Talk:Jai Shri Ram: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:18, 26 March 2021

Skip to table of contents

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why does this article describe Jai Shri Ram negatively?

A1: Wikipedia and its editors in no way intend to denigrate any culture, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or organisation. Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources say about the subject; the neutral point of view policy defines neutrality as representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Reliable sources note that Jai Shri Ram has been used in a negative way, and so this article notes that as well. This does not imply that the phrase Jai Shri Ram is inherently bad.

Q2: I don't like what this article says! Can I edit it or at least suggest a change?

A2: Yes, you may edit the article if it is not protected and you are sure that your change is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you are not sure about your change, or if you can't edit the article as it is protected, please suggest the change using an edit request. Please remember that your edit must satisfy the following:

It must be supported by reliable sources.
It must not involve removing negative information about the subject unless that information is not supported by a reliable source or does not meet another policy or guideline.

Q3: This article says that Jai Shri Ram is used negatively, but I don't believe that it is used in such a way! Who is right?

A3: Please remember that just because you have never seen Jai Shri Ram being used negatively doesn't mean that it is never used negatively. For example, you may have only seen cases where Jai Shri Ram was used positively, but at the same time, other people use the same subject negatively. The article does not say that Jai Shri Ram is always used negatively. On the contrary, it says that Jai Shri Ram has been used negatively in certain situations.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jai Shri Ram article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2: 7 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Hinduism C‑class Low‑importance

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

India: History / Politics C‑class Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article was last assessed in August 2020.

Politics C‑class Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Sravasti Dasgupta (2 August 2020). "'Biased, anti-Hindu' — campaign begins against Wikipedia after it urges Indians to donate". ThePrint. Retrieved 3 August 2020. A social media campaign, spearheaded by prominent right-wing personalities accusing Wikipedia of being 'anti-Hindu', began trending Saturday, three days after the open-source information website asked Indian users to donate to 'defend Wikipedia's independence'.
Omer Benjakob (5 November 2020). "A vicious culture war is tearing through Wikipedia". Wired (magazine). Retrieved 6 November 2020. The edit was the first in a struggle that raged for more than a year, with one side claiming it constituted a form of "Hinduphobia" and the other side saying it was an accurate portrayal of the religious term, which had been embraced by India's ruling party BJP and, according to some in the media, had become a "dog whistle" for nationalists.

Removed references

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[a]

I removed this massive collection of redundant references. Feel free to reincorporate them into the article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the below sources:

(1), (2), (3) have passing mentions of how the slogan was linked to violent incidents.

Same for (7), (8), which additionally provide information on the rise of the BJP and Hindutva.

(9), (15), (21) I have added in the article. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding this video here.^[22] SerChevalerie (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restored to article, bundled with the {{refn}} template to prevent citation overkill. — Newslinger talk 05:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References and notes

^ Compare with the usage of Allāhu akbar in Islamic radicalism, over here.

