Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CapnJackSp (talk | contribs) at 17:14, 4 March 2024 (→‎Unsubstantiated inspirations from European Fascism: reply to Brusquedandelion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I disagree; that fact is mentioned in prominent histories of the Hindu nationalist movement, and as such belongs in a summary of the RSS's history. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but not sure it helps the reader understand what the article subject is at present. — kashmīrī TALK 21:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In enhancing the lede of the Wikipedia article, the inclusion of the statement "During the colonial period, the RSS collaborated with the British Raj and played no role in the Indian independence movement" serves to uphold historical accuracy and offer readers a nuanced perspective on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh's (RSS) role during a pivotal era in India's history.
By explicitly noting the organization's lack of involvement in the armed struggle against British colonial rule, the lede provides crucial context, preventing potential misinterpretations and fostering a more precise understanding of the RSS's historical position.
This addition highlights the diversity of approaches within the Indian independence movement, acknowledging the varied strategies and ideologies employed by different groups. Furthermore, it contextualizes the RSS's founding principles, emphasizing its focus on cultural and social revitalization rather than direct engagement in armed resistance.
Ultimately, this addition encourages readers to engage in a more nuanced analysis of the RSS's historical role, prompting exploration into the organization's philosophy, objectives, and the reasons behind its decision not to actively participate in the struggle for Indian independence. 94.205.38.119 (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2024

Please remove the words far right 193.11.110.59 (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please get consensus for this removal. RegentsPark (comment) 20:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The claim is not remotely exceptional. Reliable sources agree: the RSS is a far-right wing organization. None of the sources you link to refute this claim. Remember: all far-right organizations are right organizations, by definition. Thus, a source only referring to an organization as "right" is not evidence against the organization being far-right. The only relevant sources for this discussion are reliable sources that either make the explicit claim that the RSS is far-right, or which explicitly reject this characterization. Or the former, there many; of the latter, none. Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a logical fallacy - saying that lack of denial against an exceptional (and largely, fringe) claim somehow makes that claim more legitimate. The majority of RS call it "right-wing". If you want to replace it with the more contentious label of "far right", then you have to have exceptionally strong sourcing and consensus among RS. This isnt somthing you can hand wave about. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which logical fallacy, exactly? You will find there is no such logical fallacy here. On the contrary, you are commiting the fallacy of denying the correlative. Again, the only relevant sources are are those which either explicitly accept or reject the far-right label, or those which reject any label that is a strict superset of far-right. A source that says the RSS is not right wing is thus relevant, but a source that says it is right wing is not.
  • There's nothing actually contentious about this amongst reliable sources, only amongst the general public (which necessarily includes members of the RSS and those aligned with its agenda). Not one reliable source actually casts any doubt on the legitimacy of the "far right" label. If such a source existed, we would not be having this discussion as you would have already offered it by now.
  • The reality is, though, that even if you don't agree with the above, numerous reliable sources actually do claim the organization is far-right. It is not at all a "fringe position". In support of my argument, I offer the following additional sources that describe the RSS as far right, all of which are reliable and none of which can be described as "fringe", including academic books, peer-reviewed scientific journals, and numerous reputable news articles:
  1. The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right refers to the RSS as "the most prominent far-right militia group in India" (p. 123); and asserts that the Indian far-right is "represented by the Bharatiya Janata Party' (BJP) and its militia-like affiliate, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)" (p. 103).
  2. Leaving the Hindu Far Right, already cited in the article.
  3. Conservatism and Ideology, already cited in the article.
  4. Hindu Nationalism and Right-wing Ecology: RSS, Modi and Motherland Post-2014, published in the peer-reviewed academic journal Studies in Indian Politics.
  5. The European Consortium for Political Research, consisting of over 350 academic research institutions in Europe, clearly states the RSS is "radically far-right, hierarchical, authoritarian, and founded on the premise of Hindu supremacy."
  6. This article in Vice.
  7. This article in The Nation.
  8. Another article in The Nation.
  9. This article in Al Jazeera.
  10. Another article in Al Jazeera.
  11. This article in HuffPost.
  12. This article in Times of India.
  13. This article in The Guardian.
  14. This article in NBC News.
I could go on. The reality is there are literally dozens if not hundreds of reliable sources that make this claim. There are also numerous sources which term the RSS "right", it is true, even including some of the same sources that term it "far right"— because there is no contradiction! What you will not find is reliable sources which claim that the RSS isn't far-right. None whatsoever.
The real irony here, though, is that both sources presently in the lead for the claim is the RSS is right-wing (sources 2, 3 above) both explicitly refer to it as far or extreme right! Imagine that. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do see some sources for the far-right categorization in the article

Glad we could agree on this! Not sure why anything else is relevant, except for reliable sources that explicitly claim the organization is not far-right (you will not find any). Brusquedandelion (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brusquedandelion, please make your case here and obtain WP:CONSENSUS. Also, note that as per MOS:LEAD, the lead summarises the body. So you can't add stuff to the lead without a detailed discussion in the body. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just did make my case. None of you are actually responding to my points, merely rehashing the abstract need for "consensus".
  • The WP:STABLE version of the body already describes the organization as far-right, and indeed, the lead should summarize the body. This is another excellent argument for modifying the lead to say "far-right," thank you.
Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how is rss far right when its political wing bjp is not far right? far right is literally fascism. just because some criminal minded people think bjp and rss are fascist dosent make it a reality. They are normal conservatives/Hindu nationals who apparently serve everyone regardless of religion. membership is also open to everyone. not like far right parties eg. nazi party where only white germanics were allowed.do read about Muslim Rashtriya Manch too. 2409:40E3:6E:A553:EC5F:751:48B3:37BC (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is your WP:OR I'm afraid. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I just did make my case." And, that is a very poor case, exhibits no understanding of how Wikipedia is written. Please read WP:RS and WP:NPOV from top to bottom. RSS was founded in 1925, with almost a hundred years of history. There are many scholarly books written on it, published academic publishers. What they say takes priority over what some random news commentators say. See WP:SOURCETYPES. Also claims made in passing carry little weight. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. if you are genuinely interested in contributing to this article, please go get a book on RSS published by an academic publisher and read it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally enumerated 14 different reliable sources attesting to the edit I want to make, 12 of which are new. I can add literally dozens more. Many of these come from non-news sources, including extremely reputable and authoritative sources on far right and Fascist movements in general. Conversely, none of you have not been able to localize a single reliable source that explicitly rejects this label— only sources which, at best, in passing, refer to it "only" as "right". I agree that the quality of sources matters, and the fact is, the sources that refer to the RSS as only "right" (without rejecting the far-right label) do so in passing. As you correctly point out, claims made in passing carry little weight. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, so thank you. Conversely, several of my sources are extended academic treatises specifically about far right movements, and thus clearly carry higher weight.
Also, again, the WP:STABLE body has called the RSS far right for years. As you yourself so correctly pointed out, the lead should summarize the body. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unsubstantiated inspirations from European Fascism

I have removed this fragment of a sentence from the lead:

Drawing its inspiration from European fascist movements and groups such as the Italian Fascist Party,[1][2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ 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.
  3. ^ 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.
  4. ^ 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.

As per MOS:LEAD, the lead should summarise the body, and there is nothing about this in the body. So, this is against policy in the first place. Moreover, this particular passage has a chequered history.

  • When I first came to the page, it had something like this. we see Darkness Shines, copy-editing the "drawing inspiration from European right-wing groups during WW II". The source cited "Atkins2004" is not an RS by Wikipedia norms. (Only signed articles in Encyclopedias are reliable sources.) Nevertheless, all that the source says is, "During World War II, leaders of the RSS were open admirers of Adolf Hitler." That is a factual statement, but doesn't imply "drawing inspiration". The actual quote, from Golwalkar, does say, "a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by," which might suggest drawing inspiration. But we need a scholarly source criticially examining whether such inspiration was actually drawn in practice. Hindutva was written in 1923, which Hedgewar read in the same year. RSS was started in 1925. Both were well ahead of WW II. So, this particular source says nothing about RSS having been created with inspiration from "European Fascism".

Three more sources have since been added. So I look at each of them in turn. First, some general remarks about Moonje and Savarkar, both of whom show up in all three papers. Moonje was no doubt a political patron of Hedgewar. He was a member of Congress as well as Hindu Mahasabha. Savarkar was still in prison when RSS was started, but his brother Ganesh Savarkar, a Hindu Mahasabha member, was also a patron of the RSS. See the section Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh#Hindu Mahasabha influence. But the problem is, once RSS started, it became entirely independent. The Hindu Mahasabha patrons wanted it to be named "Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh", and for it to be the youth wing of Hindu Mahasabha. Hedgewar understood that and made sure that they couldn't exert any influence on it. What was more, he groomed Golwalkar as his successor, precisely because he thought he would be able to resist their pressure unlike the other more experienced RSS functionaries. (This is well-documented in the sources, and I can add content to the main page if necessary.) So, the claim that the Europenan Fascists exerted their influence on the RSS through Moonje and Savarkar doesn't fly.

