This article is written in
Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
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 sourcedmust 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.
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 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
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
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[The Emergency (India)#The role of RSS|Emergency]] The anchor (#The role of RSS) has been
deleted by other users before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
Criticism section
The criticism section is strange. This is like criticizing France on the web page of Carla Bruni!
Since this is an article about the person, why is the criticism directed to the organization he heads. If the organization has to be criticized, why not put the section on the page of organization itself? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
59.180.8.166 (
talk)
09:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The section seems to no longer exist.
Updating the article
This article seems to be formatted earlier and as biography of living person, it needs to update according to new format, according to Wikipedia new formats and styles. Infobox to be added, more informational content about life, citation is required and required tagging.
Kswarrior (
talk) KLS
16:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No Not unless you find a couple reliable sources that give this information due weight, its not reliable enough right now to be included
Cook907 (
talk)
18:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes A cursory search reveals coverage. I found reports from National Herald India, The Economic Times, Deccan Herald, Telegraph India, etc. However, the bulk of this section (specifically paragraphs 2 and 3) can be deleted as it reads like an essay or an opinion piece arguing a case.
Darwin Naz (
talk)
22:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Third opinion
Talk:Mohan_Bhagwat#Third opinion" Should the "
Controversies" section about “lynching” (or substantially similar content) be included in the article or not? . 03:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Response to
third opinion request (Should the "
Controversies" section about “lynching” (or substantially similar content) be included in the article or not?):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Mohan Bhagwat and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.
No, the "Controversies" section in
this diff should not be included in the article. There are a number of problems with it: 1) it is not properly sourced to
reliable sources, 2) at least one paragraph is a
copyright violation (and I have requested
removal of it), 3) it does not appear that all of it is relevant or significant enough to this article, and perhaps most importantly, 4) there was a recently-closed
WP:RfC with
very strong consensus against inclusion. There may be additional problems, as discussed in the pre-RfC discussions and during the RfC. In my opinion, proponents of the content should re-draft it, addressing editors' concerns about the prior draft, and then post the new draft on the talk page to see if there is consensus for inclusion of the new draft. –
Levivich06:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from:
https://www.newsclick.in/Lynching-Bharat-Called-Vaddh. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see
"using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or
"donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For
legal reasons, we cannot accept
copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under
fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and
referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our
guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. –
Levivich06:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Sitush: hey just asking.....don't u think that here blp violation is taking place as according to ur edits i found there should be self identification of caste of a living person? ??
Heba Aisha (
talk) 00:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Heba Aisha (
talk)
00:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)reply
It's a tricky one. My own view is that we shouldn't say someone was "born into a [caste name] family" because it infers something and is indeed used by some caste warrior types on Wikipedia precisely to achieve that effect when they can't find a source showing self-identification. I am sure that others will disagree with me and I don't know if there is any firm consensus regarding it. @
RegentsPark,
Vanamonde93,
SpacemanSpiff, and
Kautilya3: - any ideas, folks? -
Sitush (
talk)
14:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I personally wouldn't bother about self-identification. In these days, caste affiliations are frowned upon, and every public figure would hide it. That doesn't mean they disowned it.
I don't know, both those arguments carry weight; the statements of contemporary scholarly is not something to be set aside lightly, but there's reasons why we ask for self-identification...for a figure this prominent, I'm inclined to think that we need to use what's available, and the absence of verifiable self-identification does not reflect a lack of opportunity for the subject to self-identify. I understand the concern about caste warriors, but there's also legitimate concerns about the erasure of the history of caste relations. Vanamonde (
Talk)15:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)reply
But it isn't the subject, is it? It is the subject's family, some of whom probably are living and may not subscribe to the notion of caste etc. It's also like saying Amitabh Bachchan was born in a Kayastha family and not clarifying that he rejects the label. -
Sitush (
talk)
15:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)reply
The part about self-identification seems to have come about by equating caste with religion, as if some one has to actively profess it. But castes are primarily identities, to which people might belong without thinking about it. I really think we have to defer to the reliable sources about it. --
Kautilya3 (
talk)
17:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Not really. The reason religion was mentioned is because of BLPCAT applying to religion and we know that, just as people may be born into a strict Hindu or Christian family but choose not to profess the faith, so too with caste (Bachchan being my go-to example for this but there are plenty of others). There are literally hundreds of contributors applying this consensus across even more articles, so I don't think it can be over-ridden so easily. Someone can change their caste just as they change their nationality. In fact, that has been one of the issues with caste since the Brits got involved and is why there appear to be so many more castes today than there were 200 years ago. -
Sitush (
talk)
06:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)reply
So wts the final decision.I want to know as i saw @
Sitush: removing caste from a large number of articles if the subject is a living person.The explaination always being self identification. So which type of sources to use in case of a living person in absence of sources of self identification? ?
Heba Aisha (
talk)
23:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)reply
No. Kautilya3 is an outlier here. They seem to be disagreeing with long-standing, much-discussed consensus but this particular case is one of those borderline things because it is implying Bhagwat is a Brahmin rather than stating it directly. That is what I am unhappy about but admit is a bit fuzzy in the consensus. Consensus can change but we can't change such a long-standing, frequently discussed and applied consensus here - it would need to be done at
WT:INB or similar and would probably involved a
WP:RFC. -
Sitush (
talk)
06:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I have removed the "born in family" wording and added a scholarly source.
Heba Aisha, in order to talk about either caste or religion of a person, we need information that those aspects are relevant to the notability of the person. In this case, they are because the scholars say that the RSS is a Brahmin-dominated organisation, some people even call it a "Brahminist" organisation. --
Kautilya3 (
talk)
09:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I rather think that saying "was born in a Brahmin family" is preferable to "is a Brahmin". A person can choose to identify how they please, but it doesn't change their heritage; men may repudiate misogyny, for instance, but that doesn't change the fact that their identity makes them relatively immune to street harassment. It's the same here; being born in a Brahmin family gives you advantages that are relevant to your life, even if you repudiate the identity itself. Caste is fundamentally an ascribed status, rather than earned or chosen status; erasing it in instances where we lack self-identification information almost seems like revisionism. I agree we need a discussion about this, though. Vanamonde (
Talk)19:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, it would be revisionism if the statement actually mattered in terms of the subject's life but usually it does not (this may be an exceptional case, I don't know). Somewhere among the tortuous discussions about caste & BLP - and it may be at
WP:BLPN rather than
WT:INB - it was asserted that BLP applies even to the non-notable family members if they are still living, so ascribing a caste to a family can be problematic also. I really do not know what the answer is regarding this situation. All I know for sure is we should not be watering down the definite consensus stuff that says we do not ascribe a caste to a living person unless they have self-identified; whether it is acceptable to ascribe it to their family (parents, siblings) is the issue that has been raised here.
I'm slightly at a loss with Kautilya's statement that caste affiliations are frowned upon given just how many people try to start and grow caste-based lists of people, how many caste-based political parties exists etc. -
Sitush (
talk)
19:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)reply
With respect to articles about recent immigrants, or children of recent immigrants, we often describe their familiar heritage, even when it's not something they have said themselves, and when it's not obviously relevant to the rest of their article; and that makes sense to me, because the tendency to treat immigrants differently is so pervasive that it's obviously relevant. I think the same logic applies here. I'm not certain what Kautilya is referring to, but when caste identity is used as a tool to build political support, it's inevitable that some people will look to highlight their caste identity, and others will look to distance themselves from it. I haven't studied sources about Bhagwat specifically, but there's certainly sources discussing caste relations within the RSS and the Sangh Parivar more broadly. Vanamonde (
Talk)19:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)reply
In the Dussehra speech of 2020, he appreciated Ram Janmabhoomi verdict, and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), all brought about through due legislative process. He expressed disapproval of those who "misled our Muslim brothers by propagating a false notion” and regretted the damage to “communal harmony” by the agitators.[1]
Hi @
Kautilya3: As I have explained in my edit summary after you requested, I removed some parts Because it is factually wrong. Ayodhya verdict was not brought through the legislative process. The author of the print piece is related to the organisation and seems to be deliberately misleading the readers with fake news. I updated the article with better source when I added it. the last part is without any context so I have removed it. Feel free to add proper context and then add the full content.
I dont want to edit war, but the article must not put wrong and misleading info. So for now, I have removed the entire part, Lets discuss this first and then later on add it back.
Walrus Ji (
talk)
13:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
The section is titled Opinions. A opnion was added, 'He expressed disapproval of those who "misled our Muslim brothers by propagating a false notion” and regretted the damage to “communal harmony” by the agitators,' which is apparently a notable opinion, sourced to a JNU professor. You have repeatedly removed it, without a word of explanation. And, you seem to profess ignorance of having removed it, repeatedly. So something doesn't mesh. --
Kautilya3 (
talk)
14:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
You are saying I removed without a word of explanation, you are you ignoring the explanation in my edit summary and further elaboration of the edit summary. By my estimates I have written more than 200 words on both combined. Please read it.
Walrus Ji (
talk)
14:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
I you had explained why the green bits above were removed, it would have been a simple matter to paste it here. There is no need to write hundreds of words. --
Kautilya3 (
talk)
19:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
I had explained about the green bits in my comment. You should read my comment before replying. Anyway, I think the new edit is acceptable to me. I will not remove it.
Walrus Ji (
talk)
06:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)reply
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: