to figure out how to edit/bring balance to contentious subjects. If you can find scholarly sources that provide positive views of Golwalkar, please feel free to add them. Make sure that they are "third party" sources, i.e., people not belonging to the RSS or any of its affiliates and not belonging to their opponents. For instance, Advani can't be used because he is an RSS swayamsevak and pracharak, and a leader of an affiliate organisation. Some editors (myself included) believe that factual and non-contentious material can be used from primary sources. But, please bring such material to the talk page first and discuss it, before inserting it into the article. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, in the search of "third party", why are we always landing on critical views about Golwalkar? If I wish to append L.K. Advani or some other pro-RSS politicians' or scholars' OPINIONS on Golwalkar, what is wrong? I am not saying that Advani or Modi are scholars. I am saying that their views and opinions on Golwalkar must be written about. Leaders like Patel and Nehru had a relatively negative or opposition oriented opinion on Golwalkar's works. Those opinions can also be talked about, what's wrong? Another thing. It is a fact that Golwalkar and his RSS actively cooperated with Indian Army during 1962 and 1965 wars with China and Pakistan respectively. Why do you want to delete this fact whenever this is being written?Arghyan Opinions (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding, Wikipedia is not about providing "balance". We provide "knowledge" and "information" as represented in scholarly sources. We don't represent "views" as such, but rather informed assessments by experts and those "views" are generally only a small part of an article. On the Golwalkar page, you have a "view" saying that he had fascist views (but it is really factual, isn't it, given what he wrote?), but you also have a "view" from Jaffrelot saying that he wasn't a racist.

As for China/Pakistan wars, I didn't know any material was deleted. Can you point to a diff? Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@ (talk) Dear Kautilya3, I think you are more experienced than me. Will you help me to append the information on 1962 and 1965 wars? Most probably, Indopug keeps deleting them whenever I write about RSS role in those wars. Please refer to Role during the 1962 Sino-Indian War and 1965 Indo-pak War. I don't understand why this information must not be provided here. After all, it is M S Golwalkar who was the RSS chief in 1960s. Arghyan Opinions (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually yes we do provide "views" and strive for balance between significant views whenever they differ. This is fairly clearly stated in our policy WP:NPOV. What we dont do is to assign equal weight to views that are not equally widely held within the community of knowledge to which a given topic pertains. That means that if popular opinion differs from expert opinion we may choose to note popular opinion, but expert opinion is given more weight. Balance therefore does not mean equal weight, but weight according to prominence. The debate here should be whether Modis or Advanis views on Golwalkar are sufficiently prominent to require inclusion, and how much weight they should be assigned if they are.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I interpret WP:NPOV as providing balance of views within the scholarly, third-party sources. Advani and Modi have been full-time workers of the very organisation headed by Golwalkar. They are not scholarly, third-party sources. If we start representing their views on Wikipedia, then we should also represent the views of the communists, the secularist outfits, the Muslim parties etc. Should we have such a free for all? Do these editors claim to be "carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias" as required by WP:NPOV? Perhaps they can start by telling us what variety of reliable sources they have purveyed? Kautilya3 (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Then you are misinterpreting it. Views should be assigned weight in accordance to their prominence in reliable sources, but that also includes news sources and other non-academic sources. When prominent politicians opine on history and politics those views tend to be notable simply because of the prominence of the person who voices it. It clearly makes no sense exclude politicians views on Golwalkar the politician simply because they are not scholars. Their party affiliation and ideology can be mentioned, and they should not be represented in wikipedias voice. The question here should be whether their opinions are sufficiently prominent or not, not about whether to exclude non-academic views apriori because that is not a possibility.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. @Arghyan Opinions: Please tell us what views of Advani/Modi that you would like to include. Please open a separate talk section for each of them so that we can keep the discussions apart. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes @Kautilya3:, I am doing the research. But I have a feel that you are beyond any reasons. See, there is difference between providing information and balancing information. When we say that Hitler had a Jewish bodyguard whome he did never send to any concentration camp, we don't glorify Hitler. Similarly, when we say Gandhi called off the Non-Cooperation Movement al at a sudden, we don't criticize Gandhi. Information is information, no matter whether it creates a balance or imbalance. Presently, this article is totally out of any balance and sounds like a pseudo secular rhetoric.

Why not, Kautilya3? Let people know what distinguished RSS members like Advani or Modi think about Golwalkar. Also let people know what communist, Islamist, or other politicians thought. What is wrong in that? Opinions of distinguished politicians do have at least some scholarly weight. Yes, we must need to know what Golwalkar's contemporaries or other politicians and even sociologists thought about him. Otherwise, the knowledge is incomplete. Arghyan Opinions (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Because that is not the purpose of our Wikipedia. We want to spread knowledge and information, not views. People that want other kinds of Wikipedia can go and start their own. If Hindutva believers think their views are not receiving adequate attention, they need to go and publish them in scholarly academic sources and submit their views to academic peer review, for instance in Economic and Political Weekly. What is stopping them from doing so? Once their views are filtered by the academic community, we will be happy to include them. Regarding the role during the 1962 war etc, I notice that there is already a section in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh page. If there is any material relevant to Golwalkar, you can certainly include it here. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Now this is so very unfair. If something is already in RSS page, then why cannot it be in MS Golwalkar page too? If Kruschev's role is written in the context of Cuban Missile crisis, then Cuban missile crisis is mentioned in Kruschev's page too. If the fall of Berlin Wall is mentioned in the context of USSR, then USSR is also written a bit about in the page regarding Fall of Berlin Wall. If in World War II page somebody writes about Churchill, then that does not mean World War II should not be treated as a subtopic in Churchill's page. When I open the page regarding Indira Gandhi, I find her role in 1971 war. Likewise, when I open 1971 war page (that is Bangladesh Liberation War), then I find sub topics and mention about Indira Gandhi. So what if RSS role in 1965 and 1962 wars are already mentioned in RSS page? Why can't two or three sentences be written in Golwalkar's page too about that topic? The question is not who is supporting Hindutva. The question is about who is supporting anti-Hindu rhetoric. If Wikipedia can publish what Churchill thought about Gandhi, then what is wrong if I wish to write what Advani thinks of Golwalkar? If Wikipedia can accommodate what Einstein thought about Tagore, what's wrong if I write about what Modi thought about Golwalkar? Please keep political prejudices aside and don't try to label somebody as something. This is now too much.Arghyan Opinions (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst

This is using Koenraad Elst who seems to be controversial as a source. Mainstream source or fringe? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: kindly, undo the edit. Koenraad Elst is not a controversial writer. If view of Ramchandra Guha is expressed in the article then view of Koenraad Elst should also be included to make the page neutral, otherwise page will lose its neutrality if view of controversial writer like Ramchandra Guha and Roy is only included. I am also giving book as reference then there should be no problem.

"the anthropologist Thomas Blom Hansen described Elst as a "Belgian Catholic of a radical anti-Muslim persuasion who tries to make himself useful as a 'fellow traveller' of the Hindu nationalist movement",[13] while the historian Sarvepalli Gopal called Elst "a Catholic practitioner of polemics" who "fights the Crusades all over again on Indian soil".[14] The social theorist Ashis Nandy criticized the alleged dishonesty and moral vacuity of Elst." Seems controversial to me. Enough so that the large amount of text you added seems WP:UNDUE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Kindly read the page of Uniform civil code of India on wikipedia. You will appreciate the facts. The name of authors you have mentioned are of different ideology to Elst, so obviously they are his critics. You can also read at http://indiafacts.co.in/guru-golwalkar-nazi/

Seems like an advocacy group headed by Elst so obviously more of the same. And please sign your posts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

