Talk:Voice of India

Neutrality

This article appears as if it has been written by someone who is heavily prejudiced against the publishing company. To my knowledge, it is not as vehemently communal and "against minorities" as it has been made out to be. Some of the books published are scholarly written and worthy of acclaim. - Ravichandar84 10:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

such as which ones? If you have favourable academic recensions of any VoI books, by all means do add them. --dab (𒁳) 13:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT

Please note: 'factual errors' need to be cited as errors, and marked as disputed, if they are based on reliable sources. Note further: a partial list of publications is not considered standard in publishing house pages. We link to author pages; those link to book pages. Note finally: the 'heavily' is a direct quote from the Pseudoarcheology book. Please try and cite your changes, rather than deleting relevant information from mainstream, reliable sources. Hornplease 09:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

seeing the nature of the firm as a lobbyist platform rather than a bona fide publishing house, it may make sense to include a list of publications. dab (𒁳) 10:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The author of this page, believes that publishing a book, which disputes the nature of the aryan invasion theory is a crime...I am rather surprised that a general introduction to a publishing house can be described in such contempt especially in a wiki NPOV scenario.

That the work of VOI stands vindicated today is evident from the opinion of respectable authors like Trautmann and Bryant (who recently published the Indo Aryan controversy) who have given genuine academic platforms to outline the debate. Trautmann in Aryans and British India himself concedes that it was an uncritical reading of the texts with ample text torturing which allowed a racist conception of the aryans vs the native to crop up in the first place. But K D Sethna, a disciple of Sri Aurobindo, and a polyglot had even a quarter of a century ago, in his "The problem of aryan origins" published by Aditya Prakashan arrived at the same conclusion.

Sita Ram Goyal has given almost unimpeachable evidence of destruction of more than 80,000 temples in India during the Muslim rule in India. Richard Eaton could not even scratch the surface of his thesis in his so called peer reviewed article ubiquitously quoted by a pathologically infested breed of scholars.

Finally, the publications are not subsidized. I recently purchased K D Sethna's problems of aryan origins and it cost me Rs. 500/- which is at par with Cambridge and Oxford titles in India.

It is amply clear that whoever wrote that article has not actually critically gone through the contents of VOI's profound literature, some of which is available online. Considering that, he or she is not entitled to write an article on the same by relying exclusively on secondary and obviously biased sources. The neutrality of the article stands disputed simply because he has failed to quote the other side being represented; and the quantum of criticism unleashed goes against wiki's sound maxim of not allowing criticism to overwhelm the fundamental subject content. The diatribe is both virulent and stems from personal bias. The entire article relies on second hand evidence from enemies of VOI to figure their agenda; worse their official mission statement is nowhere found.

Regards, Saurav —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.48.1 (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

website

voi.org has been down for a few days. It used to be hosted by http://www.airband.com/ (Carrollton, Texas). dab (𒁳) 10:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

section not verified

1. "may be biased and inaccurate"
2. "not emigrant", the two have lived abroad, according to their WP biographies,
3. Frawley, Klostermaier are "not New-Agers"
4. Bhagawan Gidwani is not known to be a supporter of Nationalism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doldrums (talk • contribs) 06:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Point of View Tag

Please try to abide by the wikipedia policy of neutrality This is an encyclopedia, and as such should be a place for facts. I know little about the subject which is why I've tried to draw attention to the article to see if we can get help. If I have to be honest, the subject probably doesn't merit an article, It appears to be a vehicle for criticism, something which wikipedia is not. We should try to clean up this article, removing the bias and ensure that it has a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. SallyBoseman 22:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sally, Voice of India is not a huge publishing company, but probably notable enough to have an article. But the editors who are owning the article are using it as a vehicle for criticism, as you point out. My impulsive edits, which you reverted, were trying to balance the criticism - criticism which is being presented as fact, but are only allegations from a couple of people. Allegations are generally unencyclopedic when made by a few individuals (with Conflict of Interest at that), unless perhaps they are kept in the criticism section, and are made by extremely notable, or reliable neutral parties. I appreciate your attempt to draw editors who are entirely uninvolved with the much larger controversy that this article is part of (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_propaganda). If editors who are entirely neutral could wade into this, I for one would appreciate it. Cheers, ॐ Priyanath talk 22:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia is not a place for political or religious disputes to be aired, nor is it a forum for anyones opinions. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. Let us try to come up with a neutral POV article stating what the Voice of India is and why it is notable enough to deserve an article within Wikipedia. I think we need to either radically shorten the page to remove bias and anything without a neutral POV.SallyBoseman 12:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Controversies? Category:Criticisms? Category:Debates? This isn't an on-wiki controversy, it's a real world socio-political controversy spilling over into scholarship, and we are reporting on scholars protesting bad faith pseudoscholarly publicity stunts. Wikipedia is indeed a vehicle to elaborate on political disputes and conflicts (have you ever taken a glance at Israeli-Palestinian conflict? At all? dab (𒁳) 22:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have, but this page is supposed to be about a publishing company, there are very few facts on this page, just selected quotes, point scoring and invective, the NPOV is one of the cornerstones of the encyclopedia, without it wikipedia has no value. I'm glad you mention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is a well researched, on topic article and the non POV material that does appear on it is debated on the discussion page and some sort of consensus is reached, I repeat - this is supposed to be an article about a publishing company, it should be short and factual.SallyBoseman 01:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

well, more people have been working on that for longer. Nobody said this article is finished. Since we are debating on the discussion page: what do we have so far? There is this publishing company, owned by a well-known author of political titles in the Muslim vs. Hindu row in Indian politics, and it has put out a dozen titles or two of historical revisionism. Recently, academic reviews, which so far had ignored the company for being obviously outside their scope, have felt compelled to distance themselves from anything that might pretend to be "scholarly" about all this. That's pretty much the long and short of it, and the article does reflect that situation. You are most welcome to either add aspects we are missing, or edit the existing material for clarity and flow. The problem with the quotes is, anyting other than verbatim quotes will be nuked by our resident VoI representatives as "illegal synthesis". If you can paraphrase the gist of all this in simple prose and keep it stable, I'm all for it. dab (𒁳) 19:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to accusations

The quote from Witzel and Farmer makes an accusation against seventeen named individuals, in addition to VOI. Every one of those individuals deserves a response, not just Shendge. Perhaps better to find a quote that only maligns VOI, and then there would be no need for a response to each of the seventeen personal attacks. ॐ Priyanath talk 13:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

we are quoting W&F as criticizing VoI, not Shendge. If you want to discuss the criticism and the reply over at Malati Shendge, feel free to do that. Especially since Shendge didn't defend VoI, but objected to her name being listed in such unsavoury company. dab (𒁳) 13:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV concerns

Really what is on with this article? There is absolutely no NPOV and seems to be written by someone with practically an agenda. I have tried to rewrite this article with an NPOV, but each time my edits are reversed. Please, someone of other editors or some other guys, look over this article. To note, the introduction is written too negatively, and there is only a criticism section. Not even once is the Voice of India stand and views on the issues involved are even mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.100.12.40 (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

the problem appears to be that no independent reviewer has anything positive to say. Since this is essentially a propaganda outfit, it is essential that the introduction states this up front. Reviewing the article, I find that it may not be appropriate to discuss details of the internet domain holder in the lead. Also, the "criticism" and "list of publications" sections may better be presented in reverse order. The "Voice of India stand and views" is stated up front for better or worse: to contradict in print, "scientifically", the Indo-Aryan migration theory. This stated intention to be "scientific", meaning peer-reviewed, does invite academic opinion on the enterprise, which is unanimously negative. I am sorry, but "NPOV" does not mean we have to represent pseudo-scholarship as anything else than pseudo-scholarship. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as independent reviews are concerned of the works of Voice of India, the less said the better. As can be seen from even the section of critcism in this veryt aarticle, it consists more of ad hominem than anything else. Whether this is a propaganda unit is not is more about opinions than anything scientific. To quote just one example, the Indo-Aryan question is far from settled, and both sides can marshal enough evidence to support themselves. Hence calling one of the sides propagandist, may be OK for the oppposing side, but far from suitable for an encyclopedia. Again calling Voice of India propagadist is too simplistic. They do have authors of repute like Shourie, Goel and a former director of the ASI writing for them. Finally, even the worst of criminals does deserve a fair hearing. Sadly, this article is far from being fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.100.12.40 (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Partial list of publications

