Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Benjaminmarsh (talk | contribs) at 22:56, 6 February 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

reversion

please stop reverting the article - Lets talk about changes before simply changing back Benjaminmarsh 22:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

pat robertson

His views on hindus are irrelevant for this article Benjaminmarsh 22:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep changing our information? Please stop. You are misrepresenting us. We are not a missionary organization nor have we ever been.

--Benjaminmarsh 17:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article that suggests missionary activity.. Merely that DFN works with several anti-Hindu personalities and organizations and often misrepresents itself as Hindu when, in fact, it is Christian.Hkelkar 22:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

but again, someone has changed it to suggest missionary activity. We aren't missionaries.Benjaminmarsh 21:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

See WP:COIBakaman _Bakatalk 04:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If there's something you disagree with, could I suggest you indicate this with{{fact}} or {{dubious}} after the statement. In Misplaced Pages, the burden of proof is always on those who want information to be included. Accordingly, you are within your rights to request citations. Also, could I suggest you avoid using the revert function, unless for obvious vandalism. Thanks, Addhoc 19:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

D'Souza's wife

this information is not pertinent to the article. Nor, for that matter, is the fact that neither nanci nor joseph are Dalits. Is the founder of "save the whales" a whale? Benjaminmarsh 01:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So you're equating Dalits with whales? Racism. Typical of Bible-Thumping missionary groups. Hkelkar 06:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What do whales have to with the article?--D-Boy 20:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That was a metaphor. Please stop being insulting. You are not advancing facts but an agenda of hatred. 68.50.210.44 21:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"their position was different..."

This statement needs factual backing. Our activities were supported by a number of progressive Hindu organizations.Benjaminmarsh 01:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Progressive Hindu orgs" run by Islamist fronts like FOSA with "Allah will destroy the terrorist state of India" right up on their website? Yeah, right.Hkelkar 06:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence:

1. http://www.friendsofsouthasia.org/events/indpakpeace/ Association with the "Pakistan American Alliance"
2. PAA is a terrorist front with "Allah will destroy the terrorist state of India" as a motto
3. When exposed, they hastily "removed" the links and "ended their association" with PAA. Yeah, right. Hkelkar

Who said anything about FOSA? 68.50.210.44 21:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fact tag for 'missionary' description

I've tagged the 'missionary' description, considering this is a weekend, I'll give 48 hours to find a citation before removing the word. Addhoc 21:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Article by Crystal Hsu and PN Benjamin

This article should not be included. HVK.org is not a source for dispassionate information but is an opinion site in support of hindutva. The source does not meet wikipedia's requirements. Benjaminmarsh 01:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an archive of a legit news source and satisfies wiki requirements just fine.Hkelkar 01:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

it is not a news site - it is an organization with a blantant hinduthva mission68.50.210.44 21:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This article doesn't appear to mention a missionary agenda, accordingly I have given the sentence a failed verification tag. If there isn't a response in 48 hours, then I'll remove the word "missionary". Addhoc 11:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Reworded to better reflect source.Hkelkar 12:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of casteism and racism

this discussion belongs in the article on the Dalits, not here. Benjaminmarsh 04:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

CA controversy

Discussion on this belongs in the article about the case and has been removed Benjaminmarsh 04:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion restored

The discussion page has been restored. It is unethical to remove the discussion page. --Cardreader 00:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)