Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh/Archive 2

message: I object to the following edits which change material that is sourced by a WP:RS: .  The book by Nussbaum is the source for the quotation, which is directly relevant to the subject.  Buddhipriya 06:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is correct, and has not been removed. It is appropriately placed in the criticism section (where it is now), and henru's view paraphrased in the history article. Putting Nehru's quote in box while not doing the same to others is hijacking wikipedia to propogate an anti-RSS POV and is using wikipedia as a soapbox.Khilafat Osmania 06:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotation is cited by Nussbaum specifically in context of the Gandhi assination to help explain the political thinking in place by Nehru immediately after the assasination, and to explain his communication to the regional governors about his concerns.  Moving it away from the assasination confuses the issue and gives no context for this.  Nussbaum's context is very specific in showing that Nehru believed that the RSS was behind the assasination.  The issue is not whether or not that was true, but what Nehru believed and acted upon, based on his communication to the regional governors. Buddhipriya 06:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why the sentence was paraphrased in the Gandhi Assassination section. It is both an attack on the RSS from the point of view of Gandhi's assassination and an attack on the RS in general (see Godwin's law, comparing people to Nazis constitutes an attack meant primarily to censor debate). The present version keeps Nehru's views in both context, and not giving undue weight to it keeps the article free of WP:POINT. Khilafat Osmania 06:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree, so let's see what other editors have to say. Buddhipriya 06:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not enough. You have to explain why you don't agree. There isn't enough of a dispute in progress to necessitate some sort of third party intervention yet. No information that you added was removed, so it is not a content issue, but an issue of Undue weight and WP:POINT. Khilafat Osmania 06:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to changes to sourced content 

message: REQUEST :- THIS IS VERY RELEVANT PLEASE DONT DELETE.
There seems to be an inherent contradiction in either the total number of Members or the number of SHAKHAS (Branches). It is said here that the number of members of RSS is 4.5 million and Shakhas is 50,000. If the number of Shakhas is (as mentioned here) 50,000 all over India, the number of members enrolled in each Shakha comes to only 9 (nine) per Shakha, which is too low to be called as a Shakha or Branch. Generally in RSS system one Shakha is run for one area (called as Locality, Peth or Munciple Ward in Indian terms). If this is so, one area (which may have minimum 10000 population) has only Nine members enrolled in one Shakha, which is again too low. Something some where is wrong. It is also possible that the number of Shakhas and Members mentioned here is bit exaggerated without any logic. The number of Sangha Shakhas was at peak after Emergency was lifted in India in 1977. After around 1985, due to Socio- Economical changes in the life style of Indians the attendance at Shakhas drastically reduced resulting into closer of many Shakhas. At present there may be only 10,000 Shakhas mainly in smaller cities or rural areas with an average attendance of approx 20 Members in each Shakha , totaling to only 2 million active Members. It is noteworthy that the attendance of Youth is very low. In bigger cities having population morethan 15 million the Shakhas are virtually wiped out. It is also because people now a days don’t like wearing old fashioned Khaki Short and don’t want to play Indian games being the backward system adopted by RSS. The popularity and membership of BJP is much higher than of RSS and that is why BJP is overshadowing and dominating RSS, which is supposed to be the mother organization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.211.246.141 (talk • contribs) 13 Jul 2007 (UTC)
:: First, even RSS doesn't keep count of it's members or track them centrally. So even RSS doesn't know the exact count of its member and they only estimate also. Thus I personally wouldn't trust any outsider even trying to guess the numbers. However, RSS does keep exact count of other things such as the number of Shakhas (Daily/Weekly/Monthly) ... 45,000 this year. So trust the number of the Shakhas but not the members. Addtionally, RSS recently claimed that ~1,76,00,000 or 17.6 Million people attended its various programs held throughout the year 2006 all over Bharat. So this gives an estimate of the size of Sangh supporters.
::Also the definition of RSS's member or swayamsevak is different. They consider anyone who has attended Shakha as swayamsevak. So that number can vary widely. Sjain 20:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article 

message: I dissected the Social Activities section and here are a few changes I was forced to make-
* Sewa Bharati has also collaborated with several relief groups, such as the Catholics Bishops Conference of India to conduct relief operations in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Activities included building shelters for the victims, providing food, clothes and medical necessities
:The article from which these details are sourced very clearly explain that the Sewa Bhararti "was ready for the mission and preparing to send relief material to the affected areas". It does not say what or whether any aid was actually given. Also collaboration with the CBCI is misinterpreted.
* In 2006, RSS participated in relief efforts to provide basic necessities such as food, milk and potable water to the people of Surat, Gujarat who were affected by massive floods in the region 
:Here the source was The Organiser, a pro RSS mouthpiece. Not reliable by any means.
* The RSS also rendered relief work during the 2001 Gujarat Earthquake and the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake and the subsequent Tsunami 
:The two sources are just links to news articles on the disasters. Not verifiable, therfore invalid.
--EGGman64 18:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Activities 

message: I have begun a reworking of the Zionist section. Certain key points were left out and relevancy was lost, although citations are present. Allow me to elucidate-
A recent issue of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-backed weekly Organiser has gone out of its way to support the Zionist cause, arguing that the recent violence was the result of Palestinian intransigence.
:*This was quoted in reference to the GOI's decision to ratify a UNGA resolution condemning excessive force used by Israelis in Palestine. 
This has invited scathing attacks on the party from anti-Zionist elements
:*There are NO scathing remarks on the cited page rather a clear dissemination of the ideals and objectives of the RSS. This has no relevancy to the previous sentences. However, when clubbed together these take on a different (and almost propagandist) meaning. 
In addition. RSS welcomed the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to India in 2003.Sharon's visit was widely condemned.
:*Here reasons for condemnation of Sharon's visit (i.e failure to uphold the Oslo Accords which has led to a systematic breakdown of the middle east peace protest) were conveniently left out.
This follows the rise in support for Israel in India in recent years. This has invited scathing attacks on the party from anti-Zionist elements
:*This statement is irrelevant because the cited article refers to India as a whole. What difference does the country's stand on Israel make to the RSS and Israel?  Furthermore, it is implied that anti-Zionist factions are opposed to RSS because they claim Palestinian intransigence. This is a blatant misuse of a citation. The article on Ghadar's site is with reference to the Freeman Center's stance and the site is clearly NOT Anti Zionist. I propose that the above lines be removed or reconstructed.
--EGGman64 12:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel and Zionism 

message: I've protected the page until the disputes are resolved via discussion and consensus, verifiability, and other relevant policies. Thanks. --Ragib 04:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Can we have the earlier discussions archived? I'm using Misza Bot
--EGGman64 07:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: My apologies on this off topic post, but this is for asking for help in support from frequent editors here to correct bias in the British Raj article that paint the British Raj in a positive light. It appears that a small number of people have taken over that article while hiding all the atrocities committed by British Raj in India. See Discussion at   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desione (talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calll for Wider Participation For Article [[British Raj]] 

message: Looks like an ad for RSS. Must be re written in a neutral way. Madhava 1947 (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: There is reference in this article which mentions a book by Khushwant Singh.  The title is "Congress (I) is the Most Communal Party".  I could not find any reference to such a book in Google search.  Please mention more verifiable resources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skbhat (talk • contribs) 10:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference About Khushwant Singh 

message: ===Participated actively in the political process===
"They have participated actively in the political process through the Bharatiya Janata Party. "
: There is no reference for this, while I agree they may have supported BJP, or Shiv Sena or any other party there is no reference that they "have actively participated"> On the contrary RSS considers it self as a non-political organization. In any case to say "They have participated actively in the political process through the Bharatiya Janata Party. " is a Point of View which is not supported by evidence  therefore i am removing it.Sindhian (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh Article for NPOV 

message: "They have participated actively in the political process through the Bharatiya Janata Party. "
: There is no reference for this, while I agree they may have supported BJP, or Shiv Sena or any other party there is no reference that they "have actively participated"> On the contrary RSS considers it self as a non-political organization. In any case to say "They have participated actively in the political process through the Bharatiya Janata Party. " is a Point of View which is not supported by evidence  therefore i am removing it.Sindhian (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Participated actively in the political process

message: "during periods in which the government of the time considered them a threat to the state"This ia again a propaganda and POV of parties and individuals opposite to RSS. Is there any reference to prove that. Should be removed to restore NPOV Sindhian (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: threat to the state:

message: "The organization gained considerable strength and support because of its various relief activities, both offensive and defensive"
"both offensive and defensive" sentense actually does not make sense plus is controversial and considered a POV of RSS opponents. No reference or justification for the comment is sited.So I suggest we remove it Sindhian (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  both offensive and defensive, 

message: "Nathuram Godse, there were reports of celebrations by some RSS members by distributing sweets.The guru of hate, The Hindu, Nov 2006 Golwalkar- The Guru Of Hate By Ramachandra GuhaAnalysis: RSS aims for a Hindu nation BBC As a precaution, "
# Nathuram was not a member of RSS at the time he commited the murder so this sentense is not rlelevant to RSS at least does not require prominance. So I will be removing it.Sindhian (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nathuram Godse

message: "In November 2000, when the BJP-led Indian government voted in favour of the United Nations General Assembly resolution condemning Israel's "excessive use of force" against Palestinian civilians, the RSS-backed weekly, the Organiser went out of its way to support the Zionist cause, arguing that the recent violence was the result of Palestinian intransigence.India's changing stand Frontline - October 28, 2000. This follows the rise in support for Israel in India in recent years.Israel's War and India: Aftershocks. "
Three things wrong with this piece
1. It talks about BJP to start with while the article is RSS
2. It has hatefull overtone and looks is inteneded as propaganda. "Zionist cause" is used in a hatefull  and POV overtone.
3. "Went out of its way" is clearly a POV and cannot be justified on Wikipedia   Sindhian (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel

message: Out of context section looks like propaganda and openiated sentense.Should be removed or balanced 05:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: advocating friendship with Pakistan 

message: Too many accusations which are infact POV of different insignificant authors of politically opposition. Again looks like propaganda since the acusations or the openions of the said authors are not independent or substantiated. Need to remove to restore NPOV.  Sindhian (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Accusations

message: I have never heard that RSS worships country in the form of God. There are no references so removed Sindhian (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: In the form of God 

message: Gopal Godse, one of the co-accused in the Gandhi murder case and Nathuram Godse’s brother, confirmed that both he and his brother were actively involved with the RSS at the time of the assassination. In an interview in 1994, he stated:
"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 home. It was like a family to us. Nathuram had become a baudhik karyavah [intellectual worker] in the RSS. He has said in his statement that he had left the RSS. He said it because Golwalkar [the then RSS Supremo] and the RSS were in a lot of trouble after the murder of Gandhi. But he did not leave the RSS."UCLA Social Studies Network
 
This sentense is clearly added as a propaganda and has little information value about RSS as an organization so I suggest we delete it. Sindhian (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Govind Godse

message: Removed the edit
are a revival of Hindu tradition and to be an advocacy group for Hindus, whom they feel are being slowly marginalized due to alleged "negationism" in India and the acts of appeasement against them from the left-wing political parties and politicians in favor of extremist elements of other religious denominations. 
I didn't find any reference to it. If someone has we can consider putting it back. Sindhian (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed unreferenced POV=

message: References cited are not credible enough and accusion of militancy is not widely made. Therefore removing Sindhian (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Accusation of being militant organization 

message: Koenraad Elst has indeed written a couple of (openly partisan) books on the topic, and I see no reason not to mention him. However, this isn't http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/ and we shall not provide a platform for extensive quotations of Mr. Elst's rants. It is much to give him a dedicated h3 section under "academic criticism", but I suppose the tone of his piece really speaks for itself. We can keep the reference, but there is no way this should take up anything more than two or three lines in the article body. --dab (𒁳) 11:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am agree with you. However since  is edit warring instead of discussing the issue, I have left a note in his talk page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Elst is a partisan and apologist source. Using him to refute the criticism from mainstream academics also a case of WP:UNDUE. We should be careful before inserting quotefarm. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: No one is saying Elst should not mentioned. His counter criticism deserves inclusion, but his view should not be included as a mainstream view. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: his "counter-criticism" would deserve inclusion if published academically. Rants picked off random websites do not "deserve inclusion". It isn't too much to ask to present a bleeding scholarly source in a section titled "academic criticism", is it? I'm sorry, but why is it necessary to spend time discussing this? This is how Wikipedia works. Trips is to come up with a scholarly reference or drop the issue.  The "allegations of fascism" are referenced to  Far Eastern Survey, Vol. 19, and monographs published with  Blackwell Publishing,  State University of New York Press, and University of Washington Press. The "rebuttals" of these are referenced to www.hindu.com and www.indiastar.com. "Double standards"? I dare say so, but hardly in the sense Trips alleges. I say we cut all sources not published academically from the section. --dab (𒁳) 08:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, response to an accusation is appropriate, but it should be mentioned who is responding. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: no, mentioning the response would be appropriate if the response had been made in an WP:RS, not on indiastar.com. If horsing around with this quote goes any further, I will again remove it altogether and place the burden of establishing that it meets WP:RS on anyone who wants to include it. WP:RS in this case means, published in a peer-reviewed academic publication. dab (𒁳) 14:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

text: See Dbachmann's rationale above why the entire quote is inappropriate. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I said I didn't object to a few lines being kept. This was an offer for compromise. I never said Wikipedia policy requires us to keep any of this. In fact, I argue that the "DUE" guidelines would require us to remove it. Elst's opinions in general may be interesting as a primary source, but he has no place under "academic criticism" unless he publishes his stuff academically. If we cannot agree on how to present this piece, it will be best to blank it. If we do keep it, the most I could agree to would be characterizing it as a personal opinion posted on some website. --dab (𒁳) 15:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Elst quote 

message: is changing the section name of Academic criticism to Criticism and removing the Britannica reference from lead which states "According to the Britannica Online, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is the most militant Hindu organization". There should be a separate section for Academic criticism and Britannica is good in the lead. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britannica 

message: I had removed the incorrect reference to the lifting of bans by the Supreme Court, which never took place, but this edit was reverted.  The cited BBC article next to this statement contains no reference to any lifting of the ban by the Supreme Court.  I have inserted the correct historical events and provided a citation as well.  If this edit is reverted as well, it will only prove the bias of the reverter.  I would challenge you to produce details of these supposed SUpreme Court rulings - case titles, dates, details of the judgment etc. Shankargopal (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supreme Court lifting of bans 

message: Are these informations of RSS not participating in Quit India Movement of any encyclopedic value? Docku:“what up?” 13:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSS and Quit India Movement 

message: An interesting topic that this article might include is the link between fascist groups and humanitarianism. While the links between imperialist powers and the humanitarian international have been discussed at length in literature on humanitarianism, there is no study of the use of disaster-relief by racist and facist organisations - although that use is widespread. It would be interesting to know, for example, whether India allowed indigenous fascist groups to provide succour to the victims of the tsunami, while refusing entry to other groups.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.95.125.189 (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascism and humanitarianism 

message: The ideology section I think needs to be significantly changed to meet the standards of encyclopedia. Please let me know if anybody has any comments on this. Unspokentruth (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology section 

message: The recent edits by User:Walky-talky are highly soapboxy and unconstructive. Referenced content is being removed, they are being replaced by partisan sources which are blatantly inaccurate. nihar (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please be specific? Which one of my edits is "blatantly inaccurate"? What are the partisan sources that I have introduced? Did I remove any referenced content without giving any reason for that? Not everything can be referenced belongs here. Walky-talky (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: If you are there, please respond. I am waiting before I revert it nihar (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need more time. I am reverting the text for now, I would be grateful to you if you could alert me and discuss if and when you think of inserting back the content. nihar (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have reverted you.  There is no synthesis in the material that I included in the section on Indo-Sino War.  Please look at the reference cited which is available online.  The referenced text that you introduced again in the lead is based on primary sources as I had pointed out in my edit summary.  I changed it to what mainstream secondary(third party) sources say.  Moving all criticism to a "criticism" section is not what our style guidelines prefer. ( What are the "two things" ... "delibrately mixed up" "to give a different meaning").  Anyway, the criticism section was more a "criticism of criticism" before I made the changes.  Walky-talky (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Please quote the exact wordings of citation. nihar (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have given the full quotation and its URL above.  I corrected the citation as well.  Do not vandalise the article by removing a request for quote and changing the citation to an incorrect one.Walky-talky (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I found this from a review of Pralay Kanungo's "RSS's TRYST WITH POLITICS — From Hedgewar To Sudarshan"."He deals with how Deoras could convince the then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, to accord to the RSS this privilege. The common agenda then (and in 1948 when Birla negotiated on behalf of the RSS) was the "need" to take on the communists." .    I have partially reverted myself in view your (synthesis) criticism; though I believe it was in context and I had seen references supporting it. I did not see any third party sources to support that "Nehru was impressed by RSS".  Please comment on the current version.Walky-talky (talk) 12:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for being honest. The contents you put there were not in the book. You never read a book which you quoted. Fare enough! I appreciate your honesty. But sadly the current version too is still inaccurate. This is what happens when you try writing backwards - 'first make conclusions and try to fit facts into them'. Try improving it. I am putting a synthesis tag there. Let me know when you are done, please do not remove the tag untill then. nihar (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your appreciation of my honesty.  I will thank you again when one day I, “first make conclusions and try to fit facts into them” and find your suggestion helpful.  As I said above, the reference says "He deals with how Deoras could convince the then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, to accord to the RSS this privilege. The common agenda then (and in 1948 when Birla negotiated on behalf of the RSS) was the "need" to take on the communists."  What was the need for Nehru to take on the communists?  The communists did not support Nehru during the China war while RSS did.  But this article (reference) does not explicitly mention this obvious context.  Hence technically it could be called Synthesis; though no way improper.  That’s why I reverted myself as there are many other serious problems in this article.  The present version ( sentence) is based only on one source and so how can it be called a synthesis?  Please look at WP:SYNTH again and check whether there is any justification for that tag.  I am not reverting it today.  Walky-talky (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Contradictions galore: First you put some soapboxy content claiming it was there in the book. When you were asked to present the actual lines, you say the comments were from the review and not from the book while still putting back the reference. Now you are yourself confused as to whether to call it synthesis or not. Nevertheless, if you want the content to be there please, quote the actual wordings as I requested earlier, if not remove it. I request you again to stop  putting such inaccurate soapboxy content. In case you do not agree, we can ask for arbitration  nihar (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I have changed the citation.  There is no "soapboxy content" and I have no doubt that there is no improper synthesis, not even synthesis.  You please explain what improper synthesis is there or remove the tag.Walky-talky (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also let me know why you deleted a quotation of Jyotirmaya Sharma and also the initial description section, both of which had good references. In Jyotirmaya Sharma's statement, you say it is distorted and taken out of context. Please elaborate. I do not agree with your observations. nihar (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: "Fascism is a radical, authoritarian, corporatist and nationalist political ideology.  Historians and political scientists disagree on a precise definition, however; some would omit one or more of the preceding themes, while others would add many more."  Just look at the article on any fascist organisation and you will see a section devoted to the academic and mainstream media debate about whether the organisation has all the features of a fascist organisation.  See for example, "In both popular thought and academic scholarship, Nazism is generally considered a form of fascism – a term whose definition is itself contentious. The debate focuses mainly on comparisons of fascist movements in general with the Italian prototype, including the fascists in Germany..."(Nazism#Fascism). But this comes after "Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism". The section on "Accusations of fascism and militancy" requires lot of improvement.  As I mentioned earlier, it is more like a "criticism of Accusations of fascism and militancy".  First there should be a discussion on RSS leaders' appreciation of Fascism and Hitler, the fascist features of RSS and then one can also talk about the academic debate about whether it is appropriate to call RSS fascist.  I removed the sentence "In addition, accusations of "fascism" have been critiqued as overly simplistic by Jyotirmaya Sharma as inappropriate, calling them a "simplistic transference [that] has done great injustice to our knowledge of Hindu nationalist politics".  What does that sentence mean?(… accusations of "fascism" have been critiqued as overly simplistic by Jyotirmaya Sharma as inappropriate…).  Also Jyotirmaya Sharma is talking about Western commentators likening "the Sangh Parivar and its politics to Fascism in order to make sense of the growth of extremist politics and intolerance within their societies." and is not on "accusations of fascism on RSS" in general.  The quotation I added, "since a characteristic of the RSS's Hindu nationalism has been to down-play the role of the state we cannot classify it straightforwardly as a fascist movement....Nonetheless, the RSS can be classed as authoritarian in its emphasis on discipline, in its refusal to recognise the specific character of minorities and in its intention of reforming the Hindu mentality absolutely to prepare the advent of a new man, implying the need to extend the sway of the organisation over the whole of society" can also be distorted/ taken out of context like this.  That why I replaced the reviewer's comment with this original quotation.  Putting that sentence I removed, without giving the proper context is like adding "Roger Griffin and  Matthew Feldman criticises the accusations of fascism and is of the opinion that " 'fascism' should be reserved for the Italian system under Mussolini, while Nazism should be called 'National Socialism' and regarded as a unique phenomenon." to the Nazism  page.Walky-talky (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent reverts 

message: Here is the quotation 
"I hav been reilably informed that a number of youths of RSS were able to inform Sardar Patel and Nehruji in the very nick of time of the Leaguer`s intended coup on September 10, 1947"........
....."Why have I said all this? Because if those high-spirited and self-sacrificing boys had not given the very timely information to Nehruji and Patelji, there would have been no Government of India today. (Page 172,  Philosophy and action of the R. S. S. for the Hind Swaraj‎) Unspokentruth (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had put the  tag after this sentence: Dr. Bhagwan Das commended the role of the "high-spirited and self-sacrificing boys" of the RSS in protecting the newly formed Republic of India, from a planned coup to topple the Nehru Administration in Delhi.  The reference cited is “Anthony Elenjimittam, Philosophy and action of the R. S. S for the Hind Swaraj”.  The quotations you provided do not mention any thing about Bhagwan Das.  Please provide the details of the book (author, title, page number, edition, etc) where you found this.  Please also quote sufficient number of sentences to make the context clear.  From what you provided, no one can make out who is saying this and when.  I found both the quotations you provided only  in books authored by RSS leaders.  Walky-talky (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote