Talk:Hindu Unity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 28/7/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	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. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
???	This article has not been rated yet on the quality scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 April 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus, article is kept.

Contents 1 Facual accuracy 2 Supply Verification 3 Notability 4 Deletion 5 Merge Instead? 6 Useless sections 7 Deleted section 8 Andy 04:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 9 First paragraph's factual accuracy

[edit] Facual accuracy

Anti-Hindus please post links attesting that HU has carried out attacks. Any hindu doesn't count. Must be HU members. I will remove sentence in 24 hrsNetaji 01:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, who made you the judge? Secondly, if we were to follow your strange line of reasoning, we would not be able to call anyone terrorists simply because they won't admit to it. If the BBC calls them terrorists, they're terrorists...you just have to live with that.--Disinterested 05:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Janaab (or Huzoor, or whatever you folks like to call each other)....An organization is regarded as terrorist only when an accredited government body of international significance lists them terrorists. Guess what, dost? That's Lashkar-e-Toiba, Hizbul Mujahiddeen and kind uncle Osama, not HU or RSS. Plus, I don't believe BBC has ever paid any attention to a relatively unimportant website like Hindu Unity. I think they're presently more interested in certain, ah, "associates" that somebody here may know very well...Netaji 07:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

So what is all that stuff,what evidence HU have for the bombing of Train by any Pakistani National and there are hundreds of organisations working against india.Most of these are internal cause rather than external support.They may bomb the train for their own cause.Why do will Pakistan help these organistion which might have a common objective against Pakistan and india,might against any other state.Yousaf465

I did not understand a single word of what you typed. Are you suggesting that I am suggesting that HU is interested in bombers? I was referring to the main subject ie BBC, not HU, *ahem.Netaji 05:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

IS HU beanded by any significant org as a hate-site? They have a rather nice article on Jews. No hate there.Netaji 05:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I bet the websites of those Extremist Jewish Anti-Arab organisations "have a rather nice article" on Hindus. Does that mean there's no hate? Because it's not very convincing to say that this organisation is non-hate on the basis of pro-Judaism. --Basawala 01:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Presumably you're referring to http://www.yahoodi.com (which mostly redirects to http://famous.heebz.com/) and this article. None of these websites are classified as "hate-sites" by any government , judicial organization, or recognized internet body that keeps information on websites (see?).

Alexa.com classifies Hindu Unity as a "strongly partisan" website here and you can say that in the article if you must. Bear in mind that it is not categorized here under "hate groups".

There are many muslim sites and other miscellaneous websites that may say that HU is a hate site. Bear in mind that there are many muslim sites that also say that Jews drink the blood of small children , secretly control the world media and use it to subliminally brainwash black people into smuggling drugs. Doesn't mean we need to endorse such fantasies by listing them as factual, does it?Netaji 09:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supply Verification

Supply verification of attacks actually conducted by HU members. Until then, section is disputed.Netaji 22:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

This article does not assert the notability of website. It does not seem to fit any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (web). BhaiSaab ^talk 21:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This article does not belong on wikipedia. Maybe it should be marked for deletion.Netaji 22:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

I find it insane that this article is being marked for deletion by the same people who're so hell-bent to modify it every 5 seconds. The facts are that this article is about an organization that definitely exists and has, in fact, even been in news reports a number of times. This article should NOT be deleted. --Disinterested 04:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Its only been in news reports because the government banned blogs, not because of any sort of break-in with the law. You seem to be the one modifying it.Bakaman%% 15:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Instead?

The notability guidelines state:

Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization. For example, yahoo.com is a redirect to Yahoo!. On the other hand Drugstore.com is a standalone page.

On this basis should we merge with Bajrang Dal? --AndrewRT 21:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps...Netaji 22:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hindu Unity is an interesting website in its own right, and isn't by any means the primary online mouthpiece of the Bajrang Dal. The site's attracted enough notoriety over the years that it deserves an article of its own. I'd definitely oppose merging it with Bajrang Dal. --Anirvan 01:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. same reason as anirvan--D-Boy 06:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per Anirvan and D-boy.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, see above.Netaji 21:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Useless sections

The section "Specific threats by Hindu Unity" is useless because it presents too little, and uncited info. I think it should be removed. The section "Position Regarding the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict" should be listed under positions and is too specific and not enough to constitute it's own section. Afterall, there already exists a section called "Positions". Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 03:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

My dear "Basa" walla:

'Position regarding Israel-Lebanon' is very important as it is a recent addition to the website and carries special merit wrt other positions regarding international issues, given the extensive media coverage of the war and consequently it's importance as a talking point. It also serves to illustrate the growing support for Israel in Hindu Nationalist circles. Scared? Netaji 09:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "Specific Threats by HU" is useless, unless somebody adds more info to it. So far, they have only listed addresses, phone numbers and passport info of the miscreants in the HU website... Netaji 09:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not insult my username - "My dear "Basa" walla".

If you think 'Position regarding Israel-Lebanon' is so important, then it would go as a subsection under "Positions".Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 20:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted section

I have the deleted the section "Specific threats by Hindu Unity". Its full contents are here:
== Specific threats by Hindu Unity== {{disputed-section}} The website makes frequent use of the word [[terrorism]] to describe the actions of people and groups it vehemently opposes. They have posted detailed information on various people whom they perceive as a grave threat to India and Hindus.{{Cite needed}}
This section had no citations and it had too little information. If you oppose this deletion (and want to add to this section instead), you are free to put it back. Thank you. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 01:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andy 04:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted.

[edit] First paragraph's factual accuracy

Many statements in the first paragraph of the article are pretty much twisted facts, so I have included more information (taken from their website), as well as other info. If you object to any of these changes, please discuss on this page before reverting. Thanks, Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 21:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)