Talk:California textbook controversy over Hindu history

message: Dear Goethean, 
Why do you think it is a good idea to remove the URLs from the first mention of the Vedic Foundation and the Hindu Education Foundation?  Isn't it more helpful to readers of this WP article to have those URLs available at first mention, so that they can find out who these organisations are?
Best wishes,
DomLaguna (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  URLs for the VF and the HEF. 

message: For better flow, I think the quote should be moved near the top, and then how many edits all the groups give should be explained. I think the quote helps to explain why the groups gave their edits to begin with.Desasu11 (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Background

message: Can we change the word "complain" to something that doesn't make it sound like all these religious groups were just whining? Desasu11 (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to "filed a complaint". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead In

message: You have just added way too many "See also" entries.  The relationship of these entries to the present article is not clear.  Please follow the guidelines at WP:SEEALSO.  Also, there shouldn't be a category listed in this section unless there is a really good reason.  But what is the reason? Kautilya3 (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks for helping me learn the guidelines.
Vdhillon (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: , I undid most of your changes to the lede. The version you restored did not actually summarize the affair. The statement that
suggest that Bajpai and Witzel formed the initial committee, which is not corroborated by any source. Bajpai was assigned to the task first; Witzel et al. only become involved later. Also, the selection of complaints in the version you posted is not representative. The really controversial part of all this was the rewriting of Indian history, not the mistake of labeling a mosque as a Hindu temple (both committees agreed that that should be changed). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , I am delighted you respected WP:BLP in your latest edit, compared to the last one you made. The lede is still very one-sided, however. It needs to be neutral and summarize both sides. You are doing WP:OR when you claim "the mistake of labeling" because none of the cited source in the lede or the main article says it, and numerous errors like it, were "a labeling mistake". This is the only wikipedia article on the 2005-2009 California textbook controversy and it should be encyclopedically complete and not just an article about "really controversial part" as you explain above. You have used an op-ed, one-sided opinion article from an Indian newspaper presenting a non-neutral side in this controversy. I suggest we use The Wall Street Journal article cited in the article (or other reliable secondary sources), to build a more balanced, complete, neutral summary lede. I will make these edits shortly, and welcome your constructive collaboration. SimoneReeves (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are no "two sides" on Wikipedia. So the idea of "one-sided" doesn't exist. An article is neutral if it represents the scholarly consensus as per WP:WEIGHT. Bajpai is the President of "Dharma Civilization Foundation" , whatever that is. He seems to be better known for Hindu activism than his academic work. You have deleted a valid description from a notable academic saying that he is "Hindutva-leaning". This is not what is meant by "neutral" on Wikipedia. I am afraid all that you have done is white-washing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   Since there has been no response from you, I have reverted the lead to the old one. I don't believe that there is any problem with neutrality in either version, but the old lead focused better on the important points whereas your version was unfocused. To make progress, you need to explain your idea of "one-sidedness." Note that this page exists at all because of the controversy, which began with Witzel and Indologists contesting the problematic changes demanded by the Hindu groups. So that is what we must focus on. I am adding a bunch of scholarly sources that cover the issue the way it should be covered. Please take a look at them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  found a more precise source for Bajpai's Hindutva affiliations, so we no longer need the vague claim that he is "Hindutva-leaning" in the lede. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I am afraid your understanding of WP:NPOV is not correct. There is no requirement of representing all sides of a dispute. We only represent all views described in reliable sources. The idea of "all sides" constitutes WP:OR, unless it exists in the reliable sources. Qwertyus is following better quality sources that I have provided, and I have no concerns about his/her edits. You can discuss further after you return from holiday. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede reverted 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on California textbook controversy over Hindu history. 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/20070928064014/http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1141321805 to http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1141321805
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160127182435/http://www.hindueducation.org/ to http://hindueducation.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160114144618/http://southasiafaculty.net/ to http://southasiafaculty.net/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927234140/http://www.californiaaggie.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&uStory_id=14cc5568-07b9-41b8-b6ac-e6c6c8a34378 to http://www.californiaaggie.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&uStory_id=14cc5568-07b9-41b8-b6ac-e6c6c8a34378
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928064009/http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1141321805&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1 to http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1141321805&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1
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 12:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on California textbook controversy over Hindu history. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070928064014/http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1141321805 to http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1141321805
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061216234623/http://www.newsindia-times.com:80/2006/02/17/special_report18-101653.html to http://www.newsindia-times.com/2006/02/17/special_report18-101653.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on California textbook controversy over Hindu history. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070928064014/http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1141321805 to http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1141321805
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is a request to whoever keeps deleting information related to the CAPEEM case. A lawsuit has many angles and is not merely about one subpoena. Please do not delete information related to the attorney's previous experience with ACLU, Michael Newdow joining CAPEEM's legal team, information related to the many subpoenas issued by CAPEEM, their expose of the connection to the church and also the judge's ruling. Whatever be our biases, all these are important facts.
We must also remember that the information about the lawsuit must be comprehensive and about the main players and not merely about one person who was not even the Defendant but who happened to be subpoenaed.
Diane Webber's paper in the University of Maryland's Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class is a more accurate description of the judge's ruling and it is important not to keep injecting one's biases by claiming one side won by suppressing whatever the other side obtained. See page 287 of http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1199&context=rrgc for Diane Webber's paper.
We understand that Witzel himself has edited this page in the past and and it amounts to vanity edits if he is the one who has been deleting information from the page and making the description Witzel-centric, but please understand that CAPEEM's lawsuit was important for the very reason that Diane Webber has mentioned in her paper. It pioneered the use of the Equal Protection Clause in claims related to religious discrimination and CAPEEM is an important and rare case study for students of law.
Many people come to Wikipedia and find the information here useful. Please do not delete information or indulge in vanity edits. Any removal of the lawyer's prior work with ACLU, an atheist lawyer joining CAPEEM's team and CAPEEM's expose of the church connections only makes one believe that whoever is editing it has his or her own motive. Let us keep Wikipedia clean and informative without injecting our prejudices.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.195.98.52 (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about court cases. It is about a textbook dispute, and about the political forces behind the dispute. Most of the material presently on the CAPEEM case is WP:UNDUE and should be deleted. Any points of law that are applicable to the dispute should of course be covered, but not the exact process of the case. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not talking about the article but the section on the court case. The court case is pertinent because it did expose the church-state connection and if Wikipedia does have a description of the court case, it should pertain to the MAIN point of the case, not one side motion related to one man in order to boost his ego. Remember that I am not the one who put the process in there. The details of the process of the motion were put in by whoever put in the information about Witzel who was neither the defendant nor the plaintiff and who was merely one of the many side actors in the issue. 
I suggest we all keep our biases out of this. The books do indoctrinate with Christianity if the affidavit on CAPEEM's website is correct in quoting the textbooks. Suppressing this information can only be due to a bias.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.195.98.52 (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request related to the description of the CAPEEM case 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on California textbook controversy over Hindu history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.tamilonline.com/thendral/CatContent.aspx?id=62&cid=3&aid=850
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060313233651/http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20060228&fname=witzel&sid=2 to http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20060228&fname=witzel&sid=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: — Assignment last updated by Stormageddon623 (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Asian Religions in America