DE
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Hindu American Foundation

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác


NPOV

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 months ago19 comments7 people in discussion

This article does not read like a neutral article at all.

"However, these efforts largely function as an attempt to rebrand Hindutva as "Hindu rights" in order to better suit the mainstream politics of multiculturalism in the United States. "

What? A lot of the things mentioned in the intro as fact with the neutral wiki-voice sound more like allegations. Is there even a scholarly concensus this group is a Hindutva organisation? Do they consider themselves a Hindutva society?

"Audrey Truschke, a historian of South Asia at Rutgers University, notes the HAF to have "prioritized attacks on higher education". Truschke's view is widely supported by scholars and academics."

Is this view widely supported by scholars and academics? Of all political walks of life, I would assume?

A part of the article is called "Censorship of Wendy Doniger". But the only thing I read is that they criticized her being shortlisted for the 2010 awards due to what they feel are inaccuracies etc.

I dont know who wrote this page, but I feel wikipedia pages should try to offer a neutral point of view, and when an organisation is controversial over multiple view points. This article feels very one-sided and non-neutral in its tone.

It basically seems the article was written by people who are staunchly against this entire organisation. LouisBStevenson (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is indeed a scholarly consensus that the HAF is a Hindutva organization, and reliable sources have supported the fact that the organization attempts to rebrand Hindutva in the language of Hindu rights. The Reception section delves into this extensively. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I mean i was surprised to see the hindutva descriptor at rhe beginning tho it obviously engages in hindutva like activities.
it would make sense if academia describes it like this. If anyone wants to dispute they really need to provide reliable sourcing describing them otherwise. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Edited the Wendy Doniger stuff to make clear the connection to censorship. I realize before it wasn't very clear but now it hopefully is Ftrhi (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
One thing I'm wondering is whether the lead currently separates description from interpretation clearly enough.
Some sources seem to describe HAF as a Hindu advocacy or umbrella organization, while others discuss it through the lens of Hindutva or Hindu nationalism.
Even if editors believe the latter view deserves significant weight, should the lead first identify what kind of organization HAF is before moving into scholarly interpretations of its politics?
Asking as a WP:LEAD/WP:NPOV question rather than advocating any particular wording. ~~~~ Navibeer (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I checked out the scholarship myself on this, and it does seem to be uniform in arguing they are Hindu nationalist. The only exception to this I can tell is a book talking about their role in the Ten Commandments case where they submitted an amicus brief. Which yes, is definitely an instance where they undeniably fought for Hindu American civil rights - but it's just one source talking about a single instance. I don't think it outweighs the rest, and this Ten Commandments case is already discussed in the article anyways. Of course I could've missed something, so if you have anything saying otherwise, just post it here Ftrhi (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Navibeer, this talk page comments are triggering ai checkers and the strange way tou cite wikipolicy is suggesting you are using an ai.
whether you are generating a response completely from scratch or cleaning up your words after, ai usage really isnt allowed on here. Please use your own words User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 06:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
There is not a scholarly consensus that HAF is a Sangh Parivar organization. Anybody that has provided sources to contradict that has been summarily reverted. Calling HAF a "Hindutva advocacy" organization in lead and the infobox is a complete mockery of undue weight and doesnt even reflect what is written across a wide swathe of reliable sources.
Earlier the article had "Jeffrey Long, a professor of religion and Asian studies at Elizabethtown College states that "the reality of HAF is clearly a complex one, not reducible to a single factor or ideological orientation." (Knut Jacobsen (2007). Hindu Diasporas. Oxford University Press) but that was removed even though it was a peer-reviewed academic source.
Walter Andersen (who wrote the most comprehensive volume of work on the RSS and is a much stronger source than Truschke) notes that HAF "despite its past advocacy alongside the HSS, is not formally linked to the Sangh Parivar" and describes the HAF as a "Hindu advocacy" group ("Messengers of Hindu Nationalism How the RSS Reshaped India" - Walter Andersen, Shridhar D. Damle, 2019)
Long in this book (Diaspora in Development The Comparative Indian Experience, Editors: Ajay Dubey, Sushmita Rajwar, 2025) notes that "While it is true that, as a Hindu advocacy organization, HAF will naturally have overlaps with the Hindu nationalist movement, to the degree that both see themselves as advocating for the cause of Hindus and Hinduism, to reduce the HAF to an extension of Hindu nationalism into the American scene without attending to the varied ways in which this organization expresses the ongoing quest of Hindu Americans to define themselves—ourselves—in the wider multicultural reality of which we are all part is to do a disservice to this quest, and to the aspiration for greater inclusion, and, ultimately, social justice, which informs it."
Mary Yu Danico describes HAF as a "Hindu advocacy" organization in her text, Asian American society : an encyclopedia, 2014.
Barbara McGraw in "The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Religion and Politics in the U.S." describes HAF as "the first Hindu umbrella organization to have a professional structure and full-time staff".
This is just a small selection of what reliable sources have to say on HAF, and the lead is wildly inappropriate given experts on the RSS/Sangh Parivar are contradicting claims made by Truschke and the other pet sources favored by the people controlling the article.Mazaltu (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
This still does not change the fact that the vast majority of reliable scholarly sources deal with the HAF being a Hindutva org and being affiliated with the Sangh Parivar. Also, Truschke is a highly reputed scholar and calling sources you disagree with "pet sources" is inappropriate and has no basis in PNG. — EarthDude (Talk) 16:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Is there? Academics dont agree on anything, HAF definitely does do attacks on academics who disagree with them, but its difficult to say they all unilaterally believe its a pure hindutva org.
mazaltus sources show a lot of variability. In general, there is a high threshold for saying anything a bit provocative in wikivoice like the current statement in the lede User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 11:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Jeffrey Long has worked with the HAF on some of their initiatives - not to criticize the guy but I think there's a conflict of interest there for this. That said I was able to verify that quote from Walter Andersen so I see no reason why that shouldn't be in the reception section, given how reputable he definitely is Ftrhi (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
There is a conflict of interest then with Truschke who routinely gets into fights on X with Suhag Shukla. You cannot dismiss Long with that brush without dismissing Truschke. Long is writing in peer-reviewed academic works, and I have cited reliable sources. If Truschke, who is hardly a neutral source belongs, Long does.Mazaltu (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for posting those examples. Looking at the Long, Andersen, Danico, and McGraw sources, it seems there may be a distinction between sources that describe HAF's organizational role (e.g. advocacy or umbrella organization) and sources that interpret its politics through the lens of Hindutva or Hindu nationalism.
My question is not whether the latter sources exist, but how WP:LEAD handles situations where reliable sources provide both descriptive organizational characterizations and broader political interpretations. How should those different types of characterization be weighed in the lead? Navibeer (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with LouisBStevenson User:Bluethricecreamman, Ftrhi (talk), and Navibeer (talk)
that this article is Not Neutral and UNDUE weigtage is given to Truschke, who likely anti-HAF bias, as she was involved in a defamation case with HAF per WP:RS sources, and therefore may be considered as an Unbiased or Reliable source for this article.
Section name : "Attacks on Academic freedom" is not neutral and violates WP:NPOV. It should be renamed as Alleged Attacks on Academic freedom.
Some users seems to be unduly promoting Audrey Truschke's view. Article in the current version as of July 16, 2026 violates WP:BALANCE, WP:NPOV, WP:Neutral and WP:Consensus. Please continue to discuss, as we try to make the article more balanced. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
"Hindutva" does not belong in the first sentence or infobox as a descriptor of HAF. Full Stop. Its clear that "Hindu advocacy" group has far more academic consensus than "Hindutva" group and is the term used by neutral sources.Mazaltu (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I agree and the below discussion on Hindutva organization also has strong arguments against including Hindutva in lede first sentence. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Mazaltu please join the discussion under Hindutva topic. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Do not engage in WP:CANVASS. — EarthDude (Talk) 06:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The editor is already involved in discussion of the topic on this TALK page. Directing them to the relevant discussion is not canvassing, but improving discussion per WP:TALK. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hindutva organisation

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago112 comments10 people in discussion