David Frawley called his work on Ayodhya "definitive",[10] K. D. Sethna regarded it as "absolutely the last word".[11] Paul Beliën described him as "one of Belgium's best orientalists" So, obviously people who are not of his ideology will criticise him and others will praise him. This is the essence of any writer. So, kindly don't edit.VibrantBabhan 08:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VibrantBabhan (talk • contribs)

Not a good idea to tell editors not to edit. Please wait to see what others say per WP:BRD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

If you will edit it, how others will see and give their views. I want to say that keep the addition there, if others have any views let them discuss. Then after discussion, it will be decided whether there is need of removal. VibrantBabhan 08:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VibrantBabhan (talk • contribs)

The first post contains a link to your version. And please read the note on your talk page about signing. --NeilN ^{talk to me}

There seems to be some prejudices towards Elst in editing. How to contact higher authorities about this ??? Kindly tell. VibrantBabhan ^{talk to me}VibrantBabhan 08:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

There are no "higher authorities". All article content is decided by regular Wikipedia editors. If you wish, you can get opinions from other Wikipedia editors at the reliable source noticeboard. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Elst is most decidedly a fringe source, as evidenced by the fact that most mainstream academics writing on similar issues tend to ignore him altogether, or occasionally mention him without giving his views any credit. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Political Ideas of M.S. Golwalkar: Hindutva, Nationalism, Secularism By Ritu Kohli also subscribes to the similar idea what Elst is saying. You can check it at [7] VibrantBabhanVibrantBabhan 09:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about "fringe" but our sources are expected to be reliable third party sources. Elst is a Hindu nationalist sympathiser, so not "third party," and the book is published by Voice of India, which is a non-mainstream, Hindu nationalist publisher. So, this particular book "Saffron Swastika" doesn't qualify. However, Elst does mention Wikipedia on his blog and, if he raises valid objections, we often take them into account. So, we are not "banning" him from Wikipedia if that is the impression that is presumably being talked about.

Secondly, we are not claiming that Golwalkar was a Nazi. In fact, we have added discussion from Christophe Jaffrelot as well as a sentence from Elst to say that Golwalkar wasn't talking about any racist purge. So, in my view, no further clarifications are needed. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. To answer NeilN's original question, Elst does seem to be a fringe source, usable mainly as a source for himself and for certain extreme interpretations. He does not seem to be a suitable source for the edits made by User:VibrantBabhan. Additionally these edits do not seem to be suitable for an encyclopedia, being a mixture of long-winded reiteration of points already in the article, and digression. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Coat rack sections and OR reverted.

The coat rack material added since last talk page discussion between Kautilya3 and Regentspark is removed. @NeilN: please let me know if Elst and the surrounding discussion need to be put in back. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi AP, welcome back! Please be specific as to what instances of COATRACK and OR you have found. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The earlier reached consensus was masked. A quote farm is setup. It is overwhelmingly about RSS rather than the person. And what is with the section headers and new conspiracy theories from obscure persons? It needs re-focusing. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: No one is defending Golwalkar here, debate is about wording used in article. For example "The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) had a tradition of keeping aloof from the anti-British Indian independence movement". This type of blog wording should not be used. AP used proper words by writing "The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) kept aloof from the anti-British Indian independence movement". On other instance, very POV writing "In keeping with this philosophy espoused by Golwalkar, which had no anti-British or anti-imperialist content, the RSS completely abstained from joining in the Quit India Movement as well." which AP corrected to Wikipedia standard by writing "Under Golwalkar RSS completely abstained from the Quit India Movement". What's problem in it? You should have not done complete blind revert. --Human3015^TALK  01:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, I had also completed two quotes that were doctored. When you reverted they were crippled again. Please let me know why you want to keep doctored quotes? (I presume you did read what you reverted?) I have restored the quote farm as per your wish you mentioned in the edit summary. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Freeze this page as on 1/1/ 2015

Editors are requested to freeze this page from deletions.

DMR Sekhar (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased and uses Communist sources to describe a person who has been targeted by communists for decades. Writes like Ramchandra Guha are in the extreme fringe.

