Talk:California textbook controversy over Hindu history/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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.

Then there are unreferenced remarks in the article like this: [they are] 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.”[1].

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 [2] [3] [4]. 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?

Here are a couple of links to the controversy: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

--Machaon 23:02, 26 January 2006 (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 "

dab (ᛏ)

10:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I included the imdiversity.com article, the only one on your list that halfway meets minimal notability standards; I don't know if "

dab (ᛏ)

10:45, 27 January 2006 (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. --Machaon 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.

dab (ᛏ)

21:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia was atleast neutral, but oh boy, I am wrong or what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.38.93 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What the hell guys?? I added few links that supported the HEF position in External Links and they have been duley removed?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.238.79.82 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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.

10:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Involvement of Dalit Christian missionary groups should be recorded

The Wall Street Journal article mentioned

Dalit Freedom Network

as the Dalit group invloved. The website at http://www.friendsofsouthasia.org/textbook/LettersOfSupport.html mentions 4 dalit groups:

1. Dalit Freedom Network
2. National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights
3. Dalit Shakti Kendra
4. The Dalit Solidarity Forum in the USA

They are all

organization.

It is unethical to remove this information, unless it is false. --Vikramsingh 21:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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.

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.

1. Friends of South Asia (FOSA)
2. Coalition against Communalism (CAC)
3. NRI-SAHI (Non Resident Indians for a Secular and Harmonious India),
4. The Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment
5. Indian American Public Education Advisory Council (IPAC)
6. The South Asian Faculty Network (The South Asian Faculty Network)

--Vikramsingh 02:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Other organizations involved are the Hindu Students Council (the student wing of VHP-America). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.118.195.107 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Source? Hkelkar 03:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm.

18:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Are these real organizations?

Are these real organizations? Were they floated by someone just to impress the commission?

• "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?
• "some Californian Dalit Sikh temples": Do they have names and locations?

--Vikramsingh 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 [or whatever], 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.

dab (ᛏ)

07:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Correctly identifying the backgrounds of organizations and individuals involved

The whole debate was about representation of facts and views.

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.

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

The terms "Christian" and "Missionary' are not equivalent.

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.

It is unethical to remove information this information from the web page.

--Vikramsingh 17:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"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.

dab (ᛏ)

12:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"clear obvious", I am afraid, only from an ultra-right Christian fundamentalist, anti-hindu troll like you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.174.156 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.19.167 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree in present form better substitute HINDUISM in your sentence---records are really unmatched.

Holy---+---Warrior

11:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilbobaggins8 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Really, Slavery, Inquisition, NLFT??? NOT Hindus. Bakaman%% 14:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the crusades, anti-semitism (long list here: Expulsion of Jews from Spain, England, pogroms, blood libel,

Netaji

07:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoever Holywarrior is should not be trusted. He's a moron, a fool and an idiot who should not be trusted to speak upon this subject. Not only does he fail to present valid credentials, he also has such a one-sided view that he can't possibly be taken seriously. Please PLEASE block him from this server. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.160.178 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You should't make personal attacks IP, but the gist of your statement is true. Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is rather an interesting case now,coming from the same person who accused Dab.

Warrior

09:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Holywarrior unless you can produce evidence of hindu "atrocities" your argument is baseless. If it deals with sati, that's a grossly misinterpreted act that corrupt priests once forced upon women. by scripture, they do NOT HAVE TO consign themselves to the fire with their husbands. hinduism, if anything is one of the LEAST violent religions. close to nothing has been done in the name of god that is violent. dozens of times more violence is found with christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.160.178 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Its ok IP address dude. Its not too hard to dig up Holywarrior's personal & racist attacks. They're easier to find than sand in a desert. Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Vikram,

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.

--Benjaminmarsh 03:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Marsh

Let me see if I understand this.

Dalit Freedom Network is headed by Dr. Joseph D'souza:

• who is the President of the All India Christian Council, one of the largest interdenominational alliances of Christians
• 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."
• 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."

And you say "Dalit Freedom Network" is not a missionary organization?

--Cardreader 04:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

--Benjaminmarsh 18:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you say that Mother Teresa was not a missionary? --Cardreader 05:44, 9 May 2006 (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.

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?

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. --Benjaminmarsh 12:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

cardreader, please stop editing the information about my organization without resolving the issue in the talk page. --Benjaminmarsh 13:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin:

You write:

"The DFN is not a missionary organizations any more than Chick-fil-a, wal-mart, ..."

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

DFN is not comparable with Chick-fil-a, wal-mart.

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). --Vikramsingh 18:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin:

Let us look at http://www.dalitchild.com/php/faqslist.php:

Created in 2002 in the United States, the Dalit Freedom Network’s (DFN) mission is to partner with the All India Christian Council to empower Dalits in their quest for social freedom and human dignity by networking human, financial and information resources.

DFN works in partnership with the All India Christian Council (AICC), Operation Mobilization India (OM India), and Dalit leadership in India. The AICC is a coalition of over 2,000 independent and mainline denominations, Christian organizations, and federations from across India.

Christians expect this English education based in a Christian worldview 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 a movement of Indian Christians dedicated to bringing the Good News of Jesus Christ to the people of India in word and in deed.

Where does that money go?

Over 80% of your dollars goes to help provide high quality English-medium education with a Christian worldview.

Not a missionary organization? --Cardreader 21:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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.

If you want to identify our links or partnerships 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.

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.

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. --Benjaminmarsh 19:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The DFN seem like bible thumpers to me. What's wrong with being a missionary? --Dangerous-Boy 07:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[Interjected] Here's my little epithet - Christian missionaries in India are bible thumpers who use disgusting tactics to lure converts. Since I consider karma to be the basic law of the universe, however, i don't believe that it's my personal duty to convince people. this shithead benjamin marsh will soon have to reckon with his karma in his own way. Dangerous-Boy - Indian missionaries tend to use underhanded, sick tactics to entice their converts. I've been to christian ashrams even though I am a Hindu and they won't give people FOOD if they refuse to convert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.160.178 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dangerous-Boy, 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. --Benjaminmarsh 14:34, 17 May 2006 (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, Wikipedia is not here for you to spread your organization. --Dangerous-Boy 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. --Benjaminmarsh 13:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Cardreader explained it pretty clearly. You're a faith based charity at least. --Dangerous-Boy 04:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"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."

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!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.19.167 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Plz don't use foul language of this magnitude. The occasional epithet is ok, but this is pushing it. Btw I agree with the above statement (minus the curses).

Netaji

00:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

Holy---+---Warrior

11:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the inquisition wasn't persecution right? How about slavery? Show the persecution in Hinduism. The Muslims rulers set caste in stone otherwise it was more like a guild system. Bakaman%% 16:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Read

Warrior

17:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The Manu Smriti has been deliberately misinterpreted by Christian White-Supremacist orgs. The HOLY practices of Christianity are embedded in the Bible, which Noam Chomsky calls "The most genocidal book in history". Plus, let's not forget virulent anti-semite and founder of the protestant faith

Netaji

19:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

People who have not read the Manu Smriti IN SANSKRIT have no idea what they're talking about. English translations pervert it hugely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.160.178 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

what has this got to do with anything? The Board of Education turned down the claims as immaterial. A judge dismissed the HAF case. There is nothing to see here, it's simply a non-issue of some fanatics getting excited and running their heads against walls. I doubt this should even be covered on Wikipedia. You can think about Christianity or about the US education system whatever you like, but this is no platform to voice your personal (and frankly,

20:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sick opinions? Stop putting labels on people. In fact, this seems like a veiled personal attack. Fanatics? These are just some parents who don't want Hinduism defamed by evangelical Pat Robertsons in textbooks. Bakaman%% 21:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Stop putting labels on people ... evangelical Pat Robertsons". yeah right. As I said, having an opinion does not equal having a case. This is a sad case of playing the discrimination card, and I am actually pleasantly surprised it didn't work out, even in California. That must mean that they really, really have no case at all. But of course they are free to spew Vitriol all over the internet, just off Wikipedia, thanks.

dab (ᛏ)

22:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[Interjected] Dbachmann, you are an idiot and a fool. do you honestly know what you're talking about? Playing the discrimination card? This is a case of OFFENDING HINDUS, not looking for compensation! I guarantee you, Indians are wealthy enough on an average not to care about money. All we want is someone to portray us FAIRLY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.160.178 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem fairly biased too. You call Netaji's facts "sick" but make no issues with Holywarrior spitting venom about Hinduism Bakaman%% 23:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. DBachman is a classic bigot. California textbooks portray Hindus as less than Human. They portray us as animals. There are statements that degrade and denigrate Hindus without basis just like textbooks in Palestine to to Jewish people, like Joseph Goebbels and Alfred Rosenberg did to Jewish people in Nazi Germany (Godwin's alw is not valid here as the issue is discrimination). The textbooks are nothing more than a polite version of anti-semitic literature like

Netaji

23:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To netaji and Bakaspuram, I haven't stated anything but FACTS but both of you are making

Warrior

09:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't stated any facts. You have just stated the typical lines that missionaries use to justify their veiled white supremacist propaganda. They incite and brainwash people to convert to particularly violent, racist and radical sects of Christianity like Baptism and then turn them into terrorists like they are doing to the NLFT in Tripura. They're trying to foment a race war in India, with white christians exploiting uneducated people as cannon fodder for their holy war. We're educated Hindus who are wise to their agenda of creating a slave race to serve white christian masters like their evangelical British precursors in the 19th century. Never again shall we be led like sheep to the slaughterhouse! Not this time!

Netaji

10:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The interesting thing about Christian hypocrisy is that we allow them to practice their religion in our country, but they attack us and hate us in theirs. If they want religions to coexist then they need to STOP PROSETYLIZING race theory disguised as Christianity.

Netaji

10:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

See this remark on Holy Warriors Talk page. Such gutter language can only come from one kind of person.

Netaji

10:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The remark you are referring to was result of some daring deeds on

Warrior

13:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway I thank you for joining in criticising such kind of people.

Warrior

13:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Lets put it this way, Witzel cannot be an authority on Hinduism because he is not a Hindu, neither can a christian Missionary group, or Indian Muslim council. Keep in mind these people are trying to slander Hinduism. The only religion practiced in India during Mauryan Times and before was Hinduism. Buddhists and Jains lived there (peacefully) too but came a couple thousand years later, as a response to attack corrupt Hindu leaders not to speak out against (supposed) flaws in Hinduism like the textbooks suggest. Bakaman%% 15:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Hindus were the oppressed class during the Mauryan Emipire. After Ashoka, subsqquent Mauryans engaged in systematic persecution of Hindus for a long time. Which is why Hindus got frustrated and rebelled under Sunga, who, in turn, persecuted the Buddhists back and rigidified the caste system. Therefore, caste system is the product of Buddhist persecution.

Netaji

20:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The case isn't over yet. They have yet to bring out the big guns. Dbachman seems to be a very dangerous sort of ideologue. On his user page he says that religious nationalism is bad and religious people make chauvinistic edits and spew vitriol. On the other hand, he resorts to a lot of vitriol on his previous edits as well. Plus, his hatred seems to be directed squarely at Hindus, not on any other religion. All we want is a balanced portrayal, instead of textbooks that say "Hindus are monkeys" and draw caricatures of Indian people, Indian architecture and make constant racist statements that dehumanize Hindus. Then a screed comes from pseudoscholars like Witzel who have made racist comments like the following:

Hindus in the USA are lost or abandoned people!

Indians in the USA do not invest in the higher education of their children!

Note a similar statement made by bailey Smith, a known anti-semite and violently radical Christian

God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew and added, without Jesus Christ, they [the Jews] are lost

He treats Hindus in much the same way as anti-semitic Christians treat Jews. The beginning of cultural genocide in California School system.