There is no evidence that the HAF is a Hindutva organisation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Can we just do an rfc? How should HAF be described of in lede? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:06, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
They support many Hindutva causes and, besides, that's what the reliable sources used in the article say (even excluding all the activist sources that I've tried to dispute). What there is less evidence of is their links to the Sangh Parivar, given Andersen/Damle (very respected scholars on the RSS) deny it. Despite this the infobox states in wikivoice. That said if I were to edit that right now most likely the change would be phantom reverted with a bare explanation. So I think right now fixing that would need to come after resolving the latest revert Ftrhi (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
An rfc would establish community consensus and stop phantim reverts User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:09, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Let's do it then Ftrhi (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have limited time and need someone to help propose the rfc wording and format.
Unless someone else does it soon, ill just drop an rfc later this week.
ill open an rfc to ask for workshopping User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
This characterization of Andersen/Damle is not fully accurate. Andersen and Damle write that "the HAF sometimes cooperates with parivar affiliates such as the HSS and VHP". In the same sentence where Andersen and Damle note that HAF is not "formally linked" to the HSS, they also acknowledge HAF's "past advocacy alongside the HSS." That's maybe a little different than how many scholars word things, but it's closer than presented here. Shahinshah121 (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Multiple reliable sources describe it as such. Hindu American Foundation was founded by members of VHP America and HSS. Their positions are of the same as those organizations. This topic has already been discussed here. ~ AnonLionCavalier83 (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
One founder of the organization was previously a member of an organization linked with the VHP-A. Do not exaggerate. And even this discussion notes the phantom revert problem (pulling reliable sources to boot) that is defining this article. While I agree the HAF is Hindutva, there is clearly a slant to the article which needs to be resolved Ftrhi (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Its still being discussed there. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am not interested in "discussing" it. I said there is no evidence. If you have evidence, please present it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ah the failed verifications do put it in a new light. I knew the article needed substantial copyediting to remove the clear slant (and I've been trying to do that) but this is a much bigger issue. I'll see what I can find scanning through the scholarship again but most of the reception section at minimum will need to be rewritten. Ftrhi (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Okay investigating Desis Divided by Sangay Mishra, though it does not state the HAF uses "Hindu rights", or Hindu rights anywhere, it does say "Organizations like the Hindu Student Council (HSC) and Hindu American Federation (HAF) came into existence later in the 1990s, and they are seen as the second wave of Hindutva organizations in the United States that tend to focus on second-generation Hindu Indian Americans", and then in a footnote that appears somewhat later but with no reference to the HAF, "In fact, multicultural institutions in the United States have been used by Hindu groups to promote politics primarily based on a Hindu religious identity, despite the diversity of religious faith among Indian immigrants". It seems these two sentences were fused together to create this claim. Fusing them together counts as WP:SYNTH so this sentence will have to be reduced to merely the claim that they operate on second generation Hindu Indian Americans. I will do so with the reasoning elaborated here Ftrhi (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Archives show this was discussed earlier as well Talk:Hindu_American_Foundation/Archive 2#Lead and enough sources were shared to show their strong affiliation. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 04:15, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The old TALK discussion referenced, only has sources for: HAF has ties with the Hindutva groups. But, whether HAF can be considered a Hindutva organization itself has not been established. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I tend to agree more with - Kautilya3, that there is no or not enough WP:RS evidence that the HAF can be considered as a Hindutva organisation. Such labelling of Hindutva may be a misuse of "Guilt by association" principle, and therefore a violation of Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The lead edits before it got reverted was better - though in addition the infobox should not claim it's affiliated with the Sangh Parivar given Andersen/Damle (respected scholars of the RSS) deny this Ftrhi (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The earlier discussion established, based on the sources presented there, that HAF has been characterised as a Hindu nationalist organisation. There is no need to misrepresent what was established in that discussion. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 02:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
This issue has been considered at length by scholars, and there is consensus that HAF is a Hindutva organization, due to its politics, positions, and myriad ties with other Hindutva groups. This is cited extensively in the article, and has been debated and settled here. As I understand it, some users object to how scholars assess links with the Sangh Parivar. I don't see how that sways anything, and I think we should stay with scholarly consensus. Shahinshah121 (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The lead declares that it is a "Hindutva Organization" and that requires a source that says exactly that. If you have one, please provide it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sundaram here (cited in the article) and here. Rutgers report here (cited in the article); Mishra's Desi's Divided has the exact phrase "Hindutva organization". Do we need more? Shahinshah121 (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Please provide quotations that demonstrate the claim. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
From the above sources (I added bold and underlined). All four sources use the phrase "Hindutva organization": "Two US-based Hindutva organizations led the charge against the DGH: Hindu American Foundation (HAF)..." (Sundaram 2023).
"HAF’s founding in 2003, along with the Coalition of Hindus of North America’s (“CoHNA”) inception in 2020, illustrate the adaptations Hindutva organizations in the United States" (Sundaram 2024). Article has a section (section 4) on the HAF's Hindutva evolution and alignment with pages of argumentation and documentation. Later in the article, reiterated in places like "HAF, along with other Hindutva groups."
"The leaders of Indian Christian groups have numbered among those targeted by Hindu nationalist groups in the United States, such as in a 2021 SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) lawsuit in which the Hindu American Foundation sought to silence critics."
"...called for an FBI investigation into Hindutva organizations in the U.S., naming among them the Hindu American Foundation (HAF)..."
The report's glossary has "HAF: Hindu American Foundation, U.S.-based Hindu nationalist group" (Rutgers report 2025)
"Organizations like the Hindu Student Council (HSC) and Hindu American Federation (HAF) came into existence later in the 1990s, and they are seen as the second wave of Hindutva organizations in the United States that tend to focus on second-generation Hindu Indian Americans" (Mishra 2016) Shahinshah121 (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well, in a quick reading, all the above sources seem to be SUBJECTIVE opinions of Scholars, Sundaram, Audrey and Mishra, which are generally not considered objective or neutral, due to their Subjective nature.
We do not know whether these Journals are balanced, as many Journal articles can be ideological and opinionated.
Per WP:Lead, lead content should be OBJECTIVE and factual, not subjective.
Lead should also be based on Highly Reliable WP:RS source.
Sources such as New York Times or Washington Post, Indian Express are therefore more acceptable for lead, though it should be based on multiple articles, and not any one specific article. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
WP:RS says “academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.” Also says academic consensus is preferred. We have that on this point. Shahinshah121 (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
You just picked a bunch of sources that support your viewpoint. That is not "scholarly consensus". You haven't looked at the sources that don't regard them as Hindutva organisation. For a start, Prema Kurien, who has done the most extensive research into the Hindu organisations in the US, and whose artticles and books are cited on the main page, never calls them a Hindutva organisation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Based on review of sources, I agree with Kautilya3 (talk) that there is no evidence of "scholarly consensus" to consider HAF a Hindutva organization. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry but the burden of providing reliable scholarly sources that explicitly rejects the Hindutva framing falls on you, since you are the arguing for that. — EarthDude (Talk) 04:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am still looking at your sources to see what substance they have. It doesn't help that the Rutgers is not in a machine-readable format. But you should also note that I asked for evidence. Merely repeating the party line that HAF is "Hindutva" doesn't give us a MOS:LEADSENTENCE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I picked sources that are by experts. The article cites most of them.
You mention Kurien, who mainly researches the South Asian diaspora, like Mishra. But I don't think you're quite right on Kurien. In this 2007 article, she analyzes "Hindutva and anti-Hindutva groups." In the section on Hindutva groups, she talks about the HAF, saying: "[the HAF's] president, Mihir Meghani, has been an active member of the VHPA and the HSS and is the author of the central essay on the BJP philosophy, titled “Hindutva: The Great Nationalist Ideology,” on the BJP Web site. This political slant can be seen in many of the activities of the organization." It's pretty clear that "this political slant" is Hindutva. We should not be misled by slightly different wording. Kurien is part of the scholarly consensus.
At this point, I have given exact quotes and citations to 5 sources, by 6 experts, all referring to the HAF as a Hindutva group. Shahinshah121 (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
This states that Mihir Meghani, one member of the org, is Hindutva, and his political slant affects "many of the activities" of the HAF. So it's making a narrower claim than calling the organization Hindutva Ftrhi (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
We state already that HAF has its roots in Hindu nationalist organisations, Meghani included. But that doesn't necessarily imply that HAF is itself a Hindu nationalist organisation. Presumably they have thousands, if not tens of thousands, of members, and they can decide for themselves what they want to do.
I don't see Kurien (2007) article discussing "Hindutva and anti-Hindutva groups". She has a section titled "The Formation of Hindu American Political Organizations", under which HAF is listed. Somewhere in the beginning she says most of these umbrella organisations are organisationally or ideologically liked to Hindutva organizations in India. That is not the same as calling them "Hindutva groups". You are doing a busload of WP:SYNTHESIS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
In the Kurien article linked before, page 766 has the division: "Hindutva and anti-Hindutva groups in the United States." Kurien talks about many groups after that including the HAF, which she links to various other Hindutva groups.
The debate here is whether Kurien can be seen as representing a different academic opinion, where the HAF is not a Hindutva group. Based on the evidence, she cannot. Her language is more guarded than others, but she argues along the same lines. I gave extensive evidence from 4 sources written by 5 experts for the phrase "Hindutva organization" above. This meets WP:BURDEN based on WP:RS and supports consensus. The accusation of WP:SYNTHESIS is wrong, because of extensive citations of exact language and arguments.
As there have been no substantive objections here, the consensus stands for "Hindutva organization" in lead. Shahinshah121 (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The debate is here is whether any RS has provided evidence of HAF being a "Hindutva organisation", other than it had its roots in VHP-America. We are not interested in whether they just called them "Hindutva organisation". If they did, it goes into the Reception section, not the LEAD SENTENCE. Do you get the point?
I can accept your argument that Kurien is putting HAF in the Hindutva camp, but once again, she doesn't explicitly state that HAF is a Hindutva organisation, nor does she provide any evidence that they carry out Hindutva activities. So I am afraid this source is not enough for the LEAD SENTENCE characterisation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Kurien talks about the HAF's Hindutva activities a lot. The most detailed argument is maybe Sundaram's law review essay, linked before. The entire article is about this and the section on "HAF’S HISTORY OF LEGAL AND POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT" (about ten pages) is what you're looking for maybe. It's on "how the organization has developed and evolved over time." Sundaram says "HAF has characterized itself as nonpartisan" but "HAF’s language belies its legal and curricular interventions which reflect an effort to inculcate a Hindu-centric worldview commensurate with Hindutva ideology." Then she gives 10 pages of examples supporting this. Shahinshah121 (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Reliable sources don't need to provide the evidentiary trail or methodology behind every statement for us to cite them. Our job is simply to state what reliable sources say. This is not to mention the fact that several reliable scholarly sources have gone into extensive depths over the HAF being a Hindutva org. Given the quantity of reliable sources arguing for this, it would be a violation of WP:NPOV not to state as such in the lead. If sources have been found which oppose the framing, they could be added in the reception section per WP:DUE. However, thus far, I haven't any such sourcing provided. — EarthDude (Talk) 04:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
"Our job is simply to state what reliable sources say." But this is not the way to say it, puttting it in the LEAD SENTENCE and making it definitional, so to speak. We can do that only if all sources uniformly call it so, or they provide incontrovertible evidence or arguments that make it obvious. The only thing I am able to gather from the sources is that HAF had its origins from VHP-America, and some of its campaigns are conducted in collabortion with Hindutva organisations. But the causes on which these campaigns are conducted are "Hindu causes", not necessarily "Hindutva causes". Neither are these scholars neutral analysts. They call themselves "scholar activists", and they themselves cherry pick evidence based on their own ideological inclinations. Whatever they opine cannot be simply taken as fact. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
You didn't go over the latter half of what I said: several reliable sources have provided evidence evidence behind their statements, and that has also been given in this discussion. First, you argued that no sources called the HAF a Hindutva org. When sources were provided, you argued that they didn't contain evidence. When sources with evidence were provided, you are now engaging in conspiratorial arguments against reputed scholars. (On what basis are you asserting, for instance, that they themselves cherry pick evidence based on their own ideological inclinations). I'd appreciate it if you stopped changing the goal post. — EarthDude (Talk) 11:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sources avoiding the Hindutva label

[edit]

As per WP:RS, Wiki articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. Also per WP:CONTEXT, HAF is a social organization, and not a sociological scholarly concept, so per WP:DUE, some scholars' OPINIONS should not be given undue weightage.

In the widely covered reliable WP:RS news sources, HAF is mostly considered an advocacy group, not a Hindutva organization. Therefore, per WP:LEAD, HAF should be called an advocacy group and not a Hindutva organization in the lead. Also, HAF widely celebrates and follows Mahatma Gandhi as an icon, which is contrary to Hindutva claims. See the references and quotes below supporting this argument.

TIME 2016 [2]

The Hindu American Foundation (HAF), a D.C.-based advocacy group, cited a long list of Pakistan issues for Trump to consider, including human rights abuses, the rise of extremism in the country and Pakistan’s conflict with neighboring India.

NDTV (PTI) 2015 [3]

Indian-origin US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has been presented with the Pride of the Community Award by a prominent Hindu advocacy group, Receiving the award by the Hindu American Foundation at its 12th Annual Day reception at Capitol Hill, Mr Murthy said that he draws inspiration from the life of Swami Vivekananda.

HAF also awarded Anantanand Rambachan, Professor of Religion at St Olaf College, Dharma Seva award; Harpreet Singh Mokha of the Department of Justice, the Mahatma Gandhi Award for the Advancement of Pluralism.

Washington Post 2016 [4]

Hindu group protests possible California textbook changes More than 80 years ago, Indian political leader Mahatma Gandhi led the so-called Salt-March to the shores of the Arabian Sea as part of a non-violent demonstration against taxes on salt under British rule.

In the same spirit of protest, a group of Americans of Indian descent are advocating against a series of proposed revisions to California school history textbooks, changes that they believe diminish the role Hindus played in the world’s earliest civilizations. The Hindu American Foundation has started a campaign to keep recognition of Hindus in the new textbooks, which are slated for publication later this year.

AP 2025 [5]

Hindu American organizations, including the Hindu American Foundation and the Coalition of Hindus in North America, advocated for the law... to declare Diwali as a state holiday

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC) reformatted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

There are lots more sources that treat the HAF favourably:
  • Jerrey Long, Historical Dictionary of Hinduism[1]

HINDU AMERICAN FOUNDATION (HAF). Organization established in 2004, to advocate for the Hindu community in the United States and globally. Modeling itself on such minority advocacy groups as the Antidefamation League, the HAF has published reports on violations of the rights of Hindus throughout the world, as well as a report on anti-Hindu hate speech on the internet.... Most controversially, HAF was party to a legal dispute concerning the representation of Hinduism in high school textbooks in the California school system. This, in turn, led to accusations by some scholars that members of the foundation had Hindu Nationalist leanings.

  • Jeffrey Long, Hindutva, Hindu Organizations, and the Hindu Diaspora[2]

The organization does not align with any specific Hindu group, but presents itself as being at the service of all American Hindus:... In its advocacy for... the interests of HAF and what could be called a conservative or Hindutva approach to Hinduism coincide quite closely... At the same time, in its extensive critique of casteism, HAF found itself running afoul of many of those same Hindus who had cheered its activism in the textbook cases.... The reality of HAF is clearly a complex one, not reducible to a single factor or ideological orientation.

  • Joanne Punzo Waghorn, Beyond Pluralism[3]

The Hindu American Foundation, a new organization based just outside the Washington Beltway, "a non-profit non-partisan organization, promoting the Hindu and American ideals of understanding, tolerance and pluralism,"[2] managed to raise funds for the campaign and successfully lobby Congress for its passage within a short time... Pluralism continues to reflect much of the ethos of organizations like the Hindu American Foundation and the governing board of most Hindu temples in the United States.

  • Gita Pai, When humans pose as Hindu gods[4]

Hindu American Foundation (HAF) however, reacted differently. Founded in 2003, the Washington, DC-based advocacy organization for U.S. Hindus “educates the public about Hinduism, speaks out about issues affecting Hindus worldwide, and builds bridges with institutions and individuals whose work aligns with HAF’s objectives”... HAF, however is more selective than the more fundamentalist-driven USH, AHAD, and VHPA. ..... The words “broad spectrum of Hindus” underscore HAF’s desire to speak for all Hindu Americans rather than exclusively to advocates of a right-wing religious ideology.

(footnote 34) However, its Senior Director Sheetal Shah (2014) chastised critics for their comments on what HAF's founder did as a college student (at a time when the only Hindu organizations in the U.S. were associations like the VHPA) and defended the group's devotion to pluralism. Journalist Zahir Janmoharned (2014), who examines the seemingly contradictory nature of HAF, writes that perhaps some of this criticism may be "simplistic" since HAF brings greater awareness of Hindu religious festivals and to the plight of Hindus to Americans.

  • Tracy Suyuki Tiemeier, Asian Participation in Interreligious Dialogue[5]

The Hindu American Foundation, a Hindu advocacy group, has done this [developing a kind of Hindu identity that holds these different sects together] primarily through the notions of pluralism and diversity. They have developed a multiple identity for Hinduism that holds on to the variety of Hindu beliefs and practices and requires appreciation for diversity within Hinduism and beyond.

  • Prema Kurien, Majority versus minority religious status and diasporic nationalism[6]

While there are a variety of Hindu American groups seeking to influence policy, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), headquartered in Washington DC, was formed in 2003 and is now the best-known and most active Hindu umbrella organisation in the United States. The HAF is also the first Hindu umbrella organisation to have a professional organisational structure and full-time staff.... They publish a regular ‘Hindu Human Rights’ report detailing attacks against Hindus around the world. Countries in South and South East Asia regularly come under criticism for their treatment of Hindus.

  • Religion News Service (2025):[7]

In September of that year, Rutgers itself co-sponsored an academic event, the Dismantling Global Hindutva Conference, with several other U.S. universities that examined the ideology’s history and modern-day implications. The conference caused an uproar, with a large coalition of Hindu advocacy and student organizations, including HAF and CoHNA, criticizing what they saw as activism rather than institutional neutrality and a conflation of Hinduism and Hindutva.

  • The New York Times (2010): [8]

The debate has also secured the standing of the Hindu American Foundation as the pre-eminent voice for the country's two million Hindus, said Diana L. Eck, a professor of comparative religion and Indian studies at Harvard. Other groups represent Indian-Americans' interests in business and politics, but the foundation has emerged as "the first major national advocacy group looking at Hindu identity," she said.

As you can see, very few of these sources call HAF a "Hindutva organisation". Some of them even consider it misleading or simplistic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Based on above discussion "Sources avoiding Hindustva label" that includes large number of reliable and neutral secondary sources, there is no more any justification to define HAF as a Hindutva organization in the lead per WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:LEAD.
Per WP:UNDUE and WP:CONTEXT, undue weightage should not be given to few scholars who may put the Hindutva label, often in likely biased sources.
Instead, we may mention in the second paragraph per WP:BALANCE that:
Some scholars claim that HAF is a Hindutva organization, though others disagree with that assertion. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Does seem there are a considerable number of sources calling the HAF contradictory but this gets zero coverage in the article (aside from the George paragraph I put in). Does deserve a more thorough treatment Ftrhi (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I see some big problems here. Some sources are old and give outdated theories (WP:AGE MATTERS). Some violate WP:NPOV, like Long who served on the board of the HAF for years. Some are not WP:RS but more passing references. Some are mis-representing a scholar's broader point of view, like Kurien. @Kautilya3 and @RogerYg do not give any kind of argument, as demanded and provided for the "Hindutva organization" label.
This argument is going in circles. Two things remain true: Counting mentions is worth less than considering expert opinion and academic consensus. We fail to have enough to change the lead. Shahinshah121 (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Truschke was involved in a lawsuit with the HAF so she can't be expected to be neutral in the slightest, and yet she's thoroughly used across the article even in claims in wikivoice. So I'd say WP:NPOV has already been torn to shreds here. Long's association with the HAF is as a consultant so it's pretty tendentious at best Ftrhi (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Long served on the HAF advisory board for years. Shahinshah121 (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I can't find any evidence for it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The lead has been changed by bits and blobs in the last few months, without any discussion or consensus. The current lead is by no means sacrosanct, except for the fact there are a large number of edit warriors around. As per policy, the current lead lacks consensus and should be reverted to the long-standing lead.
"Provide argument" doesn't make any sense. We don't argue for positions on Wikipedia. We summarise reliable sources. The current lead is WP:POV because it elevates criticisms with inadequate evidence into definitions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is going in circles. You don't have the sources or the support to change the lead wholesale. You are discounting the long-established consensus around the basic issues, with the support of two accounts with a history of reversed edits on this page. Shahinshah121 (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Where is the "long-established consensus"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure what you're implying with the last part of that reply (well, actually I am sure). If you have a criticism of me just say it - you certainly haven't been shy before. The lead is not actually long-standing, it was made here on 10 March of this year, through the addition of an uncited claim that Truschke's views have a scholarly consensus. Since when does four months count as a "long-established consensus"? In fact, the former lead stuck for almost two years - so this is the real long-standing consensus here and the page as-is a transient state Ftrhi (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
He should know. He has been editing this page since 2021.[6]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think this section has had a very detailed discussion, and @Kautilya3, along with @Ftrhi and @RogerYg have well established that HAF should not be introduced as a Hindutva organization in the lead per WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:LEAD.
Per WP:UNDUE and WP:CONTEXT, undue weightage cannot be given to likely biased scholars such as Truschke, claiming the Hindutva label.
Per WP:Balance, the arguments and sources by @Shahinshah121 merits a mention Some scholars claim that HAF is a Hindutva organization, though others disagree with that assertion. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi Shahinshah121, While I assume good faith, you seem to be attempting to enforce your preferred version of the article by misusing the stable version argument. Please review WP:STABLE more carefully, it says: Restoring the article to a stable version is not required, nor is it encouraged by any policy or guideline... Stable versions are not superior or preferred to disputed edits in any way... obstructing good faith edits for the sake of preserving "stable" content or page revisions is a form of disruptive editing.. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) RogerYg (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Kautilya3 We need to add these sources and content (that does not consider HAF as Hindutva) in the article body. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have added a paragraph with the sources and content that you provided for Gita Pai, Joanne Punzo Waghorn, and Jerrey Long under Reception/Scholarly Views section. Also added Journalist Zahir Janmohamed's view. You may add the others. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't support the addition of this content. I am also unconvinced by the limited sourcing presented, which merely mention the HAF in passing without explicitly describing it as a Hindutva organisation, or by the argument that these sources somehow outweigh the quantity and quality of reliable sources identifying the HAF as one. Not every source needs to explicitly label an organisation as Hindutva for it to be recognised as such. Likewise, the fact that some sources discuss the HAF's work on behalf of Hindus does not negate the substantial body of reliable sourcing that characterises it as a Hindutva organisation. The following are some of the countless reliable sources characterising the HAF to be a Hindutva organisation:
  • Pal, Felix; Thapliyal, Nisha; Gandbhir, Gauri (2025). "Taking Ideology Out: Finding the Diasporic Hindu Far-Right Down Under". Australian Journal of International Affairs. 79 (5): 691–708. doi:10.1080/10357718.2025.2519395.: In 2022, another report was released: 'Hindu Nationalist Influence in the United States, 2014–2021: The Infrastructure of Hindutva Mobilizing,' (Macher 2022). This report was notable for the depth in which it unequivocally demonstrated the embeddedness of the Indian American far-right within the Indian far-right. Whether through the Hindu American Foundation (which plays an analogous role to the Hindu Council of Australia) mediating between the Narendra Modi administration and American members of Congress, to the American HSS lobbying for Modi's exoneration for his role in the 2002 Gujarat violence, or the over $158 million USD spent by Indian American far-right charities, the bulk of which was sent to India in patterns that resemble those identified in the 2002 report on the IDRF. [...] Most recently, a flurry of reports released by the Savera coalition in the United States have updated and substantiated these ties, demonstrating that the American VHP had transferred over $7 million USD to its Indian counterparts between 2001 and 2020 (Savera 2024a), and that seemingly innocuous organisations like the Hindu American Foundation are actually deeply embedded in the infrastructure of the global Hindu far-right and serve as critical vectors of funding and legitimacy (Savera 2024b).
  • Sikka, Sonia (2022). "Indian Islamophobia as Racism". The Political Quarterly. 93 (9): 469–477. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.13152.: With shifts in power and social location, a racialised group can become a racialising one. Arguably, Israel is such a case, and some Jewish groups outside Israel have deployed the charge of anti-semitism to deflect legitimate criticism of the state's policies towards Palestinians and its treatment of its own Muslim citizens. Similar tactics are being employed against academics by pro-Hindutva groups in the Indian diaspora. For example, Audrey Truschke, a historian at Rutgers specialising in the Mughal period of Indian history, is one of the parties being sued for defamation by the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), a group that claims to be neutral and non-partisan, but is clearly aligned with Hindutva nationalism. HAF is also suing the co-founders of Hindus for Human Rights, who have sought to expose them as a front for Hindu nationalism.
  • Cockburn, Andrew. "The Hindutva Lobby: How Hindu nationalism spreads in America". Harper's Magazine.: In 2003, not long after the Gujarat anti-Muslim pogrom generated global condemnation of Hindu extremism, a group of second-generation Indian-American professionals founded the Hindu American Foundation (HAF). [...] But the new organization was closely connected in word and spirit to the RSS and its spin-offs. For example, the HAF co-founder Mihir Meghani, a California physician, had been an activist with the World Hindu Council of America. In 1998, the BJP's official website featured Meghani's essay "Hindutva: The Great Nationalist Ideology," in which he paid tribute to the mobs that destroyed the mosque in 1992. The essay derided the edifice as a "dilapidated symbol of foreign dominance," whose demolition thereby released "thousands of years of anger and shame, so diligently bottled up." [...] Evidently, countering what Shukla has called "negative reductive stereotypes" includes an aggressive defense of Indian government actions. In 2019, the progressive Democrat Pramila Jayapal (herself Indian-born) introduced to the House a resolution urging the Indian government to end mass detentions in Kashmir; after the HAF successfully lobbied to defeat it, the group announced that "HINDU AMERICAN ADVOCACY WORKS!" in a press release celebrating the defeat of the "anti-Hindu, anti-India resolution." [...] Attacks on academics are a recurring feature of the assertive Hindu-nationalist agenda, in which any scholarly analysis of ancient Indian history or the roots of Hinduism that challenges the nationalists' preferred version promptly elicits menacing personal vitriol. Thus the Rutgers professor Audrey Truschke, a specialist in premodern Sanskrit texts and South Asian history, has required armed police protection during lectures and public appearances for fear of animus against her critiques of the nationalist agenda. She summarizes the Hindu-supremacist worldview as "simply fascist," a characterization which has garnered her a lawsuit from the Hindu American Foundation, pegged to her endorsement via Twitter of two Al Jazeera articles critiquing the HAF and related nationalist groups. The suit was dismissed by a U.S. District Court judge in 2022, but the attacks on Truschke continued. A leader in the Samosa Caucus and endorsed by the HAF, Krishnamoorthi spoke at a gathering of RSS-related U.S. groups, as part of a 2019 Chicago celebration of the founding of the RSS, on a stage adorned with a portrait of the Nazi sympathizer Golwalkar.
  • Kamat, Sangeeta; Mathew, Biju (2010). "Religion, Education and the Politics of Recognition: A Critique and a Counter-Proposal". Comparative Education. 46 (40): 359–376.: On cursory examination all three organisations at the centre of the mobilisation advocating changes in the California textbooks — the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), the Hindu Educational Foundation (HEF) and the Vedic Foundation (VF) — have been around for less than 10 years. This, however, masks a much longer history of a nationalist project that involves transnational connections. Several groups including the Friends of South Asia (FOSA) and the Campaign to Stop Funding Hate (CSFH) have documented in detail the links between HAF, HEF, VF and the violent Hindu chauvinist movement, popularly referred to as the Hindutva movement.
— EarthDude (Talk) 15:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
You are just dumping stuff that is neither new nor related to HAF. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am providing reliable sources that detail the HAF being a Hindutva organisation, including those the article doesn't currently have. Could you explain how this is [not] related to HAF? If you want, I can provide more such sources. The characterization of the HAF as a Hindutva organisation is widespread in reliable sources. — EarthDude (Talk) 16:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
First of all, you should not be putting this stuff here because the section is clearly labelled "Sources avoiding the Hindutva label". Secondly, the quotations you provide, if they are to serve any purpose, need to focus on the HAF, which is the topic of discussion. They need not elaborate on extraneous issues like "American HSS", "Gujarat 2002", "IDRF", "israel", "Jewish groups" etc. etc. That is self-defeating, or perhaps deliberately misleading. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The given sourcing goes in depth to the HAF and Hindutva. When doing so, of course, ideological and organisations relations and comparisons would be highlighted. The vast majority of the quotations I've provided primarily deal with the HAF itself so I don't see how that would be an issue. or perhaps deliberately misleading, please WP:AGF. — EarthDude (Talk) 18:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with @EarthDude. @Kautilya3 has asked for more context and argument and now doesn't want that? Shahinshah121 (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I only asked you for quotations, about a week ago. And what you gave were quite adequate. EarthDude's quotations are way too verbose, and cover the same ground that has been discussed and already accepted even before EarthDude arrived on this page: issues like Meghani's Hindutva inclinations, and links with Hindutva organisations. The only thing at issue now is whether HAF itself is a "Hindutvat organisation" as the LEAD SENTENCE claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I did ask for *evidence*. Is there evidence here? There is basically more and more opinion. I don't suppose you people have any idea what evidence means even. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
In response to this question, I have asked you to read specific parts of articles, multiple times. I suppose you just have not? Do you think evidence doesn't exist if you don't read it? Shahinshah121 (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I haven't complained about your sources (yet). They are a lot better than the one-liners that EarthDude comes up with. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Most of what I provided has not been discussed in the past nor does it exist in the article, and I only provided it to showcase how much of scholarship deals with the HAF in terms of its relations to Hindutva and the Sangh Parivar. Have you not even read them, after having asked for them yourself? Had you read them, you'd know they're obviously more than one-liners. — EarthDude (Talk) 14:41, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
As I said earlier, they are all mere opinions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am considering this subject closed. EarthDude and I have given an exhaustive amount of citations, some requested and some as extra support.
There has been one reasonable counter (the Kurien argument). After seeing more evidence, Kautilya3 agreed that Kurien's work supports the Hindutva label also. Now, we are just hearing over and over that people do not like the views of scholars, which is irrelevant. WP:RS has been satisfied many times over. Shahinshah121 (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
A lot of these are objectively not reliable sources - an anonymous report by an activist organization (where it even advertises its services), and a news article on stuff discussed upthread (so a citation loop). And that last article is talking about the HAF having correlated stances with Hindutva orgs, with some people (including Savera with its activist report) arguing there's a causal link. These are not sureties. And Felix Pal's mapping project has methodology so ridiculous it claims being related to a Hindu nationalist is 0.25 of a point towards being a Hindu nationalist - so I do not see reliability with anything with his name on it there either Ftrhi (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Aside from the article by Harper's Magazine, the rest are all publications from peer-reviewed academic journals. So yes, they do count as reliable sources, regardless of your views on Felix Pal. Savera, supposedly having an activist report, is irrelevant if peer-reviewed scholarly works have found the report to be reliable and have used it as such. — EarthDude (Talk) 19:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
They source the Savera report as saying that Savera opposes the HAF. Which is not a factual claim, it's just saying an activist organization opposes the HAF. And do please respond to the actual points I made Ftrhi (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with EarthDude. Ftrhi should stop giving personal views and stay with WP:RS Shahinshah121 (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am not giving personal views but rather trying to determine whether a source is RS. Poring through the archives of this talk page, people give their view of whether or not sources count as WP:RS all the time. It cannot suddenly be bad because I do it; either it must be entirely forbidden or entirely allowed Ftrhi (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Ftrhi (talk) and TALK page is to discuss appropriate sources. Per WP:SOURCETYPES, Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on Context. Scholarly sources are WP:DUE mainly in articles on scholarly issues.
HAF is not a scholarly issue, it is a social organization, so undue weight cannot be given to scholarly opinions per WP:RS, WP:Context, and WP:DUE. Instead, DUE weight should be given to mainstream WP:RS secondary news sources that note that HAF activities are largely advocacy-related.
Also per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, a claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, reliable or unbiased. So, peer-reviewed sources can be questioned as Ftrhi is doing. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Scholarly sources are WP:DUE mainly in articles on scholarly issues. HAF is not a scholarly issue, it is a social organization, so undue weight cannot be given to scholarly opinions per WP:RS, WP:Context, and WP:DUE [...] Also per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, a claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, reliable or unbiased That is simply not true and quite absurd. Nowhere in WP:RS or WP:NPOV is anything of this sort provided or even hinted at, and WP:CONTEXT relates to wikilinking. In fact, what WP:RS actually has to say about scholarly sources is, When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. You are throwing around incorrect terminology as if it meant anything. — EarthDude (Talk) 04:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Here are some direct quotes, if you prefer that. See WP:SOURCETYPES
Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context.
See WP:SCHOLARSHIP
A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
There's a pretty meaningful difference between a lesser known journal claiming to be peer-reviewed and highly reputed peer-reviewed publications. The sources I provided fall under the latter. The first quote you've provided is also misinterpreted. It simply means non-academic reliable sources can be used, not that scholarly sources should be avoided or seen as undue. All this debating over the use of scholarly sources really just goes to show that the few positive sourcing that does exist for the HAF is of are generally scarce and of much lower quality, something I've been arguing for in this talk page for a long time. Per WP:NPOV, they can be given appropriate weight as a significant minority position, but nothing more than that. — EarthDude (Talk) 04:40, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Kautilya3 @Ftrhi
I think per WP:BALANCE, we should have at least two subsections in the Reception section,
Opinions on HAF as a Hindutva organization ( Most of current content)
Opinions on HAF not a Hindutva organization. (Many of Sources from this TALK section). Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
That would violate WP:FALSEBALANCE.
It is important that nobody has produced major sources saying that the HAF is not a Hindutva organization. Some describe it in other language. But it could be a "Hindu advocacy organization" and a "Hindutva organization," in the view of some scholars. As discussed, this appears to be Kurien's view. Shahinshah121 (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi Shahinshah121, Again while I assume good faith, you cannot misuse WP:FALSEBALANCE to delete or prevent all counter views from the article.
The Reception section can be summarized in Lead with due weights to different views, noting majority of scholarly opinions considers HAF Hindutva. This would avoid False balance, and address your concern.
But, we should have all views represented in the Reception section per WP:Balance. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
It is far from clear that the sources calling the HAF Hindutva are of "much lower quality" than the ones saying the contrary. For reasons I have already delineated (and so have others) but you, for some reason, are unwilling to discuss aside from one-line disagreement Ftrhi (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
To be clear, there are a lot of reliable sources the article doesn't currently have, which deal with the HAF being a Hindutva organisation or being affiliated with the Sangh Parivar (Again, such scholarly works are widespread). Below are some more such reliable sources:
  • Nisha Thapliyal, ed. (2026). Caste, Country, and Creed: Struggles for Social Justice in the Contemporary Indian Diaspora. Rutgers University Press. pp. 17, 23. ISBN 9781978841765.: The Hindu American Foundation (HAF), established in 2003 in the United States, was founded by youth members of the Hindu nationalist organization known as Vishwa Hindu Parishad America (VHPA). [...] HAF was a key factor in both campaigns and continues to play a leadership role in protests and legal challenges to caste protection policies at U.S. corporations and universities. [...] Briefly, the Sangh Parivar abroad today consists of a vast network of formal and informal groupings and organized and autonomous activities which work within and across national frontiers to create global nationalist spaces. These include university student groups and associations; educational, cultural, religious, and service organizations; university research centers focused on Vedic Hindu Studies; formal political lobby groups; and think tank-style institutions that churn out "news and analysis" like the previously discussed HAF.
  • Upadhyay, Nishant (2025). "Notes on Brahminical Coloniality and the Occupation of Kashmir". Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East. 45 (3): 631–636. doi:10.1215/1089201X-12113444.: In the diasporic Hindu right ecosystem, organizations such as the Hindu American Foundation, who claim to fight Hinduphobia worldwide, run campaigns to highlight the oppression of Kashmiri Pandits. Over the last few years, they have released a series of clips on YouTube titled "Untold Stories of Indigenous Kashmiris." Through these fraught claims of indigeneity, in recent years diasporic Hindutva organizations have expressed solidarities with Indigenous peoples across white settler-colonial states such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These fraudulent solidarities further expose Brahminism and Hindutva as a transnational settler-colonial project.
  • Chopra, Rohit; Sundaram, Dheepa (2025). "Religion and Its Publics in South Asia: Perspectives on the Past and Present". Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East. 45 (1): 5–12. doi:10.1215/1089201X-11706959.: The global networking afforded by the internet to minority groups for the purpose of challenging unequal hierarchies of power has also been mobilized by transnational Hindu nationalist movements. In North America, groups such as the Hindu American Foundation and Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America have rallied, online and beyond, to oppose anti-caste discrimination legislation and policies at colleges and universities.
— EarthDude (Talk) 09:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Okay, add all relevant opinions from scholars in the article body, relevant Reception sections, but do not delete or prevent others from adding the sources and content that does not label HAF as Hindutva. We need to follow WP:Balance.
Any concern for False Balance can be addressed in Lead summary later.
We cannot obstruct addition of relevant WP:RS content by other editors. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oh come on. Basic human decency towards Kashmiri Hindus after the exodus they experienced is not evidence of Hindutva, otherwise one would have to call the vast majority of the Indian opposition Hindutva given they condemn the BJP for failing to support them. As is conflating Kashmiri Hindus with Kashmiri Pandits (in reality only a segment of the whole). This take is so incredibly offensive I am in total disbelief it passed peer review. Definitely not WP:RS, and that you had to dig this up shows just how weak is the "scholarly consensus".
Of the remaining two sources, only the first one suggests the HAF is Hindutva. The last one suggests it correlates with the VHPA agenda, which is a weaker claim. Ftrhi (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't want us to get side-tracked into discussing the complexities of the Kashmir dispute. But the objection sems to be that HAF labels Kashmiri Pandits as "indigenous" Kashmiris, in a way that rejects the indigeneity of Kashmiri Muslims. I have seen it being done here and there, and I don't like it. But here that objection seems to be expressed in a very prejudiced way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
While we are on the topic of Kashmiris, let me also mention a criticism levelled by Dheepa Sundaram. HAF has sponsored events featuring controversial Indian speakers such as Aarti Tikoo Singh, who notably stated that “Islamophobia is a ‘bullshit word.’”
The very same source she uses for this observation, states: In December 2018, she stated, “Jihadi terrorism in the last 30 years across India has also created rational fear. But pointing it out is idiotically branded as Islamophobia by the Leftlib media.”
So a displaced Kashmiri Pandit who has risen to a national level journalist becomes a "controversial Indian speaker" because pro-Muslim sources call her so. And that now ticks a box against the HAF. All this, while these same scholars deny anything called "Hinduphobia". Look at the irony of the whole thing! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi Kautilya3 (talk), I think we have had a detailed discussion, and I agree with you and Ftrhi that we have strong arguments to remove Hindutva from the lead first sentence, which need to be factual that HAF is a non-profit advocacy organization. There was never consensus to include Hindutva in the first-sentence introduction to HAF.
Previously, several editors, such as @Mazaltu and @User:Bluethricecreamman have argued to remove Hindutva label from introductory sentence under the NPOV discussion topic.
Please remove Hindutva from the first sentence as discussed above. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
As discussed at length above, I have removed Hindutva from the first sentence, and replaced it with advocacy organization, as per WP:Firstsentence and WP:Lead. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@RogerYg i reverted. See the rfc below but i wanted to invite the larger wikipedia community to weigh in. Please provide your input there. In general, if an rfc is ongoing, the longstanding disputed material should stay in the status quo position until we find consensus. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:39, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Okay, yes we can wait for RFC. RogerYg (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Long, Jeffery D. (2011), Historical Dictionary of Hinduism, Scarecrow Press, ISBN 978-0-8108-7960-7}}
  2. ^ Long, Jeffrey D. (2023), "Hindutva, Hindu Organizations, and the Hindu Diaspora", in Knut A. Jacobsen (ed.), Hindu Diasporas, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780198867692
  3. ^ Waghorne, Joanne Punzo (2013), "Beyond Pluralism: Global Gurus and the Third Stream of American Religiosity", in Charles L. Cohen; Ronald L. Numbers (eds.), Gods in America: Religious Pluralism in the United States, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780199931903
  4. ^ Pai, Gita (2020), "When humans pose as Hindu gods", in Diana Dimitrova (ed.), Rethinking the Body in South Asian Traditions, Routledge, pp. 116–, ISBN 9781000257953
  5. ^ Tiemeier, Tracy Suyuki (2013), "Asian Participation in Interreligious Dialogue", in Sharon Henderson Callahan (ed.), Religious Leadership: A Reference Handbook, SAGE Publications, pp. 427–433, ISBN 9781506354903
  6. ^ Kurien, Prema (2017), "Majority versus minority religious status and diasporic nationalism", Nations and Nationalism, 23 (1): 109–128, doi:10.1111/nana.12255
  7. ^ Richa Karmakar, How Rutgers University became the battleground for Hindu inclusion, Religious News Service, 17 November 2025.
  8. ^ Vitello, Paul (27 November 2010). "Hindu Group Stirs a Debate Over Yoga's Soul". The New York Times. ProQuest 814406963.