Original research from primary source and copyvio: Section.

• The source Dayal, 1998 is a primary source. It is a memoir written in first person without any editorial oversight. The paragraph length quotes from this book is copyvio.
• The FrontLine magazine article is titled "Advani & truth" Link and is a polemic. The article is not about Golwaklar. The article was published in Politics section, not History section. The author is a lawyer, not historian, and he has written many polemics against Advani and advocated cases against him. We require scholarly academic source to establish weight of an incident that allegedly happened 70 years early. Single passing mention in a political polemic is useless. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Removed WP:OR and WP:COPYVIO. "partridgepublishing" is another SPS. Krishna Kumar has no subject expertise and no academic record. For exceptional claims of 70 years early we need WP:HISTRS; a book review (of a sps) does not qualify. Be careful about re-introducing copyvio, it should not be done. --AmritasyaPutra^T 04:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Please specify these alleged copyvio instances.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, I have already done above. Please check. Reverting copyvio into article is unwelcome. I have explained about the source in quite detail above. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You are not explaining, you are simply stating which makes it hard for anyone else to fix it. Furthermore I dont trust you when it comes to removing large chunks of critical material about Hindutva leaders. In this case I was in fact able to corroborate that there are instances of close paraphrasing that need to be taken care of in the material, but you did not adequately provide evidence for that claim above. I consider your critique of the source to be largely baseless.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

AP is barking up the wrong tree, as usual. Copyvios only occur when there is unattributed close paraphrasing. This thing is a quote, presented as a quote. There's no copyvio here. Vanamonde93 (talk)

No, I did find some language from the source that was not within citation marks.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. That's not what he was talking about. I guess blanking it would be appropriate, then; but it's hardly the whole section. Oh, and he's started collecting diffs again, elsewhere. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Maunus. If we can discuss content... and like you say Vanamonde93, stop barking. You cannot reproduce entire paragraphs from primary sources and claim relief from copyvio (besides synthesis). Even if it were secondary source and another secondary source quotes entire two paragraphs, you may not do the same here on Wikipedia without explicit consent. Putting quote marks around copyvio does not make it right. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You seem not to understand the concept of copyrights violation, if it is within quotemarks and the source is given it is not a copyrightsviolation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, what info you want from me? You can validate what I have said, if there is anything incorrect please point it out. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I will remove the close paraphrasing and put the section back. And add some more on his views on Muslims and Christians and the use of violence as a political instrument.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, don't reintroduce copyvio. And you may consider the note about the source I have made above and point out any inconsistency here. Merely restoring isn't discussion. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I have considered it and found it baseless - it is just the standard unfounded objections from your team about any sources that is critical of hindutva perspectives. In the future when you claim copyvio you need to demonstrate it so it can be fixed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Objections answered

• The source Dayal 1998 is a primary source. - Yes, partly. The author was a senior government official and observed the happenings. He did not participate in them. The source is validated by a book review in India Today and a scholarly mention in A. G. Noorani's book.
• It is a memoir written in first person without any editorial oversight. - Memoir, yes. No editorial oversight, false. Orient Longmans is a reputable publisher.
• The paragraph length quotes from this book is copyvio. - The quote is lengthy and un-encyclopedic. It can be and should be paraphrased. The banner on the top of the page invites any interested editor to to do so.
• The FrontLine magazine article is titled "Advani & truth" - Irrelevant.
• is a polemic. - Your opinion. I don't think so.
• The article is not about Golwaklar. - Irrelevant.
• The article was published in Politics section, not History section. - A book reference has been added.
• The author is a lawyer, not historian - Qualifications are adequate to judge evidence of crimes. A WP:HISTRS should be used when a topic first begins to be written about by historians. This one hasn't been.
• he has written many polemics against Advani and advocated cases against him. - Irrelevant.
• We require scholarly academic source to establish weight of an incident that allegedly happened 70 years early. - The Noorani book is a scholarly source.
• Single passing mention in a political polemic is useless. - Multiple mentions have been displayed.

- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• The main problem with the section Amritasya removed is that it gives undue weight to a single poorly documented instance in which Golwalkar allegedly planned a pogrom. The section should instead be an overview of his views on communalism and violence, his weldocumented anti-Muslim and anti-Christian views and the quotes should be of his own statements about Muslims and Christians. Such a section could easily be written based on academically published sources. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Problem with article

The problem with this article is that it is extremely poorly written. It seems that it is written only by authors who are more interested in either glorifying or vilifying Golwalkar than in writing an informative article. It is crammed with quotes, which is a sloppy and lazy way of writing that does not make for informative well-written articles. It has no logical structure but sections are just added willy nilly around random topics. It does not give an adequate overview of either Golwalkar's life or his ideology or his significance for Indian politics. Honestly I am not convinced than any of the editors who habitually work on articles in this domain are capable of writing an actual encyclopedic article as opposed to sloppy hagiographies or hatchet jobs. I would love to be proven wrong. Feel welcome to join the game and turn this into an actual encyclopedic article. First step is finding the best sources about Golwalkars life (and by best sources I mean not just the sources that say what you want to hear).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This is accurate; I've been too busy elsewhere to look at the big picture on this article. I'd be happy to work on it a little bit. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not yet an "article". Just a bunch of propaganda from both the right-wingers and the left-wingers. I was working on it a year ago, when AP created such a big scene that I got disgusted and left. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Same here Kautilya3, disgust. Even with two admins making corrections, you were busy putting on wings then... and now. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, that might carry some weight if it was known that you ever contributed something to the article. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M. S. Golwalkar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016042603/http://www.hindunet.org/hvk/articles/0106/52.html to http://www.hindunet.org/hvk/articles/0106/52.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208132353/http://www.golwalkarguruji.org/shri-guruji/biography/who-was-shri-guruji to http://www.golwalkarguruji.org/shri-guruji/biography/who-was-shri-guruji

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Kindly add information on racism and support for ethnic cleansing.

Much more information should be displayed on this person's advocacy in support for ethnic cleansing , racism and hate crime. 2405:204:4313:D858:C0BB:4B9D:95C6:A247 (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

pre-GAR comments

I see that this article has been sent to GAN, and unsurprisingly, it's not ready. The lead is grossly inadequate, and the ideology section doesn't even mention "Hindutva", the ideology with which he is most prominently associated by RS. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:M. S. Golwalkar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 22:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to review this. I will post some initial feedback later today. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   a) The lead is four sentences long, which is quite inadequate to summarize this article. b) The writing problems start in the lead, as the third sentence is actually a fragment. Other grammatical issues ("supported him in his studies, activities"; "have differed with those from the RSS") indicate that the article needs copyediting before being brought back to GAN. Other sentences are more unclear than they are ungrammatical ("he compares the creation of a Hindu culture propagating the concept of acceptance of a shared Hindu heritage.") Some statements, like (including encouragement to obtain a Law degree..., have opening parentheses, but no closing parentheses, which makes the writing difficult to follow. A paragraph refers to "Golwalkar's choice" or "his choice"; Golwalkar was selected, but someone else made the choice.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The lead asserts that Golwalkar was "widely noted to be the most prominent ideologue of Hindutva", but the body of the article never really demonstrates this. There are other points in the entry that require elaboration, such as the statement about Golwalkar not completing a doctorate because of his father's retirement.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article appears to mostly follow WP:NPOV, but in the Ban and arrest section, there are several uses of quotation marks that should be carefully considered in light of MOS:SCAREQUOTES.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The infobox image was uploaded as "own work" created in 2013, but the subject had been deceased for 40 years by the time the image was supposedly created. The image should be eligible for fair use, but a Creative Commons license doesn't seem appropriate.

7. Overall: Because this article is far from meeting several of the GA criteria as noted above, a detailed review is not indicated right now.

   Pass/Fail:

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sri guruji.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)