Talk:Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Page needed to verify content.

Discussion moved to WP:ORN

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.

Content: ABISY attempts to give the journal a scientific character. However, this stated aim has been used to exclude viewpoints and local histories that contradict the organisation's Hindu nationalist ideology. in Publications section. I have access to the reference, it has page numbers and I cannot find this. Vanamonde93 reverted the tag saying It's a journal article, go read it. If you haven't access, that is not my problem. I mentioned that I have access to it but I cannot find it. Vanamonde93 insists on removing it and asked help from another editor to deal with it. It should not be a challenge for a reader to verify a content. I am inclined to remove it if I cannot verify it despite having the reference article at hand. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 02:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

May be he paraphrased it, after all Vanamonde93 cites so many policy he should be very much aware of WP:V -sarvajna (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you are most likely correct here. And I also do think so. But I have two reasons to pursue this: once before also he insisted on not given the exact reference and he ended up changing the content himself much later after a long drawn discussion where he conceded that he got confused and it was not in the reference. His response here has been similarly impolite and I think he can do better than merely deleting the tag, the request is not unreasonable in my view. I am okay to wait for a month for a response. In the referenced article this publication is discussed on page 14-15, and I think the paraphrasing (unless Vanamonde93 intends another location) is inaccurate. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 03:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
If it won't work I will fix it. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 07:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, May I draw your attention to this section? Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 13:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
You first give me a month, then suddenly change your mind and demand a page now now now? In any case, page provided, here is the quote. "The emphasis on what is “true” or “scientifically proven” also characterises Thakur Ram Singh’s discourse on local history — the main domain of abisy’s research activity. In his declarations, in fact, Thakur Ram Singh is explicit about the fact that not every local history is worth studying and documenting, but only those facts which have a “historical basis” and which are in accordance with abisy’s ideology." Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I said exactly this: May I draw your attention to this section? Thanks. Not one word more. Mind your tone. That quote does not support the content. If that is what you are using to support the content it is synthesis. I will align the content with your quote. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, this quote is on page 14, not 12. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
That was one hell of a paraphrasing I say -sarvajna (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Totally aside from this discussion, I wanted to share this, I am literally laughing and rolling on the floor, Berti writes: Thakur Ram Singh is a 92-year-old man who has dedicated his life to instigating and propagating nationalistic feelings. And mind you this is not the only place where she instigates the reader! lol! --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense. What part of the sentence is not supported by the quote? The "Hindu nationalist" adjective is the only part that is not; and that is in the title of the paper, for god's sake. Uday Reddy, Dharmadhaksha, Sitush, you seeing this? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear other editors (apart from Uday Reddy, Dharmadhaksha, and Sitush too), while you give your feedback for this instance, could you also check two more instance where I say synthesis has been done in the immediately following section. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Page 12 is correct; it is the page of the original text that matters, not the page of the pdf. People have access in different ways, so sticking to the original page number is the only way to prevent confusion. Again, if you will insist on posting in the middle of a discussion, then you can hardly expect people to see everything you say. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Look at the timestamps in this section, they are in series. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe Vanamonde93's paraphrase is faithful to the source. There is a bit of "synthesis" in moving from including what is in line with the ideology to excluding what contradicts the ideology, but there is no logical difference between the two statements. It will be a good idea for everybody to read WP:SYNTHNOT. Synthesis by itself is not prohibited. Only synthesis that constitutes Original Research is prohibited. In this particular case, there is no original research involved. Uday Reddy (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Uday Reddy, is Thakur Ram Singh ABISY? Is WP:STICKTOSOURCE relevant? Why is "historical basis" argument ignored? How is "abisy’s ideology" substituted with "organisation's Hindu nationalist ideology", why not stick to the source? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 18:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I believe Thakur Ram Singh is/has been the life blood of ABISY. The version of the article in June had a lot of information about this. I believe it was written by somebody who had intimate knowledge of ABISY. Unfortunately, User:Vanamonde93 cleaned most of it away, presumably because he couldn't find the sources for all that information. Is the ABISY's ideology "Hindu nationalist ideology"? My honest answer is NO. ABISY's ideology is much more narrow than the Hindu nationalist ideology. When Savarkar and Golwalkar defined "Hindu nationalism", "Hindu" meant ethnic Indian. Savarkar and Golwalkar included tribal and folk religions within their "Hindu" sphere. ABISY, on the other hand, wants "Hindu" to mean Vedic and Puranic Hinduism. So, they are a lot more sectarian than Savarkar and Golwalkar. Calling them "Hindu nationalist" is overly generous. Uday Reddy (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
well if there are no sources available nothing much can be done. With all due respect, your belief of life and blood thing of this organization is irrelevant unless we have a source. So let us stick to the source. -sarvajna (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Sarvajna: We don't need any further sources. The fact that Thakur Ram Singh served as the President of ABISY is enough to identify the references to the two in the source. Uday Reddy (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Reddyuday: fyi Thankur Ram Singh died 4 years back. You yourself dismissed the second synthesis with My honest answer is NO. And you do not have a source. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 02:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I've been pinged in a message from Vanamonde above. I'd already briefly commented prior to that. I'm sorry but I really cannot devote the time to this right now - anything involving the RSS etc usually ends up being a row between those who clearly support their ends and everyone else who supports Wikipedia's (perhaps hopeless) attempt to be neutral. My mother has being diagnosed with a terminal illness this week and I, too, am yet again unwell ... and my promised hospital operation has been moved further into the future because of the pretty dire funding status of the NHS. You're going to have to sort this one out without me but I may pop in from time to time. My suspicion is that this will need some sort of resolution at WP:DRN or similar because there are some familiar names involved in the discussion and they are not all neutral. - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for not assuming good faith and for commenting on the contributors and not the content. -sarvajna (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: And, this article was 7 years back. So, what is your point? Do you have any evidence that indicates that ABISY has changed its ideology from Thakur Ram Singh's days? Regarding My honest answer is NO. Indeed, if User:Vanamonde93 had to choose a more honest label, he would have needed to call it a "religious fundamentalist" ideology instead. I don't believe that that would have made you any happier. Labeling it "Hindu nationalist" is generous. Uday Reddy (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have reference go ahead. Have you? An organisations ideology is written down not inferred from he said this and she said that by a Wikipedia editor. You don't have to be generous here, just follow policies. sticktosource. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I had made edit and Vanamonde93 edited on top of it, the text now reads: The former head of ABISY, Thakur Ram Singh said that not every local history is worth studying and documenting, but only those facts which have a “historical basis” and which are in accordance with organization’s ideology. This is faithful to the source and eliminates the original research done previously by Vanamonde93. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I did not "edit on top of it;" I edited a different section after you did, that does not indicate that I was okay with this version. We do not know what Thakur Ram Singh said. All we have is Berti's interpretation of it, which is reliable. And the sentence is phrased in such a way as to make abundantly clear that he represents ABISY, and this is not his personal dictum. And "Hindu nationalist" is in the title of the paper. STICKTOSOURCE mandates that if we use Berti to describe ideology, it is described as Hindu Nationalist (and as User:Reddyuday says, that is generous. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Apology, I agree you did not edit on top of it, I misread diffs. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


Vanamonde93, you have put this:

ABISY attempts to give the journal a scientific character. However, this stated aim has been used to exclude viewpoints and local histories that contradict the organisation's Hindu nationalist ideology.

from this:

The emphasis on what is “true” or “scientifically proven” also characterises Thakur Ram Singh’s discourse on local history — the main domain of abisy’s research activity. In his declarations, in fact, Thakur Ram Singh is explicit about the fact that not every local history is worth studying and documenting, but only those facts which have a “historical basis” and which are in accordance with abisy’s ideology.

while I had paraphrased as (which you have reverted to your version yet again):

The former head of ABISY, Thakur Ram Singh said that not every local history is worth studying and documenting, but only those facts which have a “historical basis” and which are in accordance with organization’s ideology.

Your wording is original research, there is one more editor who strongly thinks so. I made clear statements why I think so, for which you have been making original assertions instead of giving reference (that is why I claim it is original research in the first place). Can you provide clear reference to support your assertions? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And there is one who agrees with me, so that is irrelevant. Let us take this fragment by fragment, and if that does not work, then I am posting to DRN. So. Here goes;
1) first fragment (only. We'll deal with the others in a minute). "ABISY attempts to give the journal a scientific character." Do you have any problems with this? Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
He agreed partially and did not provide any reference either. No need to rehash, read above and back up your assertions with reference. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Mentioned on WP:ORN and pinged all involved party. I would request not-involved editors be given chance to comment. Vanamonde93, you have the fair right to add anything to it that I failed to carry from here. I have tried to stay neutral and present all information there. I shall close the discussion here. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
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.

Source misreading?

this source says exactly what User:Reddyuday claims it to say. The title is "coming soon from Modi sarkar," which takes care of the Modi and BJP part; and then in the body,

"Rao's elevation is the first of the many NDA decisions that will determine who will lead India's top research, educational and cultural institutions."

Where the "Rao" in question is indubitably Yellapragada Sudershan Rao, referred to in the first line of the article, as is his new post;

"The new chairperson of the Indian Council of Historical Research, Yellapragada Sudershan Rao has..."

I am seeing absolutely no problem with this; and I cannot understand what objections jyoti might have. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Reread this and this. Last warning. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It was careless, perhaps; not outing. You should read the linked policy yourself.
1) Past usernames are not personal information.
2) Your past username is still widely available publicly on Wikipedia, including as a redirect to your current one; or a "what links here" from your userpage will show it. It is also scattered over ANI history and what not. Therefore, again not outing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
And of course, no response to the content issue raised, because you can make none. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 Jyoti was never my username. I have already warned you directly twice. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Who appoints the chairperson of ICHR? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the HRD minister. Vanamonde93, I am not sure whether you are doing it on purpose or not. An editor changes his/her name because they feel that they might be harassed in one way or other. If the editor has asked you not to use their REAL name you should not use the real name. Rather than apologizing , you just defend your act of revealing the users real name shows that you want to harass the user. STOP DOING IT AT ONCE -sarvajna (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Vanamonde93, I hope you will oblige. Uday Reddy (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Everybody, please do read WP:SYNTHNOT. Synthesis is not prohibited. Almost everything we do here is synthesis. If synthesis were prohibited, we could not write anything. It is only synthesis that represents "original research" that is prohibited. My original wording "appointed by the BJP Government headed by Narendra Modi" was perfectly fine. It is all factual information. There is no original research anywhere. I added another source only to point out that that little bit of "synthesis" that I did can also be found everywhere. So, you are barking up the wrong tree! Uday Reddy (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