Lead revisions

[edit]

The long-standing lead was revised only in recent months.

The lead on 2 March 2026:

The Hindu American Foundation (abbr. HAF) is an American Hindu non-profit advocacy group founded in 2003. The organisation has its roots in the Hindu nationalist organisation Vishwa Hindu Parishad America and its student wing Hindu Students Council. HAF's areas of activism include protecting Hindu rights in the United States, highlighting Hindu persecution in other countries, pushing back against the cultural appropriation of yoga, and opposition to legislation of anti-caste discrimination laws. Some scholars argue that HAF's activism aligns with Hindu nationalism and impinges on academic freedom.

The lead last night:

The Hindu American Foundation (abbr. HAF) is an American non-profit Hindutva organization founded in 2003. The organization has its roots in the Sangh Parivar, a collection of Hindutva organizations led by the paramilitary Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, and more specifically in the Vishwa Hindu Parishad America and its student wing Hindu Students Council. The HAF's activism aligns with the Hindu nationalist ideology of Hindutva, alongside impinging on academic freedom. The organization argues that its advocacy focuses on protecting the rights of Hindus in the United States, drawing attention to Hindu persecution abroad, pushing back against the cultural appropriation of yoga, and opposing laws prohibiting caste-based discrimination. However, the HAF is thoroughly embedded in networks of Hindu nationalist politics and seeks to weaponize Hindu victimhood to bolster this agenda. Additionally, a Coalition Against Genocide report argues that one of its co-founders uses the organization to push Hindutva as an issue of "Hindu rights" to situate it in the mainstream politics of multiculturalism in the United States.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This seems almost like vandalism and likely violates WP:TALK and WP:Consensus. I think the March version is closer to the general consensus with WP:RS sources, and adding Hindutva in the lead was not discussed well before these edits. Now we have an active discussion to fix this. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

RFC workshop

[edit]

What question and what options if any? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:56, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we are ready for an RfC yet. RfC would be needed when multiple sources exist and the question arises as to how to weight them. When no source at all exist for the supposed claim, where are the grounds for an RfC? We write Wikipedia by summarising reliable sources, not by conducting a general election! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
We should do an rfc when theres a slow edit war on lede to clarify consensus.
rfcs are not general elections anyways and the closer may decide based on a variety of factors including who is following policy args better. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:43, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I also think there is no need for an RfC because sources have been provided to establish they are a Hindutva organisation[7] but no sources have been provided to contradict it. Zalaraz (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
There is no need for an rfc because there are two groups of folks with opposing beliefs who think there interpretation is obvious and self evident[sarcasm] User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 07:46, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Heres a question: how should HAF be described in lede?
i dont think we need explicit options per WP:RFCFORMAT. Thoughts? Ill post this in a week or so when i got time User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 07:48, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think we need RFC for the lead sentence, as including Hindutva in the lead sentence violates WP:LEAD, MOS:LEADSENTENCE and MOS:BEGIN.
first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist.
A non-specialist Wikipedia reader is not expected to know about complex context of Hindutva, and the WP:RS highly reliable sources do not introduce HAF as a Hindutva organization.
Per WP:LEAD, The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific., including only the most important and reliable aspects of the article body. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think the RFC should also include whether likely biased and unreliable sources such as Rutgers CSSR and Coalition Against Genocide can be used as the main sources that shape the Lead.
I think the Current lead violates WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:DUE.
Currently Undue weightage is given to likely biased sources in the Lead. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Probably something suggesting their purpose is disputed, that they and some scholars regard them as a Hindu organization, but other scholars regard them as a Hindutva organization. There isn't really a scholarly consensus (someone posted sources saying the contrary up this page some weeks ago though that discussion petered out) and the article relies on activism for much of its claims so the lead must reflect it. Additionally the claim that they're part of the Sangh Parivar ought to be removed given Andersen/Damle, respected scholars on the RSS, deny it Ftrhi (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Reading this self-description would lead to ascribe the organization as being Hindutva-favorable. Obviously they are not a reliable source because they are hardly scholarly. Wonder if anyone could be a scholar if they were so tendentious as to be into Hindutva anyway. Ramachariwiki (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
That is a good find, but I am not sure why you call it a "self-description". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
This and the HAF blogs go to great lengths to show that the term "Hindutva" is merely being misunderstood and implicitly note that it is a perfectly appropriate adjective for their organizations as long as it is interpreted "correctly". Part 1 and Part 2 - nowhere do they disclaim alignment to Hindutva, instead, while declaring the RSS as the official voice of Hindutva, they claim finally that it is a vague term which is muddled up over history not unlike left- and right-wing - concluding with "While the meaning or intent behind the label of Hindutva may not always be obvious, the impact is. Labeling is being used to discredit Hindus, and override legitimate concerns. It paints legitimate Hindu American efforts to self-define as inherently suspect and robs them of their agency to engage in the public square, invest in their community needs, and contribute possible solutions rooted in Hindu teachings to the most critical issues of our age. ... the weaponization of the term “Hindutva.” It takes advantage of overall unfamiliarity of world history, reflects a sloppy use of terms like right-wing and left-wing, and highlights malintent by those uncomfortable or opposed to an ascendant Hindu voice." Ramachariwiki (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, they are interpreting "Hindutva" as "Hindu-ness". If you tell them that it means "Hindu supremacy", they will say they have nothing to do with it. It is the semantics problem. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have studied the history of the term "Hindutva" pretty closely, and I understand all the problems with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm averse to that defense because, from all that I've read of Hindutva, even many ardent advocates of the ideology have often used the language of equality, democracy, freedom, and the like. Also, given that the HAF has attacked, using terms such as "anti-Hindu" and "anti-Indian", those opposing human rights abuses in Kashmir by the Indian government, their supremacist viewpoint seems pretty clear. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
We cannot say that in wikivoice, and how orgs describes themselves (unless they have truly destroyed any real credibility) is an important part of the description we include on wikipedia.
at best, we present what critics have said in appropriate attribution , is a better article User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:07, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not arguing for us to say they're supremacist in wikivoice. I was simply voicing how I don't think that the HAF, when they voice support for Hindutva, are only doing so because they believe it's only "Hindu-ness". Apologies for the misunderstanding, I should have framed my reply better. Although most sources on it are highly critical, so it'd be violating of NPOV to give them similar or equal weight to the few positive sourcing that can be found here and there. — EarthDude (Talk) 18:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think the above long discussion had established that there is no consensus to state that HAF is a Hindutva organization in the lead, especially the first sentence.
Hindutva was added in the first sentence in violation of WP:Lead, WP:Consensus, WP:NPOV, and WP:Firstsentence, and therefore must be removed from the first sentence until there is any consensus on that. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Does not merit mention in LEAD - Coalition Against Genocide

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 months ago10 comments6 people in discussion

There is no broad coverage or strong WP:RS sources to merit mentioning a group, CAG in the lead. Based on a review of sources, CAG seems to be primarily focussed on anti-Modi issues, and may likely have an anti-Hindu worldview (needs further review). The main source used for Coalition Against Genocide is a self published reposrt, which is more like a primary source from the org itself. The court document sourced does not support CAG; rather, it merely gives it a free-speech pass to defame HAF, but does not provide any credibility to its claims.

I think this does not merit mention in lead per WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:Lead. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The main activity of CAG seems to organize anti-Modi protests in US against his visits. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The main source used for the CAG group's claims is its self-published 2013 report, a primary source, which is not particularly reliable per WP:RS. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
"Anti-Hindu worldview" is a charged statement I wouldn't make without good proof. There's clearly a difference between not liking a certain politician and thinking Temple of Doom is a documentary. That said it doesn't belong in the lead, and the only reason it's there is because it replaces a more expansive, uncited version of the same claim then in wikivoice. [8]. Probably should be removed but it'll be reverted if it is Ftrhi (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I mentioned "likely" anti-Hindu worldview, because I never saw any concern for Hindu issues from CAG. CAG does not have any opinion on Genocide of Bangladesh 1971. It did not raise concern over anti-Hindu violence in Bangladesh in 2024, so it seems to be primarily focussed on anti-Modi issues. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Please don't use this talk page for WP:SOAPBOX. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 02:36, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure if it should be in the lead, but the reasons given here are not legitimate. They misstate the CAG's purpose (and seem unaware that it was formed in the 2000s) and repeat ideologically-charged talking points. Shahinshah121 (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Nobody will discard CAG only because you have a strong opinion about it. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    This discussion is not about discarding CAG content from the article body, at least not in this discussion.
    This discussion is whether CAG merits mention in the lead per WP:LEAD and WP:RS. Per WP:Lead, only the most important and reliable content should be summarized in the lead from the article body, and CAG is neither among the most important nor the most reliable content in the article body per WP:RS. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Correct, citing CAG, which is not even a scholarly source in the lead of an article is a complete mockery of WP:UNDUE.Mazaltu (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Purpose of endnote g

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 months ago11 comments4 people in discussion

There is an endnote, endnote g [9], tendentiously connecting the HAF using the word "genocide" in a longer sentence to the use of the term "Hindu genocide" by Indians, with an article on the subject linked - even though this article does not actually describe the HAF anywhere. This is clear POV-pushing, without actually providing a real linkage between the HAF and that aside from a single word being used. When I removed it, it got reverted [10]. This source given does not actually link the HAF to the use of "Hindu genocide" as a term in India; it's just WP:SYNTH which is being done for this. Just because the source is scholarly does not mean that it is linked to the subject at hand. It's being attached as part of POV-pushing, to imply the HAF is faking a genocide without actually providing a reliable source, or even a biased one, saying as much. So it must be removed

This same user who reverted this has repeatedly falsely accused me of vandalism, whitewashing, and trying "similar tactics" in the past; at one opportunity, this user sent me a warning on my talk page for vandalism, which got subsequently rebuked for being definitionally not vandalism [11]. It's really bizarre given almost all of my edits to this page have been harshly negative of the organization, including the addition of a section connecting them to Christian fundamentalists [12] [13] - why anyone conspiring to whitewash the HAF would connect them to people who regard Hindus as "Satanic" is beyond me. Notably, this user accused me of "unnecessary whitewashing" to justify reverting an edit [14] and then a few hours later put a near-duplicate of what I wrote there [15] - which is comically ridiculous. It seems this one-sided vendetta will consume every change I try to do with the article, including one as blatant as this. So someone else will need to remove this tendentious endnote Ftrhi (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The footnote gives a scholarly source that discusses the factual basis and ideological implications of "Hindu genocide" claims. It's not POV-pushing; it's relevant for understanding the HAF's claim and appropriate as a note. Other notes offer similar context that doesn't mention the HAF, like facts about Modi's visits to the US (note c) and defining Hindutva (note b). Shahinshah121 (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
It provides an example of people, in India, speaking of "Hindu genocide". It does not explain whether or not the HAF's use falls in that category - indeed, the HAF is headquartered in an entirely different country. If you have a reliable source connecting the HAF's use to this use, please put it in. Otherwise this is WP:SYNTH inappropriate for this article Ftrhi (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
This incorrectly represents Subrahmanyam's article, which uses Western, including American, examples. Also, the point in question here is that the HAF accused conference speakers of denying Hindu genocides, and those speakers were from many different countries. It seems relevant to include a source that considers the truth of such genocide claims and accusations of denial. It is in a footnote at present. Would you find it better if we include a sentence on it in the article? Shahinshah121 (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree that it is WP:SYNTH. The Hindu opponents of DGH were reacting to the lines that apparently appeared in the "Hindutva Harrassment Field Manual". Your understanding of what they referred to as "Hindu genocide" is quite correct.[16] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
In particular, this line: There is no historical linkage between anti-Hindu bias and large-scale anti-Hindu violence. It does not appear on their website any more, which I guess counts as a victory for the Hindus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
This line does not seem to be a direct quote from the "Field Manual". The direct quote the article does quote is Hindus have faced systematic oppression throughout history and in present times… The anti-Semitic ideology of Nazism led to the Holocaust. Islamophobic foreign policies over time resulted in the killing of civilians in the Middle East as well as the recent anti-Muslim ban of the Trump administration. Anti-Hindu bias, on the other hand, cannot be easily linked to casualties on such horrific scales. And it does still appear in the manual. It's blatantly false of course, one wonders if the writers of this manual have ever heard of the country of Pakistan. Still, the offending quote does still appear in the article
Back to the point, given this the context then the HAF is guilty of hyperbole at most. They're responding to a rather offensive claim which whitewashes some very real atrocities, as that article covers. Definitely, this misleading endnote has no place in this article Ftrhi (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
You are right. That line was not mentioned as occuring in the Field Manual. I guess this is the perennial debate about medieval Indian history. I have some material about it, which I can share when I can find it in my files. But the HAF comment is about genocides/ethnic cleansing in contemporary times. So it is impertinent to bring up history. I still think the footnote [g] should go. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The note in question doesn't mention the HAF; it's only there to provide explanatory context for lay readers. It would be WP:SYNTH to argue that the HAF's usage of the term "Hindu genocide" falls into the category the note describes; however, that's not what's happening here. A valid argument one could make is that including the note is WP:UNDUE, but since its only there to give explanatory context for lay readers, I think it should stay. — EarthDude (Talk) 04:48, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Do read the whole argument chain here. The HAF is using the term "genocide' in reference to more recent atrocities against Hindus, such as in Pakistan and Bangladesh. The footnote is on the Turkic invasions of India. So the footnote is totally irrelevant. And it is clearly implying the HAF's use of the term "genocide" falls in that bucket, despite not actually saying it. Quite misleading, really Ftrhi (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
It appears this convo has become stuck in the sort of limbo that a lot of this talk page suffers from; the minimal comments to deny this consensus have been made, with commenters unwilling to read the whole comment chain or even respond after a token refusal. The HAF used the term "Hindu genocide" in reference to what Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh are going through currently, as can be seen above; the footnote speaks about the use of "Hindu genocide" in reference to the medieval Turkic conquests of India. These are two very different things. So the footnote is not only misleading but flat out wrong. So unless a reliable source linking the HAF to the use of "Hindu genocide" in those contexts can be found, and unless an actual counterargument can be made, I will delete the footnote Ftrhi (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Why is a source which justifies hate crimes cited in the article?

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I've been examining the sources for this article. I am examining this one, and notably it justifies hate crimes:

Some of HAF’s allegations against other South Asian minorities were also leveled at supporters of an independent Sikh state of Khalistan. Five of these cases featured vandalism of Hindu temples, including defacement by black graffiti and expressions of support for the Sikh militant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, often accompanied by language such as “Hindus go back” and “Modi is a terrorist.” Such incidents likely have their roots in a broader political context: Many diaspora Sikhs are suspicious of the Indian state, partly due to anti-Sikh violence within India, epitomized by a pogrom in 1984. These anti-Sikh currents have continued to develop under Modi, with the BJP government demonizing Sikh protestors in India as “Khalistani” terrorists in order to justify violence against them, and the Indian government allegedly carrying out the targeted assassination of a Sikh separatist leader in Canada. Such events have only heightened diasporic tensions

There are many issues with this. For one, a considerable portion of Hindu Americans are not South Asian at all, but rather Caribbean; this is to say nothing of how a major Hindu sect, the Hare Krishna movement, was founded in New York. This is something a basic glance at the Hindu community in the US would confirm. So portraying Hindus as a solely "South Asian minority" is blatantly false, and it's absurd to think Caribbean or convert Hindus, who have nothing to do with South Asia but yet go to temples which have been attacked, are part of this diaspora politics. But the article needs to lie like this to justify its points.

Even ignoring this, the "broader political context" is illogical. What do random Hindu temples in the west have to do with the deplorable actions of the Indian government? Absolutely nothing. To believe this requires thinking there's a secret conspiracy out of Nagpur secretly running Hindu temples in the West - a belief rooted not in any "context", but in intense bigotry. And frankly everything has a "broader political context" - you could literally justify any hate crime whatsoever with this logic. The only reason this article is bringing this up is to justify hate crimes it finds inconvenient - including one, as this paragraph notes, of a call for deporting Hindus from the United States - by making up an excuse for them. Think about that for a second - people are calling for the deportation of Hindus from the United States, and this article justifies it as a response to the Indian government.