• Agarwal, Vishal A case study in Eminent Historiography, in India's Only Communalist, ed. by Koenraad Elst (2005).
• Goel, Sita Ram
  • History of Hindu-Christian Encounters (1989)
  • Defence of Hindu society (1994) ISBN 978-8185990248.
  • Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them (1991).
  • How I Became A Hindu (1998) ISBN 978-8185990057.
  • India's Secularism (2000) ISBN 978-8185990590.
• Elst, Koenraad
  • Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society (1991).
  • Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple (2002) ISBN 81-85990-75-1.
  • Ayodhya, The Finale - Science versus Secularism in the Excavations Debate (2003) ISBN 81-85990-77-8.
  • Gandhi and Godse - A review and a critique (2001) ISBN 81-85990-71-9.
  • Hindu Resurgence (1997) ISBN 81-85990-47-6.
  • Indigenous Indians: Agastya to Ambedkar (1993).
  • Psychology of Prophetism - A Secular Look at the Bible (1993) ISBN 81-85990-00-X.
  • Ram Janmabhoomi vs. Babri Masjid. A Case Study in Hindu-Muslim Conflict (1993).
  • The Saffron Swastika - The Notion of Hindu Fascism. (2001) ISBN 81-85990-69-7.
  • Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate ISBN 8186471774.
  • Who is a Hindu? (2001).
  • Goel, Sita Ram, Catholic Ashrams: Sannyasins or Swindlers?, Voice of India, New Delhi, 1995.
  • Awaken Bharata: A Call for India's Rebirth (1998) ISBN 978-8185990514.
  • Hinduism: The Eternal Tradition (Sanatana Dharma) ISBN 81-85990-29-8.
  • The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India (1994) ISBN 81-85990-20-4.
• Rajaram, N.S.
  • Hindu View of the World: Essays In the Intellectual Kshatriya Tradition (1998) ISBN 978-8185990521.
  • Profiles in Deception: Ayodhya and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2000.
  • The politics of history : Aryan Invasion Theory and the Subversion of Scholarship (1995). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Librorum Prohibitorum (talk • contribs) 12:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Gerard Heuze

A neutral source for VOI criticism could be Gerard Heuze:

Gerard Heuze: Ou va l'Inde moderne?,p.91. In this context, Heuze mentions Voice of India several times.

Major anti-VOI POV

This article has major POV problems, mainly it seems because of Hornplease (talk · contribs) and Dbachmann (talk · contribs). About 90 percent of the article is purely negative, with extensive quotes by Michael Witzel and Bergunder, and only one single pro-VOI quote. It is even in the categories Propaganda in India and Historical revisionism (political). This article is also related to WP:BLP policy because of the authors.

Why do articles like NS Rajaram contain links to Voice of India and even Biblia Impex in the See also section? He has not only published there. I also don't put a link the publishing houses of Noam Chomsky to his article, or even a link to the Frontline magazine in the Michael Witzel article, because he published there.

I have added a little balance with this quote, but it does little to balance this extremely POV article:

The Greek Indologist Nicholas Kazanas, in a reply to Witzel, wrote: "One wonders too at the relevance of his next rather irrational comment: “Ironically, many of those expressing these anti-migrational views are emigrants themselves, engineers or technocrats like N S Rajaram, S Kak and S Kalyanaramam, who ship their ideas to India from US shores”. What indeed has this absurd statement to do with facts and evidence?… Then, it continues in the same tone of irrelevance and contempt, forgetting how many Universities and Journals spend enormous funds on useless hypotheses and ostracise all non-immigrationists: “They find allies in a broader assortment of home-grown nationalists including university professors, bank employees, and politicians (S. S. Misra, S. Talageri, K. D. Sethna, S. P. Gupta, Bh. Singh, M. Shendge, Bh. Gidwani, P. Chaudhuri, A. Shourie, S. R. Goel). They have even gained a small but vocal following in the West among "New Age" writers or researchers outside mainstream scholarship, including D. Frawley, G. Feuerstein, K. Klostermaier, and K. Elst. Whole publishing firms, such as the Voice of India and Aditya Prakashan, are devoted to propagating their ideas”. Here two further points are worthy of note: first, Prof Witzel obviously does not know what “New Age” writers are; second, the whole passage has the shrill tones of McCarthyism or any totalitarian dogmatism (and censorship). Instead of emitting such strident emotional cries and witch-hunt slogans, Prof Witzel and his followers had better re-examine their unfounded linguistic assumptions and recall the words of Edmund Leach, who was neither an Indian nationalist technocrat, nor a New-Age writer, but a solid, mainstream pillar of the academic establishment. Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

it's a self-declared propaganda outfit, I don't know what you want. Kazanas is not an "Indologist". I suggest you write an email to M Witzel if you want to discuss his views with him, this is a Wikipedia talkpage. "Librorum Prohibitorum", you are obviously a returning edit-warrior. I suggest you let us know your former username so we'll know if there are any standing restrictions against you. dab (𒁳) 13:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I will comment later on the "neutrality" of this article. I found it funny that you called me a edit-warrior, when the only one who was making reverts until then was you. Funny, on which policy do I have to say random months old details to a random user whom I met randomly. I'm making a new start and never had any disputes with you. If somebody had a dispute with me before, then it will be obviously clear for that person, and there again theres no reason to say my months old account publicly, but I could email it to that person (unnecessary). But since I don't want to spend the rest of my wikitime with disputes, I hope I'm finished soon with disputes. I want to make it a point to edit less than a couple of days per year and I can't do this with ongoing disputes. Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Neutrality to be fixed

