Talk:Sanatan Sanstha

POV Sources

The article has far too many WP:POV sources that can not be assumed to be impartial in their selection of material. The HJS site is a prime example, only stating things which are flattering to the leaders of HJS, SS, BM, and associated groups. If the claimed statements were made, they should be published somewhere independent such as major newspapers. Conversely, these sources systematically omit any content that might be critical of these groups. They simply are not objective.LeadSongDog come howl 17:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lead,

Not agree with your view "these sources systematically omit any content that might be critical of these groups." Please correct me if I am wrong.... I think the purpose of Wikipedia is not to glorify any one but to provide facts and Truth about each subject. This site is talking about work of SS as well Issue related to Thane blast. Evan ATS has not included SS in the Charge sheet related to case still ref. to this case is discussed at the length on this page. Today if you search by Sanatan Sanstha you will find lot of material regarding same blast issue. All the related info is already available on this page then what's the purpose of repeating the same thing? Same time if something new related to this topic is found then why not include it?

Yesterday I have updated "Award section" and the ref was some new source... which was mentioned first time. You have removed that section which I feel is not correct and should be reverted back. How can you conclude that forumforhinduawakening.org is not a reliable source?

Regards, Pr0022850 (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Before tagging something as WP:POV it is important to note that we are on a Page related to Spirituality and unfortunately It’s true that major newspapers and media gives importance ONLY to TRP rating and hence only sensational events dominate our media. Naturally you won’t find much info related to spiritual domain online or in major newspapers People / websites/periodicals which cover this are from spiritual domain and if you start tagging all of them as WP:POV then there is a issue because you are stopping people from sharing the truth. Bonybaby1979 (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

For awards all the details are give e.g. Award give by whom (organisation and location), exact date so the content can be easily varified... Bonybaby1979 (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not everything belongs in an encyclopedia. We have WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N as core policy for WP. It's not enough that adherents of a particular group think they can trust a source. It should be clear to all reasonable readers that the source has a reputation for balance and accuracy. Sectarian or political tracts simply do not meet this test. Blogs, newsgroups and other online forums are broadly excluded as well, principally because their authorship is too often unverifiable but also because they have a very poor reputation for fact checking. LeadSongDog come howl 01:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't care how.

Destroy this page, I don't know the technical wiki way, but someone do it. Biased biased biased. And from wikipedia's own policies...

No original research. Which is practically the only source cited. Not to mention it isn't actual research, or anything the resembles a reputable journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmile69 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Better to fix it. Pitch in!LeadSongDog come howl! 17:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Allegations

The allegations section seems to violate WP:NPOV, to me. The article explicitly and clearly points out that the government has never directly accused this organization of any terrorist or other criminal activity. That its members may have committed criminal acts does not mean that the organization should be tarred by association. For example, the Unambomber (US domestic terrorist) once taught at UC Berkeley. That doesn't mean we can add information about terrorism to the UCB page. Unless someone has policy based objections, I'm going to remove the entire section and the Convictions section after it. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with the above.Pectore^talk 17:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a closer reading of the cited sources would help. The chief NPOV shortcoming of the section is that it does not adequateley reflect the reported failure/incapacity of the investigators to prosecute the organizations for having promoted a poisonous ideology, settling instead for prosecuting of a few who carried out the promoted ideas. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me to look at the sources. I started to do so, and it turns out that the majority of them aren't even close to being reliable sources. Those are online forums, personal opinions, even political propaganda sites. Unless someone can provide reliable sources that state clearly that this organization is involved in terrorism, that information absolutely cannot be in the article. I have removed the entire section; anything that is particularly accurate and well sourced could be re-added, but given how egregious that material was, I strongly recommend that people make suggestions here before adding to the article. Editors may not use Wikipedia to attempt to right the wrongs they perceive in the world; if this group has been documented as having done bad things by reliable sources, then that information may be possible to include, but it cannot just consist of the opinions of online writers and political propagandists. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, the perennial problem that any source with the wrong POV must be unreliable. But wp:NOTCENSORED To discuss an ongoing dispute one cannot ignore the fact that factions have viewpoints, nor dismiss all criticism of those viewpoints as opinion or propaganda. Rather, NPOV calls for telling the full story, reflecting both sides. Perhaps this HJS site will make it clear: some sites continue even today to propagage thinly veiled death threats, now directed against the author of Godse’s Children- Hindutva Terror in India. It appears to be part of their reaction to the draft Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill 2011, which HJS characterizes as anti-Hindu. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that site doesn't help at all, because it's not a reliable source. I recommend you review those guidelines, as they distinguish what can and cannot be used to support statements in articles. It has absolutely nothing to do with POV, and everything to do with reliability. Negative/contentious statements that are unsourced or badly sourced must be removed from articles. As I said, if you can produce reliable sources to support the claim that organization is involved in criminal, terrorist, or other negative behavior, then it can be added to the article. If not, then it cannot be. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If an organization publishes a website that consistently puts forth a position, then that is a RS, albeit primary, as to what the position of that organization is. Secondary analysis of that position by other writers may not be impartial, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. To ignore their own calls for what amounts to ethnic cleansing in an article about them on the basis that all the secondary sources are biased either for or against them would be nothing short of a perverse interpretation of RS. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And primary sources are useless for what you want to assert here. We cannot use a primary source to say "Sanatan Sanstha are terrorists." Primary sources can only be used to assert a very narrow range of things, generally things only associated with the primary source itself (i.e, we can site the Qu'ran to state exactly what the Qu'ran itself states, but not to support a religious doctrine or even a claim about what the Qu'ran means). We do not use primary sources to make claims like "Group X thinks Sanatan Sanstha are advocating terrorism" unless we can show that Group X is a qualified expert on the subject. For we could use a primary source written by a academic professor who specializes in terrorism issues as an "expert claim" about the group, but even then we could only do it if we have reason to believe that the view is fairly widely held (per WP:UNDUE). If the group is so obviously bad, then reliable, secondary sources will have reported the claims. Provide those sources, and we'll see what can appropriately go into the article. Don't forget, Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs; I understand that you think this is a very bad group, but that cannot be in the article until it's verified. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed that part. Where did the text say SS are terrorists? If you'd like, we can examine the assertions and the sources behind them one at a time to find more precise wording where needed.LeadSongDog come howl! 03:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Point by point

1. The first statement you deleted was:

• In 2008, the Anti Terrorist Squad (India) (ATS) arrested six accused for their alleged involvement in planting of improvised explosive devices at the auditoriums in Thane, Vashi and a movie theater in Panvel. All three cases are currently with the Sewree Fast Track Court.

(ref name="ENS">"Court accepts charges in Thane blast case" The Indian Express 18 Jan 2009</ref)

I assume you will acknowledge the IE is generally a reliable source for such news. It appears the date was in error, it should have been 16 Jan 2009. The "currently with" needed correction, I would say "were placed with" instead. Was there something else in the source you'd like to have seen reflected? Do you contend that it does not support the statement? LeadSongDog come howl! 04:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge that sentence is correct and well-referenced. I also note that it cannot go in this article, because it has absolutely nothing to do with Sanatan Sanstha. As I said above, you cannot add information about the Unambomber to University of California, Berkeley, even though he worked there. If those people are notable themselves, put the info in an article about them; my guess is that they aren't notable per WP:BLP1E, though, so you may want to consider creating an article about the event, though even that might be a stretch. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll come back to that later.LeadSongDog come howl! 06:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Second deleted statement: Some section of the media and politicians are claiming involvement of the Sanatan Sanstha and the HJS in these blasts and asking for imposing a ban on these organisations.

(ref name="ENS"/)

(ref name="Blast">"Blast after blast", (PDF file) Communalism Combat July–August 2008</ref)

(ref>Subhash Gatade, "Why 'Sanatan Sanstha' and 'Hindu Janajagruti Samity' should be Banned" 21 December 2008, sacw.net</ref)

(ref>"Ban on Sanatan Sanstha" hindujagruti.org</ref)

(ref name="Desai">Stavan Desai and Sweta Ramanujan-Dixit, "Hindu radicals behind Thane theatre blast" Hindustan Times 17 June 2008</ref)

(ref>Press conference coverage, (PDF file) Sabrang archive, July–August 2008, p.18</ref)

• Please note the second para of the Hindustan Times piece, which establishes that according to the ATS two specific accused were members of the HJS and the SS. Again, I assume the ENS ref and the Hindustan Times are generally acceptable publications. The other sources (perhaps a bit excessive), including one from the HJS itself, establish that the claims were being made and that there had been calls for a ban. Anything about the wording that needs to change? LeadSongDog come howl! 06:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Indianexpress.com I believe is RS, and Hindsutan Times is definitely RS, but neither asserts that the group had anything to do with the allegations. In fact, the HT article explicitly includes claims by the group that they had nothing to do with it. None of the rest of the sources are reliable sources. So, no RS provided that verify the involvement of the group. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, that is not the statement being supported by those sources, is it? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the statement itself is supported; you just need to find a place in Wikipedia to put it; as I said before, possibly in an article about the crime itself. We have articles on notable crimes, like, for example, all of those listed at the top of the "Incidents and allegations" section of this article.

Perhaps I'm being unclear, though. The IES and HT articles don't assert that there are allegations that the group is involved--they merely assert that some members were involved, which is a key difference. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't get to arbitrarily delete sourced content relevant to the article topic, ignoring the discussion above. If you'd like, we can seek further input from wp:WikiProject Terrorism participants. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I can, because the information has nothing whatsoever to do with this page. For example, I can't go to the page on Germany and add random information about Pakistan, just because it's sourced. That information has no connection to this article at all. You are attempting to impute blame on this group because some of its members may have behaved badly.

However, since there's always a chance that I am wrong, rather than re-reverting you, I have asked for outside help in the form of a Third opinion. Depending on how that goes, we can see if we need to proceed farther with dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not me, the sources cited impute that connection. Frankly, it seems rather obvious that they are correct: the individuals are acknowledged members of the group, and acting on the teaching of that group, whether explicitly tasked or not. The after-the-fact disavowal by SS leaders doesn't really seem terribly convincing, does it? I look forward to third opinions though. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to ask for a 3O again; the other user who responded to the 3O was an improper sock account, and the main account was suspsicious and also blocked. While it was unblocked, I don't trust that the opinon given (which has since been removed by another editor) was valid. I'll post the 3) request again. LeadSongDog, your opinion that the truth is "obvious" and that the acted on the teachings of the group is just that: your opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one trying to justify ignoring reliable sources in favour of primary ones.LeadSongDog come howl! 06:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. It seems to me that you both raise interesting and valid points about the section. In general, I agree with Qwyrxian that, since nobody has implicated the movement itself with complicity in the bombings, the allegations themselves don't warrant their own section. However, these bombings seem to have led to calls for the organization to be banned, and that's something that it would be reasonable to talk about. What if we retool the section to focus on the criticism and ban proposals that the bombings have prompted, rather than the bombings themselves? They could be mentioned as background, but don't need to be the focus of the subsection. This could be especially appropriate if the bombings get their own article; we could say something like "In response to the [[(bombing article)|2008 bombings]], which were carried out by members of the movement, there have been calls in some parts of the media to ban the organization (sources), including a request by the Maharashtra government to the central Indian government to officially ban the organization.(source)" What do you think? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like a smart compromise to me, providing we can provide sources that support it. Thank you for offering a great alternative. LeadSongDog, what do you think? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Some more recent sources relate to the trial and ongoing appeal:

• Thane blast: Terror charge falls flat 10 September 2011
• Two Sanatan Sanstha men get 10-year RI 31 Aug 2011
• Thane blasts: HC admits appeal against members of Sanathan Sanstha 18 January 2012

There's a keyword search available here on the TOI site too. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, awesome. I've tried my hand at writing a rough draft of a retooled section in my sandbox. Feel free to make any changes either of you like; particlar changes that would be useful are specific names of politicians and members of the media who have criticized the movement and (as always) more sources. Naturally, feel free to work on your own version, or let me know if you don't like mine. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've left comments at User talk:Writ Keeper/sandbox...overall, the draft appears to have some significant problems; I'll try to work on a new version later, if I have time. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion there seems to have stopped. I have replaced the text in that section with the text agreed upon by myself and Writ_Keeper. Of course, 2 vs 1 is not a strong consensus, and I have no problem continuing the discussion. However, because I am very very concerned that the about both NPOV and BLP violations in the prior version, I strongly request that while discussion continues, we leave in the current version (or nothing at all, if that's better). Qwyrxian (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Wrong information is given in Allegations and Convictions sections. If you see all the references then, It’s special public prosecutor who is claiming that Accused are belongs to Sanatan Sanstha. However, it could not be proved. Sessions Judge N V Nhavkar has never named Sanatan Sanstah in his judgment. So saying that two accused belongs to Sanatan Sanstha is wrong. It’s really surprising that wiki is not deleting the wrong content. 116.75.36.247 (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I never noticed that before. Before I was only concerned that there was no direct indication that the group ordered/suggested the attacks, but it looks like you are right, and none of the sources actually confirm them as being part of the group. As such, I am removing both sections from this article; to keep them, we will need a solid source that says these people were definitely a part of Sanatan Sanstha. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This is getting silly, but I added another source from the Times of India. Of the six accused, the two convicted were members, the other four were alleged to be members but not proven, and their acquittal was appealed. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that ref is enough...though I'm still on the edge. To IP, we do not need a court decisions saying they were members of the group--we just need a reliable source which says they were (and no clear RS saying the opposite). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, your comments are confusing. On 20th April you went ahead and deleted disputed sections. However, now you have taken different stand. Do you meant to say that even though court have not found any involvement of Sanatan Sanstha with blast case, wikipedia believes that information given under sections “Convictions” and “Allegations” should not be removed because (irrespective of the courts observations) it is given by so called reliable source ? By doing so don’t you think wikipedia is sharing incorrect information about Sanatan Sanstha with the world? What about creditability of wikipedia ? 116.75.39.33 (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The last source provided by LeadSongDog does state as a fact that they were members of Sanatan Sanstha. That's why it's acceptable for inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The accusations were also noted much earlier here in the TOI, further noting that two of the dead were "sevaks" (English: "seekers") of the SS. One source documents SS acknowledgement that one of the dead in the blast (Malgonda Patil) was a sevak, while saying the organization was being framed and denying that Nishaad Bakhale and Yogesh Naik were their sevaks. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi LeadSongDog , This is with reference to your recent updates.

While reverting the changes you have ignored few important points. It is possible to update the article with these details ?

1. As per latest updates October 2015 former Home Secretary RK Singh told that Home Ministry under the previous UPA government concluded that there was no evidence against Sanatan Sanstha so o they couldn't ban the organization.

2. CID Officer: Don't See Gaikwad Link in Kalburgi Case, Won't Seek Custody.

3. MoS Ranjit Patil refuses to blame Sameer Gaikwad

4. Goa chief minister Laxmikant Parsekar has ruled out band on Sanatan Sanstha.

5. Pansare killing- Gaikwad was in Thane around time of murder, phone records suggest complicity

6. Pansare murder: Court says no to brainmapping test on Gaikwad Sanatany (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

: Wiki Admin,

I have done addition to this article based on my research on the Sanatan Sanstha. A Wikipedia article expects to find objective and neutral information. So I found that information was one sided hence did some changes based of shared references. However, I find it surprising that you have removed details shared with giving reference to Dr Ranjit Patil, minister of state for home. Who says there is no evidence against Sanatan. You kpet remarks of goa MLA who says sanatan is involved in killing but removed reference of Goa chief minister Laxmikant Parsekar, who says Sanatan cannot be banned. You have kept information stating sanatan is involved in Kalburgi’s killing but removed reference of Karantaka CID which don’t even taken name of sanatan in their investigation Don't See Gaikwad Link in Kalburgi Case You also removed the reference where 6-7 local organizations are supporting Sanatan but kept reference of one group which is opposing Sanatan.

Could you guide with the logic behind all this ? how this helps in sharing the neutral information about any topic. In this case Sanatan Sanstha ?