This is inexcusable. This is basically journalistic fraud, and it is being cited in the article like mad. Between this and the hyper-bigoted Werleman - what's next, are we going to cite Temple of Doom as a viewpoint on Hindu ritual? This is all very weaselly - citation of obviously flawed sources to justify a conclusion made up before the fact - and it happens like mad across the article. Ftrhi (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think we can't go down this kind of slippery slope by throwing out sources by nitpicking. As far as I can see, there are no saints in this debate. All sources are biased. The best we can do is to pick out the portions that make sense and use them. This article is not an op-ed; Jewish Currents took responsibility for its content. But it is an "audit". It might make some valid and some not-so-valid points. So please feel free to critque the content in the article, but not the source itself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
What is obscene above all is how this article sees calls of "Hindus go back" graffitied on temples and suggests they must be viewed in the context of a foreign government halfway around the world. This source is cited four times across the article, including in one case to argue hate crimes against Hindus is exaggerated - but this is the logic used. Where even a call for mass deportation graffitied on a temple becomes a protest of the Indian government. I do not believe it is right or even sane as a point, and it is worth asking whether this article is worth using for this point in particular (but if it's worth citing in four places in general) if its reasoning is like this Ftrhi (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
That article is not Encyclopedia quality.Mazaltu (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

removed POV template

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This template should not have been added. It was added after the organization publicly complained about this page. That is not an acceptable reason. The issue (describing the HAF as a Hindutva organization) has been adequately addressed on talk page, without comment in recent weeks. We can continue discussing other issues without needing the POV template. Shahinshah121 (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we have reached any consensus yet. The organisation complaining can alert people to the issues. (By the way, the organiation has been complaining for ages.) That itself cannot be grounds for any edits made. Please WP:AGF.
This will have to go for an RfC since we are unable to reach agreement. Give me a couple of days to document my objections to the sources you have provided. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
There was consensus earlier to not do an RfC. You have given your objections to sources and they have been answered. You can do more if you want, but one editor's objections does not mean we do an RfC or that the article should have a POV template."Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity." Shahinshah121 (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thats not how consensus works and anyone may always open an rfc. It is up to participants to decide if rfc is worth answering or to stop it early though. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:56, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Discussion about hindutva lavel

[edit]
Latest comment: 20 days ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Agree with removal of long forumy talk post before this edit, but did we ever resolve what appropriate phrasing for lede of article is? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:50, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think the current lede stands. There have been many tries to change it, and all failed to gain consensus. Shahinshah121 (talk) Shahinshah121 (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah but the current label has the weakest form of consensus. When i get more time i may start an rfc perhaps, if someone else doesn’t first. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:58, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
okay but I don't think the consensus is weak. The lede was written by engaged editors over time based on lots of sources and evidence. I know we have had some editors jump in recently and object that they do not like the Hindutva label and links, but it does not change the scholarly consensus and pile of evidence. I think the more recent objections that ended in silence mean we go back to the earlier solid consensus. Shahinshah121 (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
this still seems unresolved to me. The July discussion produced substantial sourcing and arguments on both sides, and by August editors were still explicitly disagreeing over whether consensus had actually been reached. An RfC was proposed more than once but apparently never happened.
I don't think the fact that objections eventually went quiet establishes consensus for the current wording. In September we are still disagreeing about whether that consensus exists. Rather than restarting another months-long circular discussion, why not finally have the RfC?
A narrow question seems sufficient: How should the Hindu American Foundation be characterized in the opening sentence of the lead, based on the weight of reliable sources?
That would allow uninvolved editors to assess the sourcing and arguments rather than continuing to debate whether an earlier discussion already established consensus. Navibeer (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Meh works for me. Imma do rhis rfc question in about, say, 5 days or so if nobody else bothwrs to do so User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:37, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Agreeing that there appears to be a fair bit of WP:OR here, with a lot of it added in the last couple of years. For comparison, here is a 2024 version of the article [17]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
[18] yeah no, this is a ton of or. Claims
that scholars widely support a view, declaring in wikivoice that the org is hindutva and that it is
using multiculturalism to pursue hindu nationalism in america, all placed without nearly emough citations often in the lede.
Pinging @EarthDude, but much of this material isnt easy to defend as written User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:05, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

RFC: How should the Hindu American Foundation be characterized in the opening sentence of the lead?

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago63 comments15 people in discussion

How should the Hindu American Foundation be characterized in the lede? Is it due to describe as a hindutva organization?User:Bluethricecreamman Previous discussions: Talk:Hindu American Foundation#h-Discussion about hindutva lavel-20260912145000 Talk:Hindu American Foundation#h-Hindutva organisation-20260708225000 User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:15, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

  • Describe as a Hindutva organization Having looked at the sources provided in previous discussions, particularly these three: [19] [20] [21] I think it's appropriate to refer to it as a Hindutva organization. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I agree with characterizing the HAF as Hindutva in the lede. I also think the rest of the lede is okay. Hindutva description and emphasis are well-supported by the HAF's actions over 2 decades. Also, the HAF's Hindu nationalist-aligned advocacy is a big reason the group is WP:Notable, so I find lede emphasis justified. Shahinshah121 (talk) Shahinshah121 (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
    1 and 2 are from the same author (Dheepa Sundaram) and from a cursory look seem to also have some overlap in content—and should probably be treated as one source. 3 (edit: and 2, which appears in a student-run journal), while reliable, is are not of the same reliability as 1 which is a peer-reviewed journal article. When taken together with Long (2025), another peer-reviewed journal article a book chapter in an edited scholarly book published by an academic publisher of repute and comparable in reliability to 1, I don't think the threshold for a wikivoiced labelling is reached based on these sources alone. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2026 (UTC)[edited for corrections and additional information] UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove Hindutva label, support that they have aligned themselves with hindu nationalism I think much of the lede appeared to have changed a fair bit from this march, and has been editwarred since then under the dubious claim that there was consensus for this change. The version of the lede back in March doesn't spend most of the lede describing most of the activities as essentially far-right Hindutva work. The coalition for genocide advocacy group is especially egregious, I'd much prefer to keep lede short, sweet, ending with the claims of being hindu nationalist, instead of spending 5 out of 7 sentences immediately attacking the org. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:26, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I will say that while I prefer following the sources, that doesn't mean we need to spend 5 sentences belaboring the point in the lead if that level of focus is undue. I just see that as a separate discussion from whether to call the group Hindutva. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ive kept the rfc deliberately open ended (which is apparently the traditional way to do rfcs if participation allows it) at this point, to see where the cards drop. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:32, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. You can put me down as "refer to as Hindutva but make it brief." Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
We seem to have sources that call them "Hindutva" do we have any that dispute it (not that do not use it, but dispute it)? Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Jeffery D. Long seems to dissent wrt to plain calling them a hindutva org per [22]. There also seems to be an editting dispute on his wikipedia page as well User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:40, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
That is just a Google search; what does he say? Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
It’sa Google scholar link to an article i thought. Article is here.
  • the Hindu American Foundation, some of which could be characterized as being in alignment with the aims and agenda of the Hindutva movement. Much of this activism, however, is quite distinct from, and in some cases–such as in its advocacy for marriage equality–even opposed to this ideology,
i can’t seem to find a free full text pdf User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 12:43, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Jeffery long appears to have converted to Hinduism and is the only scholar who really shows much nuance with regard to HAF. Much of the hafs advocacy remains fairly too strongly aligned with Hindu nationalism User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 12:45, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't want to treat Long's conversion as either a for or against measure of his reliability. On the other hand, replying to @UnpetitproleX I would push back against the claim that two reliable sources being by the same author should mean they only count as one source. If an author is an expert who writes in reliable outlets regularly on the topic then we should probably add additional weight to their views as an academic expert. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
But, returning to Long, if the statement that was recently removed from his BLP page that he is "a consultant for the Hindu American Foundation on a variety of issues" then there is a problem with Long not because he is Hindu but because he is not independent of the subject organization. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree. That statement was published by Long in 2025.Shahinshah121 (talk) Shahinshah121 (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The statement was removed from Long's biography partly because of WP:UNDUE, but also because it does not reflect the source, which indicates that he acted as an unpaid consultant to HAF on a specific --correction: number of-- issue in the early 2000s. I agree we should treat Long as a source with some bias, but I do not think that his chapter is really worse in these respects than many of the sources we're using to establish connections with Hindu Nationalism. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The above misrepresents the actual source almost as badly as the original line. (I went and dug up the full chapter.)
Before proceeding further, in the interests of candor and full disclosure, I should mention, as already noted in my abstract, that I served as a consul-tant for the Hindu American Foundation on a number of issues in the early 2000s. In the process, I also developed good, collegial friendships with many members of HAF. These relationships have enabled the kind of access that has permitted me to pursue the research on which this paper is based. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Based on that disclosure I think it's reasonable to at least question Long's independence. After all he is friends with his HAF contacts and depends on a positive ongoing relationship for access. It is also clear from the above that he didn't just consult on a specific issue. Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, but that is a claim I can and will not second. As somebody in academia myself, when we research a subject, we inevitably develop relationships with the subject of our research, our interlocutors, those we interview, our translators etc. Scholars' ability to research and write is not judged against who they are friends with.
Has any RS, in their own words, called Long biased? Or are we supposed to declare him biased based on how a couple wikipedia editors feel? If only the latter, then no, I will push back against any attempts to declare him "biased" here or elsewhere. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I didn't call him "biased" I called him not fully independent. Those are different, and frankly Wikipedia cares more about him being independent than about him being free of bias. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with user:Simonm223 on this. Shahinshah121 (talk) Shahinshah121 (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
In which case, has any RS, in their own words, questioned Long's independence? This Caravan article suggests quite the contrary, in fact.
Long's chapter appears in an edited volume published by Springer Nature. His publishing record includes works published by Oxford University Press, Bloomsbury, I. B. Tauris and Scarecrow Press. I'm not convinced by any of your arguments about not considering his work independent (to any degree) and most definitely not unreliable by any metric (rather, of all the sources presented here, Long (2025) and Sundaram (2023) are the highest on the reliability ladder). UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is a non-sequitur. I never said he wasn't an academic or that his work wasn't published in Springer. Clearly I'm aware of that as I'm literally quoting him. I'm saying his disclosure notice raises a question of using him to source controversial statements about this specific organization due to his clear and obvious ties to them. Nothing more. I'm sorry but I'm finding myself seeming to end up in the middle of a dispute between two editors who have very strong opinions here and I'm simply trying to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality. I'd suggest both of you should focus more on what I actually said and less on what you think I might mean. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Does Sundaram's membership of a declaredly "anti-Hindutva" activist group raise questions of using her as a source for controversial statements on Hindutva? If we're going to apply arbitrary tests of independence on peer-reviewed sources published by reputable academic publishers, then I reckon we apply these consistently. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
This article is not about any "anti-Hindutva" activist groups. Again please avoid irrelevancies. Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Huh? How is Hindutva irrelevant to a discussion about whether or not an organisation should be declared Hindutva in wikivoice? UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ok again, since apparently this is a hard thing to communicate, my concern is very specific. That is that Long has a specific relationship with this specific organization which makes his independence from this organization imperfect. On these grounds what he says about them, while not precisely WP:ABOUTSELF is not perfectly distinct from this organization because of that specific relationship. If we were discussing Sundaram talking about an "anti-Hindutva" activist group that he is a member of I would say he is not independent for discussions of that group. But Sundaram has no relationship with the Hindu American Foundation that would make his perspective non-independent. As I said before my concern is not that either of these scholars is biased. My concern is one is socially tied to the subject organization while the other is not. Is this clear enough? Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
WP:ABOUTSELF: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field."
Long (2025):
1. Is not self-published. It is published by a reputable academic publisher;
2. Is not questionable. It appears in a scholarly edited volume; and
3. Long is an established expert in the field.
UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
And if it wasn't clear from the multiple responses above (which I'm guessing it wasn't, given the snark), none of the objections raised so far for Long are based in wiki policy or are backed up by RS. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm done with this line of discussion. I've said my piece. It will be up to the RfC closer to decide. Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Also my final contribution on this sub-point. As per WP:RS, editors should consider "the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." "Questionable sources" can include "those who... have an apparent conflict of interest." Shahinshah121 (talk) Shahinshah121 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Caravan:

Jeffery Long, a professor of religion and Asian studies at Elizabethtown College, who has previously worked with HAF on a report about anti-Hindu bigotry online. With almost 40 signatories, Long’s letter criticised some of the textbooks for their “underlying Orientalist narrative” and their tendency to put forth “inaccurate and unfavorable comparisons of Hinduism with other religions.”

