Talk:Hindu Students Council

message: This magazine's article is not admissible for this since there is a COI.  The authors of this magazine are also involved with CSFH and are writing about work that they did themselves. This amounts to WP:SPS. Kkm5848 01:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, that is absolutely no evidence of that assertion. It may not even be relevant. (Bob Woodward writing in the Post about his own investigation is still a reliable source, because he is still subject to editorial oversight.) Hornplease 10:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Himal Mag 

message: The single most reliable source has already been cited by kkm5848: 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). That's not WP:OR or WP:FRINGE - that is the law of the United States of America. The standard for determining shared control that I mentioned above are standards set by the federal government. If honrplease has a problem with that standard he should take it up with Congress. If he want to make a legal claim about any organization and he can't back it up using the standards created by the federal government, then I'm afraid he's the one on the fringe. Akx256 02:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion. Your interpretation of the relevance of the law is not shared by every single reliable source. Hornplease 10:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding references to reliable sources is not in any way OR! Nor has it anything to do with "fringe" theories - which means stuff like "colored auras" and "the CIA blew up the World Trade Center". Also, threatening legal action, even obliquely, is a no-no. There is no problem listing what the organisation says about itself and what other - notable - commentators have to say about it. Paul B 10:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Paul, I'm not exactly sure how you are inferring a threat of legal action merely because I cited that one statute. I was in no way threatening legal action. I was merely presenting (or rather, re-presenting) the source for the standard of proof that I had argued for earlier. Given that the government does have a role in the creation of non-profits, I don't see any harm in arguing that we follow their lead in evaluating claims of relationships between nono-profits. Akx256 13:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware that Hornplease was making any "legal claim". It is clear that the HSC was set up by the VHP and that it was initially funded by them. It is now financially independent, but clearly states that it has shared values with them and Sangh Parivar. Some critics see the HSC as a VHP "front" organisation. The difference is really a matter of interpretation. WP can't say what the truth of the matter is, but we can reasonably report controversy where it occurs. Paul B 14:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Interestingly, the Sangh Parivar article lists the HSC as a Sangh Parivar organisation. The listing was added by User:Babub, a Hindu editor who, judging by his other edits, is a supporter, not an opponent. Paul B 14:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable Sources, May 3rd 

message: pleasse discuss why it should be there.  I see no reason for it.--D-Boy 19:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the earlier part of the talkpage, where the anon/puppetmaster editing much of this says "To take an inaccurate document and use it as a basis to change the very first sentence of an article about a group that you have obviously never been involved with is simply unfair." I have interpreted this to mean that he is involved with the group, and have thus assumed a conflict of interest. On being asked, he has not replied. Do you disagree with my inference? Hornplease 20:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brownwalrus, the COI guideline nowhere says crit section > no COI. It suggests to those with a COI how to handle criticism sections that they may come across. Incidentally, I have no opinion on your views, only your use of the sources.  Hornplease 09:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Brownwalrus, the edit you refer to merely indicates your own and your confreres's naive misunderstanding of the FOIL position. They object to the term Sanatana Dharma as a synonym for Hinduism because they see the term as a way of obfuscating the fact that Hinduism has a history - that is continues to change and has competing articulations and schools - that it is a network of traditions not an eternally revealed truth with an equally eternal order. They see the preoccupation with this term as a specifically conservative and nationalist version of the complex and often contradictory forms of Hindu identity. As leftists coming from a Marxist tradition they take the view that this is an an appropriation of Hindu tradition(s) for an obfuscatory reactionary ideology. You can of course say that they are wrong, or are reading too much into a particular phrase, but it is not a "misunderstading". They know what they mean. You quite evidently have no idea what they mean. The extraction of this quote is a very simple-minded attempt to discredit the report. If you wish to discredit it point to published criticisms. Also you have deleted evidence from the very reliable LSE and the very well-established Diana Eck. Paul B 08:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking your own views of what the CSFH report means amounts ot WP:Original Research and is thus invalid.  I have taken what they have writen--quoted in fact.  Compare that to the "Sanatana Dharma" wikipedia page to get your answer. Kkm5848 14:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument is a characteristic misrepresentation of policy. Comments on the talk pages do not come under the OR rule. My comment was a explanation of why you have misrepresented the meaning of the passage in your adolescent attempts to understand the point that they are making. Your comments in the article are therefore the original research, since you  - not a Reliable source -are making the claim that they misunderstand the meaning of Sanatana Dharma. Your other attempts at quote-mining and wild claims about McCarthtyism are in the same category. Paul B 16:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Good, now we come down to namecalling....why don't you read the reportKkm5848 01:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  coi 

message: why are my edits reverted w/o explanation despite requests for discussion?!? Kkm5848 17:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverts 

