Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh: Difference between revisions
→Far-right: Reply |
CapnJackSp (talk | contribs) →Far-right: reply to Gaia Octavia Agrippa |
||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
::::I have no stake here, a consensus is always better when a need is seen to insert contentious wording. |
::::I have no stake here, a consensus is always better when a need is seen to insert contentious wording. |
||
::::It would also be better if sources are added for the same here (as of now only one source attests to political classification that is being added); and to expand that within the body of the article as well. Drive-by lead changes should always be avoided. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 19:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC) |
::::It would also be better if sources are added for the same here (as of now only one source attests to political classification that is being added); and to expand that within the body of the article as well. Drive-by lead changes should always be avoided. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 19:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::There is absolutely a need for consensus - [[WP:BOLD]] turns into [[WP:BRD]] once the edit is challenged. As for reliable sources, feel free to go through [https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-rashtriya-swayamsevak-sangh-rss/][https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/04/04/religious-nationalism-and-india-s-future-pub-78703][https://origins.osu.edu/article/right-wing-politics-india-Modi-Kashmir-election?language_content_entity=en]. Exceptional claims need exceptional sourcing. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 23:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Image of the new uniform == |
== Image of the new uniform == |
Revision as of 23:52, 2 March 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS
"During the colonial period, the RSS collaborated with the British Raj and played no role in the Indian independence movement."
Why is this mentioned in the lede? Why is a negative fact important. Well RSS didn't play any role in the Russian Revolution either for all that matters, so why mention its (lack of) role in the Indian Independence movement. Seems like a thinly-veiled statement aimed at equating the RSS with the Colonial British. LΞVIXIUS💬 20:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- It needs mentioning as it's a part of the organisation's historical political profile, but I agree it should not be in the lead. Feel free to move it to the body. — kashmīrī TALK 20:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Text written can be misleading
there is no proper evidence of origination of RSS from fascist ideas it is just a Hindu organization not meant to do anti Muslim but to do justice for hindhu people in India (just participating in religious activities)kindly remove such phrases which could be misleading,thank you. Kraa45 (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See the reliable sources cited in the article, including:
- Atkins, Stephen E. (2004). Encyclopedia of modern worldwide extremists and extremist groups. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 264–265. ISBN 978-0-313-32485-7. Retrieved 26 May 2010.
- Casolari, Marzia (2000). "Hindutva's Foreign Tie-Up in the 1930s: Archival Evidence". Economic and Political Weekly. 35 (4): 218–228. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 4408848.
- McDonald, Ian (1 December 1999). "'Physiological Patriots'?: The Politics of Physical Culture and Hindu Nationalism in India". International Review for the Sociology of Sport. 34 (4). Sage Journals: 343–358. doi:10.1177/101269099034004003. ISSN 1012-6902. S2CID 144111156.
- Natrajan, Balmurli (2009). "Searching for a Progressive Hindu/ism: Battling Mussolini's Hindus, Hindutva, and Hubris". Tikkun. 24 (5). Duke University Press: 58–61. doi:10.1215/08879982-2009-5024. ISSN 2164-0041. S2CID 171206784.
- — Newslinger talk 09:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the words far right 193.11.110.59 (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not done Please get consensus for this removal. RegentsPark (comment) 20:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Addition of Social Service to the lead
While RSS has been criticised for being extremist, it has provided critical services during major disasters, as mentioned in the body also. In order to give a non-biased perspective, their humanitarian acts must be mentioned in the lead also. Smart Sherlock (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Far-right
There were recent lead changes to the article which replaced "right wing" with "far-right". Since such labelling can be contentious, and the previous lead being WP:STABLE for years, I have reverted these edits for want of consensus here.
There was a brief discussion (but nonconclusive) regarding the same on this Talk page recently (archive) but it was for the infobox not the lead and for the it being typified as "extreme right" (which redirects to far right).
I do see some sources for the far-right categorization in the article, but also note that general reference sources (e.g. [1], [2]) refrain from characterizing it at all. A discussion, if the lead is sought to be changed by editors, should be had. Gotitbro (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Something being contentious doesn't make it false. The organization is far-right, and more than enough RS's support this. Brusquedandelion (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- That would still require consensus, the current lead achieved its current form after much back and forth edit warring. I would urge either you start an RfC and expand upon the political characterization within the body (which is very lacking). Issues upon the same (as linked above) have been raised in the past with no headway and as such its better to have WP:BROADCONSENSUS here rather than a limited discussion between some editors.
- Also, that characterization of sources is not entirely accurate as noted above variance is observed within general reference sources. And what many a RS say is not entirely a criteria for labelling here on enwiki, see for e.g. Tucker Carlson: where though noted as "far-right" in a variety of sources (e.g. [3]) that labelling is not applied in the lead para with the lack of consensus there. Gotitbro (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- There is no need to seek consensus: we go by what reliable sources say, and they say far-right. You, Gotitbro, are going against what the sources say by reverting far-right to right-wing. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 15:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I have no stake here, a consensus is always better when a need is seen to insert contentious wording.
- It would also be better if sources are added for the same here (as of now only one source attests to political classification that is being added); and to expand that within the body of the article as well. Drive-by lead changes should always be avoided. Gotitbro (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- There is absolutely a need for consensus - WP:BOLD turns into WP:BRD once the edit is challenged. As for reliable sources, feel free to go through [4][5][6]. Exceptional claims need exceptional sourcing. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- There is no need to seek consensus: we go by what reliable sources say, and they say far-right. You, Gotitbro, are going against what the sources say by reverting far-right to right-wing. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 15:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Image of the new uniform
Please add the image of the new RSS uniform below the old so one can distinguish. Attaching a link to the image that can be used:
https://m.economictimes.com/thumb/height-450,width-600,imgsize-594641,msid-59087957/in-sangh-country-25-days-914-men-and-full-brown-pants.jpg 2409:40C4:1002:CEF2:B0E8:F82F:F54E:5440 (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use Indian English
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- B-Class India articles
- Top-importance India articles
- B-Class India articles of Top-importance
- B-Class Indian history articles
- Top-importance Indian history articles
- B-Class Indian history articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject Indian history articles
- B-Class Indian politics articles
- Top-importance Indian politics articles
- B-Class Indian politics articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject Indian politics articles
- WikiProject India articles
- B-Class Hinduism articles
- Top-importance Hinduism articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Top-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Discrimination articles
- Top-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- B-Class organization articles
- Top-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- Top-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors