Talk:Mohan Bhagwat

Criticism section

The criticism section is strange. This is like criticizing France on the web page of Carla Bruni!

Since this is an article about the person, why is the criticism directed to the organization he heads. If the organization has to be criticized, why not put the section on the page of organization itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.8.166 (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The section seems to no longer exist.

Updating the article

This article seems to be formatted earlier and as biography of living person, it needs to update according to new format, according to Wikipedia new formats and styles. Infobox to be added, more informational content about life, citation is required and required tagging. Kswarrior (talk) KLS 16:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Outdated

This article needs updation. --PeriyaPuranam (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

New section

Should the "Ancient India" section about “lynching” (or substantially similar content) be included in the article or not? 122.171.48.127 (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

No. We write what the WP:SECONDARY sources say about the subject. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC about New section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the "Controversies" section about “lynching” (or substantially similar content) be included in the article or not? 122.171.213.35 (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• No - That debate is hardly encyclopaedic. Content should be based on WP:THIRDPARTY reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• No - Per above. Also that section was unreliably sourced. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• No per my comments over at Discrimination against atheists. Material is badly-sourced, has wp:copyvio issues, and is unencyclopedic and off-topic. The author of this content has been trying to insert it into multiple articles. PepperBeast (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• No Not unless you find a couple reliable sources that give this information due weight, its not reliable enough right now to be included Cook907 (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes A cursory search reveals coverage. I found reports from National Herald India, The Economic Times, Deccan Herald, Telegraph India, etc. However, the bulk of this section (specifically paragraphs 2 and 3) can be deleted as it reads like an essay or an opinion piece arguing a case. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• No - As noted above and its WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains^(talk) 19:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Closing this discussion, as I believe we've had enough time and a clear consensus has been reached. PepperBeast (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Third opinion

1. Talk:Mohan_Bhagwat#Third opinion" Should the "Controversies" section about “lynching” (or substantially similar content) be included in the article or not? . 03:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Should the "Controversies" section about “lynching” (or substantially similar content) be included in the article or not?):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Mohan Bhagwat and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

No, the "Controversies" section in this diff should not be included in the article. There are a number of problems with it: 1) it is not properly sourced to reliable sources, 2) at least one paragraph is a copyright violation (and I have requested removal of it), 3) it does not appear that all of it is relevant or significant enough to this article, and perhaps most importantly, 4) there was a recently-closed WP:RfC with very strong consensus against inclusion. There may be additional problems, as discussed in the pre-RfC discussions and during the RfC. In my opinion, proponents of the content should re-draft it, addressing editors' concerns about the prior draft, and then post the new draft on the talk page to see if there is consensus for inclusion of the new draft. – Levivich 06:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.newsclick.in/Lynching-Bharat-Called-Vaddh. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. – Levivich 06:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Help About Publish Article

Can You Help Me? Mohanxn (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

BLP violation. ?

@Sitush: hey just asking.....don't u think that here blp violation is taking place as according to ur edits i found there should be self identification of caste of a living person? ?? Heba Aisha (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Heba Aisha (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. My own view is that we shouldn't say someone was "born into a [caste name] family" because it infers something and is indeed used by some caste warrior types on Wikipedia precisely to achieve that effect when they can't find a source showing self-identification. I am sure that others will disagree with me and I don't know if there is any firm consensus regarding it. @RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, SpacemanSpiff, and Kautilya3: - any ideas, folks? - Sitush (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't bother about self-identification. In these days, caste affiliations are frowned upon, and every public figure would hide it. That doesn't mean they disowned it.

