DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Jammu Praja Parishad

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

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Big revert

[edit]

I reverted a whole bunch of edits made over the last few weeks which altered the wording of sourced content without reference to the sources, and also deleted some content. Regarding this deletion explained with "The party was dissolved in 1963. It makes no sense that the article continues its history after that, all with no sources either. The sole source, I checked, says little about the JPP. There is a separate Praja Parishad which I think an editor may have gotten confused with", the article nowhere says that it was "dissolved" in 1963. It merged into Bharatiya Jana Sangh, and functioned as the state unit of the larger, nation-wide party. Even before the merger, sources state that it functioned as an affiliate of Jana Sangh, and Jana Sangh leaders such as Syama Prasad Mookerjee came to campaign on its behalf.

I am happy to look at new content based on new sources, but if the old content is to be modified, it should retain the original meaning of the text or at least remain faithful to sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with a political party means dissolution as an independent political organisation, and in most cases means dissolution period. The article previously delved on the party's history after the dissolution, however all paragraphs but one were entirely unsourced and, for the exception, a single book given as source for a page which is inaccessible to verify as it neither shows the page in the google books preview nor could I find it in the internet archive. So until it is verified, it could simply be an error on the part of an editor. Furthermore, other sources given in the article speak of the Jammu Praja Parishad only until 1963. Including the history of the Jan Sangh and later the BJP and their role in Kashmir is WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH.

I tried looking into this more and I couldn't find any reliable sources speaking about the Jammu Praja Parishad post-1963. EarthDude (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not looked into the exact content being disputed here so I do not have any opinion on it, but re:sources, just because you do not have personal access to a book does not mean you should remove content sourced from it. You can ask for specific pages and quotes to verify the information, which may be provided if reasonable by someone with access. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its not simply the lack of ability for source verification. Its also the fact that it heavily contradicts source consensus, which states that the party ceased to exist after the merger in 1963. Given all this, the specific source appears to be a WP:HOAX EarthDude (wanna talk?) 18:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hindutva?

[edit]
Specific Article Issues
Hindutva and Hindu nationalism
On Praja Parishad's support base
Inception Section
Hindu-Muslim issues
Policy and Guidelines Violations

Hindutva and Hindu nationalism

[edit]

EarthDude, where does the cited source claim that Praja Parishad had "Hindutva" ideology? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open the source and read it. The entire source is about Hindutva mobilization in Jammu and Kashmir through the Praja Parishad EarthDude (wanna talk?) 01:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, could you please explain to me, for example, how adding a description for the RSS, taken directly from the RSS article itself, is an "extreme" violation of WP:NPOV? EarthDude (wanna talk?) 01:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not answered the question: where does the cited source claim that Praja Parishad had "Hindutva" ideology? Please provide a quotation.
Also, refrain from WP:edit warring until WP:CONSENSUS is reached. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't decide whether it was "Hindu nationalist" or "Hindutva" but the article is hosting Hindutva propaganda for sure. See this article for now. 90.138.29.226 (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I did was not an edit war revert. I simply brought back the WP:STABLE version of the article and removed disruptive changes, which went against the given sources in the article. On the contrary, if you continue to engage in reverts, that would be a better example of an edit war. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 13:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to revert to the "stable" version, the 02:16, 9 August 2024 version would seem appropriate. This had one minor modification on 3 March 2025, but otherwise was stable until 21 June 2025. The 7 August 2025 version had been reverted three times in two days; it was not stable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the first of EarthDude's 8 August reverts, they said: The changes are by nature not a violation of WP:POV since they are either supported by reliable sources or paraphrasing fixes. If you have an issue, highlight it on the talk page rather than engaging in disruptive reverts. Please could you take us through the various changes and explain how they are either (a) supported by reliable sources or (b) paraphrasing fixes. That way we can try to take some of the heat out of this dispute. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The UnpetitproleX version is not the WP:STABLE one. The version before they arrived would be the stable version since it was before the whole thing began, as in the version of 29 June. Anyhow, the changes were by no way a violation of WP:POV, since it was only about three fixing changes. The first was the reword of Hindu nationalism to Hindutva as per a given reliable source. UnpetitproleX had reworded Hindutva to Hindu nationalism for what he called "academic consensus" but he provided no sources and removed the source supporting Hindutva. I think this to be highly misinformative, considering that hindu nationalism hindutva are not the same whatsoever. The former is a simply a form of religious based nationalism, whereas hindutva is a specific ideology originating in 1922 and inspired by european fascism. However, if sources support hindu nationalism too, I am fine with the inclusion of both Hindutva and Hindu nationalism to the ideology section of the infobox.

My changes also included removing mentions of the party's support bases from the lead, since that is highly WP:UNDUE; we dont say "the BJP is heavily supported by billionaires and business interests and receives funding by them through electoral bonds", in the lead of the party's article, now do we? I also added the description of the RSS from its own article, for better readability for readers who dont have much knowledge of the organisation. However, for whatever reason the Kautilya3 has called these an "extreme" violation of NPOV, and has utterly refused to actually state why or how. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 03:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a local political party that existed between 1947 and 1963. One of the things the contested edits did was to change the infobox so that instead of saying: "national affiliation = Bharatiya Jana Sangh", it said "national affiliation = Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh". Why did @EarthDude: do that?
@Kautilya3: was your objection to that change to the infobox (a) the deletion of Bharatiya Jana Sangh, or (b) the addition of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh?-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that was an error on my part. I added the RSS as a national affiliation in the infobox as per the sources within the article and accidentally removed the Jan Sangh. I think both being in the national affiliation line in the infobox would be much more accurate EarthDude (wanna talk?) 05:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"UnpetitproleX had reworded Hindutva to Hindu nationalism for what he called "academic consensus" but he provided no sources and removed the source supporting Hindutva." Hindu nationalism is the academic consensus. The sources for that are in the article already, assuming you have read them. Take, for example:
  • Bose (2005), published by Harvard University Press, which does not describe the party itself as Hindu nationalist, says: "Indeed, the Hindu nationalist agenda for IJK, articulated by the Praja Parishad in Jammu and by Hindu nationalist parties in India since the late 1940s."
  • Behera (2006), pub. Brookings Institution Press, has: "[Political vacuum in Jammu] was filled by the Praja Parishad, a party founded by Balraj Madhok on the local organizational base of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Strongly influenced by Hindu nationalism, ..."
  • Schofield (2003), pub. I.B. Tauris, says: "... Praja Parishad, a Hindu nationalist organisation based in Jammu."
The sourcing for Hindutva that Earthdude provided, based on which they changed Hindu nationalist to Hindutva, i.e. Kak (2009), an article in this journal, which I now doubt they have even read, does not describe Praja Parishad as Hindutva. It only uses the word Hindutva in the title.
@Kautilya3 and Toddy1: please look at the sources above, the ones for Hindu nationalist and the one Earthdude claims to support Hindutva (but actually doesn't, which is why they have not been able to provide an exact quote supporting it from that article). I will also ask Earthdude to not use gendered pronouns for me, like they do above ("he"). I prefer gender neutral pronouns as is mentioned on my talk page. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The stable version is the state I left it in in 2017. Since then, until my recent revert, you can see lots of content being removed and new wording being added, with absolutely no new sources. So all these are WP:OR edits and EarthDude idea of "DUE". I can see two mentions of "full integration" in the body that have been removed, UnpetitproleX seems to have added it to the lead, and now efforts are being made to remove it from the lead as well. Why?

Even direct quotations from Sumantra Bose's Kashmir Roots of Conflict have been removed. This is essentially considered the standard text for the present-day Kashmir. Even the GoI was unable to include it in its recent ban. What problem can any one have with Bose's assessments? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once any sourced content exists on a page, it can be removed on only two grounds: either because it fails verification or because it is UNDUE. If it is supposed to be UNDUE, an argument has to be made as to how it is not representative of the scholarly consensus. It cannot be simply some editor's prejudices or agendas. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit, I note an entire WP:OR sentence having been added: However, the move was met with resistance by Abdullah, who viewed Delhi’s intervention as an infringement on the state’s autonomy guarantees under the instrument of accession. The edit summary claims Grammar and paraphrasing fixes! Kautilya3 (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The version Kautilya3 referred to above was the 1 June 2017 version - but this is not all that different from the 1 November 2017 version.Diff 1 June - 1 Nov 2017 versions Key differences are (a) correcting "in in" to "in", (b) wikilinking to articles on elections in 1951, 1957 and 1962, and (c) removing {{Hindu Nationalism}}

And the differences between the 1 November 2017 version and the 3 March 2025 version are not that great either.[1] They include (a) the addition of an infobox, (b) changes to the wording of wikilinks - I assume because of changes in article names, (c) removal of {{Hindu politics}}, and (d) minor changes to the citation templates.

@Kautilya3: Are there any parts of the 3 March 2025 version that you object to? -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 March 2025 version is perfectly fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And would it be OK, if we took the current version of the infobox and grafted it on to the 3 March 2025, but with the national affiliation given as both Bharatiya Jana Sangh and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh? If yes, we could then use it as a baseline for discussing changes since then.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is fine too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Praja Parishad's support base

[edit]
Explaining my edits:
"and was supported by most of the state's non-Muslim minorities" is absurd. 1951 Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly election saw 0 seats for Praja Parishad.
"Praja Parishad campaigned for full integration of Jammu and Kashmir with India" is also absurd because Praja Parishad wanted Jammu and Kashmir to remain independent. They changed their stance when it didn't even matter anymore.
That's why I removed these 2 sentences from the lead. 83.179.17.157 (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those sentences are sourced to the highest quality WP:RS available to us: scholarly sources (the non-Muslim support, for instance, is sourced from Chowdhary, who cites Korbel for it). We do not conduct original research on wikipedia. Ram Puniyani's The Wire article (whose field of expertise is biomedical engineering) is not a RS that would under any circumstances override scholarly books! UnpetitproleX (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stating the party's support base in the lead is simply WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, the specific book's pages you have cited are unavailable for preview in Google Books. For contentious information as the one you are adding, sources need to be verifiable EarthDude (wanna talk?) 05:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have misunderstood the policy. There is no requirement for sources to be viewable on the internet. Jammu and Kashmir: Politics of Identity and Separatism is easily obtainable from several internet bookshops - "Books in my Basket" in New Delhi offer the best price.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stating a political party's is not only WP:DUE, but also currently convention across wikipedia. And as Toddy1 already pointed out, and as I also mentioned in the "Big revert" section above, books don't need to be publicly viewable on internet or be personally available to you for them to be used as sources. You are disputing academic sources which you have not even read, above you added another academic source for information that it did not support. This is quickly turning into a WP:COMPETENCE issue. UnpetitproleX (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, no, stating a party's support base in the lead is neither WP:DUE nor common convention. I have already given the example of the BJP, where its support base is not detailed because the editors know it is WP:UNDUE. I could list extremely well known political parties, both ruling and in the opposition, and their wikipedia articles, which do not include support bases, such as the aformentioned Bharatiya Janata Party, the Indian National Congress, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Aam Aadmi Party, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, the Trinamool Congress, the National People's Power, the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the Alternative for Germany, the Labour Party (UK), the Renaissance (French political party), the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan), the Democratic Party (South Korea, 2015), and I could go on and on. Simply put, the "convention" you speak of does not exist. Furthermore, as per WP:VNOT, the fact that something is mentioned in a source does not automatically mean it should be included, especially in the lead.

Secondly, the claim you have given is sweeping and directly contradicts reliably sourced information already present in the article, such as how the Praja Parishad neglected the Kashmiri Pandit and Ladakhi Buddhist minorities and how it failed to develop a mass movement. Your claim also contradicts the electoral outcome of the 1951 Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly election, where it won 0 seats. As per WP:VERIFIABILITY, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. You need to provide multiple high quality reliable and verifiable sources for your claim. Without that, it risks WP:HOAX or WP:OR by misinterpretation.

Lastly, I would request that we keep the discussion policy focused. Questioning the WP:COMPETENCE of other editors is not helpful and does not aid consensus-building. Let’s keep the focus on applying core content policies like WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:DUE. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 09:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not WP:OR—both Rekha Chowdhary and Josef Korbel are scholars of post-partition politics in Jammu and Kashmir. Their books are infinitely more RS than whatever half-baked analysis you're offering us (which, btw, is OR). Mentioning a party's support base is definitely due, especially when it has scholarly RS backing. As for the BJP or Congress or others, you are welcome to read scholarly sources, go through what they say about their demographics, digest those sources, and then add that to the ledes if you wish. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
>"Secondly, the claim you have given is sweeping and directly contradicts reliably sourced information already present in the article, such as how the Praja Parishad neglected the Kashmiri Pandit and Ladakhi Buddhist minorities and how it failed to develop a mass movement. Your claim also contradicts the electoral outcome of the 1951 Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly election, where it won 0 seats."
No, you have simply not read any sources. At all. Apart from Chowdhary and Korbel, we have:
(Bose, 2003): "(p.56) Thirteen [Praja] Parishad candidates were arbitrarily disqualified before the [1951 J&K Constituent Assembly] election ... In protest, and in anticipation of a completely rigged election that was pointless to contest, the Parishad announced an eleventh-hour boycott and pulled out its other fifteen nominees. ... (p.57) The Praja Parishad would probably have won a few seats in the Constituent Assembly had a free election been tolerated in Jammu. ... The [Praja Parishad] agitation received support from the spiritual and political leader of Ladakh’s Tibetan Buddhists, who disliked the meteoric ascendancy of the new Kashmiri Muslim ruling elite ..."
(Kak, 2009): "The powerful lobby of landlords, largely Jammu Hindus or Kashmiri Pandits who lost their jagirs, was against the National Conference in general and Sheikh Abdullah in particular. This political opposition crystallised in the form of Praja Parishad party." UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, so not only do you ignore half my points, you misinterpret and misrepresent the rest of what I said. You completely ignored how including the party's support base is clearly WP:UNDUE, how there's absolutely no convention for it, and how as per WP:VNOT, not everything given in sources has to be mentioned in articles. Your claim of the Praja Parishad being supported by the region's minorites is contradictory to what sources actually say. You have brought up three sources, first talking about how the party would have won "a few seats" had things gone differently, how it had the support of some Buddhist leaders and somehow you equate that with support of the minority of Buddhists in the region (this would be the equivalent of saying that the Nazi Party was supported by Germany's Jews because Max Naumann of the Association of German National Jews supported Hitler), and lastly you say that the party was supported by economic elites such as landlords and that is somehow a minority to you (going by the same logic, we should consider shareholders and billionaires minorities no?). Let's see what reliable and scholarly sources actually say. Behera, 2007 (p. 111): The Praja Parishad failed to develop into a mass movement, however, owing to its limited social base, especially in rural areas. In the same page it is written, It also neglected the small but influential Hindu minority of Kashmiri Pandits in the Valley and the Ladakhi Buddhists who shared its antipathy for Sheikh Abdullah. Furthermore, for Kak, 2009, you have not provided a page number. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 05:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have read Behera, she says the party neglected Pandits and Buddhists, not that it did not receive any support from them. We have many sources that state that the party did get support from them. Political organization in the state was limited at the time. You have misinterpreted the other sources and your comparisons with Nazi Germany are ill-conceived. We have strong sources, such as Korbel (1995, p.222), who says

"Economically [Praja Parishad] represented that group of wealthy people who, as the Maharaja's active supporters, once enjoyed the privileged position of landlords but who have been dispossessed by the land reform, and of government officials and businessmen. Politically, however, it found its principal support in the great majority of the non-Muslims who were becoming increasingly worried about Abdullah's tendency to draw the State of Jammu and Kashmir away from India."

Before this, he also writes "One party of importance is the Praja Parishad (in Jammu), the only one which is in any real sense the opposition party to the one in power-the All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference." UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To this, I'll also add Chitralekha Zutshi's 2024 biography of Sheikh Abdullah, which Ramchandra Guha says "illuminate[s] the history of twentieth-century Kashmir as a whole."

(p.100) "The negative attitude in Jammu towards [NC] in general, and Abdullah in particular, allowed for the emergence of more right-wing alternatives, such as the Praja Parishad (PP), which was the only viable opposition party in the entire state."

(p.113) "The All Jammu and Kashmir Praja Parishad was founded ... to represent the interests of the Hindus of Jammu and to safeguard their rights from what was considered the anti-Dogra and Kashmir-centric government led by Sheikh Abdullah. ... the PP became a conduit through which a range of groups within the state with grievances against the NC and its policies could express themselves."

Zutshi is the foremost historian of Kashmir of our time. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elsewhere, in Languages of Belonging (2003) Zutshi writes, "... the Praja Parishad did not recognize the National Conference as the representative body of the Jammu Hindus ... To dismiss the claims of the Praja Parishad simply as the bigoted grumblings of a right-wing organization, as was too often done by the National Conference and Indian governments, obscures the widespread alienation of the people of the state from the National Conference regime." UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was alienation with the government of the National Conference, however the aformentioned Behera source itself states that a lot of the alienated populace did not shift towards the Praja Parishad due to its communal politics. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 09:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Behera mentions low support among Jammu's Muslims due to communal politics. She also says that the party enjoyed limited support in rural areas due to the popularity among peasants of NC's land reforms. And she says the party neglected KPs and Ladakh's Buddhists. Korbel says that the party's political demography was a majority of the state's non-Muslims who feared the state's separation from India. Zutshi, Kashmir's foremost historian at present, says the party was the state's only viable opposition through which a variety of groups could articulate themselves. Bose and Kak note that among the party's supporters and patrons were Ladakhi Buddhists and KPs. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. The version of the article Kautilya3 seeks to return to is a prime example of a horrible Wikipedia article. The textual framing was highly biased towards to the Praja Parishad, in a violation of WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. Entire paragraphs were written about the history of the party after it stopped existing, with not a single reliable and verifiable source, violating WP:OR and WP:HOAX. The article at times spoke of the party as a former and historical one and at times as a current existing one, when it is fundamentally not the latter. Why did you not fact check the given information, verify sources, and put tags of factual inaccuracy and original research back then? This whole dispute is simply absurd. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 14:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inception Section

[edit]

diff comparing 10 August version (old) with 3 March version (new). Both versions seem to say much the same thing. Key differences are:

  • The 10 August version says "Hari Vazir" (a spelling also used by ThePrint), but the generally-used spelling is "Hari Wazir (as used in the 3 March version).
  • The newer version has this citation: Anand, Arun (14 November 2020). "Praja Parishad Party — the forgotten name behind the removal of Article 370 in J&K". ThePrint.

@Kautilya3: do you have any objection to the addition of the citation to the article from ThePrint? If so what?

@EarthDude: Can you point to anything (apart from the above) in the Inception Section where the trivial differences in wording between the 3 March and 10 August version matter to you?-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Toddy1, thanks for your work. The diff you point out appears to show the later developments section. The Inception section between 3 March and 10 August shows a lot of changes, starting with the change of "Dogra Hindus" to "Hindu Dogras". The changed text contains a lot of misunderstandings, e.g., RSS starting a "branch" in Jammu. (It might have had a hundred branches in Jammu, for all I know.) It uses the Arun Anand (a journalist, not a historian) to say that Madhok played a "pivotal role" in Praja Parishad, whereas the old text said "key organiser". Many of these wording changes are contentious.
To answer your specific questions "Hari Wazir" is fine. The Print article is not reliable. So, no need to use it unless it has some key information that has been missed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the August version says "Hari Vazir [sic] was appointed as its first president" and the March version says "Hari Wazir became its first President". "President" should not have been capitalised.
My impression is that any difference in meaning between the two versions of the Inception Section was entirely unintentional by EarthDude. But if he did intend a difference of meaning, please could he explain what it is and how that difference is supported by sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The business of Prem Nath Dogra being president is in the Jammu Agitation section; and again both versions say much the same about that. Everything in the March version is also in the August version, though phrased slightly differently. Where they differ, it that the August version of the Jammu Agitation section has statements that are not in the March version. So if we could put the Inception section to bed, we could discuss whether the additional information in the August version of the Jammu Agitation section ought to be there. The easiest way to do that would be to use the March wording for all the bits that have much the same meaning, and include (for the time being) the August wording of the additions.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way "externed" is an Indian-English expression; it means banished. We should either put "banished" in brackets after "externed", or replace "externed" with "banished".-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already made clear my issues with old version of the article in the above message, and that has to be taken into account when we move on to those sections.

Anyhow, on the matter of the Inception Section, I made the changes to have it be more grammatically accurate and readable for laypeople. I am fine with renaming Hari Vazir to Hari Wazir. Also, the Print article is reliable and it should remain, as it contains details not included otherwise, such as the party foundation date. However, Kautilya3 seems to have some confusions over the text. For instance, calling them Hindu Dogra makes more sense considering its an ethnic community and not a religious one, and only sections of the Dogras who were Hindus were supportive of, and aligned with, the Rajya Hindu Sabha. Stating otherwise could cause misunderstandings, even if unintentional. Secondly, stating that the RSS opened a branch in Jammu is backed by sources and it is framed so because that very specific branch is what eventually evolves into the base of the Praja Parishad. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 11:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you say Kashmiri Hindus, or Hindu Kashmiris? Do you say Hyderabadi Muslims, or Muslim Hyderabadis? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both forms are grammatically accurate but the former, with the religious identity marked first, is more clarifying and useful for readers who dont know what ethnicities, such as the Dogras, are. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 05:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
>For instance, calling them Hindu Dogra makes more sense considering its an ethnic community and not a religious one, and only sections of the Dogras who were Hindus were supportive of, and aligned with, the Rajya Hindu Sabha. Stating otherwise could cause misunderstandings, even if unintentional.
Again, please provide reliable sources, based on the quality of which we can establish due weight. No original research please. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about Dogras not being solely Hindu, then there are a myriad of reliable sources for it. For instance, Hāṇḍā 1998 (p. 179) states Having remained an ethnic title in the early period, Dogra today is a generic identity. It may even be said that all those who speak Dogri, may they be Hindus, Sikhs or Muslims, they are the Dogras. This is further expanded upon by other reliable sources, such as Gupta 2012 (p. 115): In 1947, the Jammu and Kashmir army consisted mainly of three clans: the Hindu Dogras of Jammu, the Muslim Dogras of Jammu, and the Hindu Gurkhas from Nepal. If you are talking about Hindu Dogras supporting the Ram Rajya Sabha or the Praja Parishad, well they are already given in the article, with most sources regularly clarifying that it was the Hindu Dogras specifically, such as Malhotra 1994 (p. 303): The movement of integration of the State began in right earnest in the Jammu province of the state, where the Praja Parishad (a political party of the Dogra Hindus) organised an agitation for abrogation of Article 370. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 05:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu-Muslim issues

[edit]

