Talk:California textbook controversy over Hindu history: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:06, 24 July 2006 editBilbobaggins8 (talk \| contribs)17 edits counterpoint← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 10:14, 12 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,790,153 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject India}}, {{WikiProject California}}, {{WikiProject Hinduism}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(205 intermediate revisions by 62 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~WikiProject~~ ~~Hinduism~~}}		{{Talk header}}
			{{Calm}}
	{{Old Hinduism COTW \| Date=1 January \| Year=2006 \| URL = diff}}.
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=Start\|1=
	==.==
			{{WikiProject India\|importance=low}}
	'''What the hell guys?? I added few links that supported the HEF position in External Links and they have been duley removed??'''
			{{WikiProject California\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Hinduism\|importance=low}}
			}}
			.
			{{Archive box\|search=yes\|
			* ] <small>(2006–2008)</small>
			}}
			__TOC__
			{{Clear}}

			== URLs for the VF and the HEF. ==

			Dear Goethean,
	I understand that the article was only a quick writeup, so this may be the reason the article is not balanced, it basically only gives the "Witzel" pov. The proposed changes seem to be online anyhow, so maybe the article should focus on them. It reads overall like a black/white characterization of the debate.

			Why do you think it is a good idea to remove the URLs from the first mention of the Vedic Foundation and the Hindu Education Foundation? Isn't it more helpful to readers of this WP article to have those URLs available at first mention, so that they can find out who these organisations are?
	Then there are unreferenced remarks in the article like this: '' insisting ... on points such as that caste was not a part of Vedic religion'' But the proposed changes do not seem to imply this:
	:Page 181, Main Idea: current text, The social structure known as the caste system was an important characteristic of Aryan society. Replace with, The social structure known as the Varna system was an important characteristic of the ancient Indian society.
	:Page 154, Hinduism and the Caste System, current text, A person with bad karma will be reborn into a lower caste or as a lesser creature, such as a pig or an ant. Replace with, A person with good or bad karma will be born into a higher or lower life form..
	The article says "Californians of South Indian origin and Dalits (Harijan, Untouchables) have written to the Board of Education, arguing that the HEF and Vedic Foundation represent a North Indian upper-caste perspective." No reference is given to this, and such a rather absurd statement should be put in perspective. This is remiscent of 19th century divide-and-conquer clichés. A better article title would be maybe "2005/2006 California Textbook Controversy". The issue is also about other minorities and similar changes are proposed for Judaism . There is no reference given that the HEF was "founded by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh". The article is in categories like California and Historical revisionism. Does it really deserve to be one of 90 topics in the Category:Politics of the United States?

			Best wishes,
	Here are a couple of links to the controversy:
			] (]) 13:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)



			==Background==
	--] 23:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
			For better flow, I think the quote should be moved near the top, and then how many edits all the groups give should be explained. I think the quote helps to explain why the groups gave their edits to begin with.] (]) 04:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

	I know; the writeup summarizes the CSM report which was not written by Witzel, you may say it gives the "academic", or "western" pov. But feel free to heap opposing povs on this, I created this article to take the heat of Hindu outrage at Descartes and the Western conspiracy of "]" from poor ]'s article who is apparently being shot as the messenger. ] <small>]</small> 10:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

			In the claimants section, Hindutva should lead to the Hindutva wiki page and the "Hindu ultra nationalism" bracket should be deleted as it is misleading and is not found in the citation. The wikipedia page for Hindutva also has no mention of "Hindu Ultra Nationalism". ] (]) 00:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
	:I included the imdiversity.com article, the only one on your list that halfway meets minimal notability standards; I don't know if "]" is a notable newspaper, and it wasn't printed there anyway, but it's the first halfway presentable "pro HEF" writeup I've seen so far; the blog rants and petitions are certainly not "sources", they just show that these groups have internet access and are serious about their cause. We need ''independent'' reports, such as the CSM one. imdiversity.com is at least not a Hindu forum, but it seems still to be a lobby organization you'd expect to automatically take the side of an ethnic minority, never mind if their cause makes sense or not. Imho, if VF and HEF want to sway public opinion, they should stop trying to smear Witzel as a Nazi and begin writing coherent articles harping on minority rights like the Sundaram one (never mind that the "fair portrayal of history" demanded admittedly flies in the face of scholarly consensus). In politics, playing too dirty will just backfire ] <small>]</small> 10:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

			==Lead In==
	Sure, the Christian Science Monitor is an "independent" source according to you, who happens to be a Christian if I am not mistaken. Didn't you already list that Christain Dalit organizations are working against the changes suggested by Hindus. And we trust "Christain" Science Monitor as an independent source, wow, what more can one say. Can you apply your own logic you said here "imdiversity.com is at least not a Hindu forum, but it seems still to be a lobby organization you'd expect to automatically take the side of an ethnic minority, never mind if their cause makes sense or not". You are white , so one would, according to your own logic, would always side with Whites(Western), aka Michael Witzel et al? Is this your level of understanding? I thought Misplaced Pages was atleast neutral, but oh boy, I am wrong or what.
			Can we change the word "complain" to something that doesn't make it sound like all these religious groups were just whining? ] (]) 04:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

			:Changed to "filed a complaint". ] <small>(])</small> 08:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
	Thanks for your changes Dab, the article has improved since yesterday. The following sentence is still somewhat pov: ''They are "insisting among uncontroversial corrections on points such as that caste was not a part of Vedic religion, and that no Indo-Aryan migration ever took place, statements described as "revisionist" by a group of Indologist and other scholars, among them Michael Witzel, who oppose the effort as an attempt at censorship and have submitted a petition with the Californian Board of Education."'' But as I showed above, they are in fact not saying this about the caste system, and about the IA-migration, many of their changes seem to be against the "invasion" version or for more neutral text. I haven't read all changes, but I think it might be better to cite some of the controversial changes rather than repeat about them only what others have said. --] 21:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
	:fair enough, please do, I'm not planning on writing a dissertation on this, but if you cite the proposals, and the petitioner's take on the proposals, I don't see where you can go wrong. Re categorization, we need some category marking this as a US political issue. If "Politics of the United States" is too general, we'll have to create a subcategory, or some "Education in California" category. ] <small>]</small> 21:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

	==~~tinyurl~~==		== See also ==
	using tinyurl is now blocked by the spam blacklist. This is sensible: It is not safe to link to tinyurl urls, since it is impossible to judge where it will redirect before you click on it, and its owner may change the redirect at any time. Linking to google cache is also not recommendable, since it is bound to expire, but I suppose we can leave the link here until March, when this article will likely be refactored in the light of the decision anyway. ] <small>]</small> 10:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

			{{ping\|Vdhillon}} You have just added way too many "See also" entries. The relationship of these entries to the present article is not clear. Please follow the guidelines at ]. Also, there shouldn't be a category listed in this section unless there is a really good reason. But what is the reason? ] (]) 09:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
	==Involment of Dalit Christian missionary groups should be recorded==

			: Ok, thanks for helping me learn the guidelines.
	The Wall Street Journal article mentioned ] as the Dalit group invloved.
			] (]) 12:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
	The website at http://www.friendsofsouthasia.org/textbook/LettersOfSupport.html mentions 4 dalit groups:

			== Lede reverted ==
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]

			{{U\|SimoneReeves}}, I undid most of your changes to the lede. The version you restored did not actually summarize the affair. The statement that
	They are all ] groups. Let their involvement be recorded for fairness and correctness. Please do not delete mentions of these groups. Please permit acknowledgement of the fact that they are ] organization.

			{{quote\|The California Department of Education (CDE) initially resolved the controversy with the help of two content experts: Shiva Bajpai, Professor Emeritus at California State University Northridge, and Michael Witzel, Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University.}}
	It is unethical to remove this information, unless it is false.--] 21:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

			suggest that Bajpai and Witzel formed the initial committee, which is not corroborated by any source. Bajpai was assigned to the task first; Witzel ''et al.'' only become involved later. Also, the selection of complaints in the version you posted is not representative. The really controversial part of all this was the rewriting of Indian history, not the mistake of labeling a mosque as a Hindu temple (both committees agreed that that should be changed). ] <small>(])</small> 08:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
	==What are the organizations involved?==
			:{{U\|Qwertyus}}, I am delighted you respected ] in your latest edit, compared to the last one you made. The lede is still very one-sided, however. It needs to be neutral and summarize both sides. You are doing ] when you claim "the mistake of labeling" because none of the cited source in the lede or the main article says it, and numerous errors like it, were "a labeling mistake". This is the only wikipedia article on the 2005-2009 California textbook controversy and it should be encyclopedically complete and not just an article about "really controversial part" as you explain above. You have used an op-ed, one-sided opinion article from an Indian newspaper presenting a non-neutral side in this controversy. I suggest we use The Wall Street Journal article cited in the article (or other reliable secondary sources), to build a more balanced, complete, neutral summary lede. I will make these edits shortly, and welcome your constructive collaboration. ] (]) 14:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
			:: There are no "two sides" on Misplaced Pages. So the idea of "one-sided" doesn't exist. An article is neutral if it represents the scholarly consensus as per ]. Bajpai is the President of "Dharma Civilization Foundation" , whatever that is. He seems to be better known for Hindu activism than his academic work. You have deleted a valid description from a notable academic saying that he is "Hindutva-leaning". This is not what is meant by "neutral" on Misplaced Pages. I am afraid all that you have done is white-washing. -- ] (]) 20:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
			::: {{ping\|SimoneReeves}} Since there has been no response from you, I have reverted the lead to the old one. I don't believe that there is any problem with neutrality in either version, but the old lead focused better on the important points whereas your version was unfocused. To make progress, you need to explain your idea of "one-sidedness." Note that this page exists at all because of the ''controversy'', which began with Witzel and Indologists contesting the problematic changes demanded by the Hindu groups. So that is what we must focus on. I am adding a bunch of scholarly sources that cover the issue the way it should be covered. Please take a look at them. Cheers, ] (]) 12:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
			::::{{U\|Kautilya3}} found a more precise source for Bajpai's Hindutva affiliations, so we no longer need the vague claim that he is "Hindutva-leaning" in the lede. ] <small>(])</small> 15:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
			{{od}}
			{{U\|Kautilya3}}, Sorry, for the slow response, I am on holiday travel. I will check the Bajpai-related cites again, but join me in avoiding ] and be extra careful per ] policy (check Qwertyus's 'more precise source').