But over a lengthy Skype interview with me, Long took a far more moderate tone than that used by HAF, HEF and many others in the Hindu camp. Long said while he thought some of SAHFA’s edits were “Hinduphobic,” he also found some of them “quite reasonable”—in particular, their requests to include descriptions of caste oppression. He also criticised the Hindu camp for not engaging in productive dialogue with the opposition.
This is what The Caravan, widely seen as left-leaning and anti-Hindutva, had to say on Long's association with HAF. I doubt Long can be considered biased or not independent here—if you have a RS that establishes so, please present. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Me too—and I can only hope the closer will note that no policy-based objections to Long have been expressed nor any WP:RS provided which state that he, a leading scholar in the field, lacks the objectivity and integrity to write about the subject of his research in a manner that upholds the ethics of academic writing. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Simonm223: I'm not saying that the two should count as a single source, but that the two sources overlap with each other enough to be treated as one source, for instance, if we were to attribute both sources, we would be saying, "According to scholar Dheepa Sundaram, ...<cited to 1> Sundaram also says, ...<cited to 2>." I don't mean that the two are a single source. (Also, if I remember correctly from back when I read and cited Sundaram's Drexel Law Review article in this article, DLR is a student-run journal, thus, anyway lower in reliability that Sundaram's other article.) My comment was based on WP:NOTABILITY: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." That guideline is, of course, for GNG for articles, but my sense is that it also guides us on how notable a position/view also is. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I do remember correctly: "Drexel Law Review is a general interest journal run by students at the Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law." [23] UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I disagree that I badly misrepresented the Long source (which in another place does particularly say on the textbook issue; I think the important parts here are "~20 years ago" and "unpaid"; apologies to miss "number of issues"), but agree that we should use Long only attributed. I think we should use similar caution with Sundaram, and agree that the two Sundaram articles are not independent of each other (although we can and should cite both). Are the two Sundaram articles and the Rutgers policy advocacy source really the WP:THREE best sources for connection with Hindutva and/or Hindu nationalism?? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm fine with attributing Long as long as we attribute everyone else as well. Long's 2025 chapter is the highest reliable, alongside Sunadaram's 2023 article, of all sources presented so far in this discussion. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Russ Woodroofe that is because you substantially edited your comment after I posted mine. Please don't do so again. [24] [25] Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would also ask for published sources where Jeffery Long addresses whether the HAF is Hindutva.
Also, Long has a long history of association with the HAF, including serving on their advisory board for years and backing their stances. (The dispute on his page is on whether to mention these associations. I think some editors see them as negative, although Long has often advertised them in his bibliography.) Long's HAF association counts against his view being objective, whether he sees the group as Hindutva or not. Shahinshah121 (talk) Shahinshah121 (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove Hindutva, certainly; cut down and better source claims to ties with Hindu nationalism. I think that in this instance we basically follow mainstream US news sources, which do not seem to often (at all?) use the Hindutva term. I also now think that the connection with Hindu nationalism and the Indian right-wing is rather tenuous. Are we leaning mostly on the youthful writings of one of several founders? I note that recent mainstream news sources are more likely to label the organization as right-wing, coinciding roughly with major reworking and possible slant of our article here. I'm seeing a large advocacy organization, which one would expect to have both right-wing and left-wing (or at least centrist) viewpoints. Some of the sources we are using to make statements in wikivoice should definitely IMO be attributed. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
    It’s extraordinarily right wing in indian politics wrt to its advocacy, and many of the causea it champions . Its left wing wrt american advocacy by definition that anything that isnt white christian nationalism rn in america is left wing User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:58, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I could certainly have a US-centric perspective here. Looking through our article, I see what you mean; I'm also not too confident that our article is proportional. The article certainly has developed a strong point of view since 2021 [26]. It is OTOH also likely that an advocacy group for a religious/national identity is likely to reflect political trends in the associated nation. The ADL, for example. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Yes. All of the religious advocacy groups seem liberal when they are the minority in a matter, but will be socially conservative if possible. In this case, HAF definitely does deserve blame (see simons sourcing above) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:59, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I generally agree about religious advocacy groups, and my initial !vote may have been too generous to HAF. My main concern is that the whole article currently feels like a giant WP:CSECTION. There's some use of mainstream US news media for facts, but analysis mostly comes instead from sources that appear to have bias. While use of biased sources is mostly attributed, negative statements are 'found', while in contrast statements from HAF and associates are 'alleged'. I suppose that this is in some sense what the whole RfC is about. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I don't think categorizing a group as Hindutva is inherently negative. Maybe you think that (or maybe you do not), but it's a label the sources cited here give following clear definitions. I think you need a lot more to prove bias. Shahinshah121 (talk) Shahinshah121 (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
And yes, as someone coming to this page fresh and after reading this discussion drift from Washington to India and pick up a little Caribbean breeze along the way, I am not sure the lead needs to solve all of Hindu politics in sentence one. Looks to me that Bluethricecreamman's point is that calling HAF Hindutva is verifiable, but that does not settle separate questions under WP:NPOV for seriously disputed description should be voiced as fact and WP:DUE prominence it should get and then WP:LEAD of whether it fits in the opening definition. Good sourcing does not automatically justify the "strongest" category.
@Bluethricecreamman fair summary? NicoR8 (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
+1. Verifiability also does not mean we can stamp a disputed label in wikivoice (i.e. voiced as fact) on the organisation. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • As Hindutva organization. Totally accurate term for this organisation. I agree there are no reliable sources that dispute the label. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Not true, there's one RS that does that right above. I will also take a look at other sources. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
    from that source: "The focus of this paper will be the activism of the Hindu American Foundation, some of which could be characterized as being in alignment with the aims and agenda of the Hindutva movement." That disputes how much they are Hindutva but not the mere fact. That source is also not WP:NPOV owing to scholar's two-decade affiliation with the HAF. Shahinshah121 (talk) Shahinshah121 (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Immediately followed by:

    Much of this activism, however, is quite distinct from, and in some cases–such as in its advocacy for marriage equality–even opposed to this ideology, being more in alignment with the wider progressive movement in the United States than with conservative politics in India.

    Do you reckon we label the organisation "progressive" based on that? The label is in dispute. The article is from a peer-reviewed scholarly journal of high repute, so reliability is as airtight as can be. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove Hindutva label from lead sentence per WP:LABEL and WP:NPOV—since there is no universal or overwhelming agreement in sources about the WP:LABEL of Hindutva, describing the organisation with that label in lead sentence in wikivoice would be a gross violation of the core wiki policy of WP:NPOV. Support exploring ties with Hindu nationalism (which is not the same as Hindutva) in a WP:DUE manner in lead and body with attribution wherever necessary. —UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Describe as Hindutva organization: Of course, this should be stated in a due manner. However, we have several reliable sources terming the HAF as such while also detailing its relation to Hindutva and Hindu nationalism broadly. It'd be violative of NPOV not to state this. — EarthDude (Talk) 19:42, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am flagging that there have been attempts to drastically change the page before this RFC is complete, on the issue of the RFC. All users should refrain from editing the page in favor or against the issue involved in this RFC. Prior consensus stands until the completion of the RFC. Shahinshah121 (talk) Shahinshah121 (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Describe as Hindutva organization. Reliable sources seem to mostly be in agreement on this label, so I support using it in the lead as per WP:DUE. I do think other portions of the lead merit scrutiny, but if that's not appropriate for this specific RfC they can be discussed elsewhere. For now you can add me to @Simonm223's camp: "refer to as Hindutva but make it brief." 11achitturi (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove Hindutva from the first sentence, as MOST NOTABLE SECONDARY SOURCES DO NOT CALL HAF a Hindutva organization; rather, only some scholarly sources do.
The entire argument to include Hindtuva in the opening sentence is very weak, as it is based mainly on Some Scholarly Journal articles calling HAF as Hindutva, while notable, highly reliable secondary sources such as New York Times', Washington Post, etc. do not introduce HAF as a Hindutva
While I can agree that scholarly sources are generally acceptable, CONTEXT is very important, and scholarly reliability is more relevant for articles based on scholarly work, such as gravity or Newton's laws, but may not be as relevant to socio-political topics such as HAF. For socio-political topics, reliability is generally from widely accepted reliable secondary sources, such as NY Times, Washington Post, etc.
Note per WP:RS scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, controversial within the relevant field, or largely ignored by the mainstream academic discourse. Also there no Scholarly consensus available on HAF.
In the widely covered reliable WP:RS news sources, HAF is mostly considered an advocacy group, not a Hindutva organization. Therefore, per WP:LEAD, HAF should be called an advocacy group and not a Hindutva organization in the lead. Also, HAF widely celebrates and follows Mahatma Gandhi as an icon, which is contrary to Hindutva claims. See the references and quotes below supporting this argument.
TIME 2016 [27]

The Hindu American Foundation (HAF), a D.C.-based advocacy group, cited a long list of Pakistan issues for Trump to consider, including human rights abuses, the rise of extremism in the country and Pakistan’s conflict with neighboring India.

NDTV (PTI) 2015 [28]

Indian-origin US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has been presented with the Pride of the Community Award by a prominent Hindu advocacy group, Receiving the award by the Hindu American Foundation at its 12th Annual Day reception at Capitol Hill, Mr Murthy said that he draws inspiration from the life of Swami Vivekananda.

HAF also awarded Anantanand Rambachan, Professor of Religion at St Olaf College, Dharma Seva award; Harpreet Singh Mokha of the Department of Justice, the Mahatma Gandhi Award for the Advancement of Pluralism.

Washington Post 2016 [29]

Hindu group protests possible California textbook changes More than 80 years ago, Indian political leader Mahatma Gandhi led the so-called Salt-March to the shores of the Arabian Sea as part of a non-violent demonstration against taxes on salt under British rule.

In the same spirit of protest, a group of Americans of Indian descent are advocating against a series of proposed revisions to California school history textbooks, changes that they believe diminish the role Hindus played in the world’s earliest civilizations. The Hindu American Foundation has started a campaign to keep recognition of Hindus in the new textbooks, which are slated for publication later this year.

AP 2025 [30]

Hindu American organizations, including the Hindu American Foundation and the Coalition of Hindus in North America, advocated for the law... to declare Diwali as a state holiday

As per WP:RS, Wiki articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. Also per WP:CONTEXT, HAF is a social organization, and not a sociological scholarly concept, so per WP:DUE, some scholars' OPINIONS should not be given undue weightage, and therefore Hindutva must be removed from the First-sentence. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
A subject does not have to be a "sociological scholarly concept" for us to use scholarly sources which, per WP:SOURCETYPES are the most reliable. Moreover, it is more than simply "some scholars' OPINIONS" that the HAF is referred to as a Hindutva organization. — EarthDude (Talk) 19:30, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Talk:Hindu American Foundation - DefZone.Net