If responsible scholars state caste affiliations, e.g., Christophe Jaffrelot, I would state them here. But I wouldn't go by newspapers trying to dig up dirt. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hm, not sure that addresses the issue. Consensus is that self-identification is required - User:Sitush/Common#Castelists summarises it and is actually applicable anywhere in an article for the self-id issue per WP:BLP. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, both those arguments carry weight; the statements of contemporary scholarly is not something to be set aside lightly, but there's reasons why we ask for self-identification...for a figure this prominent, I'm inclined to think that we need to use what's available, and the absence of verifiable self-identification does not reflect a lack of opportunity for the subject to self-identify. I understand the concern about caste warriors, but there's also legitimate concerns about the erasure of the history of caste relations. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

But it isn't the subject, is it? It is the subject's family, some of whom probably are living and may not subscribe to the notion of caste etc. It's also like saying Amitabh Bachchan was born in a Kayastha family and not clarifying that he rejects the label. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The part about self-identification seems to have come about by equating caste with religion, as if some one has to actively profess it. But castes are primarily identities, to which people might belong without thinking about it. I really think we have to defer to the reliable sources about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Not really. The reason religion was mentioned is because of BLPCAT applying to religion and we know that, just as people may be born into a strict Hindu or Christian family but choose not to profess the faith, so too with caste (Bachchan being my go-to example for this but there are plenty of others). There are literally hundreds of contributors applying this consensus across even more articles, so I don't think it can be over-ridden so easily. Someone can change their caste just as they change their nationality. In fact, that has been one of the issues with caste since the Brits got involved and is why there appear to be so many more castes today than there were 200 years ago. - Sitush (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

So wts the final decision.I want to know as i saw @Sitush: removing caste from a large number of articles if the subject is a living person.The explaination always being self identification. So which type of sources to use in case of a living person in absence of sources of self identification? ?Heba Aisha (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we use any newspaper report in which subject is seen claiming that he belongs to a particular caste. @Kautilya3: @Sitush:Heba Aisha (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Kautilya3 is an outlier here. They seem to be disagreeing with long-standing, much-discussed consensus but this particular case is one of those borderline things because it is implying Bhagwat is a Brahmin rather than stating it directly. That is what I am unhappy about but admit is a bit fuzzy in the consensus. Consensus can change but we can't change such a long-standing, frequently discussed and applied consensus here - it would need to be done at WT:INB or similar and would probably involved a WP:RFC. - Sitush (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Its ok as you wish.Heba Aisha (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the "born in family" wording and added a scholarly source.

Heba Aisha, in order to talk about either caste or religion of a person, we need information that those aspects are relevant to the notability of the person. In this case, they are because the scholars say that the RSS is a Brahmin-dominated organisation, some people even call it a "Brahminist" organisation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• I rather think that saying "was born in a Brahmin family" is preferable to "is a Brahmin". A person can choose to identify how they please, but it doesn't change their heritage; men may repudiate misogyny, for instance, but that doesn't change the fact that their identity makes them relatively immune to street harassment. It's the same here; being born in a Brahmin family gives you advantages that are relevant to your life, even if you repudiate the identity itself. Caste is fundamentally an ascribed status, rather than earned or chosen status; erasing it in instances where we lack self-identification information almost seems like revisionism. I agree we need a discussion about this, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, it would be revisionism if the statement actually mattered in terms of the subject's life but usually it does not (this may be an exceptional case, I don't know). Somewhere among the tortuous discussions about caste & BLP - and it may be at WP:BLPN rather than WT:INB - it was asserted that BLP applies even to the non-notable family members if they are still living, so ascribing a caste to a family can be problematic also. I really do not know what the answer is regarding this situation. All I know for sure is we should not be watering down the definite consensus stuff that says we do not ascribe a caste to a living person unless they have self-identified; whether it is acceptable to ascribe it to their family (parents, siblings) is the issue that has been raised here.

I'm slightly at a loss with Kautilya's statement that caste affiliations are frowned upon given just how many people try to start and grow caste-based lists of people, how many caste-based political parties exists etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

With respect to articles about recent immigrants, or children of recent immigrants, we often describe their familiar heritage, even when it's not something they have said themselves, and when it's not obviously relevant to the rest of their article; and that makes sense to me, because the tendency to treat immigrants differently is so pervasive that it's obviously relevant. I think the same logic applies here. I'm not certain what Kautilya is referring to, but when caste identity is used as a tool to build political support, it's inevitable that some people will look to highlight their caste identity, and others will look to distance themselves from it. I haven't studied sources about Bhagwat specifically, but there's certainly sources discussing caste relations within the RSS and the Sangh Parivar more broadly. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Recently added Opinion without context

Version Added by Samyakesesem on 4 December

In the Dussehra speech of 2020, he appreciated Ram Janmabhoomi verdict, and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), all brought about through due legislative process. He expressed disapproval of those who "misled our Muslim brothers by propagating a false notion” and regretted the damage to “communal harmony” by the agitators.

updated by Walrus Ji

In the Dussehra speech of 2020, he appreciated the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) brought through the legislative process and the verdict in Ayodhya dispute.