message: These are two different organizations.  Therefore, the link to VHP instead of VHPA is incorrect. Kkm5848 17:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not two different organisations. "World Hindu Council"? Hello? Hornplease 17:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this something you believe in or can cite? Kkm5848 19:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: http://www.vhp-america.org/ -> states "World Hindu Council of America" Kkm5848 19:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: VHP is part of the Sangh Parivar. Please see .Hornplease 17:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no statement of equivalance on the website. Kkm5848 19:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Now you are being silly. This is called wikilawyering. You know very well that it's not original research to state that thr SP is right wing. Footnoting it would be as pointless as footnoting the fact that Julius Caesar was a Roman. Paul B 07:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it is also well known that CSFH is not taken seriously and the only people writing about their reports are people involved with CSFH!  Kkm5848 16:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not well known, it's a POV. However any fool can find Reliable sources which state that the SP is right wing. e.g. The Sangh Parivar, A Reader, published by Oxford University Press. Paul B 16:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find any _independent_ WP:RS sources talking about the CSFH report or organization for that matter? Independent means not published by members of the FOIL/SABRANG/YSS/CSFH combine Kkm5848 02:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Independent from what? It has been reported in numerous newspapers. Remember, the report is not being presented as fact, any more than reponses of the HSC spokespersons are presented as fact. The report makes claims. The claims are reported by Reliable Sources, as are the reponses of the HSC. Paul B 10:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What is OR? The claim that the Sangh Parivar is "right wing" or that the VHP is an arm of it? Neither of these are seriously disputed. It's odd that you want the left wing affiliations of the HSC's critics to be included, but seem coy about mentioning right wing identity. Has it occurred to you that the left wing tends to criticise organisations becuse they are right wing (and vice versa)? Paul B 15:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Serious dispute or agreement is different from being written about by a WP:RS. Kkm5848 02:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "There are VHP Units, registered under its name according to the laws of the respective countries, in USA..." - from the website of the VHP , which lists the VHP of America as the unit in question, in case further confirmation was needed. This is the self-definition of the VHP, and is relevant. Please note that the HSC is considered by all reliable sources to be the student wing of the VHP, so the affiliation of the VHP is highly relevant. Hornplease 19:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hinduism Today, a magazine that meets WP:OR states that it is independent. Which basically means that not ALL WP:RS say what you say. (from its archives: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2001/9-10/60_college.shtml) Kkm5848 02:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VHP not the same as VHPA 

message: FOIL/YSS/CSFH associations are continuously reverted. by hornplease & Paul Barlow Kkm5848 17:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? I added the reference to FOIL in the first place. Paul B 17:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Campaign to Stop Funding Hate, an initiative of the Federation of Indian Leftists (FOIL)http://www.countercurrents.org/comm-mathew120805.htm, to date has only published reports targetting Hindu groups and released the now-debunked report against the IDRF entitled "A Foreign Exchange of Hate: IDRF and the American Funding of Hindutva." Kkm5848 19:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The part upto and i ncluding the footnote has never been removced. The csecond part presents opinion ("discredited") as fact. Paul B 15:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FOIL

message: This is incorrect.  HSC asserts it is _independent_  it does not qualify the statement in the press release that is being cited!Kkm5848 17:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please quote the line from HSC website in the footnote, and link to it. Hornplease 17:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Financially and administratively is not a "qualification", it's added detail. Paul B 17:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are saying is WP:OR which is why it can't stay that way in the article. Kkm5848 19:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  inaccurate citations 

message: The report is full of factual inaccuracies as seen in WP:Reliable resources.  Yet, quotes from the report are reverted repeatedly by hornplease & Paul BarlowKkm5848 17:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not for you to say that it is factually inaccurate. It may well be. Report an RS that says so, or that conveys the opinions of critics of the report. Paul B 17:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that what I did--albiet in an indirect way? Didn't we have a similar discussion around PN Oak?  Where he is a fringe author that not enough people take serously to write critical reviews on?  Kkm5848 19:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources have covered the report. Hornplease 19:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources linked with the report.  Not independent, reliable sources. Kkm5848 02:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: details about the report

message: Does the CSFH report even count as notable?  The only people writing about it are people associated with it in papers & publications where they have pre-established relationships. Kkm5848 19:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, those papers and publications are reliable, and they have editorial oversight.Hornplease 19:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: from the WP:not page: "The topic of any article should be notable." So, i think this is a discussion we should have. Kkm5848 02:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Are there any sources that have evaluated the CSFH report that are both independent and WP:RS?  Independent means not written by members of the FOIL/YSS/CSFH collective. Kkm5848 01:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't be dumb. It's been widely reported by mainstream news outlets. That's what makes it notable. Paul B 23:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Resorting to namecalling will not get you anywhere and is in violation of wp guidelines of behavior.  There are no mainstream news outlets that I am aware of that have cited this where the writers/authors are not members of the groups publishing the report.  If you know of some, please provide them. Kkm5848 13:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CSFH report Notable?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hindu Students Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070427115018/http://media.www.emorywheel.com:80/media/storage/paper919/news/2007/04/24/News/Student.Life.Tying.The.Knot.The.Hindu.Way-2876121.shtml to http://media.www.emorywheel.com/media/storage/paper919/news/2007/04/24/News/Student.Life.Tying.The.Knot.The.Hindu.Way-2876121.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified