Talk:Sangh Parivar


edit request

the whole topic is protected. Alright, understandable. But passages like this provide equal weight to proponents of the ideology (who are not scholars or very good sources on the matter) as it does to the established scholarly opinion on the matter. This is POV and establishes a false epistemological dichotomy. I'll reproduce the passage I want edited.

"The political opponents of the Sangh Parivar have often termed Sangh Parivar's concerns about cultural intrusion by the Western commercial interests as 'Rightist'.[1] David Frawley argues that the cause is similar to that of native and tribal people all over the world, like Native American and African groups trying to protect their native cultures.[2]".

I suggest the reference to Frawley and the 'information' attributed to him should be disregarded and thus removed. Freyheytlid (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Freyheytlid (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Deleted the whole section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Freyheytlid (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Thakurta & Raghuraman 2004, p. 91
  2. ^ Hinduism and the Clash of Civilizations/David Frawley. New Delhi, Voice of India, 2001, xiv, 247 p., ISBN 81-85990-72-7.

Members of the Sangh are called Swayamsevak, not Sanghi

The claim of "Members of the Sangh Parivar or the supporters of its ideology are called Sanghis." is wrong. Sanghi is an informal word, while Swayamsevak is the official term as per all the members of the Sangh Parivar

India2024 (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the wording to indicate the informal nature. (It is not synonymous to "Swayamsevak". Check the citation.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, you should use the formal official terminologies. The formal, official, and explicit recognised term is 'Swayamsevak'.
Kangana Ranaut is not a credible source of information. Also, a news article of Entertainment genre isn't suitable citation for a serious Wikipedia page about a socio cultural organization. India2024 (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2025

Adding Suruchi Prakashan to the list of Sangh Parivar organisations. This publishing houses publishes RSS literature and is also headed by a RSS leader. [1] Bakarpuran (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

 Done Warriorglance(talk to me) 07:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:LABEL in the Lead

The article explicitly defines the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) as a 'paramilitary organisation' right in the opening sentence. This creates a conflict with WP:LABEL. which advises against presenting controversial or value-laden labels especially those used by opponents to criticize a subject as objective facts in Wikipedia's voice. While it is true that critics often use this terminology, the organization itself identifies as a cultural or nationalist body. By choosing to use the detractors' language immediately, the text sets a biased tone from the very start. The lead section needs to be rewritten to balance the organization's self-identification with properly attributed descriptions, rather than prioritizing a hostile framing. Jībanmṛtamessage 05:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The framing is from the RSS article. It has existed for several years as it is widely supported by reliable and scholarly sources and there is a strong community consensus among editors to keep the framing. — EarthDude (Talk) 11:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EarthDude Special:diff/1326870201/1327241949 You 'added two cats from sources in the article' per your edit summary! Isn't it a violation of WP:CAT#NPOV. Jībanmṛtamessage 13:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The categories are consistent with those in the article and all of them are directly supported by reliable sources already given in the article. If anything, their removal would be a violation of WP:CAT#N. — EarthDude (Talk) 13:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EarthDude, while I appreciate your engagement with the source material, your justification for restoring the categories Category:Fascist organizations and Category:Neo-fascist organizations relies on a fundamental misinterpretation of how Wikipedia categories function compared to article prose.
The label "fascist" is a contentious political epithet in the Indian context, utilized by political opponents and specific ideological factions to delegitimize the movement, rather than serving as a universally accepted political science classification. While some scholars draw parallels, a vast body of literature categorizes the Sangh Parivar more accurately as "Hindu nationalist," "conservative," or "right-wing." There is no academic consensus treating "fascism" as the sole or primary definition of these groups in the same way one would categorize the PNF in Italy. Under WP:NONDEFINING, if a characteristic is disputed, it should not be a category. Jībanmṛtamessage 13:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EarthDude, please note that WP:CATV requires categories to be supported by text in the article body, and not just the references. On the other hand, I do not see the justification for an {{NPOV}} cleanup tag, considering that the paramilitary descriptor for the RSS mirrors the longstanding description in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh article. I support removing both the disputed categories and the disputed cleanup tag from this article. — Newslinger talk 01:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Newslinger, I have added a section on fascism with reliable sources. I will expand it further with more sources; I intended to add it in the first place but got busy so I couldn't add it until now. I have removed the NPOV tag and the neo-fascism cat (sources seem to consistently frame it as classically fascist instead of neo-fascist). — EarthDude (Talk) 09:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EarthDude: You should workshop changes and gain consensus on the Talk page first rather than trying to unilaterally force them through. I see similar edit warring at Category:Sangh Parivar where you were reverted more than once and asked to gain consensus but continued to reinstate your disputed edits.
Coming to the content itself [1].

The Sangh Parivar has been widely defined as fascist by scholars and academics.

I would like to see a quote for this purported WP:Academic consensus, which should satisfy all of this:

A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus."

Gotitbro (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simply adding reliably sourced information to an article is not in any way "unilaterally forcing changes". The sentence regarding academic consensus has been changed and is no longer an issue. I would suggest taking back basless accusations of edit warring (when all I did was revert unexplained and unjustified removal of reliably sourced content). The inclusion of the excerpt from the RSS article is also a complete violation of WP:SYNTH. Neither the source, in the given pages, nor the text ever even mentions the Sangh Parivar. Let's not use excerpts as WP:COATRACKS. Courtesy ping to Newslinger. — EarthDude (Talk) 10:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EarthDude, your edit Special:Diff/1327468642 does constitute edit warring, because Gotitbro had disputed your additions in the prior edit (Special:Diff/1327466980) and there is currently no consensus to retain the content in this discussion. I encourage you to self-revert and help work out a resolution to the content dispute here. However, I do agree that the transclusion of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh § Fascism here is not ideal, because this paragraph focuses only on the RSS. — Newslinger talk 17:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Newslinger, the original content dispute now appears to be resolved. In both their reversion and accompanying comment, Gotitbro raised concerns about WP:Academic consensus, but subsequent edits, by both me and them, seem to have addressed those issues. According to their own edit summary, they also resolved the apparent LABEL and ATTRIBUTE concerns. As a result, it is difficult to see how the reliably sourced content, in its current form, would remain disputed. At this point, the only issue that seems to remain is the RSS excerpt. — EarthDude (Talk) 18:05, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is untimitigated edit warring; as is this, this, and this. So step back before you get yourself in more trouble than is worth the case here.
The issue is not the excerpt [and no excerpting things from Jaffrelot who directly addresses the Parivar as a whole by referring to the RSS, by virtue not distinct entities, is not SYNTH but one would have to read the sources to know that], it would be the entire section which has no backers here, I did try and balance it out but alas the edit warring continued - so no problem here on my side on restoring things prior to the EW. You have constructed that para without any consensus or prior workshopping. Simply not how we do things for CTOPS. The reason your unilateral attempt at overhauling the article/cats based on this has been opposed by different editors. Gotitbro (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"reliably sourced information": Wikipedia:Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, all the more so with the effort to bludgeon your edits through. Gotitbro (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry, but that isn’t how this works. Of the four diffs you provided, two are not even reversions in any sense. I have already disengaged from the cat issue, given how trivial it was, so raising it here is entirely irrelevant if we are genuinely adhering to WP:FOC, which, frankly, the rest of your response does little to inspire confidence in.

No, the excerpt is by definition WP:SYNTH. Neither the source material nor the text itself contains any explicit statement by Jaffrelot asserting that the Sangh Parivar, as a collection of organizations, is not fascist for the reasons specified. His analysis is directed solely at the RSS, not at the Sangh Parivar as a whole. That distinction alone makes this WP:SYNTH by definition. Additionally, your remark, "but one would have to read the sources to know that," is extremely childish, and I suggest you remove it. Likewise, "I did try and balance it out but alas the edit warring continued - so no problem here on my side on restoring things prior to the EW" is simply false. All I did was change a single word which remains consistent with the academic consensus guideline and is more accurate, given that the sources discuss over a dozen scholars yet that the word change did not hint at any broad consensus.