• The categories Hindu nationalism | Propaganda in India | Historical revisionism (political) are all categories from the pov of Michael Witzel and Bergunder cited in the article. This is not the pov of the Hindus, or of most of the VOI authors. Elst said that Goel wrote in defence of Hinduism, not of Hindutva.
• supportive of Hindu nationalist sentiment and political ideology. see comment above
• is allegedly "heavily subsidized". The lead is not the place for allegations
• Together with Aditya Prakashan,... These are two separate companies. As I understand it, the Aditya was just Goel's normal book business, which he did for a living, not like the VOI, which he did after his book career.
• Goel's intention in creating his publishing house was to contradict in print, 'scientifically', the Indo-Aryan migration theory. I would like to see the comment by Goel himself. It is strange, because Goel has never written a book on this.
• Website. This article is about the publishing house. There is not the slightest indication that the website is directly related to the publishing house. Even on articles on websites, Wikipedia does not state the owner of the website.
• He points out that most authors have no appropriate subject-specific study to show for themselves. This is only Bergunders opinion, but the sentence says that Bergunder is correct. It must be written: Bergunder alleges...
• Partial list of publications. This section was only added as a filler, to make the criticism appear as less. No other publishing house article lists the publications.
• 90 to 95 % is purely negative. This is not for what the Neutrality policy was written for. Solution: put at least the equal weight in quotes of Hindu and pro-VOI quotes in the article.
• Why was the Kazanas quote removed? Kazanas wrote this in reply to Witzels criticism of Kazans, and if Kazanas was good enough to be criticized by Witzel (whois qouted extensively in the article), then it should also be good enough to report on Kazanas verifiable reply.
• Why do some authors like Frawley have the VOI link in the See also section? Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• stop implying that there is a "Hindu" view on this. Not all Hindus are confused crackpots or political extremists. There is a "Hindu nationalist", or a "Hindu religious right" view, but this cannot be passed off as "the Hindu view".
• you fundamentally misunderstand WP:NPOV. We duly report the opinions of independent academics, and the replies by involved authors. NPOV means that if there is wide consensus on something, it will be given appropriate weight in the article. It appears that VoI is universally considered a Hindutva propaganda outfit. This isn't even disputed by those involved. If you can cite dissenting opinions, by all means do that. Just sanitizing an article according to your personal preference without supporting your opinion with independent and notable sources isn't acceptable. If you don't like mainstream opinion on some topic, you'll just have to live with Wikipedia featuring it regardless: there is nothing you can do about it, because that is what Wikipedia is built for. You may consider writing an article at Wikinfo, which is built to present topics from a "sympathetic point of view", which appears to be what you are aiming for here. -- dab (𒁳) 09:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow what an unbalanced article, seems some POV Nazis have made an effort to dig up all the criticism they could find about Voice of India to present a POV, posing as objective, to readers of the article, obviously to influence opinion.Nambo (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"influence opinion" is the entire purpose of a propaganda enterprise like VoI. Wikipedia, on the other hand does not aim to "influence opinion" other than by reporting on opinions. If you have more positive notable, independent, third party perspectives on VoI, by all means quote them. I frankly cannot imagine you'll find any independent, third party sources that would categorize VoI as anything else than the communalist propaganda outfit it plainly is, but you are free to prove me wrong. Thanks for the "POV Nazi" btw. The only "POV Nazis" I can see are the subject of the article (I mean, wth, they go as far as founding an entire publishing house just to push an unacademic fringe theory. That's rather advanced pov-pushing). We cannot conjure up redeeming perspectives on a subject if they simply aren't held by anyone. dab (𒁳) 08:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am frankly surprised an experienced editor like yourself makes such a generalizing conclusion on the entire works published by Voice of India. I believe the Indigenous Aryan theory is unlikely, though that is but a small part of the works published most of which are solid in their argument structures and logical reasoning, with a minority of authors making truly outlandish claims. There are underlying illogical prejudices present if you definitively write off any pro-Hindu organizations as communalist propaganda outfits, which I'm sure you would call Hindutva organizations as well.Nambo (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