  • Casolari is talking about a lot of stuff, but very little about RSS. "An accurate search of the primary sources produced by the organisations of Hindu nationalism, as well as by their opponents and by the police, is bound to show the extent and the importance of the connections between such organisations and Italian fascism". "Bound to show"? Hardly scholarly. Further she claims that people like Jaffrelot, Basu etc. didn't know what they were dealing with because they were "political scientists", not "historians". Well, Jaffrelot has studied 50 years of history of RSS, and cites hundreds of citations to primary sources like Organiser and government reports as well as other people that wrote about RSS affairs. He doesn't agree that RSS was inspired by European Fascism. He traces all the elements of RSS ideology to events and influences within India. Casolari does talk extensively about Moonje and Savarkar. As explained above, they are irrelevant.
  • MacDonald claims, "V. D. Savarkar, who is generally credited with defining the Hindu nationalist project, openly admired the fascist Mazzini and his 'Young Italy' organization". Yes, Mazzini's influence on Savarkar is well-acknowledged, but Mazzini (1805–1872) is from an earlie era, and it is odd to call him a "fascist". Mazzini argued for Italian integration, and he can be called a cultural nationalist. But "fascism" wasn't born in his time. Other than this, there are a lot of parallels drawn in this paper, but nothing that can be called an "influence".
  • Natrajan debunks his own theory in the very first paragraph by quoting Moonje: "In his diary Moonje wrote: “The idea of fascism vividly brings out the conception of unity amongst people. India and particularly Hindu India need some such institution for the military regeneration of the Hindus.... Our institution of Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh of Nagpur under Dr. Hedgewar is of this kind, though quite independently conceived." Independently conceived. End of story.

These are just a bunch of Eurocentric scholars who want to claim that only the Europeans knew how to bake bread. Vande Mataram was written in the 1870s. Vivekananda was lecturing in Chicago in 1893. Who knows, may the Indians taught the Europeans cultural nationalism? I hope I don't have to see this kind of nonsense again on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is overwhelmingly your WP:OR (with a sprinkling of WP:SYNTH). Wikipedia articles report on what reliable sources say, not how we interpret those sources. The reality is the claim you removed is extremely well-cited, and there are an abundance of other sources that we could happily add to the article that would agree on this point, but it would just result in citation bloat. Unfortunately, this is often what happens with article subjected to tendentious editing by parties that have biased views on the subject matter, but if we need to do this for your satisfaction, let us know and we will discuss. Also:

Vande Mataram was written in the 1870s. Vivekananda was lecturing in Chicago in 1893. Who knows, may the Indians taught the Europeans cultural nationalism? I hope I don't have to see this kind of nonsense again on Wikipedia.

Besides (again) being WP:SYNTH (and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS), these facts are actually irrelevant. The Indian independence movement and Indian nationalism more broadly are not synonymous with RSS, and in fact, as the article notes, the RSS played at best an ambiguous role in the independence movement. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isnt OR, its called analysing sources. Just because someone put it in a paper doesnt make it the gospel, we can analyse their work and reject them as a source if it is of poor quality.
Also, please dont revert changes citing "stable version", the lead's stable version was significantly different from the wording used. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not analysing the "sources". I am analysisng the content which is not verified by the sources. None of these sources has said RSS was inspired by the European Fascist movements. The claim was made up by editors. That is called WP:OR. It is also a common misconception. The article body explicitly contradicts it citing high-quality scholars that have studied RSS and Hindutva. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you absolutely are "analyzing" the sources (or attempting to, anyways, but your success at doing so is necessarily beyond the scope of discussion here). You are pointing out what you think are apparent contradictions, or shoddy scholarly work (e.g. when you sarcastically remark Hardly scholarly), or straight up challenging the conclusions of the text (for example, where you dispute that Mazzini was a Fascist). The fact is numerous reliable sources concur: the RSS drew inspiration from Fascist movements, as attested to even by the very quotes you yourself have so helpfully aggregated for us above. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt OR, its called analysing sources. Just because someone put it in a paper doesnt make it the gospel, we can analyse their work and reject them as a source if it is of poor quality.

Sorry, but that's exactly how Wikipedia defines OR. I suggest you revise that page to better understand what original research is— and I also suggest checking out WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Your friend Kautilya3, of course, knows this, so they deny the facts, whereas you deny the consequence. In this sense, you ironically provide support for my argument.

Also, please dont revert changes citing "stable version", the lead's stable version was significantly different from the wording used.

This just isn't true. I reverted to the version that was in place both before Kautilya3's edits and my own. The article has claimed the RSS drew inspiration from Fascist/European far right movements for at least four years, quite possibly much longer; I stopped looking past January 2020. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Ian Talbot, a top historian of modern South Asia, describing the context of 1920s and 1930s, in which RSS was born:

Their emergence coincided with the rise of fascist movements in troubled inter-war Europe. But the sound and fury of the storm troopers [fascist movements] was only a faint whisper in the mohallas of India.[4] Its volunteer movements were rooted in the practice of landlords and rais employing goondas in factional disputes and in the tradition of proficiency in lathi-bearing practiced in open spaces and gymnasia by youths and professional wrestlers. Communities and political parties institutionalized the employment of volunteers, as communal conflict increased in India's towns and cities during the early 1920s. Thus the scheduled castes formed the Samata Sainak Dal, whilst the Arya Samaj established the Arya Vir Dal. Subhas Chandra Bose, the nearest equivalent to a budding Indian Mussolini, set up the Azad Hind Dal of the Forward Bloc following his spat with Gandhi in 1939.[1]

This should lay to rest any claims of "inspiration" from the European Fascist movements. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text is quite literally comparing the RSS to Indian Fascists. While this excerpt does not establish a direction of causality here, that just means it neither provides evidence for or against the edit you want to effect. But it does provide evidence for retaining some comparison of the RSS with Fascism in the article, since clearly this is a comparison scholarly sources repeatedly make, in one way or another.
Is your point perhaps that the RSS did Fascism even better than the Europeans? This is what this source is effectively stating, for example. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's exactly how Wikipedia defines OR. I suggest you revise that page to better understand what original research is— and I also suggest checking out WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Your friend Kautilya3, of course, knows this, so they deny the facts, whereas you deny the consequence. In this sense, you ironically provide support for my argument.

Nope. Kautilya3 may disagree on what their argument was based on, but that is not OR. OR is analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. Simply pointng out faults with sources and discounting them based on those faults is not OR, please read the policies you cite.
I would also caution against throaway accusations of WP:RGW, as well as dropping edit warring notices at talk pages after yourself repeatedly reverting to your preferred version. It is highly disruptive. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OR is analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources

Yes, and that is exactly what Kautilya3 does. As an example, do you think the source that Kautilya3 calls "hardly scholarly" reaches the conclusion that it itself is unscholarly? Obviously not, but Kautilya3 seems to think WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a valid reason for rejecting a source's conclusions, without citing independent, reliable sources that make the same argument. As another example, he specifically disputed one source which claims Mazzini was a Fascist. Wikipedia doesn't care what you personally think about whether Mazzini was a Fascist or not! If you can find reliable sources making the same argument (not just regarding Mazzini, but specifically about Mazzini and how he inspired the RSS, as otherwise this would be WP:SYNTH), that is a different matter.

I would also caution against throaway accusations of WP:RGW, as well as dropping edit warring notices at talk pages after yourself repeatedly reverting to your preferred version

For the umpteenth time, my last revert was to a version prior to my own edits as well as Kautilya3's. Thus, you should heed your own warning. Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is either a WP:CIR issue or you are deliberately misreading policy.

As an example, do you think the source that Kautilya3 calls "hardly scholarly" reaches the conclusion that it itself is unscholarly

Are you seriously saying that we cant find a source's commentary insufficient or unreliable unless the source calls itself insufficient or unreliable? What sort of an argument is this?
As for your revert, not only is it to a version that is effectively the same as your preferred version (separate issues with that as well - The sentence was modified incorrectly in between as a "copyedit" from the older longstanding version), but your excuse would be invalid even if it was true. Please read WP:EDITWAR. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and how could I forget. This quote doesn't even reference the RSS! Yet again, more WP:SYNTH from you. Brusquedandelion (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Talbot, Ian (1996), "Crowds, Ceremonial and State Symbolism: The Role of the Muslim National Guards in the Pakistan Movement", Ibid, pp. 59– – via archive.org
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh&oldid=1211823036"