Hi @Kautilya3: As I have explained in my edit summary after you requested, I removed some parts Because it is factually wrong. Ayodhya verdict was not brought through the legislative process. The author of the print piece is related to the organisation and seems to be deliberately misleading the readers with fake news. I updated the article with better source when I added it. the last part is without any context so I have removed it. Feel free to add proper context and then add the full content.

I dont want to edit war, but the article must not put wrong and misleading info. So for now, I have removed the entire part, Lets discuss this first and then later on add it back. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The section is titled Opinions. A opnion was added, 'He expressed disapproval of those who "misled our Muslim brothers by propagating a false notion” and regretted the damage to “communal harmony” by the agitators,' which is apparently a notable opinion, sourced to a JNU professor. You have repeatedly removed it, without a word of explanation. And, you seem to profess ignorance of having removed it, repeatedly. So something doesn't mesh. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You are saying I removed without a word of explanation, you are you ignoring the explanation in my edit summary and further elaboration of the edit summary. By my estimates I have written more than 200 words on both combined. Please read it. Walrus Ji (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I you had explained why the green bits above were removed, it would have been a simple matter to paste it here. There is no need to write hundreds of words. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I had explained about the green bits in my comment. You should read my comment before replying. Anyway, I think the new edit is acceptable to me. I will not remove it.Walrus Ji (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Mohan Bhagwat Portrait.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

BLP labelling

@EarthDude: This addition is an outright WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL vio: by a [[Hindutva|far-right mob]] over false claims that it was built on the location of a former Hindu temple.

Demolition of the Babri Masjid is a GA, most-sources do not describe the mob as far-right, pipelinking that to Hindutva is also dubious. If Ayodhya dispute is anything to go wikivoicing "false" is also untenable. Bring the sources here and gain consensus for these additions per BRD for this BLP.

@Vanamonde93, Kautilya3, and Sitush: Pinging previous participants from related discussions above for input. Gotitbro (talk) 09:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The temple, popularly known as Ram Mandir, is being constructed on the land where a 16th-century mosque stood until 1992, when Hindu far-right mobs demolished it, triggering a nationwide Hindu-Muslim riots that killed more than 2,000 people, most of them Muslims.

Babri mosque to Ram temple: A timeline from 1528 to 2024. Al Jazeera.

A single Al Jazeera article with no-byline is clearly not enough weight for the political labelling neither does it call the temple claim false. Also, within the article itself the description varies, e.g. Hindu nationalist mob tears down the mosque. The latter I would argue is the most common descriptive [and encyclopedic sources agree with this ]. Gotitbro (talk) 09:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

There is academic consensus that the Ram Mandir did not exist before the construction of the Babri Masjid and that modern day Ayodhya is not the same as the Hindu mythological Ayodhya. More importantly, this is not the first time you have engaged in blatant canvassing like this. For instance, why did you tag Kautilya3 who has only made 9 out of the past 500 edits in this article, the latest of which was over 3 years ago? The discussion above with which Kautilya3 was involved with was half a decade ago and is not related to this whatsoever. — EarthDude (Talk) 11:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I am happy to be pinged. The three of us have done the most editing on the Ayodhya dispute and know all its issues well. EarthDude, you need to quit doing this kind of guerilla editing. Follow the established articles like Ayodhya dispute and Demolition of Babri Masjid, which have debated all these issues for long and formed consensus on various issues. Newspapers are not reliable sources for history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Tagging editors previously engaged in a BLPVIO discussion for seeking a third opinion is absolutely fine and pretty standard fare. I took a look at the Talk page and tagged editors in good standing, that you are troubled with one of those being pinged is immaterial. WP:ANI is that way for baseless accusations of "this is not the first time you have engaged in blatant canvassing like this". PAs like this in previous interactions is the exact reason 3O was sought outright. So, please don't bother further with this.