again, this isn't about "pro-Hindu" vs. "anti-Hindu". That's just what they would have you believe, just like biblical literalist Christian fundamentalists will have you believe that you are "anti-Christian" if you don't buy their crackpot views on evolution. My conclusion is based on the sources cited. Again, you are free to add other notable, independent, third party sources to change the picture. dab (𒁳) 11:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is some history to this that Bergunder doesn't really cover, but becomes clearer if you look at (a) the publication dates (and subject matter) of the various books, and (b) the rocky relationship between Ram Swarup and Sitaram Goel on one side and the Sangh Parivar on the other. It is not correct to say that VoI was intended to be an outlet of Hindutva (here, == Parivar) polemics. However, over time VoI was effectively hijacked for precisely that purpose. And, the AIT/AMT furor has become a tail wagging the dog. rudra (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Witzel has no idea of politics or he wouldnt't be allying with marxists. He is well within his rights as a linguist and historian to criticize and ridicule opposite views; but the spin he gives to politics in India are so damn laughable. Similarly, the Hindu nationalist position is highly multifaceted and it cannot be reduced to the so called crackpot theories. I am afraid such crackpot racism exists only in the hands of editors like you who make a living out of this dreadful business of abusing Hinduism and its votaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.48.1 (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

revert wars

Though this may be a bit much, can any of the IP's who claim the contested fact is true (if that is even what the reverting is about) provide the actual quote? Pectore^talk 18:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

edits to this article for the past year have all been IP vandalism an revert warring. I've reverted to Oct 2008 and sprotected. --dab (𒁳) 20:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, this should keep this page from becoming a wall of propagandistic graffiti.Pectore^talk 03:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Heuzé

Heuzé mentions VOI a few times in his book. Most of the content comes from this sentence on pp 123-124: "Les membres du groupe de la Voice of India eux-mêmes ne s'inspirent que de textes 'démocratiques' quand ils invoquent la pensée européenne contemporaine pour justifier leur 'croisade' anti-musulmane, et ils laissent délibérément de côté tout ce qui a de l'air d'extrême droite." Elsewhere, he writes on pp114-15: A l'autre bout de l'ensemble nationaliste hindou, c'est l'apparition d'intellectuels cosmopolites parfois extrêmement sophistiqués, comme G. Jain, ex-rédacteur en chef du Times of India, Swapan Dasgupta, qui travaille dans le même journal, ou A. Shourie, ex-rédacteur en chef de l'Indian Express, qui marque la scène.... Notamment regroupé autour de la maison d'éditions Voice of India de S.R. Goel, ce nouvel avatar du nationalisme hindou perd, d'une autre manière, tout côté traditionnel. Il se nourrit aux derniers thèmes de la penséee idenditariste, culturo-centrée et nationaliste européenne, russe y compris, en reprenant tout ce qu'il est possible aux polémistes laïques et démocrates.--Calypsomusic (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

List of publications

This list is currently far too long. This article is not a catalog. Unless significant objections are raised, I am going to prune it in the next few days. @Kautilya3:, you've tangled with this stuff before, thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Vanamonde93,  Done about four years later. ∯WBG^converse 15:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, can you read French? ∯WBG^converse 15:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Hah, I'd forgotten about this, thanks. I cannot read French, I'm afraid. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Judaism

Me thinks that Kondo's point is apt enough. There are 4 reasons behind the vastly favorable treatment of Judaism:-

(1) There have been no clashes of any form (communal riots, conversions et al), between Hindus and Jews, (unlike with the other two). So, they don't perceive it as a threat. [Kondo]

(2) Too less in number to be even considered as a minimally viable threat, at any case. [Heuze]

(3) The VOI authors have an extreme collective distaste for foreign invasion of any kind -- Ancient Greek Cult, Islam, Christianity (I note of one even criticizing Babylonian, why?) -- nothing has been spared. Judaism stands apart in this regard. [Kondo]

(4) The BJP, after coming to power, started indulging in an extensive bonhomie with Israel.

∯WBG^converse 19:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Hindutva has always been sympathetic to Jews. Even Savarkar and Golwalkar were (while also admiring the Nazis!). They see them as fellow-victims of Islamic persecution. Or you could view it in realpolitik terms: allies in the fight against you know who. There was a lot of talk about Israel during the recent Balakot strike.