			I am concerned with the rest of your lede revert. There are many sides to this story - those (Hindu) who proposed the change, those (Hindu and non-Hindus) who opposed the change, those scholars who mediated between the two sides, and the fourth side included the California officials. For NPOV, all sides need to be considered and summarized with balance. Your wholesale revert of the lead has made it one sided, because it does not present a summary of the controversy from the side who proposed the change, before some changes were accepted.
	Surprisingly, many of the organizations invloved are remarkably small organizations, managed by a hanful of people. In some cases they seem to exist largely in name. Links to these organizations have been created. If you know more about these groups, please do add information.

			I suggest you reconsider some of the text and cites you deleted to respect ], or present on this talk page a proper wikipedia policy or guideline based reason to delete the lede text I had added with cites. I look forward to your reasons and constructive collaboration, and do pardon my slow response, which I expect to continue for the next few weeks. Volunteers and busy we all are in our real life, :-), ] (]) 19:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
	NRI-SAHI is apparently same as The Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment, both consisting mainly of Shrikumar Poddar of East Lansing, Michigan. The last two organizations appear to have been created specifically for the Californian Hindu textbook fight.
			: I am afraid your understanding of ] is not correct. There is no requirement of representing all sides of a dispute. We only represent all views described in reliable sources. The idea of "all sides" constitutes ], unless it exists in the reliable sources. Qwertyus is following better quality sources that I have provided, and I have no concerns about his/her edits. You can discuss further after you return from holiday. Cheers, ] (]) 10:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

			== Boring and confusing ==
	# ] (FOSA)
			I am sorry. I understand that people worked on this article for a long time, but I am afraid that the result is quite unappealing. There is too much "bureaucracy" about this organization or that, but the substance of the issues is missing. The "Background" section is not limiting itself to the real background, goes through the whole story, and then the story comes again in bits and blobs. The large table in the middle is also quite distracting and breaks up the narrative. This may be the result of too much reliance on news sources rather than scholarly articles.
	# ] (CAC)
	# ] (Non Resident Indians for a Secular and Harmonious India),
	# ]
	# ] (IPAC)
	# ] (The South Asian Faculty Network)

			This is an important article. Can we improve it please? - ] (]) 23:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
	--] 02:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

			:Of course. The table is in fact based entirely on primary sources, has no clear inclusion criterion, and is not background reading at all. Its contents should be selectively merged into the narrative. ] <small>(])</small> 18:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
	==cleanup==
	I understand that links were piled on in the heat of battle, but now that all is over (for six years, that is), this article needs structure and weeding out of unstable links. Misplaced Pages is not a linkfarm. ] <small>]</small> 18:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

			:: confusing, irrelevant, boring, not informed - to say the least. As user to have read many members of (now what I consider the rather fully biased) American Assoc for Hinduism, and the critiques to, i find this article extraordinarly weak and misleading. -- <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <small>November 2015</small>
	==Are these real organizations?==

			== External links modified ==
	Are these real organizations? Were they floated by someone just to impress the commission?

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	* "Some 150 South Asian academicians" "The South Asian Faculty Network": OK who is the head of this organization? When was this constituted? Who are the members? If a "south asian" faculty disagrees with the "head" of this organization, will she face difficulty in publishing and getting tenured?

			I have just added archive links to {{plural:5\|one external link\|5 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx\|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx\|nobots\|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
	* "some Californian Dalit Sikh temples": Do they have names and locations?
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928064014/http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1141321805 to http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1141321805
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160127182435/http://www.hindueducation.org/ to http://hindueducation.org/
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160114144618/http://southasiafaculty.net/ to http://southasiafaculty.net/
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927234140/http://www.californiaaggie.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&uStory_id=14cc5568-07b9-41b8-b6ac-e6c6c8a34378 to http://www.californiaaggie.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&uStory_id=14cc5568-07b9-41b8-b6ac-e6c6c8a34378
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928064009/http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1141321805&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1 to http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1141321805&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
	--] 01:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
	:As long as we give the source for these statements, we don't have to research the full list ourselves. We'll say "According to USA Today , some 150 academicians", providing the link. The responsibility for the statement then lies with the news source. Of course we should only quote notable news outlets. ] <small>]</small> 07:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}
	==Correctly identifying the backgrounds of organizations and individuals involved==

			Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 12:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
	The whole debate was about representation of facts and views.

			== External links modified ==
	There were many organizations and individuals involved. It is essential to know who they are, and what is their background, so that people can see what their perspective was.

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	A missionary organization should be identified clearly as a "missionary organization". It is unethical to attempt to hide the fact.

			I have just added archive links to {{plural:2\|one external link\|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx\|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx\|nobots\|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
	The terms "Christian" and "Missionary' are not equivalent.
			*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928064014/http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1141321805 to http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1141321805
			*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061216234623/http://www.newsindia-times.com:80/2006/02/17/special_report18-101653.html to http://www.newsindia-times.com/2006/02/17/special_report18-101653.html

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx\|Sourcecheck}}).
	Some promonent individuals involved have made anti-hindu polemics a significant part of their life's work. They have given lectures, written articles, even written books, from a clear obvious anti-Hindu perspective.
	One of the persons has been personally involved in organizing functions where conversions took place. You can see detailed accounts and even photographs on the web. It is important for fairness that this fact is clearly identified.

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}
	It is unethical to remove information this information from the web page.

			Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 20:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
	--] 17:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	:"clear obvious", I am afraid, only from an ultra-right Hindu nationalist perspective. I know (and the article says so) that there are Hindus prepared to face the less comfortable parts of their history (''just like any other religion''; there are ''equally'' fundamentalist crackpot Christians opposed to facing their history, as well as sane Christians ready take the responsibility of critical self-reflection; the very same goes for Hinduism. This is really not pro vs. contra Hindu, but pro vs. contra ahistorical fundamentalism). I daresay many Dalits have converted to Christianity. Does that go towards showing, in your opinion, that their rights in historical Hinduism were "equal but different", or that they were really shat upon by society? Hell, if I had been a Dalit in 1800, I am sure I would have converted to any religion that did not make me clean out my betters' toilets. My point is that it is no coincidence that ''some'' organizations debunking the history tweaking involved here are the same people who suffered from the stuff that is being tweaked. ] <small>]</small> 12:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	:"clear obvious", I am afraid, only from an ultra-right Christian fundamentalist, anti-hindu troll like you.

			I have just added archive links to {{plural:1\|one external link\|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx\|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx\|nobots\|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
	christianity has commited the most vile and sickening atrocities in history, n other religion can come close. Even though they try to demean everyone else, it won't work.
			*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928064014/http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1141321805 to http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1141321805

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx\|Sourcecheck}}).
	::'''Disagree''' in present form better substitute HINDUISM in your sentence---records are really unmatched.] 11:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}
	If Christianity is so good, how come they have to convert the dalits? Why can't they convert people with brains? Oh right! Christians don't have brains!

			Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 08:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
	==Dalit Freedom Network is not a missionary organization?==

			== Request related to the description of the CAPEEM case ==
	Vikram,

			This is a request to whoever keeps deleting information related to the CAPEEM case. A lawsuit has many angles and is not merely about one subpoena. Please do not delete information related to the attorney's previous experience with ACLU, Michael Newdow joining CAPEEM's legal team, information related to the many subpoenas issued by CAPEEM, their expose of the connection to the church and also the judge's ruling. Whatever be our biases, all these are important facts.
	The Dalit Freedom Network is not a missionary organization. I know - I am the Washington Coordinator of the DFN. We do not send missionaries nor do we pay missionary salaries. We do not even have the ability to commission missionaries! We are a relief organization - we build schools, lobby for human rights, give microeconomic aide, and bring medical teams to care for the Dalits. Many of us who do the work do have a Christian worldview: this worldview is part of the motivation for our work. We care for the Dalits as individuals. Many of us also have an evangelical Christian mindset, meaning that we share our faith with people we meet regardless of context. Our personal worldviews do not make the organization a Missionary organization any more than Sam Walton's views made Wal-Mart a missionary organization (nor, for that matter, did Ford's view make Ford Motors an anti-semitic organization). If you wish to continue labelling us as a "missionary" organization you will be intentionally misleading people.

			We must also remember that the information about the lawsuit must be comprehensive and about the main players and not merely about one person who was not even the Defendant but who happened to be subpoenaed.
	--] 03:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

			Diane Webber's paper in the University of Maryland's Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class is a more accurate description of the judge's ruling and it is important not to keep injecting one's biases by claiming one side won by suppressing whatever the other side obtained. See page 287 of http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1199&context=rrgc for Diane Webber's paper.
	Benjamin Marsh

			We understand that Witzel himself has edited this page in the past and and it amounts to vanity edits if he is the one who has been deleting information from the page and making the description Witzel-centric, but please understand that CAPEEM's lawsuit was important for the very reason that Diane Webber has mentioned in her paper. It pioneered the use of the Equal Protection Clause in claims related to religious discrimination and CAPEEM is an important and rare case study for students of law.
	Let me see if I understand this.

			Many people come to Misplaced Pages and find the information here useful. Please do not delete information or indulge in vanity edits. Any removal of the lawyer's prior work with ACLU, an atheist lawyer joining CAPEEM's team and CAPEEM's expose of the church connections only makes one believe that whoever is editing it has his or her own motive. Let us keep Misplaced Pages clean and informative without injecting our prejudices. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	Dalit Freedom Network is headed by Dr. Joseph D'souza:

			: This article is not about court cases. It is about a textbook dispute, and about the political forces behind the dispute. Most of the material presently on the CAPEEM case is ] and should be deleted. Any points of law that are applicable to the dispute should of course be covered, but not the exact process of the case. -- ] (]) 14:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
	* who is the President of the All India Christian Council, one of the largest interdenominational alliances of Christians

			::I am not talking about the article but the section on the court case. The court case is pertinent because it did expose the church-state connection and if Misplaced Pages does have a description of the court case, it should pertain to the MAIN point of the case, not one side motion related to one man in order to boost his ego. Remember that I am not the one who put the process in there. The details of the process of the motion were put in by whoever put in the information about Witzel who was neither the defendant nor the plaintiff and who was merely one of the many side actors in the issue.
	* In "Reaching the 'Untouchables" he is thus described: "He knew that in Jesus we are all equal and deserving of proper, humane treatment. Joseph also knew that among extremist Hindus in India, Jesus was enemy no. 1, and Christians were enemy no.2. ...The Christian church wholeheartedly embraced this movement and a major reform is the result. The Dalits are becoming Christians in record numbers and becoming free from the cycles of poverty and abuse... People are walking hundreds of kilometers to have an audience with King Jesus. ... Joseph’s All India Christian Council with offices in London, Hyderabad, and Denver, Colo."

			I suggest we all keep our biases out of this. The books do indoctrinate with Christianity if the affidavit on CAPEEM's website is correct in quoting the textbooks. Suppressing this information can only be due to a bias. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	* In "Christians Worldwide Pray for the "Untouchables" of India", it says:
	"Christians across India and around the world banded together in prayer. Partnering with the All India Christian Council, Operation Mobilization India and other ministries accepted the Dalits' invitation by offering primary schools for Dalit children. Already, as a result of careful research, compassionate action, and dedicated prayer, these schools have made an impact, bringing high caste and Dalit people together in communities previously splintered by strict segregation. Additionally, pastors and Christian workers began receiving into their folds Dalits who were interested in following Christ."

			== External links modified ==
	And you say "Dalit Freedom Network" is not a missionary organization?

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	--] 04:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

			I have just modified {{plural:1\|one external link\|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	You are correct, for the most part.. A couple of points. 1. AICC and DFN are not the same thing - the article you quoted under your second * is incorrect - we are not a branch of AICC. We partner with AICC. Denver, CO does not have an AICC branch. 2. I think the article you have hear clearly delineates between the different organizations active here. The DFN builds schools that bring 'high caste and DAlit people together in communities previously splintered by strict segregation." Notice that "pastors and Christian workers," which are not the DFN, "began receiving into their folds Dalits who were interested in following Christ."
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://www.tamilonline.com/thendral/CatContent.aspx?id=62&cid=3&aid=850
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060313233651/http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20060228&fname=witzel&sid=2 to http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20060228&fname=witzel&sid=2

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx\|Sourcecheck}}).
	We build schools and do a lot of other human rights work. Any interest in Christianity that results goes to local pastors and other organizations. We do not have a denomination nor can we authorize pastors and missionaries. When we bring medical teams, our bags are devoid of any religious articles - we bring needles, medicine, gauze pads, etc. You will not find tracts in our materials. When I work on behalf of the Dalits in Washington, DC, I do not press for grants to Pastors or churches to bring Bibles or build churches. I do not network with denominations to strategically place schools in cooperation with missionaries or national american missionary-sending bodies. I work on sexual trafficking, economic repression, educational disenfranchisement, and other ongoing challenges facing Dalits and OBCs.

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=true}}
	Most of us are Christian and carry and evangelical worldview into our work. So do millions of American businessmen, educators, politicians, and other professionals. The DFN is not a missionary organizations any more than Chick-fil-a, wal-mart, or any other of the hundreds of thousands of businesses led by prominent evangelical Christians.

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 22:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
	You should note carefully the spiritual democracy advocated by men like D'Souza, Raj, and Dr. Ilaiah. Were the DFN a missionary organization, we could not in good concience stand with Muslims, Sikhs, and secular Dalit and OBC leaders in pursuing an agenda of care for the Dalits: these would be our competitors.

			== Redoing HAF section ==
	Why fight the DFN on such a surface level? Why not ask the state governments who have given educational awards to some Dalit students? Why not ask Dalit educational leaders their reasons for inviting the DFN to build schools for their children? Why don't you fight for equal rights for Dalits and thereby eliminate the necessity of our work? These seem to be better uses of your time than trying to misrepresent our work.

			Please do not remove my edit of the entire section on Hindu American Foundation Case. The previous entry lacked details as I am sure you'd agree. I have added a lot of detail which is all corroborated in the actual case document (HINDU AMERICAN FOUNDATION, et al., v. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Case No. 06 CS 00386). It is therefore factual.
	--] 18:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

			It is very easy to claim a new editor of the page as having a "preferred version of history" and dismiss their edits. But it behooves all the editors to read the edits in an unbiased manner, go through the citations, and then make a judgment. Thank you.
	Would you say that Mother Teresa was not a missionary?

	--] 05:44, 9 ~~May~~ ~~2006~~ (UTC)		] (]) 16:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

			: I am happy to look at your sources. But you can't remove the previously well-sourced content. As per ], all reliable viewpoints should be described in Misplaced Pages. -- ] (]) 16:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
	Thank you for the complement, but DFN and Mother Teresa are not equivalent - we could only hope to have the kind of worldwide impact that she has had. I would call her a "Missionary of Compassion" as did Time magazine, meaning it was her calling to spread love and care to those she was compelled to reach. She was not a missionary in the modern sense, meaning someone who is called to evangelism in general and to foreign church planting specifically. She was a woman of mercy. We are attempting to be an organization of mercy.

			:: Well the reason for removing some of the previous "well-sourced" content is because those source links stopped working. It is in the interest of a reader that I have done so. Kindly do not label me as biased without knowing the reason for my edit. ] (]) 16:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
	I find it odd that the Indian right are so quick to claim that those who are advancing holistic ministries in India are motivated by the desire for conversion. Could it be that Muslims and Christians, unlike Hindus, have started taking care of the least of India instead of continuing to oppress them economically and physically? Could the tide of conversion be not the result of secret evangelism but instead be the result of good Christian people working hard to uplift their Indian brothers and sisters, thereby reflecting their Christian nature and naturally attracting interest in their beliefs?

			:: Also, I would like to point out that my source is the actual court document as recorded by a court reporter. There is no more reliable a source than that.] (]) 16:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
	You never answered my questions above - they were not rhetorical. If more like you spent their times protecting and helping the least of their society, there would be no need for a Dalit Freedom Network.

			::: is racist and violating ]:
	--] 12:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
			:::* "Opposition to the edits of the two Hindu foundations" > "Opposition of White Indologists and Church Affiliated Groups to the proposed edits of Hindu foundations"
			:::* "CAPEEM case" > "CAPEEM Case - Showcases the Interference of Christian Groups and Church to Denigrate Hinduism in Californian Textbooks"
			:::] -] 17:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

	cardreader,

	please stop editing the information about my organization without resolving the issue in the talk page.