Bonybaby1979 (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Notification about biased view

Hi, LeadSongDog TOI news shared by you is giving views of the anti-terrorism squad (ATS) and not the Session court. During this entire case ATS was trying to prove that the accused belongs to Sanatan Sanstha and hence the accused were charge-sheeted for engaging in terrorist activities under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). However, the court did not convict them under these charges. If Public Prosecutor could have proved this, then the court would have convicted the accused under UAPP and by now Sanatan Sanstaha would have been banned.. However, it is not. If you go through the judgment given by Sessions Judge N V Nhavkar, there is no mention of any of the six accused are associated with Sanatan Sanstha. Just see one reference. [1] This news sounds more neutral compared to TOI. Any ways you are the authority so your decision matters. It’s up to you and Wikipedia if you want to promote neutral views or biased. 203.143.186.45 (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says "If Public Prosecutor could have proved this, then the court would have convicted the accused under UAPP", or is that just your own original synthesis? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please go through the reference [2]which says

1. Although Gadkari and Bhave were charge-sheeted for engaging in terrorist activities under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and for attempt to murder, the court did not convict them under these charges.

2. Public Prosecutor Rohini Salian said the main thrust of the prosecution's case had been rejected.“My thrust was on the UAPA. It's a terrorist act. The main case was the intention to strike terror in the minds of people. Circumstantial evidence is difficult to prove. Direct evidence cannot be there. Why the court disbelieved the witnesses [is not known].”116.75.35.11 (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi LeadSondDog, any reason for leaving this thread open ? 116.75.39.33 (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Not unless there's a further edit to discuss.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is totally biased any hypothetical without any factual evidence Aryanamit (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Bhaktaraj Maharaj.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bhaktaraj Maharaj.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Bhaktaraj Maharaj.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This is with reference to your updates on Page Sanatan Sanstha on 19th Oct 2015.

Hi LeadSongDog Sanatany (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC) This is with reference to your recent updates.

While reverting the changes you have ignored few important points. It is possible to update the article with these details ?

1. As per latest updates October 2015 former Home Secretary RK Singh told that Home Ministry under the previous UPA government concluded that there was no evidence against Sanatan Sanstha so o they couldn't ban the organization.

2. CID Officer: Don't See Gaikwad Link in Kalburgi Case, Won't Seek Custody.

3. MoS Ranjit Patil refuses to blame Sameer Gaikwad

4. Goa chief minister Laxmikant Parsekar has ruled out band on Sanatan Sanstha.

5. Pansare killing- Gaikwad was in Thane around time of murder, phone records suggest complicity

6. Pansare murder: Court says no to brainmapping test on Gaikwad Sanatany (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

References

revision done by The Discoverer on 17:36, 20 October 2015 doesn't seems to be appropriate

Latest revision done by The Discoverer on 17:36, 20 October 2015 doesn't seems to be appropriate. He has ignored the point mentioned under section Ban demands. It says that, On 22nd September 2015, Former Home Secretary RK Singh told that Home Ministry under the previous UPA government concluded that there was no evidence against Sanatan Sanstha so they couldn't ban the organization — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.186.45 (talk)

@ The Discoverer

I find surprising that you are updating this article by giving references of Goa MLA and some sections around Ramnathi, Goa. But same time you are ignoring information shared by Maharashtra Home ministry, Goa Chief minister, Karnataka CID and Central Home ministry.

Are you trying to settle any personal differences by doing that ? This is because Sanatan Sanstha is based in Goa and you are also from Goa. 203.143.186.45 (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Individual Spiritual Practice

the link (#2) was broken. i found the same (or similar) interview on another page and replaced the link. i also edited the 2nd paragraph, as it seemed to be more about Sequeira, rather than Sanatan Sanstha. also, Sequeira had competed in 2 pageants but the way it was written seemed to imply she had won the 1985 Miss India contest, so i re-wrote that. i'm not sure how others are with people making edits here, and i was only going to bring it up on the Talk page, but then i decided to do the re-write, because in my experience, if people disagree, they'll just do a complete revert, rather than assess/discuss.

i do wonder why this particular source (#2) was included in the 2nd sentence of the entire article (but i left it). and i don't understand why the picture of Ramananda Maharaj was put in the Individual Practice section, as he wasn't mentioned here at all. (but, again, i just left that.)Colbey84 (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

changes done by bagriclan |purpose = Promotion of Hindutva, Hindu nationalism, Islamophobia, Saffron terror

Hi bagriclan,

Please discuss on talk page and justify with references before you make any key changes like below. |purpose = Promotion of Hindutva, Hindu nationalism, Islamophobia, Saffron terror

Sanatan Sanstha is not yet declared as terror organization in by Indian court. If you see this article then nigher Maharashtra or Goa state government, nor Central Home department have declared this organization as Terror organization. More over don't see any supporting evidence for tagging it as Islamophobia.

203.143.186.45 (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there seems to be no basis for Islamophobia. However, I propose that the following terms can be added to the lead:

• Hindu nationalism : As per NDTV: "one needs to only look at the website of the Sanstha's sister organisation, the Hindu Janjugriti Samiti. It says "Holy land of Bharat is a self-materialised 'Hindu Nation'. However, the unrighteous rulers have maligned the Hindu Nation by declaring it a secular Nation... To reinstate Dharma, that is, to establish the Hindu Nation, 'Hindu Janajagruti Samiti' (HJS) was established."
• Anti-rationalism : Because Sanatan Sanstha is implicated in the murders of rationalists and many scholars and rationalists have received death-threats from them. As per the Indian Express, "the slain rationalist had been getting threats in the mail, by email, and through Sanatan Prabhat articles for at least seven years before he was murdered in the heart of Pune city on August 20, 2013. A picture of Dabholkar’s, marked with a red cross, was pulled out of the Sanstha web site immediately after the killing."
• Hindu extremism : Sanatan Sanstha's members engage in extremist activities like bomb blasts in the name of Hinduism.

The Discoverer (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Observation regarding section "Violent criminal activities"

All,

Today I happen to read wikipedia article [Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.] Like Sanatan Sanstha, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh also had accusation regarding violent activities, also this organisation was banned as one of it's activist killed Mahatma Gandhi. However, no charges were proved against Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh so this organisation is not tagged as Teorriest orgnasation or there is no section in this article like "Violent criminal activities". As per Indian law, untill the crime is proved accused is not considerd as criminal. So in this article section "Violent criminal activities" doesn't seems appropriate. This heading need to be replaced by "Criticisms and accusations".

Once Sanatan Sanstha is found guilty in said crimes then only section "Violent criminal activities" would be appropriate. Till now this section can be renamed as, "Criticisms and accusations"Bonybaby1979 (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sanatan Sanstha. 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 https://web.archive.org/20090613014631/http://www.bharathagnana.com:80/2008/12/sree-sankara-spiritual-tv-channel.html to http://www.bharathagnana.com/2008/12/sree-sankara-spiritual-tv-channel.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090618115841/http://www.forumforhinduawakening.org:80/articles/id/news/role_model_award_to_sanatan_seeker to http://www.forumforhinduawakening.org/articles/id/news/role_model_award_to_sanatan_seeker

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Pseudo-english?

So much of this article is impossible to understand. Campaign to defend Sanstha[edit source] Sanstha started campaign to defend itself from all eligation on it. It started Dharna, sabhas, public contacting. Signature campaign, writing letter articles on news papers. People who support Sanstha, started campaign on Facebook. Facebook.com/nobansanstha on this link they defend Sanstha in every sense.

What? El cid, el campeador (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Few observations regarding wiki Page Sanatan Sanstha

First sentence says, "The Sanatan Sanstha is a radical group in India...." but don't see any reference to substantiate the word "Radical". After going through the article, I could not find even single assertion from Court, CBI, Maharashtra Chief Minister, Goa chief minister, Central government, State Home department that supporting the claim that Sanatan Sanstha is radical group. Instead I see that Center have rejected ban request citing lack of supporting evidences. Further to this I see quote from Goa CM, "Just because there is suspicion on one person we cannot blame the organisation which he is associated with. It would be not be right to ban the entire organisation". Request inputs form moderator if he still thinks that used of this word "Radical" is appropriate. I feel It is giving wrong picture. Hence, If found appropriate word 'Radical' can be removed.

In addition to this I see one more statement without any verifiable reference. "Sanatan Sanstha was included in a list of terrorist organisations by the government of Maharashtra." in contrast to this CM of Maharashtra is saying request for ban on Sanatan was sent in 2011 but it didn't get approval from Center due to lack of proof against Sanatan Sanstha. Please find below article link for your reference. According to me this statement can be removed.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/if-proof-will-act-on-sanstha-devendra-fadnavis/ Nutralnaman (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sanatan Sanstha is described by the mainstream media as 'radical Hindu group', 'Hindu extremist organisation', 'dangerous organisation', 'terror organisation'. So we have merely used the mildest word, 'radical'.

As for the second sentence, there is a proper reference for it. In case it is a dead link, it must be replaced by an alternative source, likne an archive, but please do not delete the sentence.

The Discoverer (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

References

2013 plan to establish Hindu Rashtra

Info from Here should be added to the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

References

This is w.r.t. Revision as of 19:15, 22 April 2021 by The Discoverer, incorrectly dragging the name of Sanatan Sanstha when the Sanatan Sanstha is not involved in the land deal of disputed land between two individuals.

The Discoverer have done the revision as of 19:15, 22 April 2021 by adding following section and below given line attributing the Land Grab to Sanatan Sanstha.

Environmental destruction and land grab

Locals protested over the cutting of forests and hills in Goa by Sanatan Sanstha to create residential plots and settle people from outside the state.

From the given reference I see following points.

• locals are furious as a lady tried to purchase the disputed land from the landlord. The locals have houses and bagayats in the area.”
• The hilly area with residential houses is a No Development Zone. Still The locals have houses is that area. If Locals have build their houses in the Private property owned by sone one else and that too in No Development Zone. How can they drag the Name of Sanatan Sanstha by claiming Sanatan Sanstha to create residential plots ? In the given news reference no where it is mentioned that Sanatan Sanstha is purchasing the Land from the Current Private owner.
• Locals alleged that though the land owner is trying to sell the land, there are several houses, bagayats cultivated by STs since ages. The issue is disputed since 2018. So the Dispute is between Private owner of the Land and the illegal occupant of the land. I don't see any reason for Linking this dispute with Sanatan Sanstha.

Hence feel that the edit is incorrectly attributed to Sanatan Sanstha and hence should be reverted.

--Sanatany (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• The text added to the page is in accordance with what the sources say.
• In the given news reference no where it is mentioned that Sanatan Sanstha is purchasing the Land from the Current Private owner. Neither does the added text make this claim.
• The references clearly link Sanatan Sanstha with the entire matter and say that the organisation has been served a notice by the government over this.
• The justifications given by you above are original research.

The Discoverer (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

References

This is Not a Hindu Terrorist Group This is Hindu Safety Group

Sanatan Sanstha not a Hindu terrorist group Indian supreme court say this is not it Hindu terrorist group no evidence proof this because Sanatan Sanstha only for Hindus safety group 2401:4900:58B8:B012:7A68:894C:667D:E0B8 (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2021

Change The Sanatan Sanstha is an extremist group seeking Hindu nationalism in India." To "The Sanatan Sanstha is a santant dharm spiritual group in India" as there isn't any government declared terrorism group so details are incorrect. Further it's showing Hindu terrorism group in search suggestions thats need to be corrected. It hypothetically over written by someone without having any factual evidence only based on some created stories Aryanamit (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Some people are editing without any base Aryanamit (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see if this reference helps. Bombay HC upholds acquittal of 6 accused in 2009 Goa blast case - All the accused were said to be related to a right-wing Hindu organisation, Sanatan Sanstha.

--Sanatany (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Contradictions in section Social media controversy

As per the latest developemnt In September 2020, Facebook banned three of Sanatan’s pages. However, this section have sentance saying, "Regardless the organisation (Sanatan Sanstha) has been allowed to spread on Facebook due to political and safety considerations. Facebook has avoided acting against these organisation as it has ties with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ......"

With latest development I feel that this sentence is no more valid and hence can be removed. Dear Admin. could you please advise / take corrective actions ?

Sanatany (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• 21C adhiveshan.jpg
• Exhibition of holy texts by Sanatan Sanstha at the New Delhi World Book Fair 2020.png
• Kolhapur Flood relief work.png
• Sanatan-Gurupurnima-Mumbai.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)