This article in JKNow says that many Muslim candidates were fielded in the 1951 election. (It doesn't give a number.) This article, though poorly written, mentions Shaikh Abdul Rahman, who was appointed as state secretary in 1954, and was "unanimously" elected as the president of the state unit (of Jan Sangh) in 1972. In response, Jan Sangh is said to have dissolved the state unit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is fairly irrelevant. And I am pretty sure "boloji.com" is not a reliable or authoritative source to focus on EarthDude (wanna talk?) 09:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is relevant. This supposed "Hindutva" or "Hindu nationalist" party was putting up Muslim candidates in its very first election. Sheikh Abdul Rehman's election as the president of the state unit of Jana Sangh is also well-attested. You seem to think that everything that is contrary to your prejudices is unreliable or irrelevant or "UNDUE". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, "boloji.com" is not a reliable source. Secondly, whether a Muslim person once acted as a president is completely irrelevant to the Jammu Praja Parishad being a Hindu nationalist and Hindutva party. For instance, the Alternative for Germany is a German far-right party, strongly opposing things such as immigration, LGBT communities and activities, etc. Yet, one of its two co-leaders, Alice Weidel, is in a lesbian relationship with a Sri Lankan woman. That changes nothing. Similarly, Rehman being Muslim does not change the Praja Parishad from being a Hindu nationalist and Hindutva party. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 15:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already pointed you to Sheikh Abdul Rehman's wikipage, where you can find sources, even if you were to shoot down "boloji.com". This once again demonstrates your revolt against the key Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV, which you apparently don't care about. And, German politics and somebody's sexual orientations have no relevance to this page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have completely ignored my core argument. A woman in a lesbian relationship with a person from outside her country leading a far-right anti-immigration and anti-lgbt party does not, at all, change the fact that it is indeed a far right anti-immigration and anti-lgbt party. Similarly, a Muslim man who lead, for a short while, a Hindu nationalist and Hindutva party does not at all change the fact that it was indeed a Hindu nationalist and Hindutva party. Furthermore, the Sangh has always had a history of appropriating and co-opting minority figures in an attempt to whitewash their ideology instead of actually changing their views or policies. This has had widespread documentation in reliable scholarship, as in Jaffrelot's Modi's India. What you have accused me of, a "revolt" against NPOV, ignoring what I am saying, is a common case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 12:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is relevant to an article on Jammu Praja Parishad that it had Muslim candidates in elections and that some party officials were Muslims.
I agree with EarthDude's point that it is not uncommon for political parties not to live up to their party's espoused values - see for example: Back to Basics (campaign). Any inference from the party having Muslim candidates and party officials must be explicitly made by cited sources, and should not be made by editors (WP:OR).-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find any sources for "Hindutva", the one earlier claimed by EarthDude for that (Kak 2009) doesn't actually support that. But for Hindu nationalist we do have sources that list Hindu nationalism as an influence, some calling the party Hindu nationalist. See my comment in the "Hindutva and Hindu nationalism" above for those sources. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Policy and Guidelines Violations

[edit]

The 3 March version of the article re-instated by Toddy1 violates quite a lot of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The Subsequent elections section is filled with WP:SYNTH content with no given sources, detailing the history of the Jan Sangh, the Janata Party, and the BJP, when the article is about the Praja Parishad. The infobox contains the Hindi term for the Praja Parishad in Devanagri, violating WP:NOINDICSCRIPT. Worst of all, the content is in extreme violation of WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK with heavy editorialising, as seen in "the elections were being railroaded by the ruling National Conference", "Shyama Prasad Mukherjee was a powerful leader", "The Party and Mukherjee took up the cause of Jammu with vigour", etc. There is an extreme bias towards the Praja Parishad, such as highlighting attacks against Abdullah for communalism but not a mention of the Praja Parishad itself which was constantly attacked for engaging in communalism. There is a lot of WP:OR seen as well. For instance, a statement is given by a Hindu Mahasabha member, criticising the autonomy of the region, yet the given source does not talk about that at all. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 06:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rival tables of contents

[edit]

It does not make any sense having two tables of contents for this talk page:

  1. The standard one that every talk page has
  2. The one that EathDude created at the top of the Hindutva? section

-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is extremely long, and through a series of independent edits by different editors, the specific talk page discussion has been divided into multiple sub sections, many of whom are not directly related to each other (take, for example, the last two subsections of the discussion, about hindu Muslim issues and policy and guideline violations, with both having minimal relation to each other). If an uninvolved Wikipedia editor wanted to engage in the discussion, it would be on a very convoluted and confusing one. I added the table as a helpful guide EarthDude (wanna talk?) 17:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you understand? There is table of contents at the top of the page that already lists this stuff. Your table merely duplicates part of it. It is not helpful! -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The table of contents that appears on the left side of the page is not present on mobile view. If a mobile editor were to engage with the discussion, the table would be extremely helpful. And even though the majority of Wikipedia editors primarily use laptops and pcs, a lot use mobile devices. I for one also use mobile editing a lot as well EarthDude (wanna talk?) 19:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]