			::: (edit conflict) If the links stop working, you can tag them as <nowiki>{{dead link}}</nowiki>, but you can't remove the content sourced to them. Neither can you claim the content to be "unreferenced" as you did . The source you have removed is a journal article, which is still available. If you can't access it, you need to find a library or request it from somebody that has access.
	--] 13:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
			::: The court documents form ] sources on Misplaced Pages, and you are prohibited from interpreting them or summarising them. They can only be used to provide additional detail to what is written in ] sources. -- ] (]) 17:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
			{{od}}
			I am absolutely appalled that you both are ganging up and undoing my edits which are referenced and way more detailed than the mumbo jumbo that had existed prior to that on this page. I can tell from your lack of understanding of what I am trying to do here that you have taken a position and are trying to block an editor from highlighting a different position. You're biased against a religion and yet keep threatening me with blocks, etc. by throwing words such as "racist", etc. at me. Great going. ] (]) 23:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

			I am removing the word "white" from the subtitle to address the concern (which I disagree with, but am yet obliging in the interest of moving this forward) that Joshuan Jonathan raised. But I am standing by the other changes until I am convinced of having erred in adhering to WP guidelines. ] (]) 23:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
	Benjamin:

			: I am afraid if you keep reverting without obtaining consensus, you will be blocked. So, take a deep breath and start explaining. What is it you are trying to do? For what purpose? -- ] (]) 02:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
	You write:

			:: added/changed the following:
	"The DFN is not a missionary organizations any more than Chick-fil-a, wal-mart, ..."
			::*1. "Opposition to the edits of the two Hindu foundations" -> "Opposition of Indologists and Church Affiliated Groups to the proposed edits of Hindu foundations"
			::*2. "CAPEEM case" -> "CAPEEM Case - Showcases the Interference of Christian Groups and Church to Denigrate Hinduism in Californian Textbooks"
			::*3. You wrote: ''"A second lawsuit was filed by Hindu American Foundation (HAF) on March 16 against the California SBE over the procedure by which revisions in sixth grade textbooks were reviewed and approved, and contended that it was not conducted under regulations required by the California's Administrative Procedures Act and also contravened the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. <ref>http://www.rediff.com/news/report/text/20070625.htm</ref>"''
			::*4. You replaced
			::::''"The judge denied HAF's motions for a temporary restraining order and for a preliminary injunction to stop the printing and distribution of several textbooks.<ref>{{Dead link\|date=January 2011}}</ref> The court ultimately ruled in favour of retaining the textbooks as approved by SBE in March 2006, providing extensive discussion and justification of the most contended issues (Women's rights, Dalits, Aryan invasion, Hinduism as monotheistic religion),<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20061018163334/http://www.saccourt.com/courtrooms/trulings/dept19/sep1d19--06cs00386.doc</ref> while also noting that the approval process adopted by the board had not sufficiently been updated to recent changes in California laws.<ref>{{cite web\|author= \|url=http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-09-09/india/27800566_1_aryans-textbook-affidavit \|title=US text row resolved by Indian-India-The Times of India \|publisher=Articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com \|date=September 9, 2006 \|accessdate=2014-06-23}}</ref>"''
			::::with
			::::''"The court provided a partial victory to HAF in this lawsuit in that it ruled that the approval process adopted by the State Board of Education had not sufficiently complied with the statutory mandate that it enact regulations governing its textbook approval process as formal regulations pursuant to Administrative Procedures Act. However, it also denied the petitioner's demand that SBE be required to rescind its approval of these textbooks on the basis that the court had failed to find that content of the textbooks violated the applicable legal standards.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20061018163334/http://www.saccourt.com/courtrooms/trulings/dept19/sep1d19--06cs00386.doc</ref>"''
			::*5. You added:
			::::''"Following the HAF lawsuit, adhering to the judge's mandate, the SBE published new regulations for the textbook-adoption process. "Prior to this, the state board was acting arbitrarily, without public comment and behind closed doors," as per foundation attorney Suhag Shukla. In a post-judgment settlement in June 2007, the board agreed to pay the foundation $250,000 to defray some of its costs. <ref>https://www.hinduismtoday.com/blogs-news/hindu-press-international/hindu-group-and-california-s-board-of-education-settle-in-textbook-bias-suit/8602.html</ref>"''

			{{reflist-talk}}
	Orgnizations like Chick-fil-a, wal-mart organization are there to make money. They are businesses. They pay taxes.

			::* ad1 & 2: violation of ].
	DFN is not comparable with Chick-fil-a, wal-mart.
			::* ad3: this seems to be okay, execept that it is a ].
			::* ad4: What's wrong with the old text? I object to the term "victory"; it's not neutral.
			::* ad5: seems to be okay, excepot for the quote from Suhag Shukla; not neutral.
			::] -] 05:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

			: Kautilya, finally you're engaging with me constructively, and so I will respond to the question raised by you here on the talk page as against reverting your edit as to what I am trying to do here. Please allow me some time as I am going to be out all day today. I will respond to your question in due time. ] (]) 14:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
	Mother Teresa never hesitated in calling herself a missionary. If you are a missionary, you should acknowledge it proudly (unelss you are doing something wrong).

			== Redoing HAF Section - Second Attempt by Reema wiki ==
	--] 18:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

			To fellow editors:
	Benjamin:

			I am compelled to redo the Hindu American Foundation section for these five reasons -
	Let us look at , official website of Dalit Freedom Network. Some quotes from that site:

			# As it currently stands today, it is not written clearly. Case in point - "A second lawsuit was filed by HAF on March 16 and this was the second lawsuit." Why repeat the same information (second lawsuit) twice? My edit cleans this kind of things up from the section.
	:Created in 2002 in the United States, the Dalit Freedom Network’s (DFN) mission is to <b>partner with the All India Christian Council</b> to empower Dalits in their quest for social freedom and human dignity by networking human, financial and information resources.
			# Most importantly, it shrouds the fact that the HAF litigation ended in a partial victory for both parties. The section, the way it is currently, seems to indicate that the State Board of Education had a victory whereas HAF just got a mere acknowledgment of its claim that due process in accordance with the state laws was not followed during the textbook revision of the section on Hindu religion (ref: "while also noting that the approval process adopted by the board had not sufficiently been updated to recent changes in California laws"). That is a BIG omission! And, it misleads the reader by hiding the fact that the court had found SBE to have violated the state laws in the way it carried out textbook revision. My version of editing clears this fact.
			# I am removing dead links (reference # 52) and adding references to other well known sources (eg. Rediff.com, a popular Indian online news portal) that do work. I am okay with the use of the other reference that the existing version makes (reference # 53) because it goes straight to the horse's mouth (the court recorded case document of the ruling). And, as you can see in my revision (<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=California_textbook_controversy_over_Hindu_history&oldid=764967929#Hindu_American_Foundation_case</ref>) I have made a use of that already existing reference as well.
			# The existing text in this section does not mention that the Court had asked SBE to publish the new regulation for textbook approval and adoption process. This is a BIG deal and a victory for the petitioning party, which interestingly the current version does not mention. You see, the reason HAF went to court is two pronged - a) To make SBE fix its broken process (for e.g. closed room edits) of textbook changes so that it is transparent, and b) to make SBE roll back its changes. Both these reasons are well documented in the rediff source that I reference in my revision (<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=California_textbook_controversy_over_Hindu_history&oldid=764967929#Hindu_American_Foundation_case</ref>). The fact that they got the court to rule that SBE needs to fix its broken process by publishing new regulation for textbook adoption is SIGNIFICANT. But this section in its current state omits mentioning this aspect of the ruling, while it summarily mentions that HAF lost the case on rolling back the actual revisions to the material on Hindu religion (ref: " The court ultimately ruled in favour of retaining the textbooks as approved by SBE in March 2006, providing extensive discussion and justification of the most contended issues (Women's rights, Dalits, Aryan invasion, Hinduism as monotheistic religion"). THIS is one among the many reasons why I find this section (in fact, the whole article) biased! On the other hand, my editing of this section is unbiased and balanced because it highlights BOTH aspects of the ruling.
			# The current version of this section conveniently omits mentioning that SBE was asked to defray some of the lawsuit cost that HAF had to endure. SBE had to shell out 250K USD. This information is well sourced as you can see from my revision (<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=California_textbook_controversy_over_Hindu_history&oldid=764967929#Hindu_American_Foundation_case</ref>).

			So, here I have given my reasons as requested by Kautilya. Please let me know what more I can do to make you see that my version of the edit is way better than what is currently put up, rather sloppily if I may. My editing presents well sourced information from references that still work, and provide a lot more detail on the case than the existing version. If you do not agree with me then do provide exact text of contention from my revision (<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=California_textbook_controversy_over_Hindu_history&oldid=764967929#Hindu_American_Foundation_case</ref>). I would not appreciate being again and again pointed to general WP editing guidelines which I am already aware of. So let me repeat - be specific with exact text of contention from my revision (<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=California_textbook_controversy_over_Hindu_history&oldid=764967929#Hindu_American_Foundation_case</ref>) in the interest of moving this discussion forward.
	:DFN works in partnership with the All India Christian Council (AICC), Operation Mobilization India (OM India), and Dalit leadership in India. The <b>AICC is a coalition of over 2,000 independent and mainline denominations, Christian organizations, and federations</b> from across India.

			Also, note that once we settle editing this section I would move on to cleaning up of the other sections.
	:<b>Christians expect this English education based in a Christian worldview</b> to bring a deep and durable life change the Dalits have never before experienced. The DFN and the AICC are capable to implement this massive project among the Dalits because they rely upon the experience and expertise of Operation Mobilization (OM) India to coordinate the Dalit Education Centers on a national level. Formed more than 40 years ago, OM India is <b>a movement of Indian Christians dedicated to bringing the Good News of Jesus Christ</b> to the people of India in word and in deed.
			] (]) 04:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

			: {{ping\|Reema wiki}} Let me first note that none of your points demonstrate any "anti-Hindu" bias in the article, as you were claiming earlier. The entire HAF case is about ''procedures'', not about Hinduism or the textbooks, even though it appears that HAF hoped to block the textbooks citing procedural lapses. It didn't succeed. They can claim victory, but it hardly appears as a victory to a neutral observer. Coming to your points:
	: <b>Where does that money go?</b>
			:1 It is easy fixable by a copyedit.
	:Over 80% of your dollars goes to help provide high quality English-medium education with a <b>Christian worldview</b>.
			:2 I agree with the current text, which makes it appear as a "victory" for the State Board. The textbooks were neither blocked nor altered.
			:3 Dead links can often be fixed. When you notice them, please tag them with <nowiki>{{dead link}}</nowiki>. A bot or some other editor will find the archives or correct urls where they are available. Even if the sources are not available online, the citation continues to be valid, and the content is considered to be ]. You cannot delete it.
			:5 The money issue is incidental. The topic of this article is "textbook controversy".
			: Coming to your point 4, which is the only substantive one:
			:* I don't see any mention of "closed room edits" in the Rediff source.<ref>http://www.rediff.com/news/report/text/20070625.htm</ref> Neither do I see any BIG DEAL mentioned in the source. On the other hand, the source does make two points that are possibly a big deal. (1) that experts in Hinduism need to be involved in the process, (2) that the Hindu-American community was "outraged" that a non-Hindu academic (presumably Witzel) was able to stymie the community efforts. The source gives only Meghani's statements to this effect. No indication of the Board of Education response or what the experts said about these issues. I will look for some sources that cover these issues.
			:* The Times of India article,<ref>{{cite web\|author= \|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/US-text-row-resolved-by-Indian/articleshow/1971421.cms? \|title=US text row resolved by Indian \|newspaper=The Times of India \|date=September 9, 2006 \|accessdate=2014-06-23}}</ref> for which I corrected the URL, states: {{tq\|When the book came out, HAF protested against the content relating to the caste system, women and deities, origin of Aryans apart from alleging that the book was generally anti-Hindu.}} The court did not find anything wrong with these issues in the textbooks and it allowed the textbooks to go ahead. I don't agree that there is anything anti-Hindu about any of the parties involved, including our reporting of them. -- ] (]) 21:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

			{{reflist-talk}}
	<b>Not a missionary organization</b>?

	--] 21:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

			{{ping\|Kautilya3}}
	Correct - not a missionary organization. A missionary organization is an organization that sends missionaries. We do not do that. We build schools, develop economic relief programs, lobby for human rights, and bring medical teams. The chief characteristic of any missionary organization is an orientation toward church planting. We don't do that either.

			:Let me begin by disagreeing with your assertion that there is no anti-Hindu bias. The fact that you do not want me to highlight that HAF had a VICTORY on one of the two fundamental claims upon which their litigation was based seems unreasonable and therefore, biased. The court did rule (not a mere acknowledgment, mind you) that the procedure used to update the textbook was not in accordance with the state laws (California Administrative Procedures Act and Bagley Keene Open Meeting Act), and that it led HAF to go to court to mandate SBE to make a change to its textbook update and adoption process. This implies in no uncertain terms that SBE did NOT have a "total" victory as a respondent. The language of the section conveniently skips this fact, hence, my claim of an anti-Hindu bias.
	If you want to identify our <b>links or partnerships</b> with Christian missionary organizations, then by all means please do. But be sure to include our links with Muslims and secular organizations as well. While you are at it, can you please identify the connections made by the Hindu organizations? I find it funny that you have researched our publicly available financial statements and open partnerships but yet not those of the Hindu organizations listed under this article. Where does there money come from? Where does it go? In all fairness, it seems like you guys could post the annual budgets of the Hindu Education Foundation and Hindu American Foundation and indicate where all the money goes and comes from.

			:Also, I would not call breaking of laws "procedural". I would call it "illegal". Let us use language very precisely here since we deem ourselves to be Editors. In fact, this ruling was SIGNIFICANT as the court itself has described in its court recorded case document quoted here under :-
	While you are talking about the schools, why don't you post on the lack of proper national education for low-caste people? Do you know that every single school we have built has been requested by the secular leaders of the villages we work in? We are asked to bring English education to allow Dalit children to compete with upper-caste children who have been denied parity quite some time. When we build our schools, from where should we draw our values, our "worldview," but from Christianity? Certainly the dominant worldview in their local villages won't suffice - that worldivew teaches them that they are second or third class citizens who should be content with their lives as poor farmers, bonded laborers, sweepers, and cobblers. Our "Christian worlview" teaches Dalits that they are born equal to all mankind and have the full rights of man. We teach self-worth and personal value. It is a foreign concept to many, for sure, but hopefully it will be the seed that will allow these downtrodden people to find a better place in their society.

			::This court’s ruling that respondent has been conducting its textbook approval process under an invalid regulatory framework has serious consequences, in that it potentially calls into question the validity of decisions adopting many more textbooks than merely the few sixth-grade texts at issue here, even though the substance of those other texts was not challenged here
	And again, you did not answer my previous question. Why are you wasting your time splitting hairs on this? More importantly, why are you in such a rush to label us a missionary organization? What follows after this labelling? Would you call for police intervention against DFN activities on the grounds of allurement or "forced" conversions? Stop wasting our time and start caring about the poverty that defines existence for most of India. Like I said before, if good people like you would spend your time caring for outcastes we would not even have to be working in India.

			:Hence, this ruling was significant with "serious consequences" since this broken process affected many more textbooks than just the sixth grade social sciences textbook, and yet, as an editor you advise to gloss over this part of the ruling? Furthermore, if the victory was not total, it means that it was partial. Implying that the judge ruled partially in favor of HAF and SBE.
	--] 19:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

			:So, why would you refuse to put that very relevant information in this section? I hope you realize that by refusing to put well sourced facts in this section simply because YOU don't think it is a "BIG DEAL" or that the fact that SBE was made to pay 250K is "incidental", you are coming across a bit heavy handed. As a fellow editor, I have no choice but to ponder that the reason for your disagreement to include well sourced information (of ruling re: lack of procedure and 250K legal cost) could be because it does not fit YOUR narrative of a complete loss of the Hindu side rather than a partial victory for both sides including the Hindu side, thereby highlighting an anti-Hindu bias. Let me also point the obvious that your stance in this instance is violating WP:NPOV by refusing to "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Please note that I would address other instances of anti-Hindu biases from the rest of this wiki article when I get to them. For now, let us just focus on resolving this one section. One thing at a time.
	"Our "Christian worlview" teaches Dalits that they are born equal to all mankind and have the full rights of man. We teach self-worth and personal value. It is a foreign concept to many, for sure, but hopefully it will be the seed that will allow these downtrodden people to find a better place in their society."

			:Moving forward, let me respond to each of your comments point by point.
	Please, you are full of sh*t! Your christian worldview my ass! Is that the same christian worldview that incouraged slavery, the inquisition, forced conversion, holocaust, pedophilia(catholic church), and countless other atrocities. Get off your pedistal, idiot! Christianity has by far commited the most sickening atrocites known to men. And giving a way money, schools and medical treatment isn't going to make up for it. You peaces of sh!t should be thrown out of India, and eventually you will!

			::1. Agree. However, my point was not that it is not fixable. My point was to note the POOR quality of editing.
	{{unsigned\|68.99.19.167\|28 June, 2006}}

			::2. I disagree! It was a "partial" victory as I have already rested the case for in my opening comments. It would have been a "victory" if SBE were able to successfully defend themselves against all claims of the lawsuit, which they were not. My contention is with the blanket word "victory" that you are using here. One must see a very reasonable need to qualify it with the adjective "partial", as that is what it was in truth.
	:The DFN seem like bible thumpers to me. What's wrong with being a missionary?--] 07:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

			::3. Noted. You can keep the dead link if you so wish. Not that it is going to help anyone in a meaningful way.
	Dangerous-Boy,

			::4. Surely you would have known that "closed-room edit" is a phrase I employed to bring forth the concept of non-transparency. It was not meant to be a literal phrase and should not be used as such even rhetorically as it would mar the process of working toward building consensus on this section. Text that I wish to put a literal emphasis on would be typically placed in quotation marks. I have already addressed the other point that you made as a response to my original point # 4 (the "BIG DEAL").
	in most countries there is nothing wrong with being a missionary. In India, being a missionary means that any human rights, development, or medical care work is labeled as "allurement" for conversion and in some states can face police, communal, or state persecution.

			::5. Incidental? Really? The fact that a statutory body would not respond to a non-profit organization's concern of how it conducted the state business unless that said statutory body had to be dragged all the way to court; make the non-profit spend money on litigation, which it then fought and got a favorable ruling for one out of the two claims in that the state had not followed statutory laws that their legislature had so wisely ratified; and, that the statutory agency is then mandated to defray some of the legal costs that its lack of engagement had led to be incurred is INCIDENTAL? I agree, not.
			:: ] (]) 18:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

			::: Right. Your concern is about the "victory" of HAF, and the 250K that the SBE paid them signifies that victory. My concern is about the California textbooks, and this article happens to be about California textbooks. That about sums up this pointless debate.
	--] 14:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
			::: If there is any reliable third-party source that says that there was anything wrong with the California textbooks, please bring it forward. Otherwise, this is a dead end.
			::: If you want to pursue the "anti-Hindu" angle, please take it to ] and present your case. -- ] (]) 22:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

			::: Let me amend that. You are also welcome to bring information about what was wrong with the SBE textbook adoption process (as noted in reliable third party sources). But the "victory" of HAF is of no interest whatsoever. -- ] (]) 22:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
	:I'm sure they also try to spread good wholesome xtian moral values with that. Even Mother Theresa was out there to convert poor heathen souls. Don't lie about what you do. You spread Christ and the best way is to convert the poor. Also, Misplaced Pages is not here for you to spread your organization. --] 21:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

	There is no lie here - examine our activities - we do exactly what we say we do. Conversion et al is left to the locals. Who is spreading what organization? I did not create the post on DFN. I did not create this post. Were it up to me none of this would exist. This is foolishness.--] 13:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

			{{ping\|Kautilya3}}
	::I think Cardreader explained it pretty clearly. You're a faith based charity at least.--] 04:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

			Your argument that "this article happens to be about California textbooks" to stop me from talking about Hindu American Foundation suing SBE over not following the lawful process of updating "California textbooks", and winning squarely in so doing, does not hold water. Clever way to squirm around my allegation that you're acting in a biased manner in your supposed role as an "Editor".
	:::It is pretty clear from above talk DFN is an independant organisation who joins hand with other like minded organisation---Does not matter if they belong to Christian faith---only criteria they seek is upliftment of poor and needy.Of course Christianity as a philosophy and religion scores over hinduism.While it is possible to take inspiration from Christianity for such kind of activities--irrespective of one's own religious affiliation---same is not true with hinduism which advocates persecution and supression of the subjects in question.] 11:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

			Your annoyance and totally useless response to my detailed rebuttal tells me that I am on the right track. Since, you are not interested in resolving this, I am going to seek mediation. ] (]) 16:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

			{{ping\|Kaultilya3}}

			As stated above on 02/15/2017, I was about to post to ] to request mediation for the Hindu American Foundation case edit. That is when I saw that this section had been thoroughly revised with a lot of relevant information - such as proper procedure was not followed, SBE agreeing to pay part of legal costs, new references both primary and secondary, etc. - to present the Hindu American Foundation litigation more accurately. As a result, I find this section much better now, and something I can live with. So, thanks, Kaultilya3 for your work in editing this to bring it to an agreeable state.

			Now, may I suggest, that we move on to the next thing to make this article bring out a very important point i.e. the involvement of church affiliated and other special interest groups in the controversy? While this article makes every attempt to call out the litigating parties on the Hindu side as "Hindu nationalist" outright, the role played by Church and other organizations whose special interest it is to see Hinduism derided is not called out clearly. Just to be clear, there is text written to this effect (the intervention of church, etc.) in this article currently. However, it is buried in other sections. I was thinking of consolidating this text into a sub-section on its own, something like - 'Role played by Church affiliated groups and other Special Interest Groups' to call out the fact that both sides had vested interests, not just the Hindu side. I won't go as far as to call them fundamentalist in the interest of ]. However, I am very certain that all the information pertaining to this deserve to be placed in its own section, and not buried inside the fine print on this page.

			Let me know how you'd like me to go about this. I can take a stab at a first draft, and you can further edit/object to find a mutual consensus. I would, obviously, source whatever I write.

			] (]) 16:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reema

			: Thanks for your appreciation. It was indeed hard work!
			: Regarding the Church affiliated groups, since you are expecting it to be contentious, your best bet would be to discuss it here first before putting it in the mainspace. It would be easiest if you can come up with bullet points that you think should be included, and provide citations for them. Once we agree on what needs to be added, then we can decide how best to structure it. Cheers, ] (]) 02:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

			==Wiki Education assignment: Asian Religions in America==
			{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Skidmore_College/Asian_Religions_in_America_(Fall_2022) \| reviewers = ], ] \| start_date = 2022-09-07 \| end_date = 2022-12-09 }}

			<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 19:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)</span>

Latest revision as of 10:14, 12 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the California textbook controversy over Hindu history article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hinduism Low‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (2006–2008)

URLs for the VF and the HEF.

Dear Goethean,

Why do you think it is a good idea to remove the URLs from the first mention of the Vedic Foundation and the Hindu Education Foundation? Isn't it more helpful to readers of this WP article to have those URLs available at first mention, so that they can find out who these organisations are?

Best wishes, DomLaguna (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Background

For better flow, I think the quote should be moved near the top, and then how many edits all the groups give should be explained. I think the quote helps to explain why the groups gave their edits to begin with.Desasu11 (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In the claimants section, Hindutva should lead to the Hindutva wiki page and the "Hindu ultra nationalism" bracket should be deleted as it is misleading and is not found in the citation. The wikipedia page for Hindutva also has no mention of "Hindu Ultra Nationalism". Kushagr.sharma1 (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead In

Can we change the word "complain" to something that doesn't make it sound like all these religious groups were just whining? Desasu11 (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Changed to "filed a complaint". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Lede reverted

SimoneReeves, I undid most of your changes to the lede. The version you restored did not actually summarize the affair. The statement that

The California Department of Education (CDE) initially resolved the controversy with the help of two content experts: Shiva Bajpai, Professor Emeritus at California State University Northridge, and Michael Witzel, Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University.

suggest that Bajpai and Witzel formed the initial committee, which is not corroborated by any source. Bajpai was assigned to the task first; Witzel et al. only become involved later. Also, the selection of complaints in the version you posted is not representative. The really controversial part of all this was the rewriting of Indian history, not the mistake of labeling a mosque as a Hindu temple (both committees agreed that that should be changed). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Qwertyus, I am delighted you respected WP:BLP in your latest edit, compared to the last one you made. The lede is still very one-sided, however. It needs to be neutral and summarize both sides. You are doing WP:OR when you claim "the mistake of labeling" because none of the cited source in the lede or the main article says it, and numerous errors like it, were "a labeling mistake". This is the only wikipedia article on the 2005-2009 California textbook controversy and it should be encyclopedically complete and not just an article about "really controversial part" as you explain above. You have used an op-ed, one-sided opinion article from an Indian newspaper presenting a non-neutral side in this controversy. I suggest we use The Wall Street Journal article cited in the article (or other reliable secondary sources), to build a more balanced, complete, neutral summary lede. I will make these edits shortly, and welcome your constructive collaboration. SimoneReeves (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There are no "two sides" on Misplaced Pages. So the idea of "one-sided" doesn't exist. An article is neutral if it represents the scholarly consensus as per WP:WEIGHT. Bajpai is the President of "Dharma Civilization Foundation" , whatever that is. He seems to be better known for Hindu activism than his academic work. You have deleted a valid description from a notable academic saying that he is "Hindutva-leaning". This is not what is meant by "neutral" on Misplaced Pages. I am afraid all that you have done is white-washing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@SimoneReeves: Since there has been no response from you, I have reverted the lead to the old one. I don't believe that there is any problem with neutrality in either version, but the old lead focused better on the important points whereas your version was unfocused. To make progress, you need to explain your idea of "one-sidedness." Note that this page exists at all because of the controversy, which began with Witzel and Indologists contesting the problematic changes demanded by the Hindu groups. So that is what we must focus on. I am adding a bunch of scholarly sources that cover the issue the way it should be covered. Please take a look at them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 found a more precise source for Bajpai's Hindutva affiliations, so we no longer need the vague claim that he is "Hindutva-leaning" in the lede. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Sorry, for the slow response, I am on holiday travel. I will check the Bajpai-related cites again, but join me in avoiding WP:Synthesis and be extra careful per WP:BLP policy (check Qwertyus's 'more precise source').

I am concerned with the rest of your lede revert. There are many sides to this story - those (Hindu) who proposed the change, those (Hindu and non-Hindus) who opposed the change, those scholars who mediated between the two sides, and the fourth side included the California officials. For NPOV, all sides need to be considered and summarized with balance. Your wholesale revert of the lead has made it one sided, because it does not present a summary of the controversy from the side who proposed the change, before some changes were accepted.

I suggest you reconsider some of the text and cites you deleted to respect WP:NPOV, or present on this talk page a proper wikipedia policy or guideline based reason to delete the lede text I had added with cites. I look forward to your reasons and constructive collaboration, and do pardon my slow response, which I expect to continue for the next few weeks. Volunteers and busy we all are in our real life, :-), SimoneReeves (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid your understanding of WP:NPOV is not correct. There is no requirement of representing all sides of a dispute. We only represent all views described in reliable sources. The idea of "all sides" constitutes WP:OR, unless it exists in the reliable sources. Qwertyus is following better quality sources that I have provided, and I have no concerns about his/her edits. You can discuss further after you return from holiday. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Boring and confusing

I am sorry. I understand that people worked on this article for a long time, but I am afraid that the result is quite unappealing. There is too much "bureaucracy" about this organization or that, but the substance of the issues is missing. The "Background" section is not limiting itself to the real background, goes through the whole story, and then the story comes again in bits and blobs. The large table in the middle is also quite distracting and breaks up the narrative. This may be the result of too much reliance on news sources rather than scholarly articles.

This is an important article. Can we improve it please? - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course. The table is in fact based entirely on primary sources, has no clear inclusion criterion, and is not background reading at all. Its contents should be selectively merged into the narrative. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

confusing, irrelevant, boring, not informed - to say the least. As user to have read many members of (now what I consider the rather fully biased) American Assoc for Hinduism, and the critiques to, i find this article extraordinarly weak and misleading. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.43.195.18 (talk • contribs) November 2015

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on California textbook controversy over Hindu history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on California textbook controversy over Hindu history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on California textbook controversy over Hindu history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928064014/http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1141321805 to http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1141321805

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Request related to the description of the CAPEEM case

This is a request to whoever keeps deleting information related to the CAPEEM case. A lawsuit has many angles and is not merely about one subpoena. Please do not delete information related to the attorney's previous experience with ACLU, Michael Newdow joining CAPEEM's legal team, information related to the many subpoenas issued by CAPEEM, their expose of the connection to the church and also the judge's ruling. Whatever be our biases, all these are important facts.

We must also remember that the information about the lawsuit must be comprehensive and about the main players and not merely about one person who was not even the Defendant but who happened to be subpoenaed.

Diane Webber's paper in the University of Maryland's Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class is a more accurate description of the judge's ruling and it is important not to keep injecting one's biases by claiming one side won by suppressing whatever the other side obtained. See page 287 of http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1199&context=rrgc for Diane Webber's paper.

We understand that Witzel himself has edited this page in the past and and it amounts to vanity edits if he is the one who has been deleting information from the page and making the description Witzel-centric, but please understand that CAPEEM's lawsuit was important for the very reason that Diane Webber has mentioned in her paper. It pioneered the use of the Equal Protection Clause in claims related to religious discrimination and CAPEEM is an important and rare case study for students of law.

Many people come to Misplaced Pages and find the information here useful. Please do not delete information or indulge in vanity edits. Any removal of the lawyer's prior work with ACLU, an atheist lawyer joining CAPEEM's team and CAPEEM's expose of the church connections only makes one believe that whoever is editing it has his or her own motive. Let us keep Misplaced Pages clean and informative without injecting our prejudices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.195.98.52 (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is not about court cases. It is about a textbook dispute, and about the political forces behind the dispute. Most of the material presently on the CAPEEM case is WP:UNDUE and should be deleted. Any points of law that are applicable to the dispute should of course be covered, but not the exact process of the case. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not talking about the article but the section on the court case. The court case is pertinent because it did expose the church-state connection and if Misplaced Pages does have a description of the court case, it should pertain to the MAIN point of the case, not one side motion related to one man in order to boost his ego. Remember that I am not the one who put the process in there. The details of the process of the motion were put in by whoever put in the information about Witzel who was neither the defendant nor the plaintiff and who was merely one of the many side actors in the issue.

I suggest we all keep our biases out of this. The books do indoctrinate with Christianity if the affidavit on CAPEEM's website is correct in quoting the textbooks. Suppressing this information can only be due to a bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.195.98.52 (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California textbook controversy over Hindu history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Redoing HAF section

Please do not remove my edit of the entire section on Hindu American Foundation Case. The previous entry lacked details as I am sure you'd agree. I have added a lot of detail which is all corroborated in the actual case document (HINDU AMERICAN FOUNDATION, et al., v. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Case No. 06 CS 00386). It is therefore factual.

It is very easy to claim a new editor of the page as having a "preferred version of history" and dismiss their edits. But it behooves all the editors to read the edits in an unbiased manner, go through the citations, and then make a judgment. Thank you.

Reema (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I am happy to look at your sources. But you can't remove the previously well-sourced content. As per WP:NPOV, all reliable viewpoints should be described in Misplaced Pages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Well the reason for removing some of the previous "well-sourced" content is because those source links stopped working. It is in the interest of a reader that I have done so. Kindly do not label me as biased without knowing the reason for my edit. Reema (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, I would like to point out that my source is the actual court document as recorded by a court reporter. There is no more reliable a source than that.Reema (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Your edit is racist and violating WP:NPOV:

"Opposition to the edits of the two Hindu foundations" > "Opposition of White Indologists and Church Affiliated Groups to the proposed edits of Hindu foundations"
"CAPEEM case" > "CAPEEM Case - Showcases the Interference of Christian Groups and Church to Denigrate Hinduism in Californian Textbooks"

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the links stop working, you can tag them as {{dead link}}, but you can't remove the content sourced to them. Neither can you claim the content to be "unreferenced" as you did here. The source you have removed is a journal article, which is still available. If you can't access it, you need to find a library or request it from somebody that has access.

The court documents form WP:PRIMARY sources on Misplaced Pages, and you are prohibited from interpreting them or summarising them. They can only be used to provide additional detail to what is written in WP:SECONDARY sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I am absolutely appalled that you both are ganging up and undoing my edits which are referenced and way more detailed than the mumbo jumbo that had existed prior to that on this page. I can tell from your lack of understanding of what I am trying to do here that you have taken a position and are trying to block an editor from highlighting a different position. You're biased against a religion and yet keep threatening me with blocks, etc. by throwing words such as "racist", etc. at me. Great going. Reema (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I am removing the word "white" from the subtitle to address the concern (which I disagree with, but am yet obliging in the interest of moving this forward) that Joshuan Jonathan raised. But I am standing by the other changes until I am convinced of having erred in adhering to WP guidelines. Reema (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid if you keep reverting without obtaining consensus, you will be blocked. So, take a deep breath and start explaining. What is it you are trying to do? For what purpose? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Your edit added/changed the following:

1. "Opposition to the edits of the two Hindu foundations" -> "Opposition of Indologists and Church Affiliated Groups to the proposed edits of Hindu foundations"
2. "CAPEEM case" -> "CAPEEM Case - Showcases the Interference of Christian Groups and Church to Denigrate Hinduism in Californian Textbooks"
3. You wrote: "A second lawsuit was filed by Hindu American Foundation (HAF) on March 16 against the California SBE over the procedure by which revisions in sixth grade textbooks were reviewed and approved, and contended that it was not conducted under regulations required by the California's Administrative Procedures Act and also contravened the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. "
4. You replaced

"The judge denied HAF's motions for a temporary restraining order and for a preliminary injunction to stop the printing and distribution of several textbooks. The court ultimately ruled in favour of retaining the textbooks as approved by SBE in March 2006, providing extensive discussion and justification of the most contended issues (Women's rights, Dalits, Aryan invasion, Hinduism as monotheistic religion), while also noting that the approval process adopted by the board had not sufficiently been updated to recent changes in California laws."

with

"The court provided a partial victory to HAF in this lawsuit in that it ruled that the approval process adopted by the State Board of Education had not sufficiently complied with the statutory mandate that it enact regulations governing its textbook approval process as formal regulations pursuant to Administrative Procedures Act. However, it also denied the petitioner's demand that SBE be required to rescind its approval of these textbooks on the basis that the court had failed to find that content of the textbooks violated the applicable legal standards."

5. You added:

"Following the HAF lawsuit, adhering to the judge's mandate, the SBE published new regulations for the textbook-adoption process. "Prior to this, the state board was acting arbitrarily, without public comment and behind closed doors," as per foundation attorney Suhag Shukla. In a post-judgment settlement in June 2007, the board agreed to pay the foundation $250,000 to defray some of its costs. "

References

ad1 & 2: violation of WP:NPOV.
ad3: this seems to be okay, execept that it is a WP:COPYVIOLATION.
ad4: What's wrong with the old text? I object to the term "victory"; it's not neutral.
ad5: seems to be okay, excepot for the quote from Suhag Shukla; not neutral.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya, finally you're engaging with me constructively, and so I will respond to the question raised by you here on the talk page as against reverting your edit as to what I am trying to do here. Please allow me some time as I am going to be out all day today. I will respond to your question in due time. Reema (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Redoing HAF Section - Second Attempt by Reema wiki

To fellow editors:

I am compelled to redo the Hindu American Foundation section for these five reasons -

As it currently stands today, it is not written clearly. Case in point - "A second lawsuit was filed by HAF on March 16 and this was the second lawsuit." Why repeat the same information (second lawsuit) twice? My edit cleans this kind of things up from the section.
Most importantly, it shrouds the fact that the HAF litigation ended in a partial victory for both parties. The section, the way it is currently, seems to indicate that the State Board of Education had a victory whereas HAF just got a mere acknowledgment of its claim that due process in accordance with the state laws was not followed during the textbook revision of the section on Hindu religion (ref: "while also noting that the approval process adopted by the board had not sufficiently been updated to recent changes in California laws"). That is a BIG omission! And, it misleads the reader by hiding the fact that the court had found SBE to have violated the state laws in the way it carried out textbook revision. My version of editing clears this fact.
I am removing dead links (reference # 52) and adding references to other well known sources (eg. Rediff.com, a popular Indian online news portal) that do work. I am okay with the use of the other reference that the existing version makes (reference # 53) because it goes straight to the horse's mouth (the court recorded case document of the ruling). And, as you can see in my revision () I have made a use of that already existing reference as well.
The existing text in this section does not mention that the Court had asked SBE to publish the new regulation for textbook approval and adoption process. This is a BIG deal and a victory for the petitioning party, which interestingly the current version does not mention. You see, the reason HAF went to court is two pronged - a) To make SBE fix its broken process (for e.g. closed room edits) of textbook changes so that it is transparent, and b) to make SBE roll back its changes. Both these reasons are well documented in the rediff source that I reference in my revision (). The fact that they got the court to rule that SBE needs to fix its broken process by publishing new regulation for textbook adoption is SIGNIFICANT. But this section in its current state omits mentioning this aspect of the ruling, while it summarily mentions that HAF lost the case on rolling back the actual revisions to the material on Hindu religion (ref: " The court ultimately ruled in favour of retaining the textbooks as approved by SBE in March 2006, providing extensive discussion and justification of the most contended issues (Women's rights, Dalits, Aryan invasion, Hinduism as monotheistic religion"). THIS is one among the many reasons why I find this section (in fact, the whole article) biased! On the other hand, my editing of this section is unbiased and balanced because it highlights BOTH aspects of the ruling.
The current version of this section conveniently omits mentioning that SBE was asked to defray some of the lawsuit cost that HAF had to endure. SBE had to shell out 250K USD. This information is well sourced as you can see from my revision ().

