Jump to content

Talk:Jai Shri Ram

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shubhams123 (talk | contribs) at 04:25, 27 March 2021 (→‎Moving the paragraph about usage by Hindu Nationalist to a separate section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Removed references

[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

  1. ^ 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.
  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)
  22. ^ "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

  1. ^ "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]
Currently, the Takbir § Usage by extremists section is a very small portion of the Takbir article, and cites 3 news articles. In contrast, the Jai Shri Ram § Violent incidents section is a larger portion of the Jai Shri Ram article, and its summary in the lead section justifies its due weight with citations of 12 high-quality academic sources and 2 news articles.
Academic sources about the negative use of the Takbir probably exist, and those can be added to that article, which may then justify adding a mention of the negative use to the lead section of the Takbir article. For the Jai Shri Ram article, I don't see a policy-based reason to remove the expression's negative use from the lead section (as it constitutes due weight and Wikipedia is not censored). However, if you can find reliably sourced information about other aspects of Jai Shri Ram, please share it so that it can be incorporated into the article. — Newslinger talk 11:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shubams123, you are entirely mistaken about what Jai Shri Ram means. I suggest that you read the sources that were provided instead of trying to tinker Wikipedia to your own convictions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3 I have gone through the sources and found them to hold little value for the article it represents. I am not disagreeing that the phrase has been used by religious extremists. However, usage in good faith outnumber usage in bad faith, and so, my suggestion is that the certain paragraph be removed from the Lead, and be put into a separate section of Usage or sub-section of Usage by extremists. Reporting in the media often focuses on the negatives[1], and the purpose of Wikipedia as a neutral viewpoint should be not to be burdened by the overwhelming negativity in the media. I'd also like to refer to the discussion that User:Newslinger had over for Takbir, as I consider it a good example on how article on faith should be written. The consensus there was reached, and I'd like to highlight a important comment opposing made -
"Definitely not. Describing the takbir as an 'Islamic war cry', where its use is limited to extremist groups who profess to follow a very narrow interpretation of the religion, is inappropriate. This paragraph also seems to violate WP:NPOV in its prose."

@Shubhams123: Please obtain consensus on this talk page before reinstating a disputed edit. You may find the bold, revert, discuss cycle to be a useful recommendation. — Newslinger talk 04:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Stafford, Tom. "Psychology: Why bad news dominates the headlines". www.bbc.com.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jai_Shri_Ram&oldid=1014450709"