Jump to content

Talk:Bajrang Dal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amitanony (talk | contribs) at 08:57, 21 March 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Lead

  • The controversies involving BD are covered in the article. No need to try to make a statement in the lead. Is there any guideline related to which statement can be added in the lead and which can not? See this: [1]. I think Wikipedia as a source of neutral POV should have the same standards? thoughts? @RegentsPark: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravsaral (talk • contribs)
  • During earlier months, someone replaced "militant" with "extremist"[2] and this edit was overlooked, then someone added "militant" again[3] by putting sources. Even after that, "extremist" is unsourced and a forbidden term. Removed extremist per WP:EXTREMIST. While numerous editors have already noted the problems with "militant" term, I agree because more reliable sources describe Bajrang Dal as "paramilitary" organisation of VHP. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope.Nobody except some famed POV pushers have expressed any problem.Please read through all of the sources.I've thus partially reverted.Will be looking more, once I get to a PC.Winged Blades Godric 19:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@D4iNa4:-I checked Ref-5,6,7&8.All of them uses the word militant.Winged Blades Godric 19:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1,2 and 3(??) support paramiltary. Winged Blades Godric 19:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not totally sure I know what bajrang dal is, but if reliable sources generally say they are militant, then so should we. And if numerous reliable sources say so, we should do so in the lead. Also, D4iNa4, you've been around long enough to know better than to make WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments! --regentspark (comment) 19:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: That WP:OTHERSTUFF argument was made by Gauravsaral [4], I have now signed his comment to avoid confusions. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Ok. Thanks for the update on that. --regentspark (comment) 18:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found dozens of scholarly sources from far more reliable publishers like Cambridge University, Routledge, Pearson, and all of them describe Bajrang Dal as "paramilitary". It means that they are more commonly and reliably described as paramilitary. The sources added by Tyler Durden(soon blocked) were also websites. Militant is much broader term, Bajrang Dal doesn't advocate violence,[5] so it is not a militant organization. RegentsPark There was similar discussion on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh before which is also described as militant by their critics but it doesn't make them one. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: The discussion I was referring above. I don't see a reason to omit "paramilitary" since it fits the description of Bajrang Dal much better than militant. Also the sources I pointed above that support paramilitary are:[6][7][8][9][10][11], though I am seeing that they are described mostly commonly as "youth wing"[12][13][14][15][16][17][18] D4iNa4 (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
D4, Being a "youth wing" does not preclude it from being militant or extremist. You are not reading the sources you cite. For example, your very first source says "perpetrators of some of the most spectacular campaigns of violence". And you think this proves they are not militant? You are out of your mind! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per the sources, there are many other ways to describe them. That was the point. Violence is not limited to militants. D4iNa4 (talk)
  • I'll let you all sort this out. Though, imo, a paramilitary arm of an organization is, by definition, militant (paramilitaries are militant). --regentspark (comment) 00:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The word paramilitary has more to do with militia than militant. When it comes to BD, the use of the word "militant" is mostly limited with referring the branch, "militant wing", than calling BD a militant. Now back to militia, Christophe Jaffrelot mentions Bajrang Dal as "militia", belonging to a "militant wing" of Vishva Hindu Parishad.[19] BD is termed as militia by other sources as well.[20][21][22][23][24] To make the lead more meaningful, "X is a Catholic organization of the religious wing of X foundation"(just an example) would work better. Lorstaking (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no shortage of reliable sources that describe BD as a paramilitary organization either (here are a few that I dug up, apart from the sources above[25][26][27][28]). I concur entirely with D4 and Lorstaking. —MBL Talk 05:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think describing it as militant is more appropriate as compared to describing it as extremist. Militant usually implies that an organisation is willing to use direct action or violence to achieve its goals (whether the goals are extremist or not). Extremist is generally used for thoughts which are at the extreme of the political spectrum.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since last few days, the discussion is only about militant or paramilitary. Lorstaking (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, as I read the initial part of the discussion. In context of militant vs paramilitary, Bajrang Dal is militant but not a paramilitary force. An example of a paramilitary force in recent times has been Salwa Judum. Bajrang Dal does not have the same discipline and organisation structure required for a paramilitary force.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re-instating a list of sources by a blocked sock, in support of the qualifier:- militant, in my own capacity, since they ought to improve the discussion over here.Winged BladesGodric 14:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from these sources[1][2] that are cited in the article, here are a bunch of sources[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] that describe BD as "militant".