Coming to the dispute at hand, "There is academic consensus that the Ram Mandir did not exist before the construction of the Babri Masjid". Please bring a source which says exactly that, I recommend you also read Wikipedia:Academic consensus:

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

While this is true: and that modern day Ayodhya is not the same as the Hindu mythological Ayodhya. The temple claim has no consensus, according to everything we have currently on the wiki and per most 3PARTY sources. A Hindu-Buddhist religious structure (perhaps abandoned) likely preceded later constructions during the Mughal-era is what sources, even those opposing the view of a specific Rama temple, state. The dispute is whether a Rama Temple existed not whether a temple existed at all.

You wikivoiced "false claims that it was built on the location of a former Hindu temple", bring sources that establish academic consensus for this under the guideline given above. Gotitbro (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I just saw that you have tagged the Ayodhya dispute article with POV and FRINGE under the similar rationale of "The existence of a pre-modern Ram Mandir is rejected by mainstream scholarship. It is a pseudohistorical belief the article gives too much weight to". While the edit summary is challengeable on the same arguments laid above, the tags are also extraordinary for an article which has survived irate Hindu nationalists for more than a decade (no wonder they created their own enwiki forks due to this).

@EarthDude: The discussion is ongoing here. You should gain prior consensus before any unanimous overhauling of content achieved through extant consensus. Gotitbro (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Going through Ram Mandir. You have similarly tagged Rama Janmabhoomi. The removal of a standard fare of cats (for attacks on religious structures by militant groups) at 2005 Ram Mandir attack is also without merit (I also see that it survived the AfD challenge as such).

I will be revrerting the latter now and removing the POV/FRINGE tags unless the rationale for them can be established here. Gotitbro (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

After thinking some more, I agree that those main articles need to be modified first, of course with scholarly sources. Once that is done we can get back here. — EarthDude (Talk) 12:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Earthdude, please be a little more circumspect here. NPOV requires sticking narrowly to what the best sources support. I'm not aware of sources going so far as to say the claims about a temple are false. More importantly, this is an article about Bhagwat, not about the Ayodhya dispute. You need to take care not to treat it as a WP:COATRACK for other disputes. Also, pinging subject-matter experts is an acceptable practice, but this article is on my watchlist, I would have seen this in any case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude: The massive blanking of content at archaeology of Ayodhya is again beyond the pale. Please gain consensus rather than trying to bludgeon your edits through.

I am not sure why you think editorializing/wikivoicing like this , , further explicitly rejected prior no less through an RfC, would be acceptable either.

This is clearly tendentious at this point, please desist. @Vanamonde93 and Kautilya3: re-tagging for more eyeballs here. Gotitbro (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The content I removed from Archaeology of Ayodhya is only that which simply did not exist in the given sources, aside from which I also added reliably sourced content, and made basic grammar and wikilink fixes. In what world is basic article cleanup such as this in any way "tendentious"? The first edit to the RSS page is fundamentally following the consensus at the RfC. It is in no way "wikivoicing" to simply call the RSS right-wing, especially when there is consensus from the community to keep it that way. — EarthDude (Talk) 11:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Blanking sourced paras related to folk legends, Lal and Vishnu-Hari (including the section header) is not merely copyediting. One simply cannot blank content they disagree with under the guise of wikifixing. If this line is to be maintained, it is beyond tendentious.

Coming to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the attempt to shoehorn infobox changes despite no acceptance to dither from standing consensus is less concerning than the outright attempt to wikivoice blogs despite having been explicated at no less than 2 forums (Talk and RSN) on why that simply isn't done. Gotitbro (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Why are we discussing Archaeology of Ayodhya here? Please move the discussion to the correct talk page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but these staggered edits directly pertain to and stem from the material issues raised at this BLP. Thought better here than fractalize the discussion. Gotitbro (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)