Finally, the fact that an article is a CTOPS does not in any way preclude editors from making good-faith contributions. You have yet to provide a single argument grounded in policy or guideline explaining why the content I added should be removed. Merely asserting "this is not how we do it here," while refusing to elaborate, amounts to nothing more than WP:STONEWALLING. — EarthDude (Talk) 19:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The cat edit warring is directly related to the edit warring here, considering you inserted the entire section to justify those very cats at this article and at the main cat. Neither trivial and clearly revert. I am not sure what you mean by backed down, when those edits were being made less than a day ago.
The entire the section has no backers here, if anything a wholescale self-revert should have been done here. You "single word" whether minor or not (it isn't) is still edit warring. No labels even close to alluding an academic consensus will not be added here.
Build consensus, rather than trying to bludgeon the process and wikilawyering about "how this works" to editors much more in the know about P&G than you. Gotitbro (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I simply asked what specific policies or guidelines the included section violates which would warrant a complete removal of all of it, as well as state the obvious fact that the RSS excerpt is clearly WP:SYNTH. For you to reply to all of that with "Stop wikilawyering" and "I am more experienced than you" is really something. At this point, this increasingly looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — EarthDude (Talk) 04:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think consensus and onus have been laid out by no less than four editors here and at the cat page, but you do you. Gotitbro (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, let’s avoid conflating the issue with the cat page and the concern regarding the fascism subsection. Separating these matters and addressing them individually would be far more productive for building consensus. Secondly, I am explicitly trying to establish onus here. I have repeatedly asked which specific policy or guideline is allegedly being violated, but I cannot fix an issue if you refuse to identify what the problem is. Consensus cannot be built when the only response from the opposing side is "No, we don’t do this here," or worse, when I am baselessly accused of wikilawyering while you rely on appeals to experience. — EarthDude (Talk) 04:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no conflation here, you have been edit warring at two related pages to enforce edits which no single editor agrees with.
The issue has been laid out clearly by a myriad of different editors here and at related discussions, the association or rather equating Hindu nationalism/Hindutva with fascism has no wide backing in academic literature and has been strongly opposed by the best scholars in the field. "Various", "wide" and attempts to play on that WP:Academic consensus terminology will have no place here nor will the attempt to keep 'the authorities' on the topic out of here. We can recall WP:STABLE to and negate the entire section before the edit warring if a repeat of that EW continues, so let us leave this here. Gotitbro (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, WP:STABLE is an administrative action intended for cases of extreme edit warring. The last time this page was edited was nearly nearly half a week ago, so I struggle to see how STABLE should be applied here. Secondly, this conflates disputes from two separate pages, and I suggest discussing them one by one so as to better resolve them and be able to establish a consensus on this. At no point did I even hint that they were completely separate disputes. Thirdly, you are once again engaging in WP:SYNTH. Hindu nationalism and Hindutva being portrayed as fascist, and the Sangh Parivar being portrayed as fascist, cannot be conflated. Sources stating that Hindu nationalism is not fascist, or that the RSS is not fascist, definitely cannot be used to reach the WP:SYNTH conclusion that the Sangh Parivar is not fascist. Your argument, that we should disregard sources that, in any way, oppose claims made by "the authorities" in the field (whose text, which you added via the excerpt, does not even explicitly support what you claim), is ridiculous. No, we do not hold some scholars in greater regard than others. Discussion of the Sangh Parivar and fascism is central to much of the scholarly literature examining the organization’s ideological framework and, per WP:DUE, should be included in the article. Of course, if you find reliable sources that explicitly state that the Sangh Parivar is not fascist, I would absolutely not object to their inclusion. So far, however, I have found no such sources. Regardless, the currently included excerpt from the RSS article is a very obvious case of WP:SYNTH and ought to be removed. — EarthDude (Talk) 15:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EarthDude: Your latest argument borders on WP:WIKILAWYERING.
The very lead of this article defines the Sangh Parivar as the "Family of the RSS" and an "umbrella term" for organisations affiliated with it. To suggest that the ideological classification of the parent body (RSS) is irrelevant to the family (Parivar) is a distinction without a difference, logically incoherent and ignored by the very scholars you cite (who treat the Parivar as the vehicle for RSS ideology). If the RSS is widely described as "nationalist" rather than "fascist" by a significant body of scholars, that analysis inherently applies to the Parivar. Excluding this context to maintain a "Fascism" section is a violation of WP:NPOV and relying on a technical definition of WP:STABLE to justify retaining a controversial section that all editors have expressed concerns about is not constructive. The onus is on you to demonstrate a academic consensus for the "Fascist" label before adding it as a definitive section, not on othet's to disprove it. Jībanmṛtamessage 15:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simply correcting some editors on P&G is not wikilawyering, especially when a core one like WP:SYNTH is misrepresented in such a blatant way. No, sources talking about the RSS cannot be used to include content on the Sangh Parivar if the given text does not even mention the Sangh Parivar. The RSS excerpt has no place in this article. I have already given arguments as to why the text should remain, based primarily on WP:DUE, and I have also been trying to workshop this with other editors (such as trying to compromise with Gotitbro on including content by authors who oppose the classification of Sangh Parivar with fascism). For a reason I simply cannot deduce, they are strongly opposed to any workshopping or building consensus. — EarthDude (Talk) 05:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EarthDude: So, the edit war continues. No, the ONUS is on you to workshop i.e. gain prior consensus and show the merit of your recent inclusions; which so far everyone who has commented is not in favour of inclusion. Though I relented in favour of accomodating more accurate prose but that doesn't appear to have to stopped the edit warring.

No, we do not hold some scholars in greater regard than others.

I wonder is the "we" here as this is the more bizarre statement to have been made here at enwiki. Because of course more merited academics will be treated with "greater regard" than random lecturers and the like.
If this EW and BLUDGEON continues, this will indeed be taken to EWNB. Gotitbro (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While the reference to Donald Trump and fascism (or any other article at enwiki) is not material to policy application. It is telling that even within the lead of that article significant opposition to the framing is given in right there. I see this as more justification against the attempts to change terminology or for the proposed removals. From the lead [emphasis mine]:

There has been significant academic and political debate about whether Donald Trump, the 45th and 47th president of the United States, can be considered a fascist according to consensus definitions of fascism or because of expressed attitudes some critics perceive as sympathetic to the extreme right. Such critiques arose especially in response to his 2024 presidential campaign and during his second term as president. A number of prominent scholars, former officials and critics have drawn comparisons between him and fascist leaders with respect to authoritarian actions and rhetoric, while others have rejected the label.

"Drawn comparisions", "some critics", "significant ... debate", "rejected the label". This is not an article I would use to justify obviating label and academic consensus concerns. Which in any case should be resolved here and not through EW and allusions to other extant articles. Gotitbro (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am clearly trying to workshop this issue, something you seem weirdly resistant to for reasons I simply do not understand. I have provided ample justification for why the paragraph should be added and why the excerpt should be removed. I have also acknowledged that your suggestion to include critiques from scholarly works is reasonable, provided there are reliable sources explicitly arguing against the connection between the Sangh Parivar and fascism. The sources must state this clearly, unlike the current excerpt. Itried to look for such sources but have found none so far, and I had been waiting for you to bring some to the table so we could get to workshopping this, but your most recent reply has simply been of baseless threats and strawman arguments. When I say that some scholars cannot be held in greater regards than others, I am obviously referring to the given sources and the many sources similar to them, that of reputed academics and peer-reviewed works, and not of "random lecturers". We simply cannot hold an argument made by a scholar in a decades-old work to WP:CENSOR all opposing arguments of all other scholars, that too when the argument doesn't even mention the subject of the article. — EarthDude (Talk) 19:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting into WP:REPEAT territory for all the participants (with ample policy based arguments abound) at this discussion and since I see no one here on board with your edits (or initial additions from the get go), I will be leaving this here. Gotitbro (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sangh_Parivar