Talk:Udit Raj

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

India: Politics Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Buddhism Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Dr.uditraj (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (Identifies as the article's subject in the edit summary here)

Article must adhere to Wiki rules on biography[edit]

Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons for Wiki rules on bios of living people. Especially check section on biased or malicious content.

Precisely. Don;t misuse BLP to propagate racist views.There is nothing malicious in the article.Just listing the facts.Hkelkar 21:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"anti Hindu" is an opinion, not a fact. re-edited to stick to Wiki biography rules as well as to counter possible charge of defamation. "defamation is a right of action for communicating statements that may harm an individual's reputation or character. The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action."Muggle1982 21:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Muggle1982Muggle1982 21:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see: "Reverting potentially libellous material All users are encouraged to remove unsourced or poorly sourced derogatory information about living persons, whether within a biography of a living person or elsewhere, including associated talk pages. As with vandalism, the repeated addition of such material is best dealt with by blocking and page protection. The three-revert rule does not apply to users making a good-faith effort to enforce this provision, whether they are involved in editing the articles themselves or not." Muggle1982 21:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Muggle1982Muggle1982 21:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of it is libelous and all of it is extremely well-sourced.Hkelkar 21:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar's input[edit]

Corrected Article (well-sourced and non-partisan IMHO) listed here:

Linked here:

User:Hkelkar/uditraj

Readers judge for yourselves.

Hkelkar 10:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reservations are legislative response to historical social injustices. Can we scrap reservations if 85% of marriages in India are inter-religious or inter-caste? Unknownworld 07:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Hindu??[edit]

Vishwanathan PS: I agree with Basawala that "anti-Hindu" is neither here nor there, and a statement of OPINION rather than fact. In fact, many would call the HAF "anti-Hindu". Given the very POV nature of the label, I think it serves little factual purpose here.

As I am aware, most of these "former Dalits" are not anti-Hindu, but more anti-Brahmin. If there is a citation which proves that Udit Raj is anti-Hindu, then I will remove the dubious tag. If not, then anti-Hindu would be innacurate and should be changed to anti-Brahmin. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 13:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided citation. HAF has alleged that his positions are anti-Hindu.Most Dalitists are generally anti-Brahmin (even that statement is misleading, actually they are anti-CASTEIST). However, fringe elements such as these have made anti-Hindu comments and have expressed anti-Hindu sentiments.Shiva's Trident 13:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 13:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tag Anti Hindu is perfectly right. Hindus are the community who believe in God and Sanatan Dharma. But now and often the statement relating to rituals followed by Hindus is attacked by Mr Udit Raj. Recent example is the controversial tweet in which his anti-hindu attitude for the great I Dian organization was trolled and lashed by Twitterists ( https://twitter.com/Dr_Uditraj/status/1170263826975154177?s=19 ) is the example. Mkvermasbi (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Vishwanathan PS: Edited to remove ALL controversial, POV information. I suggest that if we want to include the "anti-Hindu" view, we also include information on the parties making that accusation. It is after all a highly politicised situation and merely including partisan charges from one poliical party is unbalanced. Either we include all sides, or none. ____________ Vishwanathan PS: Prior to the most recent edit, the article was full of unsourced, biased and irrelevant anti-Dalit, anti-minority propaganda information, including links from extremist terrorist-symathetic Hindu nationalist organizations like the VHP, which has been indicted internationally for extremist violence against religious minorities in India. Highly biased and propagandistic.

As of this time, the recent edits are unsourced, biased and full of irrelevant propaganda information, either from biased sources or extremist terrorist-sympathetic and other anti-Hindu sources. The article is highly unbalanced and non-neutral.Discussion is needed.Hkelkar 09:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1. This statement:

Because of these connections with other minority religious groups, Hindu nationalist groups, documented by Human Rights Watch among others.

Is just plain wrong. Hindu Nationalists have never attacked Dalits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hkelkar (talk • contribs) .

>>>>>The Ranveer Sena, a Sangh Parivar outfit, has been documented for attacking Dalits all over Bihar and UP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HMuggle1982 (talk • contribs) .

>>Ranvir Sena has nothing to do with Hindu Nationalists. They are unrelated to them.Don;t deliberately conflate 2 unrelated orgs.Hkelkar 10:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Point of fact, many Hindu nationalists such as Uma Bharati and Narendra Modi are OBC's.[reply]

>>>>>> OBC's are not Dalits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hkelkar (talk • contribs) .

There are no records of anti-dalit riots organized by Hindu Nationalists.Hkelkar 09:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>>>See above on Ranveer Sena. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Muggle1982 (talk • contribs) .

>>See above.Hkelkar 10:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point 2:Plus, Dalits have never protested against Casteism in the Christian Church to my knowledge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Muggle1982 (talk • contribs) .

>>>>Factually incorrect. Check Amazon.com for the writings of Bama, a Dalit Christian. Recently, Dalit Catholics have been in the news for protesting against Catholic casteism.

>>>>>As usual, no sources. Nobody would dare criticize the "Holy Church" or gangs of hooded thugs from the national Liberation Front of Tripura would kill them.

Most criticisms of the casteist Indian Church have come from outside India. Dalit extremists such as Rajshekhar and Ilaiah have only hated Hindus and ran behind Muslims and Christians (ironic, since Muslims such as Osama bin laden and Christians such as the Ku Klux Klan would just as surely kill them quite swiftly as "Hindus" regardless of their actual religion).Hkelkar 09:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>>>>> Rajshekhar and Ilaiah are not Dalit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Muggle1982 (talk • contribs) .

>>>>>OBC's. Close enough.Hkelkar 10:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point 3:"Coalition Against Communalism" is a partisan source per WP:RS and needs to be cited with qualification.Hkelkar 10:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>>>> I checked the link from the earlier edit and "Coalition Against Communalism" provides links to non-partisan reports from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, as well as reputed newspapers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Muggle1982 (talk • contribs) .

>>>>>HRW is partisan enough. See wikipedia article for controversies surrounding them. I hve papers that prove that they are run by Saudi Arabian Islamists with anti-Hindu and anti-Semitic biases.Hkelkar 10:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly Bangaru Laxman and Uma Bharti are at the forefront of Hindutva and are former dalits (technically caste doesnt exist anymore).

>>>>Uma Bharti is not a Dalit.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Muggle1982 (talk • contribs) .

>>>>>OBC, close enough.Hkelkar 10:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The congress and CPIM are ruled by the Brahmin/Baniya combine.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>>>>> Irrelevant to the issue of the biased Udit Raj page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Muggle1982 (talk • contribs) .

>>Relevant because Raj is a Congress supporter (Missionary thugs usually are, big surprise). Hkelkar 10:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muggle, stop inserting your comments inside of our comments It messes up the discussion.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Rather disappointed that people are too busy fighting to even wikilink properly, and then use honorifics like Mr, Dr, etc and refer to the subject byu his first name. I have deleted the irrevelant commentary about VHP, Christian missionaries. If people want to know about that, they can read it themselves by clicking on the link. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user who has been vandalizing the article, Muggle1982, has been blocked for disruptive edit-warring. I suggest a revert to the least controversial version and resume editing from there.Hkelkar 03:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start from here and now[edit]

I just made an edit trying to compromise both viewpoints and made a good faith effort to represent all views, unlike Muggle1982. Please discuss this edit and modify it point by point of necessary.Please don;t make mass reverts and large edits without discussing.03:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

New beginnings![edit]

I have perused the pages, and removed ALL partisan, POV information and links! We must be scrupulously fair, and either include all points of view, or stick to basic biography, and no controversy. Once we get into copntroversy, then all sides of the controversy must be included.

Muggle1982 you are aware that sock puppetry is not allowed in orer to evade blocks, right?Hkelkar 09:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, Udit Raj's Point of view has been adequately represented. Thanks.Hkelkar 09:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Article (well-sourced and non-partisan IMHO)[edit]

Linked here:

User:Hkelkar/uditraj

Hkelkar 10:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected[edit]

Since you're in the middle of a revert war I have protected the page. It is not an endorsion of the current version of the page and is only temporary - used to encourage discussion rather than pointless revert wars. The page will be unprotected once you reach some agreement, or at least some agreement to stop revert warring.--Konst.able 10:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd[edit]

Vishwanathan you say that "The Week" is partisan??? I really don;t know how to answer such comments.Besides, partisan sources like HAF can be quoted with qualification (read WP:RS).Hkelkar 10:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Udit Raj listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dr. Udit Raj. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 16:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Citiation[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

1 number citiation is worng Mohanxn (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. The content it was cited for was wrong; he had a party office with the BJP until 2019, not with the INC. I fixed that. Huon (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]