But the point here is that, when VOI is making a theological attack on Islam and Christianity, why do they distinguish Judaism from the other "Abrahamic" religions. My answer would be that Judaism is not a proselytising religion and so it is not a threat. I can't say too much without looking at the whole paper of Kondo. But I notice this fragment:

In an interview I conducted with Mr Goel in March 1998,[3] he left no doubt of his intentions: 'For us,' he told me, 'the enemy number one is Christianity and Islam."

Kondo did not quiz them why they don't include Judaism. He merely speculated. But the speculation is wishy-washy from my point of view because he did not calculate the effect of proselytisation in the whole affair.

By the way, the real Hindu teachers (not the Hindutva types) do not make these distinctions. For them, the 'jealous God' syndrome is wrong no matter where it comes from. Nicholas Gier quotes Surajit Sinha to say this:

the Vaishnava gurus are...not concerned with replacing the traditional rituals of their clients; they are mainly interested in superimposing a few rituals of their own to make their presence as ritual specialists essential in the life of the Bhumij (tribe). The Vaishnava guru is not moved by a reformist's zeal to save the heathen souls of his clients but he is very much interested in increasing the number of his clientele.

and adds: There is a stark contrast between this process of cultural integration and the demonizing of witches in medieval Europe and the destruction of the indigenous religions by European colonizers.

I don't see this understanding in Kondo or in fact any of the critics on this page. Meera Nanda knows this. But she won't say it. It is not convenient. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

You say "nothing has been spared". Consider Sakas and Hunas. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with you.

Interestingly, have not seen any discussion about the Hunas, though I recall a VOI's book, whose author took an avid dislike for the Indo-Greek Kingdom and it's blend-cultures. But, that's outlying and I have not come across any other discussion on the issue.

On a side-note, I have removed Pirbhai as a source, most of his quotes can't be anywhere located in the cited sources and his assertions of Judaism being disfavored by the VOI group, prior to BJP's rise to power, is quite dubious. The journal is good enough but .....

Elst, in a response to the publication, writes ... According to Pirbhai, Voice of India recently changed its thinking about the Jews, and is now more sympathetic to the Zionist project than it used to be .... In fact, if Hindutva has anything to do with Voice of India, the first utterances of Hindutva always sympathized with the Zionist project ... There is no indication that Ram Swarup or Sita Ram Goel were ever more negative about Judaism. They did not believe in Biblical prophecy, but at least Judaism had never done any harm to Hindu society, much in contrast with Christianity and Islam. As Meera Nanda writes: “Judaism is exempted from this critique of monotheism because eventhough Jews believe in one god, their god is exclusively the god of Jews alone.” which is quite apt. There is an aspect of realpoltik but that comes far down, fourth in my list of reasons. Most of Peerbhai's quotes, supposedly derived from Elst/Goel/Swarup's work, can't be located by me in the sources (cited in the corresponding footnotes) and I don't recall coming across them, either.

Can you take a look? ∯WBG^converse 06:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't particularly relish digging into VOI publications, but I think it is fine to downplay Pirbhai as per WP:NPOV. I find one chapter of Elst's Negationism in India on archive.org, and he is certainly not painting all three religions with the same brush. Pirbhai could have misread what he was reading. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Neutrality and questionable ref page numbers

This article contravenes our neutrality policy. It is written like someone who has ax to grind against this publisher and/or their authors. There is no redeming quality whatsoever even with respect to weight. All I see here is: Attack! Attack! Attack! This article is not written from a neutral stand point. I see that many editors have commented about this above! I am tagging it for neutrality and for expert. I am also concerned about the page numbers given in the references. If one examines the refs, one will find that almost every ref has rather wide page numbers e.g. pages 1-30, etc. With such expansive claims contained in this article, is someone trying to tell me that they cannot even specify the exact page number they are referencing? No! I'm not buying it. I do appreciate that sometimes we use wide page numbers spurring. But come on! We can't be using them for every source in the same article. Sorry, but I am not buying it. All one has to do is to take a look at the ref section and see what I'm referring to. Big claims need big refs and specif sources. As such, I will be tagging this article for neutrality and expert.Tamsier (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, everything after the first sentence above sounds like your own WP:POV. You need to demonstrate exactly how it violates wp:neutrality "policy". Have you even read the policy? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Do not remove tags until the matter has been fixed and/or experts have been given the opportunity to check the article. My rationale for tagging above identified exactly what the issues are. Further, I am not the only one who noticed the POV as evident in this talk page. You can't play ruse and pretend as if you do not understand what the issues are. It is an old classic strategy by POV pushers to play ruse and pretend as though they do not understand what the problem is rather than fixing the issues highlighted. As far as you are concerned, you are right, and everyone else who've noticed the POV in this article are wrong. Yeah right! One does not even have to be a brain surgeon to see the POV in this article coupled with the disingenuous ref page numbers. For your info, tags should not be removed until the issues have been fixed. Give other editors the opportunity to examine the article. If other editors from the various Wiki projects look at the article and deem it fit to remove the tags, I'm sure they will comment here and ask that the tags be removed or the tags remain until the issues evident in the article fixed. At least then we will have a consensus one way or the other. Wiki is not going anywhere.Tamsier (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You have not described any policy-based NPOV issues. Until you do so, the POV tag you have added has no place to be there. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not grounds for adding POV tags.