Netaji

11:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I could not help noticing that on the "sponsor a dalit child", some children are apparently not dalit. You can click through the children at: https://secure.dalitchild.com/php/login.php?stdid=3255

• Sakshi Goyel
• Shivam Yadav
• Kiran Patel
• Paras Pawar
• Atul Yadav
• Surya Narayan Verma
• Shivajeet Singh Yadav
• Amardeep Jaiswal
• Jai Prakash Verma
• Shiva Patel
• Aditya Yadav

--Cardreader 22:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A anon user with multiple ip's (sockpuppets?) has been adding Badmash link. I have removed it. If he wants to discuss this he may please do so below. I contend that the link is inappropriate to a serious article. What if somebody put Jerry Seinfeld jokes in articles on

23:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

an anon cannot be a "sockpuppet" per definition. The anon and you are both indulging in edit-warring. Accusations of vandalism are empty on both sides, this is a content dispute. Is the cartoon link notable? Probably not, but neither is about 80% of this article. It would be time better invested to make it halfway presentable. As it is, it is so bad it isn't even worth protecting it.

dab (ᛏ)

23:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article is terrible. However, if I try to present the facts, you will abuse your powers to block me. Since you have admitted you are a student working on the subject, you have a potential bias on this issue as you are directing a certain POV. I request you to stay a passive observer in this matter and not compromise your objectivity. Thanks.

Netaji

23:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see

Warrior

14:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We are building an encyclopedia, not a comics store (though Badmash is extremely funny) Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

See

WP:AGF. Do you want to see a history of your racist and personal attacks? Bakaman _Bakatalk

15:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed cases of Sockpuppetry on this page

Plz see the outcome of

Warrior

07:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up

I've done several sweeps through this to try to clean it up. It could still do with (quite a bit) more. Where in doubt, I tended to leave things alone. Metamagician3000 06:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I will put back the sourced edits in a moment. In the meantime, you removed several sourced edits per our discussion in your talk page. Thanks.Hkelkar 03:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue with the "sourced claim" I deleted was that it was presented as a fact, and not as the HEF's opinion. Being a tax-exempt organization in the U.S. doesn't make them a reliable source—both the HEF and FOSA are lobby groups, and are reliable sources only insofar as they're primary sources. I'll edit the sentence to make it clear that this is the HEF's claim. Thanks for stopping your practice of blanket reversions. --Xiaopo ℑ 03:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No. ref 16 is NOT from HEF but from a journalistic source. Hkelkar 03:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is page 22 of the report:

If one omits these sentences, the last sentence of the paragraph makes no sense. Delete only the following: “The Brahmins sometimes made fun of the Dasa and said that they spoke as if they had no noses (Pinch your nose and see what you would sound like.)” It is a contentious issue. The proponents of Dasa identity have tortured the Vedic text to extract a meager evidence. The Dasas probably spoke a corrupt language and had different beliefs than the Vedic Aryans did. (see Trautmann: Aryans and British India for a sober evaluation.)

The statement in the article has been deliberately misquoted to promulgate bias. I am immediately correcting. Hkelkar 03:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Another dubious assertion.

“

Bajpai supported the change, on the basis that the text should not perpetuate the theory

”

The source clearly states that Bajpai did NOT support the change the promulgated the debunked Aryan Invasion Theory of Nazi Germany.Hkelkar 03:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, yeah, the page didn't say that Bajpai supported the Aryan Invasion theory. It said Bajpai supported the change (made by the HEF, which deleted the reference to

03:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't think the article should refer to everything the HEF has to say about the edits, or about the

04:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the edits are fine as they stand.HEF's position must be clearly articulated in order to reflect their rejection of the racism and the historically implied anti-semitism of the original text. I will try to correct the formatting errors using the wikipedia javascript thingie. I did not put ALL of HEF's views regarding this attack on Hindus (as that would require quoting the entire report) but only a representative sample. Hkelkar 04:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I summarized the HEF's views, because part of the quote was simply quoting other sources on the issue. Actual discussion of the controversy should be at

Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies). [Edit: I think my summary's fair, and if people want, they can check the reference to see the HEF's views in full.] I also don't see how this is anti-Semitic or anti-Hindu, but that's neither here nor there. --Xiaopo ℑ

04:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well yes the edits were opposed by anti-Hindus and the promulgation of the Aryan Race theory is antisemitic because it is a false theory used to justify the

holocaust. Wikipedia readers almost never check references so the summary MUST be balanced and it was not. If Hindus want to shoot themselves in the foot then there is nothing that I can do. Hkelkar

04:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're conflating the fact that most of the languages of northern India are Indo-European and not autochthonous, and that speakers of Indo-European languages migrated to the subcontinent with Nazi ideology. The former is accepted by the great majority of relevant scholars, and I think you'll find that it's highly offensive to them (and to many Hindus and Jews) to conflate the two. Nor are those opposed to the edits all anti-Hindu; given that I know some of them personally, I can vouch for that. But again, this isn't directly relevant to the issue at hand. --Xiaopo ℑ 05:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you call "Allah will destroy the terrorist state of India"? And "Hindus are a lost/abandoned people" and "Hindus should not be allowed to cremate their dead"? Statements made by some of those whom you say you know personally. Congrats. Hkelkar 06:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, the photo that showed a sign with that quote was on the website of an organization that FOSA was affiliated with; once FOSA became aware of that organization's views, they ended their relations with them. Claiming that FOSA is a terrorist organization or that it has ties to terrorist groups hardly reflects well on you. I don't know Witzel personally, but I do know that he didn't actually say the words you're attributing to him—he was actually making a play on words based on HINA (="Hindus in North America") and Sanskrit hīna ("abandoned, forsaken"). Juvenile, maybe—and being a Hindu in North America myself, I don't really appreciate it, but it's pretty laughable that people are actually trying to stretch this into an analogue to anti-Semitism, or even anti-Hinduism. But I think it's obvious this discussion is going nowhere fast, so this is going to be my last word on the topic. --Xiaopo ℑ 06:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes well I've been studying the posts of Witzel quite carefully and he doesn't just stop there. In his yahoogroup he posted that Islamics have the right to kill Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh. He touted anti-Hindu cartoons and canards in several seminars and symposia and made racist jokes about Hindus being "a breed of humans and monkeys". He treats all Indians of his acquaintance pejoratively. He also said (word-for-word) that Hindus should bury their dead instead of cremating them (as is tradition in Hindu society). He does many of the things described in

anti-Hindu. Hkelkar

06:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Pluys, FOSA's terrorist affiliations are well-known. The dialectic on their website is pretty much pure hate-speech. They distort facts and tout propaganda in a manner similar to Islamist organizations like CAIR or the Islamic Thinkers Society, and I believe they are being investigated by Homeland Security to that effect.FOSA has more Pakistani members than Indian ones, so they represent Pakistani interests, and Pakistan's regime is most definitely an anti-Hindu one. Hkelkar 06:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Unlike FOSA, HEF is somewhat of a grassroots organization. FOSA sleazily tries to cover up its links to terrorism. Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

FOSA is not terrorist affiliated, and its dialectic isn't even close to hate-speech. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 23:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure they are.They are affiliated with orgs that say "Allah will destroy the terrorist state of India". That's Islamic terrorist dialectic right there. Plus, they are affiliated with Balochi separatists (per their propaganda regarding the secession of Balochistan) and also with kashmirir terrorist per similar anti-India propaganda in their website. Hkelkar 00:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To judge by the history, Hkelkar saffronized the article as thoroughly as he could before he was banned. Article needs lots of work! Zora 05:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

NO. But various editors here at WP are trying to give the impression that they do. The continued attempts to state that the groups attempting to "saffronize" the California textbooks are supported by all Hindus, or Indians, or desis, or whatever -- there is no basis in fact for this claim. Given that saffronization has been beaten back in India, that various desi groups in the US joined in the attempt to prevent some changes in the textbooks, it's absurd to claim that everyone lines up behind the Hindutvadis.

The claim by a small group to represent a much larger one is endemic in politics these days, and just as often exposed. The latest from the UK is a number of Muslims claiming that the MCB doesn't represent them, and Jewish intellectuals insisting that the Zionists don't speak for them.

I've seen this sort of self-inflation myself, when I was involved in Green politics. We'd have one African-American at a meeting, and whenever he spoke, he claimed to speak for all African-Americans. Which was silly, given that he was a crunchy-granola Birkenstocked dread-locked counter-culture sort of fellow, who was surely not representative of most US blacks. People will try this manoeuvre in politics whenever they think they can get away with it. Just the way some animals will swell up, or bristle their hair, to make themselves look bigger when they're threatened.