^ Suresh, Mayur (2019-02-01). "The social life of technicalities: 'Terrorist' lives in Delhi's courts" (PDF). Contributions to Indian Sociology. 53 (1): 72–96. doi:10.1177/0069966718812523. ISSN 0069-9667.
^ Menon, Nivedita (2002). "Surviving Gujarat 2002". Economic and Political Weekly. 37 (27): 2676–2678. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 4412315.
^ Engineer, Asghar Ali (1992). "Sitamarhi on Fire". Economic and Political Weekly. 27 (46): 2462–2464. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 4399118.
^ Nussbaum, Martha C. (2008-11-01). "The Clash Within: Democracy and the Hindu Right". Journal of Human Development. 9 (3): 357–375. doi:10.1080/14649880802236565. ISSN 1464-9888.
^ Staples, James (2019-11-02). "Blurring Bovine Boundaries: Cow Politics and the Everyday in South India". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 42 (6): 1125–1140. doi:10.1080/00856401.2019.1669951. ISSN 0085-6401.
^ Gupta, Charu; Sharma, Mukul (1996). "Communal constructions: media reality vs real reality". Race & Class. 38 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1177/030639689603800101. ISSN 0306-3968.
^ Austin, Dennis; Lyon, Peter (1993). "The Bharatiya Janata Party of India". Government and Opposition. 28 (1): 36–50. doi:10.1111/j.1477-7053.1993.tb01304.x. ISSN 0017-257X. JSTOR 44484547.
^ Ramaseshan, Radhika (1990). "The Press on Ayodhya". Economic and Political Weekly. 25 (50): 2701–2704. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 4397088.
^ Sarkar, Sumit (1999). "Conversions and Politics of Hindu Right". Economic and Political Weekly. 34 (26): 1691–1700. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 4408131.
^ Sarkar, Sumit (1993). "The Fascism of the Sangh Parivar". Economic and Political Weekly. 28 (5): 163–167. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 4399339.
^ Ludden, David; Ludden, Professor of History David (April 1996). Contesting the Nation: Religion, Community, and the Politics of Democracy in India. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-1585-4.
^ Rambachan, Anantanand (2017-04-20). "The Coexistence of Violence and Nonviolence in Hinduism". Journal of Ecumenical Studies. 52 (1): 96–104. doi:10.1353/ecu.2017.0001. ISSN 2162-3937.
^ Gudipaty, Nagamallika (2017), "Television, Political Imagery, and Elections in India", in Ngwainmbi, Emmanuel K. (ed.), Citizenship, Democracies, and Media Engagement among Emerging Economies and Marginalized Communities, Springer International Publishing, pp. 117–145, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56215-5_6, ISBN 978-3-319-56215-5
^ Mazumdar, Sucheta (1995). "Women on the March: Right-Wing Mobilization in Contemporary India". Feminist Review (49): 1–28. doi:10.2307/1395323. ISSN 0141-7789. JSTOR 1395323.
^ Schultz, Kai; Raj, Suhasini (5 January 2020). "Masked Men Attack Students in Rampage at University in New Delhi". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 January 2020.
^ Brosius, Christiane (2005). "Hindutva's Media Phantasmagorias". Empowering visions : the politics of representation in Hindu nationalism. Anthem Press. p. 95. ISBN 1-84331-134-8. OCLC 52566622.
^ Brosius, Christiane (2007). "The Unwanted Offering. Ubiquity And Success Of Failure In A Ritual Of The Hindu Right". In Hüsken, Ute (ed.). When rituals go wrong mistakes, failure and the dynamics of ritual. Numen. Vol. 115. Brill. ISBN 978-90-474-1988-4. OCLC 928981707.
^ Ghassem-Fachandi, Parvis (2009-08-01). "Bandh in Ahmedabad". Violence: Ethnographic Encounters. Berg. ISBN 978-1-84788-418-3.
^ Salam, Ziya Us. ""Jai Shri Ram": The new battle cry". Frontline. Retrieved 2020-01-10.
^ Daniyal, Shoaib. "'Jai Shri Ram' might be a new slogan – but the use of Ram as a political symbol is 800 years old". Scroll.in. Retrieved 2020-01-10.
^ DelhiJuly 13, Prabhash K. Dutta New; July 13, 2019UPDATED; Ist, 2019 12:28. "Jai Shri Ram: A slogan that changed political contours of India". India Today. Retrieved 2020-01-10. {{cite web}}: |first3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ "On board The Ramayan Express, there are bhajans, chants of Jai Shri Ram and more - YouTube". www.youtube.com. Retrieved 2020-08-01. {{cite web}}: More than one of |work= and |website= specified (help)

MOS Clearly states that the introduction should be nuetral

Dear admins, As I mentioned earlier. According to MOS:LEAD the lead should be neutral. If you just go through the format of lead you could see that it clearly mentioned how the lead should be descriptive and neutral. Takbir being used by the infamous terrorist group as a war cry is not mentioned in its Lead. Please note that I am not writing it because I want it but because this is a particular format should be followed by your editors too. You people are human too and can have biases (No offense). I have seen one admin here is an atheist, I hope he does not have something personal against Hindus just because of BJP. One thing I want to state clearly is that I have no problem with criticizing the use in an appropriate column such as Takbir but the description should be neutral without the last lines. Thank you. Parassharma1 (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEAD states that the lead (like all content) must be written from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and this requires all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. To censor part of the lead as you advocate would not be neutral. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page clearly violated manual of style just in the introduction. The 2nd paragraph should be edited to provide neutral introduction, and "incidents of communal violence" should be a separate section. The references for it are not good enough in my opinion, but that can be a separate discussion. Preacher066 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 21 reliable sources cited in Special:Diff/1005322255 § cite note-28, including more than a dozen high-quality academic sources, are more than sufficient for the cited claims in the lead section. — Newslinger talk 03:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lead is absolutely not neutral and is barely even in context. As far as I can tell from an outside perspective, this phrase is a religious/ devotional one, and has been co-opted to some extent by certain political parties. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia to mention politics within the lead unless the subject is inherently political in nature, intent, or motive; which it's not. It needs to be cleaned up to include context of the phrase in a neutral style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.190.147.190 (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LEAD, the lead is pretty ok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image