So, once again, what exactly are you objecting to? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

What exactly do you object to? Which editor(s) has/have commented above?

I can provide specific page numbers (after a shift to sfn) but how is that concerned with neutrality? If you feel that I have misrepresented any source, I am all ears but you need to make a definite (and objective) claim.

The rest looks like a rant, to me. ∯WBG^converse 15:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm! The POV (and OWN) is real! I do not have a dog in this fight. My only dog here is to see the article improved in-line with Wiki policies. I did not even know about this article until recently when I bumped into it by coincidence and decided to take a read, and to my surprise, the

article was full of POV. As such, I decided to look at the talk page to see whether the issue has been raised by other editors, and lo and behold, numerous editors raised the same issue as evident on this talk page. The very fact that an experienced editor like Winged Blades of Godric do not see any problems with this article and do not know what editors have raised similar issues (as evident above), I find mind-boggling. Here are a list of treads for your info: here , here , here ; here , and here. If you have all these editors (myself included, who came to this article purely by coincidence) raising the same concerns for the past several years, then obviously there is a problem. We can't all be barking mad. I am well aware of WP:SFN, but even the disingenuous referencing used throughout this article contravenes SFN - especially if you look at the bold claims contained therein. Further, if you/the editor knew the exact page numbers those claims came from, why didn't you just cite the full page number? Anyway, I have linked this discussion to the relevant Wiki Projects. Other editors can perhaps help improve this article. I think there is a WP:OWN issue and I'm not going to be edit warring over this. For the benefit of other editors, please note that, Kautilya3 reverted my tags [1]. I reverted him [2] and was reverted by Winged Blades of Godric - who then proceeded to leave a discretionary sanction notice on my talk page. I think it is WBG who doesn't like it..Tamsier (talk)

I said that I can use page numbers but need to shift to sfn-based method (for comfortability and compactness). That's a statement of intent which leaves no scope of argumenttation and I have no clue about why I need to read WP:SFN. I am not bothered about what editors from a decade back, said about this article. I have rewritten the entire stuff, months back and since then, you are the first complainant. Also, you will be at AE, if you continue to assume bad faith w/o providing any evidence. ∯WBG^converse 20:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Bad faith? Are you for real. Please don't indulge in your passive-aggressive nonsense with me, because I won't tolerate it. I didn't even know you re-wrote this article and cited those sources in the way you've cited them until you told me - which I later reconfirmed with the contribution history. Bad faith! Are you for real? After the nasty and condescending remarks you've made in the edit summaries and in this discussion! Which part of this discussion did I made a bad faith comment about you? Is my "POV" comment? Well, that couldn't have been about you because when I started this tread I didn't even know that you edited this page until you told me. Besides, I was commenting on the POV in the article not on any particular editor -, not until your actions which followed i.e. reverting my tags and leaving a discretionary sanction notice on my talk page - when you were highly involved as the main author of this re-write (despite the POV issues which claim you can't see). That in my view signaled OWN issues, because I felt I was being pushed away from this article when I only started this tread simply to help fix it. Or is it my question about why didn't you just cite the full page numbers since you knew them? That is a reasonable question to ask especially to a supposed experienced editor. I can perhaps understand one or two exceptions, but for the entire article to be sourced in that fashion! Come on! That is a reasonable question to ask. How do you want to reader to verify the claims you have made in this article? To go through several pages of the source just to find a single line supporting your quite controversial claims, especially for a sensitive topic like this? I am therefore intrigued to know Which part of my comment above is in bad faith? I have raised your incivility issues on my talk page several months ago and it looks like other editors have done the same on your own talk page but you still have not taking heed. Everything is not a war. I used to be like you but I have mellowed out a lot. You are lucky you've got the new me. Then again if I could change perhaps there is hope for you. Take me to AE, I would love to see that crane crash. Perhaps then it will attract other editors to this train wreck of an article. Anyway, I'm done with this back and forth which is nothing more than to distract from the points I've raised. Perhaps other editors can help inject some neutrality and proper citations to this article, because if I even attempt to try I would be reverted. I rather spend my eslewhere helping with other articles or projects than waste anymore of my time dealing with this, not to mention condescending remarks.Tamsier (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I will try to add the page numbers, once I get some time and you might fuck off in the meanwhile. ∯WBG^converse 11:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

So, you rewrote it but kept ambiguous page ranges and want to change the reference format now? Since you say it is written by you, can you source and demonstrate suitability of "Hindu triumphalist ideology", "demonic Abrahamic religions", "Scholars argue that..." from the lead itself, I don't even have to read the rest, anyone will stop reading at this point because it sounds extremely pointy without sound reasoning. I am restoring the tag. There are many other issues, lets say, what 'relevant' academic qualification Meera Nanda has (biotechnology?) such that her comment about religion or social studies is projected so prominently, that too, when she is known to be Hinduphobic? --Jaydayal (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I read few more lines and it looks like Meera Nanda wrote this article along with the Islamic scholar with an article titled "DEMONS IN HINDUTVA..." I found not even one reference from "Voice of India is associated with numerous journalists, historians, social commentators and academicians ...." only the critics are cited. --Jaydayal (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting to know that she had qualification in religion studies and more, found in her cv. --Jaydayal (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I am going to delete it again, because your tag says that this page supposedly violates something called "neutrality policy" and links to this dab page. You better go and first find out what policy you are talking about, read that policy and demonstrate how the article fails to follow it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Tasier was spot on. --Jaydayal (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead section does not need citations (vide WP:LEADCITE) and there are several scholars (mentioned in the reception section) who mention of VOI's Hindu supremacist/trimphalist ideology.

I guess that even the the VOI authors will not disagree that Abrahamic religions are demonic; I've seen the qualifier in at-least 3 books by 2 different authors. Moed mentions the term. So does another.

Ample scholars have been cited and the views more-or-less coalesce to form a summary which finds a mention in the lead. If you see any scholar praising VOI, bring it and we will incorporate that in body, before deciding how it affects the lead.

The lead's perfectly sound to me and the reasoning is in the body of the article.

Who notified you of Nanda's hinduphobia? K. Elst? R. Malhotra?

I don't care about Islamic/Hindu/Zoroastrian scholars, why do you?

Pseudo-historians, fringe academicians ..... et al will be far apt descriptions but that will be a full-fledged hit-piece. You don't want that, do you?

Once again, if you find any respectable academic praising VOI over any peer-reviewed literature, please bring it.

I am glad that you are finally able to parse CVs; a glimmer of hope amidst an island of incompetence.

And, stop following me or else, I will ask for an one-way IBAN. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 20:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Simply stating that an article violates NPOV is entirely pointless. If you think the article is failing NPOV, you need to demonstrate how; does it misrepresent its sources? Does it give some sources undue weight? Without such evidence, tagging the article for NPOV violations is disruptive. Virtually every article with political implications has some people who disagree with its presentation, but their opinions don't matter; the question is whether an article accurately represents its source material. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Winged Blades of Godric, do any of the sources comment on the choice of the name "Voice of India"? It is unfortunate that everybody has been so desensitised about fringe groups calling themselves "India". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  I have not seen any explanation.

  On a side-note, I might add that there used to be a popular nationalist daily ofthe same name (IIRC, established by Dadabhai Naoroji) that has been amply covered in reliable sources, focusing on the effects of the-then publications on the broader sociopolitical aspects. ∯WBG^converse 11:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Winged, quit personal attacks and threats. I challenge you to report me, please do if you got balls, have you? Multiple reasons where given for the tag by multiple editors, you addressed some of them too but don't want to acknowledge, that is okay. I am not the only one who you have attacked on this very page. Did I comment a thing on you? I must say you want to pick fights for no reason. I don't, so please 'report' me or whatever you want if you have the balls. --Jaydayal (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

After

a considerably prolonged and exhaustive search, I am not seeing any decent RS that covers the topic but ain't mentioned over the article. Noting for posterity. ∯WBG^converse 19:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)