References

  1. ^ Christophe Jaffrelot (2010). Religion, Caste, and Politics in India. Primus Books. pp. 23–. ISBN 978-93-80607-04-7.
  2. ^ P. M. Joshy; K. M. Seethi (8 October 2015). State and Civil Society under Siege: Hindutva, Security and Militarism in India. SAGE Publications. pp. 119–. ISBN 978-93-5150-383-5.
  3. ^ Manjari Katju (2003). Vishva Hindu Parishad and Indian Politics. Orient Blackswan. pp. 52–. ISBN 978-81-250-2476-7.
  4. ^ Steven Wilkinson (2005). Religious Politics and Communal Violence. Oxford University Press. p. 310. ISBN 978-0-19-567237-4. In the summer of 1984, Vinay Katiya, an RSS pracharak, formed the Bajrang Dal in Uttar Pradesh as a militant youth wing of the VHP...
  5. ^ Rafiq Dossani; Henry S. Rowen (2005). "7. Hindu Nationalism and the BJP: Transforming Religion and Politics in India --- Robert L. Hardgrave, Jr.". Prospects for Peace in South Asia. Stanford University Press. pp. 202–. ISBN 978-0-8047-5085-1.
  6. ^ Central Intelligence Agency (22 November 2016). The CIA World Factbook 2017. Skyhorse Publishing. pp. 400–. ISBN 978-1-5107-1289-8.
  7. ^ Terry F. Buss; F. Stevens Redburn; Kristina Guo (2006). Modernizing Democracy: Innovations in Citizen Participation. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 296–. ISBN 978-0-7656-2180-1.
  8. ^ Parvis Ghassem-Fachandi (2012). Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India. Princeton University Press. pp. 31–. ISBN 0-691-15177-6.
  9. ^ Timothy Lubin; Donald R. Davis Jr; Jayanth K. Krishnan (21 October 2010). Hinduism and Law: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. pp. 236–. ISBN 978-1-139-49358-1.
  10. ^ Chad M. Bauman (2 February 2015). Pentecostals, Proselytization, and Anti-Christian Violence in Contemporary India. Oxford University Press. pp. 15–. ISBN 978-0-19-026631-8.
  11. ^ Amrita Basu (30 June 2015). Violent Conjunctures in Democratic India. Cambridge University Press. pp. 164–. ISBN 978-1-107-08963-1.
  12. ^ Lyombe Eko (29 April 2016). The Regulation of Sex-Themed Visual Imagery: From Clay Tablets to Tablet Computers. Palgrave Macmillan US. pp. 77–. ISBN 978-1-137-55098-9.
  13. ^ Purnima Mankekar (1999). Screening Culture, Viewing Politics: An Ethnography of Television, Womanhood, and Nation in Postcolonial India. Duke University Press. pp. 179–. ISBN 0-8223-2390-7.
  14. ^ Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Foreign Affairs Committee (23 February 2006). Human Rights Annual Report 2005: First Report of Session 2005-06; Report, Together with Formal Minutes, Oral and Written Evidence. The Stationery Office. pp. 88–. ISBN 978-0-215-02759-7.
  15. ^ Human Rights Watch (2003). Human Rights Watch World Report, 2003. Human Rights Watch. pp. 237–. ISBN 978-1-56432-285-2.
  16. ^ Stanley A. Kochanek; Robert L. Hardgrave (30 January 2007). India: Government and Politics in a Developing Nation. Cengage Learning. pp. 218–. ISBN 0-495-00749-8.
I think, a RFC shall be the way forward, with the details of all the sources provided for both the words, presented in a suitable form.Extremist seems to be currently out of contest, though!Winged BladesGodric 14:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bajrang Dal is not militant organisation

It's is a Hindhu Religious organization Lucky11493 (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's both. The "militant" descriptor is currently supported by 20 reliable sources, including 18 high-quality academic sources. Please see the full list, with excerpts, at Special:Permalink/1007358857 § cite note-militant-1. — Newslinger talk 12:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your reliable sources do not have full vie of the situation in India. It is a highly biased view against an organisation working for unrepresented and oppressed Hindus in India, same as what Missionaries do fir Christians. MPfromMel (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have located high-quality academic sources that support your claims, feel free to share them. — Newslinger talk 22:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2021

Bajrang dal is a hindu spritual organization. It's not a militant group like a isis. So please change this as soon as possible 2409:4041:2E86:E77D:ECBF:E62A:83DE:3B33 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Declining for several reasons.
  • You're not being very clear with the changes you want to make.
  • There should be consensus for this sort of thing.
  • Read the #FAQ and the edit request above, there are many sources to support the militant statement.
    —Belwine (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Due to technical restrictions on Wikipedia, the FAQ posted on the top of this talk page is not visible to users of the Wikipedia mobile website by default. For your convenience, the contents of the FAQ are reproduced below:
Q: Why does this article describe the Bajrang Dal as a militant organisation?
A: The consensus of high-quality academic sources is that the Bajrang Dal is a militant organisation. Please see Special:Permalink/1007358857 § cite note-militant-1 for the list. Neutrality on Wikipedia entails representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, and the cited academic sources overwhelmingly agree that militant is an accurate descriptor for the Bajrang Dal.
— Newslinger talk 09:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2021

Change the 'militant organization' to 'peace organization' Amitanony (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do or die Amitanony (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bajrang_Dal&oldid=1013377023"