Please either come up with some evidence for the claim to support, or stop trying to insert it. Zora 10:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

yes.--D-Boy 11:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well which Hindu likes see his religion reduced to caste, cows and supposed opression of women? You as well as I know you cant really provide sources for this! Various Indian editors here give you the impression, might be perhaps because most Hindus really do! Hindutva afaik is not a monolithic ideology. Believe me, i've read about Hindutva from a multitutde of sources (not just the pseudo-secular crowd you read). As a Hindu, i can affirm most Hindus DO believe in some of the things mainstream Hindutvaadis stand for (like their views on history.). Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 17:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ambroodey, your subjective impressions of what other Hindus believe, and vehement claims to represent the majority position, don't count as evidence. We need statements from reliable sources (mainstream political commentary, academic books, etc.) or results of public opinion polls.

Also, you're ignoring any distinction between the edits that even Witzel and the other academics believed were necessary, and the ones that they rejected vehemently. The ones they rejected tried to present Hindutvadi beliefs as facts. One point of contention strikes me as bizarre: apparently the Hindutvadi groups tried to suppress any mention of polytheism, and claimed that Hindus worshipped "God". One academic title I skimmed (need to find it again) argued that this type of argument was typical of Hindus from northern India who were trying to counter Christian missionaries and had adopted a monistic Vaishnavism as a counterweight. Zora 21:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Monism and monotheism in Hinduism aren't exclusively Hindutvadi beliefs Zora, it's present in philosophical form from the time of Adi Shankara and is even described in parts of the Vedas. Hindutvadis are wrong to say that polytheist views aren't there but the fact that you're tarring Hinduism with one brush in the first place is pretty stupid. Considering monistic Vaishnavism has been there for a very, very long time, I find it kind of amusing that you believe it's a reaction to Christian missionaries. Also if you want evidence as well, look for it yourself if no one gives it to you! 71.245.160.30 21:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he's totally right. I grew up as a hindu in america. What they teach in public school is very biased. they focus on the caste system and child infanticide.--D-Boy 11:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

even if that is an accurate description of your experience, this is, what, a sample of one year in one public school in all of the US. We cannot make any sort of generalising statement based on that. We'll need studies to extend that claim to anything like a "they" referring to the US education system as a whole. I0m not saying what you say isn't true, I am saying it is based on a subjective expression that may be completely different with the next person you ask. Also, addressing caste and whatnot is not the same as "reducing" Hinduism to these things. That's just cheap rhetorics. Nobody ever suggested the curriculum should only surround problematic issues, there is an ample choice of colourful and merry folklore as well as deep and intriguing theology to lighten the mood. The entire point is that caste and other social issues will also be mentioned. Talk of "reducing Hinduism to" anything in this context is simply bad faith spin.

dab (𒁳)

13:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I assure you, most Hindus like to have their religion portrayed neutrally and as a religion, not as a bunch of mythological stories, which is what many people have as an impression of Hinduism. It's just like you can say most Muslims don't like people insulting their Prophet. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

what's wrong with mythology? in any case, the problem is that "Hinduism" has a much, much greater diversity than "Islam". You can summarize the central tenets of Islam in a couple of sentences, but with "Hinduism" you'd need a couple of pages just to unravel the various currents before you can begin summarizing them. "Hinduism" is really a misnomer or over-generalization, applied from the outside (as in, "anything religious or spiritual that we found in India"), referring to a lot of things.

dab (𒁳)

09:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I will not claim to speak for Hindus (whatever the term really means) in general: I will speak for myself alone. I was raised Hindu. I completed elementary school in India where immersion was natural. I moved to the United States in sixth grade and since then developed a serious interest in and appreciation for the culture of my parents. Throughout my early immersion, I noticed ritual was an integral part of my lifestyle: if my feet touched books, or if I dropped writing utensils, I must touch them to my eyes (it is almost an involuntary reflex now), after all, "the knowledge in books is granted by the goddess Saraswati, she mustn't be disrespected"; in the morning when I got up, I was told to call on Rama to guide me to be as virtuous as he; I must offer porridge to the idols; I must carry a string on my body; etc. My life was laced with rituals, each one dedicated to various "gods," who were interconnected fibers in a vast and rich mythological tapestry. When I came to the US and started attending the temples here, I noticed the rituals still existed in some form, but the vague and arcane philosophies were morphing into well-defined principles and to my own shock were becoming severely polarized.... the kids who were raised here told me there was only one God (of course they would recount the concept of Brahman, present in some ancient Hindu philosophical texts; Brahman is not realized in the oldest Vedic writings). This is of course a form of evolution: Hindus adapting/preserving their religion in a foreign world with foreign religious philosophies. I guess people can believe whatever the heck they want, but if we are to write textbooks, we shouldn't account for the voices of just the tech-savvy Non-Resident Indians; the development of Hinduism is must more complex than that. And to the shock of many NRIs, modern academics like Jones, Elphinstone, Bernard, Thieme, Witzel, Thapar, etc. have been studying this rich development for the last three centuries (and before them, millennia of Hindu, Persian, Greek, Arab, Chinese academic commentators). Why shouldn't we include the description of the caste system or the importance of animal husbandry to the early nomadic settlers or the concept of suttee or the development of advanced mathematics or pioneering commentaries on civil law, linguistics, religion, etc. etc. etc. 141.213.182.42 (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On the external links. Just use one or two to represent each view. The Behnam 13:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll trim them down to a few each unless anyone objects.

Addhoc

17:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Pray tell me, from when did Hinduism become a religion? Do you call one which hasn't got an indigenous name(Hinduism came from Arabic India...Hind, effectively, everyone living in this landmass called Jambudwipa in 'Hindu' scriptures is a Hindu, irrespective of his religion), no proper scripture(Some follow a single Veda, some two, some Gita, notknowing it's the fundamental blah blah blah), no proper god(we Hindus pray everything...attributing godhood to it...), at least they haven't got any common religious customs...if you try to put a name to that, the nearest thing may be Sanatana Dharma... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.129.35 (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

With the "History Today" article, we at least have some source other than newspaper weblinks. Sure, it is partisan, but at least it is up front about being partisan. I see no reason not to cite it. Regarding the quality of the

06:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It may not. It didn't make Thompson Scientific's Arts & Humanities Citation Index (the only "History Today" listed is British), it's new and it's avowedly partisan, judging from the review cited on the ICHS page. That their articles aren't peer-reviewed doesn't mean that all articles are bad, only that no attempt is made to shield others from radioactivity, accidental or intentional. rudra 10:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

We might want to include in the article that a publication of the Hindu community, "Hinduism Today", created a social studies lesson designed to be an alternative to the present California textbooks: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/education/

17:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I read this lesson plan. It is not historically accurate nor are the presented claims very citable. The lesson goes to extraordinary lengths to discredit what it calls the "Aryan Invasion Theory." 141.213.185.150 (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

On what basis do you state that it is not historically accurate?! It discredits the Aryan Invasion theory because it is still taught despite the fact that it _HAS_ been discredited. I think it is a good idea to include the link Kkm5848 (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

it hasn't. that's just what you read on partisan blogs. On other partisan blogs, you read that biological evolution has been discredited. Nevertheless, evolution is still taught at school. Yet

dab (𒁳)

13:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason that you go on tangential arguments instead of answering the question!?Kkm5848 (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say the Hinduism Today lesson goes to "extraordinary lengths" to discredit the Aryan Invasion Theory when it devotes only two paragraphs to the subject out of 16 pages. The attempt of the lesson was to present Hinduism in the same manner as the other religions are presented--as required by the California Social Content Standards. Anyone who actually reads these school books can see that Hinduism is treated poorly compared to the other religions. Please see the web site for it, http://hinduismtoday.com/education/, which includes letters of endorsement from qualified academics. Arumugaswami (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The current name of this article is both ungrammatical and semantically confusing & misleading. Therefore, I would like to rename it to California textbook controversy over Hindu history. If there are no objections, I will make that change in a few days -- unless somebody can suggest a better name than my proposal. Cgingold (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No objection. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Just make sure you fix the redirects etc.--Filll (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sir, Kindly note that it is an established fact that Aryan invasion theory is a fabrication...everything is getting debunked... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.129.35 (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"anti-hindu" is not a "factual description", it is a characterisation of one party to the dispute by the other. it should not be used unattributed. Doldrums (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

go read the wp article on FOSA...there is a cited WP:RS reference stating exactly this. Kkm5848 (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

the issue is not whether there is a citation, the issues are whether the citation is reliable, the opinion is attributed and neutrally worded. Doldrums (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

afraid it is. Kkm5848 (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

3O

dispute is over terming[15]

) 06:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion. Without debating the news source itself, it is an opinion piece written by one of their primary columnists. Opinion columns are not reliable sources of facts and information. The claim and source should be removed. Vassyana (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to muse, but it seems like Prema Kurian in an article "Who Speaks for Indian Americans? Religion, Ethnicity and Political Formation" published in American Quarterly (muse.jhu.edu/journals/american_quarterly/v059/59.3kurien.html) states the same thing. While I haven't cited the book; the column is based on the book that was published in India by an independent publisher. Kkm5848 (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Kurian mentions this accusation: "Groups that mobilized to oppose the edits of the Hindu groups included South Asian studies scholars, South Asian groups such as FOSA, secular Indian American groups such as the Coalition against Communalism (CAC) and the Campaign to Stop Funding Hate (CSFH), and Dalit groups such as the Ambedkar Center for Justice and Peace and the Guru Ravidass Gurdwaras of California. Articles by members of this side meticulously traced and publicized the links between the Vedic Foundation, Hindu Education Foundation, Hindu American Foundation, and Hindutva groups in the United States and India, and criticized the changes as trying to promulgate an upper caste, male, North Indian, sanitized view of Indian history and deny oppression. Groups supportive of the VF, HEF, and HAF on the other hand, denounced the scholars, secular Indian American and Dalit groups, as 'anti-Hindu.'" (p. 776)

So, obviously, Kurian doesn't say that FOSA is "anti-Hindu". The article reports that FOSA is among groups that have been denounced as anti-Hindu by supporters of the VF/HEF/HAF. Since this denunciation was made in the context of the events that this article covers, it may be worth putting this in, provided that it's properly attributed and contextualized.

The Kurian piece would probably be a good source for other aspects of this article, too. It's the only coverage of this event that I've seen in a peer-reviewed academic journal. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• The "anti-Hindu group" claim was fraudulently restored in this edit [16] that I reverted. It was slipped in with the revert of the ip's removal of tags. The consensus on this seems clear. Dance With The Devil (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

""The Texas based Vedic Foundation (VF) and the American Hindu Education Foundation (HEF) complained to California's Curriculum Commission, saying the coverage in sixth grade history textbooks of Indian history and Hinduism was biased against Hinduism, and demanding that the portrayal be revised according to the views of Hinduism and Indian history allegedly shared by most Hindus and Indians.""

What is meant by history allegedly shared by most Hindus and Indians? Aryan invasion thoery, which is proven false? Ramayana is before Mahabharata? That St. Thomas came to India? What's the problem in accepting the facts, instead of trying to the falsehoods, when one day or the other, it's going to be countered? I don't mean to be rude anywhere... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.129.35 (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

who wrote this article?

Witzel, along with his collaborator Steve Farmer

history allegedly followed by Hindus...

it's surely not neutral...but whom is he supporting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.129.35 (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:California textbook controversy over Hindu history/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following

, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

"The Dalit Freedom Network, an advocacy group for untouchables" - Dalit Freedom Network (Look at the Wiki page for the organization) is in reality an evangelical Christian organization. They have been accused of misrepresenting a "Dalit" cause to suppress their missionary identity. The current state of the article seems to suggest that Dalit are against the school book changes while in reality it seems it is just a ploy by a Christian organization. Could we have he above corrected with "The Dalit Freedom Network, an evangelical Christian Organization" so that truth is clear?

Last edited at 19:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 14:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)