So, here I have given my reasons as requested by Kautilya. Please let me know what more I can do to make you see that my version of the edit is way better than what is currently put up, rather sloppily if I may. My editing presents well sourced information from references that still work, and provide a lot more detail on the case than the existing version. If you do not agree with me then do provide *exact* text of contention from my revision (). I would not appreciate being again and again pointed to general WP editing guidelines which I am already aware of. So let me repeat - be specific with exact text of contention from my revision () in the interest of moving this discussion forward.

Also, note that once we settle editing this section I would move on to cleaning up of the other sections. Reema (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Reema wiki: Let me first note that none of your points demonstrate any "anti-Hindu" bias in the article, as you were claiming earlier. The entire HAF case is about procedures, not about Hinduism or the textbooks, even though it appears that HAF hoped to block the textbooks citing procedural lapses. It didn't succeed. They can claim victory, but it hardly appears as a victory to a neutral observer. Coming to your points:

1 It is easy fixable by a copyedit.

2 I agree with the current text, which makes it appear as a "victory" for the State Board. The textbooks were neither blocked nor altered.

3 Dead links can often be fixed. When you notice them, please tag them with {{dead link}}. A bot or some other editor will find the archives or correct urls where they are available. Even if the sources are not available online, the citation continues to be valid, and the content is considered to be verified. You cannot delete it.

5 The money issue is incidental. The topic of this article is "textbook controversy".

Coming to your point 4, which is the only substantive one:

I don't see any mention of "closed room edits" in the Rediff source. Neither do I see any BIG DEAL mentioned in the source. On the other hand, the source does make two points that are possibly a big deal. (1) that experts in Hinduism need to be involved in the process, (2) that the Hindu-American community was "outraged" that a non-Hindu academic (presumably Witzel) was able to stymie the community efforts. The source gives only Meghani's statements to this effect. No indication of the Board of Education response or what the experts said about these issues. I will look for some sources that cover these issues.
The Times of India article, for which I corrected the URL, states: When the book came out, HAF protested against the content relating to the caste system, women and deities, origin of Aryans apart from alleging that the book was generally anti-Hindu. The court did not find anything wrong with these issues in the textbooks and it allowed the textbooks to go ahead. I don't agree that there is anything anti-Hindu about any of the parties involved, including our reporting of them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

References

@Kautilya3:

Let me begin by disagreeing with your assertion that there is no anti-Hindu bias. The fact that you do not want me to highlight that HAF had a VICTORY on one of the two fundamental claims upon which their litigation was based seems unreasonable and therefore, biased. The court did rule (not a mere acknowledgment, mind you) that the procedure used to update the textbook was not in accordance with the state laws (California Administrative Procedures Act and Bagley Keene Open Meeting Act), and that it led HAF to go to court to mandate SBE to make a change to its textbook update and adoption process. This implies in no uncertain terms that SBE did NOT have a "total" victory as a respondent. The language of the section conveniently skips this fact, hence, my claim of an anti-Hindu bias.

Also, I would not call breaking of laws "procedural". I would call it "illegal". Let us use language very precisely here since we deem ourselves to be Editors. In fact, this ruling was SIGNIFICANT as the court itself has described in its court recorded case document quoted here under :-

This court’s ruling that respondent has been conducting its textbook approval process under an invalid regulatory framework has serious consequences, in that it potentially calls into question the validity of decisions adopting many more textbooks than merely the few sixth-grade texts at issue here, even though the substance of those other texts was not challenged here

Hence, this ruling was significant with "serious consequences" since this broken process affected many more textbooks than just the sixth grade social sciences textbook, and yet, as an editor you advise to gloss over this part of the ruling? Furthermore, if the victory was not total, it means that it was partial. Implying that the judge ruled partially in favor of HAF and SBE.

So, why would you refuse to put that very relevant information in this section? I hope you realize that by refusing to put well sourced facts in this section simply because YOU don't think it is a "BIG DEAL" or that the fact that SBE was made to pay 250K is "incidental", you are coming across a bit heavy handed. As a fellow editor, I have no choice but to ponder that the reason for your disagreement to include well sourced information (of ruling re: lack of procedure and 250K legal cost) could be because it does not fit YOUR narrative of a complete loss of the Hindu side rather than a partial victory for both sides including the Hindu side, thereby highlighting an anti-Hindu bias. Let me also point the obvious that your stance in this instance is violating WP:NPOV by refusing to "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Please note that I would address other instances of anti-Hindu biases from the rest of this wiki article when I get to them. For now, let us just focus on resolving this one section. One thing at a time.

Moving forward, let me respond to each of your comments point by point.

1. Agree. However, my point was not that it is not fixable. My point was to note the POOR quality of editing.

2. I disagree! It was a "partial" victory as I have already rested the case for in my opening comments. It would have been a "victory" if SBE were able to successfully defend themselves against *all* claims of the lawsuit, which they were not. My contention is with the blanket word "victory" that you are using here. One must see a very reasonable need to qualify it with the adjective "partial", as that is what it was in truth.

3. Noted. You can keep the dead link if you so wish. Not that it is going to help anyone in a meaningful way.

4. Surely you would have known that "closed-room edit" is a phrase I employed to bring forth the concept of non-transparency. It was not meant to be a literal phrase and should not be used as such even rhetorically as it would mar the process of working toward building consensus on this section. Text that I wish to put a literal emphasis on would be typically placed in quotation marks. I have already addressed the other point that you made as a response to my original point # 4 (the "BIG DEAL").

5. Incidental? Really? The fact that a statutory body would not respond to a non-profit organization's concern of how it conducted the state business unless that said statutory body had to be dragged all the way to court; make the non-profit spend money on litigation, which it then fought and got a favorable ruling for one out of the two claims in that the state had not followed statutory laws that their legislature had so wisely ratified; and, that the statutory agency is then mandated to defray some of the legal costs that its lack of engagement had led to be incurred is INCIDENTAL? I agree, not.

Reema (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Right. Your concern is about the "victory" of HAF, and the 250K that the SBE paid them signifies that victory. My concern is about the California textbooks, and this article happens to be about California textbooks. That about sums up this pointless debate.

If there is any reliable third-party source that says that there was anything wrong with the California textbooks, please bring it forward. Otherwise, this is a dead end.

If you want to pursue the "anti-Hindu" angle, please take it to WP:NPOVN and present your case. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Let me amend that. You are also welcome to bring information about what was wrong with the SBE textbook adoption process (as noted in reliable third party sources). But the "victory" of HAF is of no interest whatsoever. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:

Your argument that "this article happens to be about California textbooks" to stop me from talking about Hindu American Foundation suing SBE over not following the lawful process of updating "California textbooks", and winning squarely in so doing, does not hold water. Clever way to squirm around my allegation that you're acting in a biased manner in your supposed role as an "Editor".

Your annoyance and totally useless response to my detailed rebuttal tells me that I am on the right track. Since, you are not interested in resolving this, I am going to seek mediation. Reema (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kaultilya3:

As stated above on 02/15/2017, I was about to post to WP:NPOVN to request mediation for the Hindu American Foundation case edit. That is when I saw that this section had been thoroughly revised with a lot of relevant information - such as proper procedure was not followed, SBE agreeing to pay part of legal costs, new references both primary and secondary, etc. - to present the Hindu American Foundation litigation more accurately. As a result, I find this section much better now, and something I can live with. So, thanks, Kaultilya3 for your work in editing this to bring it to an agreeable state.

Now, may I suggest, that we move on to the next thing to make this article bring out a very important point i.e. the involvement of church affiliated and other special interest groups in the controversy? While this article makes every attempt to call out the litigating parties on the Hindu side as "Hindu nationalist" outright, the role played by Church and other organizations whose special interest it is to see Hinduism derided is not called out clearly. Just to be clear, there is text written to this effect (the intervention of church, etc.) in this article currently. However, it is buried in other sections. I was thinking of consolidating this text into a sub-section on its own, something like - 'Role played by Church affiliated groups and other Special Interest Groups' to call out the fact that both sides had vested interests, not just the Hindu side. I won't go as far as to call them fundamentalist in the interest of WP:NPOV. However, I am very certain that all the information pertaining to this deserve to be placed in its own section, and not buried inside the fine print on this page.

Let me know how you'd like me to go about this. I can take a stab at a first draft, and you can further edit/object to find a mutual consensus. I would, obviously, source whatever I write.

Reema (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reema

Thanks for your appreciation. It was indeed hard work!

Regarding the Church affiliated groups, since you are expecting it to be contentious, your best bet would be to discuss it here first before putting it in the mainspace. It would be easiest if you can come up with bullet points that you think should be included, and provide citations for them. Once we agree on what needs to be added, then we can decide how best to structure it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Asian Religions in America

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Skidepedia23, The Purple Hamster.

— Assignment last updated by Stormageddon623 (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Categories:

Latest revision as of 10:14, 12 February 2024

URLs for the VF and the HEF.

Background

Lead In

See also

Lede reverted

Boring and confusing

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

Request related to the description of the CAPEEM case

External links modified

Redoing HAF section

Redoing HAF Section - Second Attempt by Reema wiki

Wiki Education assignment: Asian Religions in America