(I haven't started barking yet!) So Uday, where should your synthesis and factual information stop? Should we reframe the statement to "appointed by the BJP, the ruling political party of India which has association with RSS, the voluntary group termed as "militant" by many western scholars and was banned for alleged involvement in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. The "controversial" leader of BJP, Narendra Modi, once alleged for running the Gujarat riots that massacred Muslims, heads the BJP government."? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Dharmadhyaksha, the firstpost article says "government;" AFAIK it is the HRD minister, like Uday Reddy says. So where is the issue? Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha, don't go off the deep end, for god's sake. The factual synth may or may not have been a problem earlier, but that is more or less irrelevant, because a new source has been given. The source makes a reference to the government, as well as to the prime minister. Do you believe including those two names is then unreasonable? If so, what do you propose? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Does the article really mention Modi? Or does it simply use his name in the title, maybe because it trends a lot? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Dharmadhyaksha, perhaps that's the case; I can well believe it, given how cynical I am about the Indian media. But regardless of why they said it, they did say it. And they also explicitly say it is by the current government. So are we to second guess they're motives, and leave out stuff they did explicitly say? Is it unreasonable to mention the administration that an appointment was made under? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, its unreasonable to mention a person rather than the post, especially when its mentioned in passing (or not even that) and especially when the media is notorious in such instances. Also, there is no clear reference on how Modi, or even the PM, is connected with the appointment. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I very much agree with Dharmadhyaksha, past appointments were done by the goverment and the future appintments will also be done by the goverment. What is the need to mention Modi here or any other politicain? -sarvajna (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The opinion of the author is abundantly clear; they are suggesting that the Modi government is going to appoing RSS affiliated individuals to posts such as this one. We are not even mentioning the obvious inference, that it is to further Sangh ideology; we are simply making it clear that it was not the previous Congress government, nor the 1999 NDA government, which made the appointment. We are making absolutely no insinuations in the article. If the appointment itself is notable enough to mention, then the relevant details should be included. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It is the goverment of the day that appointed some person. Why the goverment did that or what you call a obvious inference can be taken at the current goverment's page if there is one. This page is not about the Indian goverment or Modi Sarkar's work and appointments.A person from ABISY was appointed by the Indian goverment, that is the fact which we need to write. We are not wrting an opinion piece here, this is an encyclopedia -sarvajna (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It is very evident from the article, that it is the party in power that is being commented upon, and not the "Indian government" in the abstract. Most such appointments get no mention in the papers; this one got at least two, and one of them an opinion piece. It is 100% factually accurate. I really cannot see why this debate needs go on so long. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
You didn't answer how Modi directly is connected here. That's why the discussion is going on so long. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It is relevant, because the article essentially claims that "Modi sarkar" is responsible for the appointment. It does not mention the minister, else I would have used that instead. We do not have an "administration of Narendra Modi" article as many governments have; ergo, the next best thing, which is BJP (or NDA; not particular. One follows the letter, the other the spirit) government led by Narendra Modi. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Ohkay! You don't want to answer it nor understand it. Will re-remove it now. Take it to BLP noticeboard if you want it in the article or present a clear source which explicitly says of Modi's involvement in the appointment. Not everything the government does should be linked with one single person. If such was the case many leaders of nation's biographies would be filled with such trivia. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. I was among the editors favoring the removal of a lot of similar junk from the Modi page. This is not the Modi page. Of course BLP applies; but all we are saying is that his government appointed somebody, so there is no BLP violation. The author of the article thinks it important to link the appointment to the political views of the government; we cannot pretend that link does not exist. Since you are being obdurate, I have stuck to saying NDA government, which I hope you have no objection to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black -sarvajna (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not making a concession here. Narendra Modi has been voted to power by some 200 million Indians to lead the Government, not to hide behind the screens. If the HRD Minister made an announcement herself or took responsibility for the appointment, then we would attribute it to her. Otherwise, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is the "Modi government" that made the appointment. I will revert the edit and add other info, once the present frantic editing cools down. Uday Reddy (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
No one is asking for any concession here, this is not a forum to discuss why Modi was elected so I will not get into that. The current wording is something that is acceptable, I will revert you whenever you try to impose your view here. -sarvajna (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
QUOTE
"Take it to BLP noticeboard if you want it in the article or present a clear source which explicitly says of Modi's involvement in the appointment."
UNQUOTE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I am gladdened by the enthusiasm of all of you to protect the reputation of Narendra Modi by disassociating him from the actions of his own Government. So, then, where were you when the 2002 Gujarat riots page branded him as a racist and Nazi sympathiser and I was battling it in the BLP NOtice board? Uday Reddy (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
What has anything that happened on other pages got to do with this? You shouldn't be editing in revenge or to make a point. (I know you aren't editing in revenge as such and even if you were, this isn't a worthy revenge at all. Aim higher if you want to.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
How does it matter that we were not involved in other pages? It is always a god time to start and good time to stop Not that it matters, you can check the archives to know whether Dharamdhyaksha and I were involved or not -sarvajna (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
It shows that your concern for Narendra Modi's reputation is fake. Uday Reddy (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I have no concern for his reputation. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, that disinterest is also fake, as the above discussion clearly shows. But I have news for you: I have great concern for Narendra Modi's reputation. I hope the facts come out as to how this stupid appointment has happened, and I will be the first person to change the wording here as soon as such facts become available. Uday Reddy (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
(Assume what pleases you! But keep those assumptions to yourself and don't spread them around.) I wouldn't object adding even Mother Teresa's name if you have a clear fact backing it up. But such speculations and guessworks are suited best for sensational blogs and twitter posts but not encyclopedias. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The new source gives the reference to Modi you have been asking for: Currently, the PM is keeping the RSS happy by giving it control over cultural and educational bodies. The Indian Council for Historical Research (ICHR) has already gone to a Parivar man. More such appointments will follow. Uday Reddy (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a lousy opinion piece. Have raised that issue on the on-going BLPN discussion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Quotation marks

@AmritasyaPutra: I see you removing quotation marks in existing text, referring to some policy. What do you have against quotation marks? Uday Reddy (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Uday Reddy, Can you please give the diff link and quote the edit summary for it? Cheers. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 13:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@AmritasyaPutra: It was in 2 edits done by you this morning: here and here. I have also seen you do it in various other places over the last month or so, but I never understood what the problem is. Uday Reddy (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
If you could paste the edit summary, you will know why. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 02:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The edit summary says "Remove emphasis by editor. See wp:quote and wp:editorializing," which is false. You didn't remove emphasis. You removed quotation marks. Uday Reddy (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Page needed to verify the first sentence of the Ideology section.

Content: The ideology of the ABISY is based on the belief that India was once a uniformly Hindu country, and that distortion by Western historians has created a false impression of cultural diversity. Page needed to verify, I have both reference and I can't find it. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Quote from page seventeen, once again identical in meaning to the sentence in the text: one of the main issues in the ABISY's programme is to show that Aryans have not come from the outside but were the original inhabitants of India.This fits in with denouncing the thesis of an Aryan invasion as a distortion of Indian history strategically provoked by Westerners. In the ABISY vision of history, regional or tribal diversities are considered to be a sort of screen behind which this 'Aryan' past may be disclosed. Indian diversities are thus superficial, since at grassroots level they may be linked to one unique(Hindu) culture which is the one handed down by Sanskrit texts... Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
This quote does not support the content. The author also carefully used thus. To take only two glaring OR: How did one of the main issues in the ABISY's programme become The ideology of the ABISY is based on the belief? How did Aryans have not come from the outside but were the original inhabitants of India become India was once a uniformly Hindu country? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 For the other two instance (out of three including this one) where you eventually provided the page number and supporting quote, you failed to defend your original research and quietly conceded to the corrective edits. Would you care to respond to this one please? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 12:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
AmritasyaPutra please go ahead and change it, the main issue cannot be the ideology. I am just surprised at the way the whole thing is paraphrased. -sarvajna (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done --AmritasyaPutra✍ 13:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
And I have tweaked it. If you dislike it being ideology, then live with it being called a belief. The Aryan thing is covered in the next sentence anyhow. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 you have entirely changed the content and added a reference and stitched together a new twist, you call this tweak?--AmritasyaPutra✍ 13:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I have not entirely changed the content. The previous sentence was unacceptable to you as a first sentence; but stylistically, the first sentence should be the general one. Therefore, I added another, which does the job because it sticks exactly to the source (so theoretically should be acceptable to you) but is general, and so is acceptable to me. Then, my original first sentence became the second, except that instead of "ideology," it only says "belief," which is compatible with "main point;" I also changed "uniform" (my paraphrasing) to "unique" (from the source). Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Where did the 'first sentence' thing come in? When did I say that? That was just a reference to find the sentence -- exactly that much! And you have a lot of what should be acceptable to me. After reverting a second time against talk page you are giving this tweak`ed explanation? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You said nothing about a first sentence; but you did say that translating from "main point" to "ideology" was going too far. Therefore, I paraphrased it to "belief" instead, because that is milder, less general. The stylistic point was my own; you need a framework to fit isolated beliefs in. Saying their ideology was based on the distorted history worked as a framework; "Hindutva" is far more general, so less ideal, but it still works, and it is 100% from the source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Help me understand this the "main point" is not ideology but its is "belief"?. Also I am not sure whether it is correct to equate "Out of India theory" to "Aryans have not come from the outside but were the original inhabitants". I feel that they just want to disprove the migration and invasion theory. Why don't we just quote the source directly in quotes? I think that is acceptable. -sarvajna (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, 100% from the source? No - That is what two editors have clearly told you and you merely relocate the original research back with newer twist! And you reverted twice before giving even this explanation! --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that the source does not support "The main leaders of the organisation have been described as having a Hindutva ideology.?" Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Dude, stick to the content under discussion here, this is what you just now prepend`ed. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
First, I proposed that on a different section, and you responded by closing the section. Second, DO NOT make assumptions about the gender of a user; it is remarkably offensive when I have made 100 percent sure that I never mentioned it myself; and especially considering the fact that you were ready to claim outing at the drop of a hat earlier on. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
What is this new sudden nonsensical outrage over your gender now? I have addressed you as 'he' in this page itself earlier too. If you don't want simply suggest so at least once. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
That is not the issue; you assumed I was male, and that is a problem, regardless of when you first did it, because I never said it was okay to do so. Cut it out. "going off into a fit" I see. What was your reaction when I referred to your old username? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Almighty! Dear, your objection duly noted! Let me repeat again without any addressing qualifier: stick to the content under discussion in this section. Btw, I believe/d 'Dude' is generic(Please don't start a discussion on this here).--AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
"Dude" is non-generic. "dudette" is female, except it is rarely used. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
(Seriously, you people turn these discussion into anything. ) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that -- I will be careful in future. I want the discussion on the content dispute to continue. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 04:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed OR as per the view of two editors here. Vanamonde93, please gather consensus in talk page to justify the OR before insertion, you have already reverted twice previously without giving explanation. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 05:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see "two editors". I only see you as having objected to it. In any case, "consensus" is not based on numbers but rather on the arguments presented. The sentence that you have deleted is clearly a summary of the first paragraph of the Section II in the source (except for the reference to "Western historians", which I have seen mentioned in other places). So, it is wrong to call it OR. I think you have reverted it prematurely without concluding the discussion. Uday Reddy (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I have indeed provided an explanation; it just did not satisfy you. As Uday Reddy also says, it is essentially a summary of that section of the source. You objected to this being used to describe a general ideology; so it is now used to describe a specific belief. What precisely is the problem? Merely insisting that it is OR does not make it so. What part of my version is unsupported by the source? Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I have undone the revert repeated third time without explanation. Quoting the question from above, which has not been addressed: How did Aryans have not come from the outside but were the original inhabitants of India become India was once a uniformly Hindu country? Any specific reason on reverting my version blindly, it is based on the same source, what is your objection to that? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 12:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
It was re-introduced a fourth time earlier today on some other pretext I have reverted it. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 02:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Re-inserted a fifth time here. Reverted. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 16:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Re-inserted a sixth time ...still without any response here. Reverted. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
No direct response has been provided to the very specific questions asked by sarvajna and me here except a summarily it is right. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
"Indian diversities are thus superficial, since at grassroots level they may be linked to one unique(Hindu) culture" this is the quote from the source; taken along with the rest of the paragraph for context, it is an accurate paraphrasing. Uday Reddy, you seeing this? Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, as I said on the 28th August, everything in your sentence except for the "Western distortions" is from Berti, and the mention of Western distortions can be found everywhere including the organisation's web site. So, I see no problem with anything. I have no idea what AmritasyaPutra's problem is because he never explains it. The best I can make out is that he wants the words from the sources to be copied verbatim just like he does. But that is almost never appropriate. We have already spent way too much effort on this page. The debates are 10-20 times the size of the page itself. This is not a productive way to go. The best thing to do may be to go to the arbitration committee and get him barred from editing this page. Uday Reddy (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

IMHO they do not add up to India was once a uniformly Hindu country it is not conveyed by the source. I and another edtior had disagreed to that long stretched interpretation. And both of us asked very specific questions. I see from comments that sarvajna and Dharmadhyaksha have also been ridiculed on this page for not agreeing to your views. And you have repeated the threat of banning three times on this page itself (earlier in this section). I do see you two teaming up here and constantly commenting on user conduct rather than content -- that is why they are long. You are free to take this to the arbitration committee, repeated threats are not appreciated. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Akhil_Bharatiya_Itihas_Sankalan_Yojana/Archive_2&oldid=1136503584"