Talk:Hindu American Foundation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Hinduism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Organizations (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Press release[edit]

This article relies too much on a Press release. Please review WP:RS in order to avoid drastic cuts. Hornplease 19:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In particular, some form of neutral review or RS evaluation would be useful. Compare to, for example, the article on CAIR. Hornplease 22:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletions[edit]

As explained here the following was deleted in the article by Hornplease (talk · contribs) but no reason was put on the talkpage. Why was it deleted, and how could it be improved.. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_American_Foundation&diff=125596610&oldid=98002055 The report documents the long history of anti-Hindu atrocities in Bangladesh, a topic that many Indians and Indian governments over the years have preferred not to acknowledge. Such atrocities, including targeted attacks against temples, open theft of Hindu property, and rape of young Hindu women and enticements to convert to Islam, have increased sharply in recent years after the Jamat-e-Islami joined the coalition government led by the Bangladesh National Party.The report concludes with:

The people whose persecution is amply documented in this report are being persecuted because they are Hindu, not because they are poor or because of their political views. Human rights activists in Bangladesh and Pakistan, many of whom are not Hindus, have painstakingly documented the violations of basic human rights of Hindus in their country.Librorum Prohibitorum (talk)


Merger[edit]

HAF has been advocating other causes, and is not just involved in the California textbook controversy. They had successfully challenged a license with religious overtones; see, http://www.hinduamericanfoundation.org/issues/legal?q=media/pr/20081211_sc_plate_blocked

Raj2004 (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not support merger of the two articles because HAF as an organization should be the focus of a distinct article, and I think that it is useful to keep the details of the California textbook case around as a separate article. My sense is that there may be a need for another article related to the issues that HAF addresses that show up in other contexts, such as the opposition to some Western academics. Examples of HAF activity not related to the California textbook issue include:
  • Overview article on HAF from Hinduism Today explains the general operations: [1]
  • The Texas textbook issue: [2]
  • Participation in Council on Foreign Relations roundtable on "Hindu Activism in India and America: Implications for US-India Relations" [3]
  • Interfaith efforts with Jewish community regarding academic bias: [4]
Buddhipriya (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

POV[edit]

This article makes the HAF appear as the Indian-American counterpart to Amnesty International. It completely misses the organisation's links to the VHP (see Times of India). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

VictoriaGrayson, why do you keep reverting to the propaganda version? The version I posted contains a description that is backed by reliable sources that are independent of the subject, rather than the HAF's self description, which is less informative (by the nature of such descriptions) and inconsistent with what outsiders report on the HAF. "Consensus" among a bunch of WP:SPAs and IP editors is no excuse for ignoring policy. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I agre with Qwertyus that the article should include criticism found in reliable academic source, and not rely on the organizations own selfrepresenation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
·maunus - including criticism is one thing - but "just" writing criticism starting with lead is wrong. The article lead is now completely looking like it is a neo-nazi organization - which is factually incorrect. It is a lobby group and not a pressure group. I have updated to reflect it as such . --Sdmarathe (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The term "pressure group" has no "nazi" connotations in English as far as I know. It means "lobby group" or "advocacy group", calling it a human rights group is however obviously misleading.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Did you see the lead statement of "takes a Neo-Hinduist, monotheist stance.[2]" ? That is not how it really is. It is a lobby group and not pushing for neo-hinduism or monotheist stance - which is factually incorrect since Hinduism is clearly polytheist religion. You can not allow POV statements in the first lead statement. --Sdmarathe (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The source cited for "neo-hinduist stance" is a reliable source. Presumably you can support your claim that the description is erroneous with another reliable sources?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with VictoriaGrayson and Sdmarathe. HAF should be treated like any other advocacy group. HAF was modeled after, and started with help of, American Jewish Committee. It is just another advocacy group.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedpov (talkcontribs)
VictoriaGrayson has not commented. And no one has argued that HAF should be treated different than any other advocacy group. Just as with any advocacy group that has been subjected to significant criticism in reliable published sources, that criticism will go in the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The lead is indeed a bit over the top. "Neo-Hinduist" and "modern-Hinduist" don't appear in the source. The source actually says "non-profit human rights organisation for Hindu Americans." There is no evidence that HAF's Hinduism is different from Hinduism elsewhere. So this is not the place beat the "neo" drum.

I have located much better sources. I will rework the lead. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Both terms appear literally in the source, Pyong Gap Min (2010). I'm curious what better sources you have than a scholarly monograph. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Sdmarathe, Unbiasedpov and Kautilya3.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@Qwertyus: The term "Hinduist" appears nowhere in the book or, in fact, in any scholarly source. You or whoever wrote the lead made it up.
If you read the text on p. 32 without any POV, it is clear that the text is talking about "modern Hinduism" (written in quotes) that is said to have come up in the 19th century, and it is using HAF's explanation of it as an illustration. The text is nowhere saying that this so-called "modern Hinduism" is different from just Hinduism. To use it as a label for the organisation is a gross distortion.
Whether this so-called "modern Hinduism" is different from Hinduism or not, is a big scholarly debate. It is undue COATRACK to get into that issue here. If you have a source that says that HAF's Hinduism is different from ordinary Hinduism, please produce it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I seem to have made the mistake (based on my native language's use of terms) of presuming "Hinduist" is a neutral adjective form of "Hindu"/"Hinduism". If that's not the case in English, I won't use it anymore.
I don't care much for the "Neo-" or "Modern" label, but I find it interesting to note that the HAF takes a theological stance, as the (removed) source establishes by citing its particular exposition of Hindu mono-/henotheism. Hindu diaspora organizations have stressed both mono- and polytheistic aspects of Hinduism, depending on political circumstances [5]; which of these is "ordinary Hinduism"? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, Hinduism is both mono- and polytheistic. See Hinduism#Concept of God. So Hindus are in fact in a happy position to claim both. Whether doing so in a particular circumstance is politically motivated or not, is not a judgement that Wikipedia should make. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Prema Kurien's book, which I have included in the sources and intend to draw upon in further edits, is quite excellent when taken as a political sociology work. But I wouldn't depend on it for an accurate treatment of theological or religious aspects. For those issues, there are plenty of excellent sources cited in the Hinduism article. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting to make the claim that the HAF's position is politically motivated, just to provide the information and let the reader decide what to make of it. If you think that goes against WP:UNDUE or WP:SYN, I'll drop it. The new lede is much better than what we had, btw., so thanks for that, and sorry for the confusion. Only thing is that the source for the VHP is now missing, and I preferred Maunus's more carefully hedged formulation... QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, what was mentioned in the original source is not visibly different from an ordinary Hindu's understanding of Hinduism. If a source says otherwise, we can include it. Prema Kurien does seem to say it, but I will need to dig deeper to see if there is substance in her criticism. Regarding the VHP links, the source I used is the page 159 of the Kurien book. The strategy of taking over the leadership is typical of the Sangh Parivar. HAF is not a member of the Sangh Parivar, but it may yet become one some day. The framework is in place. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

Kautilya3 is {{r|whospeaks}} the source for the "axis of countries" bit? There's a {{cn}} on that now, and I can't access the full text of that source. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Somehow irritatingly this article didn't show up on my watch list yesterday. In any case, the nearest citation is what applies, in this case the Prema Kurien article. It is on JSTOR. So you should be able to get it if you sign up to Wikipedia library. Or, you can send me email via my user page, and I can send you a copy. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry that is in the Vinay Lal book, p. 122. The citation was lost when our friend deleted the sentence in the middle for reasons he knows best.
Incidentally, should this article be in EngvarB (British English) as most Hinduism articles are? - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I checked to see where else this "axis" idea appears and came upon this article [6]. Also loads of other links [7]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent review[edit]

@HemaChandra:, Welcome to Wikipedia. I am reverting most of your edits to the article. Here is why:

  • Your citation needed tags were spurious because you didn't look at the citations that existed.
  • Take Yoga Back is controversial because it was opposed by a number of scholars and commentators. Including Ramesh Rao's support for it is WP:UNDUE unless you can show that he is representative of significant supporting opinion among scholars.
  • Yoga was "secularlised" according to the citation I have given, not "appropriated". Using it in a school without a religious slant is secularisation.
  • For the California textbook controversy, a main article link has been added. That should be enough to check for sources and details.

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 Fair enough. BTW, I'm still not convinced about California textbook controversy. I have edited it again. HemaChandra88 (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@HemaChandra88: The protocol we follow is WP:BRD. When an edit is reverted, we discuss the issue on the talk page and come to a consensus before making the same edit again. In this particular case, you haven't yet told us what you are not satisfied about. You have been referred to the main article on the California textbook controversy over Hindu history. Any further issues you have with it should be taken up on its talk page. As far as this page is concerned, the only thing that matters is whether the summary included here is faithful to that article. I think it is. If you disagree, please state your objection. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: My objection is about the phrase 'multiple organization commented the textbook issue as revisionist'. The citation only refers to DFN as the party stating it as revisionist. I have stated this in my edit summary.HemaChandra88 (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I understand, but you seem to have ignored the edit summary provided here [8]. It seems that you are quibbling on form rather than substance. Since this is a summary of another article, the entire article should not be copied here, just the main points. So, your objections, if they are substantive, should be raised at the main article, not here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3 How is using 'DFN' instead of 'multiple organization' hampering summarization? Infact, there's an error of cardinality. HemaChandra88 (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
It is misleading and inaccurate to suggest that a single group was involved when multiple groups were involved. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
No, but it is the recommended protocol, designed by editor with loads of experience. You would violate it at your own peril. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hindu American Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)