Talk:Vishva Hindu Parishad Information & Talk:Vishva Hindu Parishad Links at HealthHaven.com

(Rated Start-Class)

India portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup.

WikiProject Hinduism

(Rated Start-Class)

Hinduism portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

[edit] Query re neutrality

I seriously question the neutrality of this article. It seems as if a Karsevak has penned the thing. It should be cleaned, to be neutral, or deleted altogether.

I think this page belongs here, rather than at 'World Hindu Council'. We wouldn't translate Sinn Fein - everyone calls it Sinn Fein, not "Whatever Sinn Fein means in English". This is how it's referred to in the common press and the English-language press in India... we should call it Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Graft

Or just the plain old 'VHP'

I notice that their website is now using the English spelling "Vishva Hindu Parishad". Should we switch over? It would be more consistent – in the original Hindi, the "v" and "w" in this word represent the same Nagari letter. QuartierLatin1968 18:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The VHP page looks more like a review of the VHP than an informative article. Varungarde

There were never Spanish in India! Did you mean maybe the Portuguese in Goa, Damao, Diu and Silvassa?

Babu shenoy

Made a change to the comment regarding Muslim mobs setting light to the train. It has been proven wrong so I added allegedly in the sentence.

It seems a bit too opinionated and not entirely objective

[edit] Specific complaints?

This article's neutrality has been disputed since December 19, but what exactly should be changed? How will we know when to remove the POV tag? Bhumiya 01:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the sentence: "While appropriate and justified to represent and defend over 1 billion Hindus in Bharat and throughout the world from extremism of other communities" is a specific example of POV. what makes the writer think that the VHP defends and represents all hindus?

although I did not add the NPOV tag..I think the person who did was probably refering to the the last paragraph - Place in History and the Future, which is blatantly POV. (Saurabhb 16:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

I have removed " They are basically against the exisitence of other religions in India" as it is patently untrue. I have modified the words are " credited with " to they are "accused of" in another sentence.Bharatveer 10:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the word "illegtimate" . See Art.48 of Indian Constitution Indian Constitution

I think the POV issues could be helped somewhat by changing the following fragment: "For over 20 years, the VHP conducted peaceful demonstrations, petitions and tried by litigation to liberate the Ram Janmabhoomi. The Babri Mosque was in a dilapidated condition and not used for worship or any religious activity by the city's Muslims. For years the VHP amassed public support and a broader membership in its organisation." It goes on to blame the Ayodhya incident on the Bajrang Dal, effectively removing culpability from the VHP. To say that they were trying to "liberate" the Ram Janmabhoomi, with no background is completely biased. Furthermore, the effort to make it seem like the Babri Masjid was not a functional mosque, which somehow ameliorated its demolition, is also unacceptable. Some attention should be paid to the continuing religious and symbolic importance of the Masjid. 75.34.3.211 05:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Ananya

[edit] RSS VHP BJP were created by HINDU MAFIA to see that only HINDU rule India and only HINDU become wealthy, educated & progressive

--Anirudh777 07:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Ur not provinganything Mr.Anirudh, u have to provide source for ur accusations, by posting bold letter it does not become truth.I challenge post ur sources?ur reading too much history written by commies,missionaries???stop posting same message on every topicAumprakashReddy 00:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I find this comment extremely distasteful and racist in ways. Please refrain from talking about subjects you have no knowledge on.

Yes, this comment is extremely distasteful. But the RSS is a socio-voluntary organisation. RSS was founded in 1925 by Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, and not by any HINDU MAFIA, don't know what you mean by the term, though. Anyway, if you need more info on RSS, you can find it in Wikipedia itself : RSS Oberoy248 (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Praise ?

There is no support to the claims made in the praise section ( ie social activisim- some press release of VHP supporting this POV ?)"VHP is largely held as an organization that fills the void of the much needed activist organization to voice the Hindu concerns." -Which does not seem to be factual but seems more like an opinion. "Although, VHP's strength and prominence is very limited, its principled leadership is recognized and vastly appreciated by Hindu Indian nationalists."- Opinion again "VHP has played a critical role in responding to the burning of 56 innocent Hindu pilgrims, majority of them being women and children, in Godhra train massacre."- Do not know if this should be in praise as the response included riots which the VHP was accused of. Haphar 13:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

This articles seems to lack a great amount of citations. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 03:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

10 references isn't enough. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 03:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Put up a more appropriate tag. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 03:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, I'm putting back your tag.Hkelkar 04:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, more citations have been placed, but it's still not completed. The first two paragraphs of "Ideology" and the last two paragraphs of "Growth in the 1980s" still are unaccounted for. And it seemed that you removed the corrected version of the VHP slogan I put up; I doubt that was intentional, but tell me if something's wrong with it. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 19:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I cited the first para of "Growth in the 1980s". The rest of the section isn't my edit. I'll try to look for citations, but it will take time. Hkelkar 19:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew_c

Andrew_c:

Please explain why you undid the changes I made. I don't quite understand what I did was wrong.

Thanks, R_Patel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R.patel (talk • contribs) 04:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Your edits were not helpful. Inserting a title is not necessary, per the MoS. Saying Rama with a wikilink is good enough. Next "ruin" is a more POV phrase than "demolish". Next, you removed the qualification "There is a tradition..." thus turning the sentence into a statement of fact, instead of a statement of belief. Since there is no source for the claim, it is better to leave it as a qualified statement instead of a fact. Finally, you removed a sentence that was only fact tagged a few days ago. I believe we should give editors more time to come up with a source before deleting. I hope you understand why I am reverting these changes again. Please feel free to ask question, or defend your edits here on talk. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 20:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The large emphasis on RJ/Babri isnt really providing readers a better view of VHP. Bhagwana Shri Rama is both POV and rather incorrect. Maryada Purushottam is the more correct honorific, but it doesnt belong either.Baka man 20:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew_c, Okay, I will let the editors have more time. Next time I do edits, I will justify them on this discussion board. Please understand that I do bring a different perspective. The editors seem a little anti-VHP and leftists. And, I think that Wikipedia community wants no bias (left or right). So I will keep a close watch on the content. As such, I accept some things you have said (such as Rama with a wikilink being good enough). However, for the rest, I will wait and see how the edits go. Thanks, R_Patel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R.patel (talk • contribs) 12:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] waqf board

Unless the Waqf board are experts on archaeology and not a bunch of angry fundamentalist imams crying about being proved wrong, they dont belong in the article.Baka man 15:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Bakaman, Wakf Board are government statuory body in India and not a bunch of angry fundamentalist imams crying about being proved wrong as you have said above.Please change your definitive attitude as evident in the posts like above.Please find below the text as it appears on the Central Wakf Board Site in India:

The [Central Wakf Council as a Statutory Body was established in December, 1964 by the Government of India http://centralwakfcouncil.org/INDEX.HTM] under the provision of Section 8A of Wakf Act, 1954 (now read as sub section 1 of the Section 9 of the Wakf Act, 1995) for the purpose of advising it on matters pertaining to working of the State Wakf Boards and proper administration of the Wakfs in the country. The Council consists of Chairperson, who is the Union Minister Incharge of Wakfs and such other members not exceeding 20 in numbers appointed by Government of India as stipulated in the Act. The Secretary is the Chief Executive of the Council. The Council office at present works at Jamnagar House, New Delhi.

If you have removed any text citing your original research on the reasoning that "The Wakf Baords are a bunch of angry fundamentalist imams crying about being proved wrong" - please reinstate them with due respect Katwaria Sarai 23:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

User:Anwar saadat and User:Bakasuprman, could you please stop reverting each other and discuss these differences here on talk. You are both accusing each other of vandalism. However, neither of these versions count as WP:VANDALISM under the explicit definition, so please consider discussing matters here.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:LIBEL. The tribune source has nothing indicating "threats" and other opprobrious incentives anwar purports they did. I am not going to let the VHP get slandered on wiki.Baka man 16:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your concern about adding "threatened physical violence", and removing that unsourced comment seems appropriate. However, more than that phrase was reverted. All I'm saying is that repeated reverts without discussion are not productive. Talk it out. Explain to each other why you feel the changes are necessary. I'll ask Anwar saadat to join us.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I made the following edits [1] [2] [3] to restore the article to NPOV as Baksuprman was skewing the aarticle towards POV using peacock terms without discussion. I didn't add any detail to this article. Anwar 17:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could state specifically what NPOV issues you are trying to correct, and not accuse other editors of malicious actions (WP:AGF). Bakaman brings up a good point that the cited source does not say anything about any threatens of violence. And there is other content in dispute as well. Perhaps we can agree on something if we discuss the arguments for and against the revisions in question.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The VHP is also not angry at "toleration" of Muslims/Xtians (Abdul Kalam is the president for Christs sake) but claims the government pseudo-secular and are indulging in minority appeasement.Baka man 18:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

One says they are angry at the 'toleration of Muslims' and the other version states that they're angry at the 'marginalisation of Hindus in favour of Muslims'. Both versions are obviously unacceptable. Since you're edit warring between two unacceptable versions, I suggest both of you stop editing this article, and wait for editors with no perspective on the subject to weigh in. Hornplease 19:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Another thing seems to be whether to call the Hindus or the Muslims "mobs". I think the term "mob" is loaded, and perhaps we shouldn't use either for the sake of being neutral. Or if we are to use the terms, make sure they are supported by the sources, and say "source X characterized the rioting groups as 'mobs'", instead of blanket stating that they were mobs. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok we wont use "mob" then.Baka man 14:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Joshua_Issac (ctrl-click)">[[user:Joshua Issac]] seems to have a personal axe to grind. The edits on the Godhara riots are not refered properly. Among the two references provided one is a dead reference while second is refered back to this page itself. The changes have been revereted and the user is requested to not vandalize the page.

Thanks,

--Indian (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I do not have "a personal axe to grind", and even if I do, I know that Wikipedia is not the place for grinding it. You are correct in that one of the references was not formatted properly. I used the authorlink parameter instead of the url parameter by accident. However, you are not correct about the reference being dead, or referring back to this page. One of them is a New York Times article, which you can read of you have a copy (2002-03-02). It is not dead, and it does not refer back to this page. The other is a news article by Tehelka, which is, again, neither dead nor a reference back to this page. Please note that Wikipedia:Vandalism defines vandalism as a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Please do not accuse editors of vandalism without proof. Please explain why the article should not contain the verifiable, referenced content I added. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you have not responded and provided a valid reason for removing the sourced content I added to the article, I am restoring the content. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I am protecting the page as edit-warring and changes in contents without discussion waste a lot of resources of the community. To begin with, I am protecting the page for 3 days. However, in case, other administrator/s feel that no protection is required, please feel free to remove the protection. --Bhadani (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reverts

I have reverted unsourced, incorrect, and politically mischievous statement here.Baka man 18:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RSS?

What does RSS mean in the context of this article? It is used many ntimes and not defined once or linked to its definition. 198.89.160.22 (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.215.73 (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Contents