The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hindu American Foundation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Hinduism Low‑importance 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.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would like to know the reasons for this revert. The source I added verifies that it is a Hindu nationalist organisation.[1] Scholarly sources that call it Hindu nationalist include: [2][3][4] To suggest that it is a mere "Hindu" group is misleading.

I also disagree with the removal of the sentence "areas of activism include promotion of the Bharatiya Janata Party in the United States". We have whole section Hindu American Foundation#Visa for Narendra Modi and the Al-Jazeera says "HAF lobbies to deflect any criticism of Modi government’s policies".[5] The current sentence "areas of activism include protecting Hindu rights in the United States" cannot be verified and looks promotional. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Hindu nationalism" even mean in the context of the US? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are promoters of Hindutva ideology and are known for advocating the interests of Hindutva forces. That's why they are called Hindu nationalists. Just like Rajiv Malhotra, an American citizen, is also called Hindu nationalist. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Hindu nationalism" means arguing for a "Hindu nation" in India. That concept doesn't make sense in the US where the Hindus are a small minority. We say that they have links to Hindu nationalist organisations (in India as well as the subsidiaries in the US). Other than that, they might subscribe to some part of the Hindu nationalist ideology, which has to be covered on a case-by-case basis. It is not possible to characterise them with a blanket descrption of that kind. You need to read some solid scholarly analyses instead of the glib media stories. Here is one:

• Long, Jeffrey D. (2023), "Hindutva, Hindu Organizations, and the Hindu Diaspora", in Knut A. Jacobsen (ed.), Hindu Diasporas, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780198867692

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I cited are scholarly enough for that. You shouldn't be deciding who is a Hindu nationalist because that would be WP:OR. Wikipedia article of Narendra Modi described him as an Hindu nationalist yet he never demanded Hindu nation. The source you have cited itself carefully attributes the claims of it being a representative of Hindus and seeking Hindu rights to the group itself ("its mission statement", "presents itself as being") rather than mentioning it as a fact like this article is wrongly doing. Also the source you've cited states that this organisation has filed defamation cases against persons and organisations that have described it as such in order to shed off that label. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarise yourself with WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:NEWSORG and WP:SCHOLARSHIP etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This WP:WIKILAWYERING won't change the fact that your own source you've cited states that this group has filed defamation cases against those that have described it as such in order to shed off that label. You need to address that. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnahastin is quite correct: it is the scholarly description that matters. Besides which, someone who supports Hindu nationalism is presumably a Hindu nationalist; why does it matter where they live? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnahastin hasn't cited any scholarly sources. He doesn't even seem to be aware of what the term means. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that you are only making your own case weaker by making these misleading claims? I have cited 3 different scholarly sources right above. Your own source mentions: 'Nevertheless, popular media sources often label HAF a 'right wing' or 'Hindu nationalist' organization." You need to address that instead of falsifying me. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you copy those citations here so that we can discuss them. I don't need to address the problems with the "popular media sources", which Wikipedia is not. What matters to Wikipedia is the earlier sentence: The reality of HAF is clearly a complex one, not reducible to a single factor or ideological orientation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot rely on that single sentence for conclusion. It notes in the next paragraph that what mainstream media says about this organisation.

The sources I cited above describe this organisation as "Hindu nationalist forces" "[6], "draw varied levels of inspiration from the Hindu nationalist ideology"[7], "Hindu nationalist groups in the United States",[8] "Hindu nationalist groups".[9] Ratnahastin (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not like the (over-)reliance on Long and he is a shabby scholar — compare his narrative about HAF's stance on casteism with Prema Kurien's detailed analysis for an instructive example. He had also appeared for HAF during the California textbooks controversy. Anyway, I do not think HAF has active links with RSS — notwithstanding ideological overlaps — and a news article is utterly insufficient to cite such a strong claim in the lead. However, given HAF's recent gamut of activity — which includes their director, Shukla, defending the demolition of Babri Masjid (I made a post at the article t/p, a year ago) —, it is hard to argue why it cannot be seen as a Hindu Nationalist organization and the arguments about geography are unconvincing (and OR). So, there is perhaps a case to be made about describing the organization as a Hindu Nationalist one but I need to see support from multiple academic sources, which cover our subject non-trivially. So far, such evidence has not been presented. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the four sources cited above. They mention HAF as "Hindu nationalist". This article should be also mentioned here.

HAF has ties with the Hindutva groups and India and it was clearly founded following the condemnation of Hindutva ideology after 2002 Gujarat riots as described here. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]