Talk:Bajrang Dal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


WikiProject_India 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.
More information about this article...
Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.

Contents

[edit] POV text in the discussion page

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

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

[edit] Controversial

User[69.199.165.162],Pls explain your reasons for adding the POV term "controversial" to the subtitle. Bharatveer 05:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I think that it's ok. It is controvertial because, in reality, Stanines was executed by a lone culprit, Dara Singh, and it's disputed as to whether he is involved with BD or not.Netaji 22:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

NO, look at the BBC reference. It is a terrorist organization. Your only making this defense of animals harder for yourself. --Disinterested 06:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No it doesn't. I just read the bbc reference and the word terrorist is not mentioned anywhere. Try this sort of crazy jingiost propaganda into the article and it will be reported.Netaji 07:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sabrang+Indian Muslims

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

I agree. These are partisan sources. If they can be cited then so can Hindu sources, but they are not allowed.Hkelkar 00:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
About us - sabrang - It has an agenda to combat "communalism" (Hinduism). Indian muslims shouldn't be cited, if thats cited, I might as well quote Hinduunity.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Please give a Wikipedia policy/rule on why those sources would not be allowed. Thanks. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 00:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:Reliable Sources. If these are allowed then why isn;t hvk.org or Hinduunity.org not allowed? Is there a double standard against Hindus? The al-Jazeera article is unreliable per Bakaman above.Hkelkar 00:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Indian muslims disqualified as partisan. Sabrang disqualified as partisan/extremist. The al-jazeerah letter is almost apologetic for extremist philosophy, so it is disqualified.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 : Religious/ethnic/ethnoreligious-based websites are allowed. So are most partisan websites. Only Extremist ones are not. Indian Muslims in in no way an extremist organization. They only provide news on the lifestyle and Muslim-related incidents. However, hinuunity and hvk both have an anti-Muslim agenda- "Muslims out of india will result in peace" and the like. Provide one extremist or hateful quote from IndianMuslims, and then you disqualify the site. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 00:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

US govt has declared al-Jazeera to be a terrorist front. Plus, hvk is not extremist (maybe HinduUnity, but not hvk). I'm afraid it's still a double standard. Plus, al-Jazeera articles also attest that Jewish people are cannibals etc. and other such anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic cartoons are also there on al-Jazeera so it is also hate.Hkelkar 00:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Al-Jazeerah is of course biased. Still, you haven't proved why Sabrang or Indianmuslims are extremist. Sabrang is opposed to communalism, which includes both anti-Muslim and anti-Hindu communalism.Mar de Sin Talk to me! 00:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
And HVK is fine to quote, although as Bakaman said, they only quote other news sources. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 00:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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


The first comment is wishful thinking, Indian muslims is still partisan though. HvK has debunked Sabrang [2]. I almost never quote HVK, I always try to dig up the place HvK quoted from, though they always copy and paste.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Your assertion that Indianmuslims is an advocacy organization without the teams etc. is still without proof. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 01:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
And HvK has its own biased agenda, so you would need to get other sources to debunk Sab rang. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 01:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that is the manifestation of another double standard. The site clearly says "Indian Muslims" so they present the muslim POV, not the objective POV.Hkelkar 01:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
They are not recognized as a news source unlike "the Hindu", ergo they do not have any qualified journalists cause qualified journalists only work for recognized news sources, as do fact checkers etc. Can you point to any?WP:Reliable Sources demands that proof be shown to the opposite of what you suggest. Reputable news sources like Times of India, CNN, BBC, the Hindu etc are easily established as such. indianmuslims cannot be readily established as such.Hkelkar 01:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


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

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

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

As I remembered, IndM provided newspaper sources (which were established ones) they paraphrased from, and you still haven't found out why IndianMuslim is unreliable. All the info on it was correct. And worse, you also stated that the words Indian Muslim itself proved an Islamic POV, forgetting that the recognized news source the Hindu did not prove a Hindu POV. You said that on account of your own prejudice, unless you also think that the words the Hindu prove a Hindu POV. So unless you can firmly disprove IndM, please dont claim it unreliable. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 01:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but the Hindu is often and regularly cited on wikipedia and is recognized as a legit source. The Hindu does not make any Bias towards Hinduism because in "the Hindu" Hindu means Indian (from "Hind" ie the Indus) not those people who believe in Hinduism. In fact, many Hindus accuse "the Hindu" of being anti-Hindu (heh!). Since there is no ambiguity in the term "Muslim" it is clear that they have an Islamic POV (else they wouldn;t say "Muslim" in their title). I'm afraid I'll have to stand by my claim of unreliability and double standards on your part. This is similar to the debate over the "Christian Science Monitor", which is often accused of Christian POV. However, it is established that they have professional journalists etc. It is also established for Israeli Newspapers with Judaistic names like Haaretz in Israel etc. It is NOT explicitly established for indianmuslims so, until it is, it's POV. However, it can be stated with qualification (Indian muslims allege that...). That would be ok.Hkelkar 01:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I have found another piece of info, which I have added. The source is a report from pucl, which is a credible organization. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 15:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Milli gazette is not. Since this article is now extremely controversial, milli gazette gets the boot.Bakaman Bakatalk 15:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Pucl is somewhat partisan section on religious intolerance. Is there a reason why every thing on there is "Hindu poison"? Its as if Muslims/Missionaries/Marxists are tolerant, good, and secular. Bakaman Bakatalk 15:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Take the Milli gazette out if you'd like, but it was based on the pucl one. And PUCL is slightly partisan, but it is no means extremist. It has received many awards, and it has been mentioned by both the hindu and the times of india [3]. So PUCL is a pretty reliable organization. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 15:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Your PUCL citation failed verification. If this continues we may have to request for comment.Hkelkar 17:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
2nd to last paragraph, since you didn't notice it. "However we have come to know from the police sources..... seized maps of a few Mosques..." Mar de Sin Talk to me! 20:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
That para makes no accusations on Bajrang Dal.Hkelkar 21:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
In fact, the article admits to the ignorance of the contents of the documents seized.Hkelkar 21:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Support your claims. And the sentence you reverted only makes mention of "one of the deceased", which, from other sources, is linked to Bajrang Dal. And it is best to settle the argument before reverting. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 21:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
So you admit you have inferred a conclusion from several sources. I believe that it is a violation of WP:OR. None of the reliable sources explicitly accused BD of having mosque plans.Hkelkar 21:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
12th paragraph, towards the end:

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

Hkelkar 21:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

I'm afraid your edit drew a conclusion from the article not stated explicitly in the article. That counts as OR.Hkelkar 19:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I only stated the facts from the article. What conclusion are you talking about? (And going further back, OR doesn't say anything about "conclusions", only new neologisms, ideas, or terms) So I am under the impression that you are fabricating Wikipedia policy Mar de Sin Talk to me! 20:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
1. You deleted my qualification of a biased source.
2. Your edit:

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

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

Which is different from your statements.
3. Your conclusion drawn (even from the doubtful milligazette source) is not stated by milligazette explicitly, so it is a conclusion drawn on your part.Hkelkar 21:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Then mistake on my part, it would be "a report claimed that maps of mosques were seize by police at the home of the accused." Mar de Sin Talk to me! 22:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Statement is ambiguous. Do they mean that the maps were seized in houses near the houses of the accused, or that the maps were of mosques that were nearby to the house of the accused seized AT the houses of the accused? Find multiple sources (reliable non-partisan ones) to confirm.Hkelkar 01:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take apart the sentence for you.

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

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

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

I still don;t follow many things here:

  • It is a question of subject/object. I"ll have to look at my Wren and Martin to see what actual grammar rules say.I'll get back to you on this.
  • Why should "nearby districts" to the mosque?This is not clear to me at all.Bear in mind that Indian English is often subject to it's own grammatical rules.
  • So?
  • The problem is that Indian media, as well as Indian Authorities, are not exactly known for their great leaps of logic. Often, statements that, in on themselves, make absolutely no sense whatsoever are touted by Indian media solely on the basis of their authority.Thus, if certain statements contain ambiguities, then they should be handled with care on wikipedia.Hkelkar 23:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
My views were a logical interpretation of the sentence, and not any type of "original research". Let othe Wikipedians decided if the statement is clear or not. Your concern about Indian media and Indian knowledge are really shallow since the sentence makes perfect sense. Your claims on the meaning of the sentence really do seem to be a way of sneakily discrediting the information. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 23:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Any kind of interpretation is original research by definition. The sentence has many grammatical errors per Wren and martin canon of English grammar. The subject and object are ambiguous, for one.I believe your last sentence is a violation of WP:AGF, making a characterization of my motives, of which you have no knowledge.Hkelkar 00:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
To Basawala - <sarcasm>good job</sarcasm> making veiled personal attacks and insults.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that, but I really doubt there's any wrong with the grammar. So I'll try to find a grammarian Wikipedian, and see what that person thinks. And Bakaman, the manner in which you are accusing me is uncivil. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 16:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
And grammar isn't the only thing to interpret the sentence, from the context of the article, you would know that the maps were found at the houses of the accused, not in a nearby district. Nearby districts would be irrelevant to the topic of the article, since they article dealt with only some Bajrang Dal members, not an entire community of houses. Context is undeniably important. And may I ask if the language of the sentence is so unclear, why didn't you bring it up earlier when you first saw the sentence? Mar de Sin Talk to me! 17:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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


[edit] Protected

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

[edit] Nanded

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

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

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

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

And you yourself are non-partisan, right? BhaiSaab talk 06:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of my views,my edits are scholarly and follow wikipedia policies of WP:V and WP:RS. Yours follow the policy of "Whatever I can do to whitewash Islamism and point it all to the Hindoos".Allahu w00t!Hkelkar 06:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean Allahu Akbar? BhaiSaab talk 06:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I've seen "Allahu w00t" in Islamist chat rooms.Hkelkar 06:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Never heard of it. BhaiSaab talk 06:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You have now (it's mostly in Pakistani Islamist chatrooms; Deobandis, that sort of thing). L33T and terrorism. Nice combination.Hkelkar 06:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't really like Deobandi interpretation - but anyway, I say "Allahu Akbar." BhaiSaab talk 06:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


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

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

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

Is POV as the articles say that BD is a SUSPECT, not FORMALLY ESTABLISHED or indicted as the perpetrators.The article cites constantly says "IF BD was involved then... IF BD made the bombs then...",always the conditional. As such, the statement in the wikipedia article is wrong as it uses the affirmative. The affirmative was used only once in the article cited. The fact that they keep switching from affirmative to conditional shows A) that the article is typical shoddy journalism from the liberal left, and 2)They are not sure that BD actually did it. Hkelkar 07:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Very simply, your interpretation is simply wrong. There's nothing more to it, and nothing more I can say. You admit that the article says the BD was involved.

Here's what the article says about Nanded:

In April, Bajrang Dal activists Naresh Raj Kondwar and Himanshu Phanse were killed while attempting to fabricate an improvised explosive device along with their fellow extremists Maruti Wagh, Rahul Pande, and Ramraj Guptewar. Investigators later recovered a second bomb from the Nanded home where the bomb-making exercise was under way, and evidence that the extremist had struck before. Maharashtra Police found that Kondwar and Phanse were the key figures in the April 2006 bombing of a mosque at Parbhani, in which 25 persons were injured. Bajrang Dal operatives linked to the Nanded terror cell, investigators believe, also carried out the bombing of mosques at Purna and Jalna in April 2003. Eighteen persons sustained injuries in these twin attacks. What disturbed the Maharashtra Police most about the Nanded explosion, though, was that it demonstrated the Bajrang Dal's growing bomb-making capabilities. In an interview to the magazine Communalism Combat earlier this year, K.P. Raghuvanshi, Joint Commissioner of Police, Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad, admitted that the Nanded incident could have "frightening repercussions."

There are no two ways of interpreting those passages.
And as for your statement that the articles you quoted imply that the LeT was responsible for the 2006 Nanded blast, that is simply not borne out by the articles. I cant imagine what might make you think that it is other than wishful thinking. Hornplease 10:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you here to debate or flame?Hkelkar 10:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep it civil, please. I have tried to explain to you three times what is wrong with your interpretation, and all I have been told in return is to "stop playing the fool". You're supposed to be taking the time that you're blocked to reflect on your behaviour. Hornplease 21:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
HKelkar, your sources only briefly mention Nanded and only say that the LeT have operations in Nanded, and not the Bajrang Dal bomb blasts. Until you can pinpoint where you think they mention that, then your statement is false. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 13:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Can I take it that this is settled? Shall i let BL know? Hornplease 23:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC
No it is not settled. It is a false consensus.Hkelkar 23:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Have you an answer, then? The 2006 Nanded blast had nothing to do with the LeT according to your sourced articles. Do you agree to that much? Hornplease 23:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't agree with you.See above.Hkelkar 23:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, you have been proved wrong about that. Do you understand? There is nothing in those articles that supports your statements. The article is about two different occasions, and the history of Nanded. About the particular explosion, there is no mention of the LeT. you have not been able to cite any articles that do mention the LeT in that context. Can we move on now? Hornplease 23:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random sentence

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

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

Ah, you're back. Well I put the quote in context.Hkelkar 22:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/j/Talk%7EBajrang_Dal_a5c6.html"