The image of Ram feels a bit not Okay....Is it Okay if someone changes the image to a painting of Ram.... AARYA SAJAYAN (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is a good WP:LEADIMAGE can be quite subjective. What replacement do you suggest? It may be simpler (copyright infringement etc) if it's one you find at Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image is of a statue in Ayodhya. I am afraid that is how the Jai Shri Ram activists visualise him. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having an Ayodhya Rama in this article makes an amount of sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the paragraph about usage by Hindu Nationalist to a separate section

The phrase might have been used by some radical elements against other religious groups, but so have been other religious phrases ^[1].

In the cited article, to maintain the piousness of the phrase in the minds of millions of followers, who are nowhere like the radical extremists that use it to further their own purposes, the negativity around the phrase has been moved to a separate sub-section "Usage by extremists".

Religion and its expressions should not be defined by its worst adherents. I suggest moving the particular paragraph to the section Usage and sub-section Controversial. This removes the assumption that one gets from reading the article on the first go, that the phrase always has negative connotations. I hope my request is considered in good faith. Have gone through the FAQs as well, didn't find an answer satisfactory, so have chosen to raise the issue here. Shubhams123 (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Takbir". Wikipedia. 24 March 2021.

I assume you mean the second lead paragraph. It fits per WP:LEAD. IMO, the first lead paragraph clearly contradicts that the phrase always has negative connotations. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was referring to the second lead paragraph. The WP:LEAD article leaves it to the readers interpretation as it cites WP:NPOV as "Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section". Keeping in mind the faith of millions of Hindus, who do not wish to be associated with the radical fringes, it should be a wise decision on your part to move it to the appropriate section, rather than the lead one. Shubhams123 (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lead section of a Wikipedia article is supposed to summarize the article body, and the lead section of this article does so. If you have high-quality academic sources on Takbir that resemble the ones cited in this article, feel free to share them at Talk:Takbir. — Newslinger talk 08:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality academic sources have been cited in that article as well. My point is that is how this article should be as well, and I wouldn't want to change the cited article a bit. Shubhams123 (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[22] Compare with the usage of Allāhu akbar in Islamic radicalism, over here.

[1] Suresh, Mayur (2019-02-01). "The social life of technicalities: 'Terrorist' lives in Delhi's courts" (PDF). Contributions to Indian Sociology. 53 (1): 72–96. doi:10.1177/0069966718812523. ISSN 0069-9667.

[2] Menon, Nivedita (2002). "Surviving Gujarat 2002". Economic and Political Weekly. 37 (27): 2676–2678. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 4412315.

[3] Engineer, Asghar Ali (1992). "Sitamarhi on Fire". Economic and Political Weekly. 27 (46): 2462–2464. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 4399118.

[4] Nussbaum, Martha C. (2008-11-01). "The Clash Within: Democracy and the Hindu Right". Journal of Human Development. 9 (3): 357–375. doi:10.1080/14649880802236565. ISSN 1464-9888.

[5] Staples, James (2019-11-02). "Blurring Bovine Boundaries: Cow Politics and the Everyday in South India". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 42 (6): 1125–1140. doi:10.1080/00856401.2019.1669951. ISSN 0085-6401.

[6] Gupta, Charu; Sharma, Mukul (1996). "Communal constructions: media reality vs real reality". Race & Class. 38 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1177/030639689603800101. ISSN 0306-3968.

[7] Austin, Dennis; Lyon, Peter (1993). "The Bharatiya Janata Party of India". Government and Opposition. 28 (1): 36–50. doi:10.1111/j.1477-7053.1993.tb01304.x. ISSN 0017-257X. JSTOR 44484547.

[8] Ramaseshan, Radhika (1990). "The Press on Ayodhya". Economic and Political Weekly. 25 (50): 2701–2704. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 4397088.

[9] Sarkar, Sumit (1999). "Conversions and Politics of Hindu Right". Economic and Political Weekly. 34 (26): 1691–1700. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 4408131.

[10] Sarkar, Sumit (1993). "The Fascism of the Sangh Parivar". Economic and Political Weekly. 28 (5): 163–167. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 4399339.

[11] Ludden, David; Ludden, Professor of History David (April 1996). Contesting the Nation: Religion, Community, and the Politics of Democracy in India. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-1585-4.

[12] Rambachan, Anantanand (2017-04-20). "The Coexistence of Violence and Nonviolence in Hinduism". Journal of Ecumenical Studies. 52 (1): 96–104. doi:10.1353/ecu.2017.0001. ISSN 2162-3937.

[13] Gudipaty, Nagamallika (2017), "Television, Political Imagery, and Elections in India", in Ngwainmbi, Emmanuel K. (ed.), Citizenship, Democracies, and Media Engagement among Emerging Economies and Marginalized Communities, Springer International Publishing, pp. 117–145, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56215-5_6, ISBN 978-3-319-56215-5

[14] Mazumdar, Sucheta (1995). "Women on the March: Right-Wing Mobilization in Contemporary India". Feminist Review (49): 1–28. doi:10.2307/1395323. ISSN 0141-7789. JSTOR 1395323.

[NYT_JNU_6_Jan-15] Schultz, Kai; Raj, Suhasini (5 January 2020). "Masked Men Attack Students in Rampage at University in New Delhi". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 January 2020.

[16] Brosius, Christiane (2005). "Hindutva's Media Phantasmagorias". Empowering visions : the politics of representation in Hindu nationalism. Anthem Press. p. 95. ISBN 1-84331-134-8. OCLC 52566622.

[17] Brosius, Christiane (2007). "The Unwanted Offering. Ubiquity And Success Of Failure In A Ritual Of The Hindu Right". In Hüsken, Ute (ed.). When rituals go wrong mistakes, failure and the dynamics of ritual. Numen. Vol. 115. Brill. ISBN 978-90-474-1988-4. OCLC 928981707.

[18] Ghassem-Fachandi, Parvis (2009-08-01). "Bandh in Ahmedabad". Violence: Ethnographic Encounters. Berg. ISBN 978-1-84788-418-3.

[19] Salam, Ziya Us. ""Jai Shri Ram": The new battle cry". Frontline. Retrieved 2020-01-10.

[20] Daniyal, Shoaib. "'Jai Shri Ram' might be a new slogan – but the use of Ram as a political symbol is 800 years old". Scroll.in. Retrieved 2020-01-10.

[21] DelhiJuly 13, Prabhash K. Dutta New; July 13, 2019UPDATED; Ist, 2019 12:28. "Jai Shri Ram: A slogan that changed political contours of India". India Today. Retrieved 2020-01-10. {{cite web}}: |first3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[23] "On board The Ramayan Express, there are bhajans, chants of Jai Shri Ram and more - YouTube". www.youtube.com. Retrieved 2020-08-01. {{cite web}}: More than one of |work= and |website= specified (help)

[24] "Takbir". Wikipedia. 24 March 2021.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[a]

[22]

[1]

@@ Line 97: / Line 97: @@
 :I assume you mean the second lead paragraph. It fits per [[WP:LEAD]]. IMO, the ''first'' lead paragraph clearly contradicts that the phrase always has negative connotations. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 08:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
-::Yes, I was referring to the second lead paragraph. [[User:Shubhams123|Shubhams123]] ([[User talk:Shubhams123|talk]]) 11:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
+::Yes, I was referring to the second lead paragraph. The [[WP:LEAD]] article leaves it to the readers interpretation as it cites [[WP:NPOV]] as "Do not violate [[WP:Neutral point of view]] by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section". Keeping in mind the faith of millions of Hindus, who do not wish to be associated with the radical fringes, it should be a wise decision on your part to move it to the appropriate section, rather than the lead one. [[User:Shubhams123|Shubhams123]] ([[User talk:Shubhams123|talk]]) 11:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 : A [[MOS:LEAD|lead section]] of a Wikipedia article is supposed to summarize the article body, and the lead section of this article does so. If you have [[WP:SOURCETYPES|high-quality academic sources]] on [[Takbir]] that resemble the ones cited in this article, feel free to share them at [[Talk:Takbir]]. —&nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 08:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)