Talk:Hindu American Foundation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Doniger

Wendy Doniger’s book The Hindus: An Alternative History (Penguin, 2009) came under fire in India. The Shiksha Bachao Andolan, or the “Save Education Campaign,” led by Dinanath Batra filed a lawsuit against Doniger on grounds that her book was “intended to outrage religious feelings” per Section 295(a) of the Indian Penal Code [..] In the United States, the Hindu American Foundation used this episode to attack Doniger.
— https://academic.oup.com/jaar/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jaarel/lfad029/7207618

This needs to go in; the Doniger episode was huge. The orginal letter. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Fyi, @Kautilya3 and @Vanamonde93. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"used this episode to attack Doniger" - the link "attack Doniger" does not open. It should be fixed. Sooku (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sooku Works fine, try again.

"2010–2014: Banning The Hindus Book

Wendy Doniger’s book The Hindus: An Alternative History (Penguin, 2009) came under fire in India. The Shiksha Bachao Andolan, or the “Save Education Campaign,” led by Dinanath Batra filed a lawsuit against Doniger on grounds that her book was “intended to outrage religious feelings” per Section 295(a) of the Indian Penal Code. In 2014 Penguin settled the lawsuit by agreeing to pull and pulp remaining copies of Doniger’s book, causing widespread outcry. In the United States, the Hindu American Foundation used this episode to attack Doniger, whereas the American Academy of Religion (AAR) supported Doniger’s academic freedom (Jerryson 2014). The Hindus: An Alternative History was later republished by another Indian publisher. (Doniger 2014)" Doug Weller talk 10:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Incomplete Modi-Gujarat Story

This article cites "scholars" who blame Narendra Modi's incolvement in the 2002 Gujarat riots but does not state that in 2022, the Supreme Court of India completely exonerated Narendra Modi from all such charges. See https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/gujarat-riots-clean-chit-pm-modi-sc-two-decades-legal-battle-1966358-2022-06-24. In the interests of fairness and completeness, this decision should be noted.Sooku (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

NOTE: I am not an expert user. Please tell me if I can revise the text according to this reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sooku (talk • contribs) 00:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

That seems all right to me, perhaps consider including some of the sources mentioned here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots)? Llightex (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

Should probably add some citations in the lead. Though it's not necessary, per WP:LEADCITE it notes "quotations and controversial statements, particularly if about living persons, should be supported by citations even in the lead" -- and given the amount of controversy this article (and lead) have attracted it would be a good idea to add citations in the lead. Llightex (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The quote was from Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_not_to_cite Llightex (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead update in 2023

As mentioned by several editors, the lead is too short, uncited and unbalanced. I have added well sourced content that has previously been suggested by other editors, and makes the lead more balanced. We can continue the discussion for better lead RogerYg (talk) RogerYg (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Hi HaeB, We can discuss improvements to the lead here,as many editors have previously noted that the lead was too short, uncited and not neutral.

1. I have concerns with "The organization has its roots in the Hindu nationalist organization Vishwa Hindu Parishad America and its student wing Hindu Students Council", which is not well cited, and it is repeated in the body, where the only link given is that one of the co-founders previously with VHPA. Then there are claims from CAG, which are clearly a violation of Wikipedia:Libel policy, and need to be edited. Meanwhile, we can discuss the body later, and such details can be put in body with neutral langugae such as allegations.

But, having strong Libel assertions that HAF has roots in VHPA is a violation of WP:Libel and hence needs to be removed or replaced with more WP:NPOV language such as "There have been alleged links between some foundational members of HAF with VHPA". Thanks for your inputs. RogerYg (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Please explain why you call it "Libel". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  There is an entire section on Hindu nationalist ties on the main page, with half-a-dozen sources. If you don't like the "has its roots" sentence, the alternatives will be much worse! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Kautilya3 (talk), I note that you are a very Experienced editor, so I won't edit your lead version unless we have consensus. I can only give some suggestions I am happy to discuss to find neutral and balanced language.

  If I read correctly, I see the sources only link 1 co-founder, Mihir Meghani to VHPA out of total 5 co-founders.

  It may be better to keep it broader in lead, and include VHPA in body

  How about:

  "The organization has its roots in some of the older Hindu nationalist organizations"

  OR

  "Some of the organization's founders came from Hindu nationalist organizations, such as Vishwa Hindu Parishad America and its student wing Hindu Students Council" RogerYg (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi RogerYg, as a Wikipedia editor, we expect you to be committed to Wikipedia policies of verifiability and WP:NPOV. So whatever you argue has to be based on those policies, not your own opinions of the situation. If you are able to come up with a sentence or two which accurately summarise the content of the Hindu nationalist ties section, then it would be a candidate for consideration. Otherwise, the current sentence stays, which is entirely factual, and conveys the sense of what that section says (though not its substance). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"The first Hindu advocacy organization to have a professional organizational structure and full-time staff"

I don't have easy access to the refs given, but should that be "first American Hindu advocacy organization..."? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I can see the ref, it does actually support the text as written, but it's in a section titled "Politically active Indian American advocacy organisations": so I believe the implication that this is within the US is clear. Certainly this group doesn't predate the Arya Samaj, or the RSS, or the VHP...Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)