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 Basu021 (talk | contribs) at 10:05, 3 August 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Paragraph on reported attacks on Muslims

This article includes a paragraph on Muslims having been attacked and forced to chant Jai Shri Ram. It is repeatedly being removed, generally without explanation but sometimes with comments such as "hate crime", "fake news" or "hinduphobia", and restored. Should it be Retained or Removed?

  • Retain - I agree with both of the above points of view. Sachi Mohanty 15:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachi bbsr (talk • contribs)
  • Retain - But the proper usage of the term should be explained first, before moving on to controversial usages of the term. It is unfair just to report controversies associated with a term, without explaining it's history and normal usage. Varun2048 (Varun2048 14:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. But I am going to add a section about historical usage of this term too. It is very unfair to just have a section on the misuse or controversies arising out of this term and not have one on its intended meaning. Doing so will also reduce edit wars. Jamailfaroukh (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove : Jai shree Ram is an emotion to those who follows Hinduism and it should never be clubbed with any words such as war cary or lynching acts. If there have been cases reported where people have been forced to chant Jai shree Ram even then the significance or the definition of the term should not be altered. It should rather be shown in reference bar with proper evidence of a genuine repoting agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portashu5 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain – per Dorsetonian. Wikipedia is not censored, and just because people don't like reading something is no reason to remove content -- especially if well-sourced (which it is). —MelbourneStar☆talk 15:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - Jai Shri Ram is a greeting of sorts, and is not new, as claimed in the Wiki. There is no real reason in good faith to create this Wiki at all, if the root meaning and emotions of the "phrase" are conceitedly ignored, only to unjustly glorify the Hinduphobic angle where certain left-leaning media and instances have quoted and alleged misuse of this "slogan" at time of said instances. The poster or posting organisation clearly has no good or righteous intentions behind making this Wiki. And thus, it should not be kept up. It abuses the spirit of Wikipedia, to further an venomous political agenda of anti-Hindu forces. Pareshpandit (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC) — Pareshpandit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Remove - Jai Shri Ram is a popular North Indian greeting. The article does not dwell into any of the historical evolution of the greeting or its origins dating back to Tulsidas's Ramcharitmanas. Rather, it only focuses on some recent claims as if this is only related to lynchings; these claims are equally disputed by academics and many sections of media. The current article focuses on a specific viewpoint on this greeting. Ascribing origins of the greeting to a television series of 1980s is ridiculous. The use of greeting is traced back to literature going back to at least Ramcharitmanas (16th century). It also appears in many Hindi movies of 1960s. The writers of the lead seem very ignorant of the history of this greeting.Vizziee (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I request these claims to be removed. They might be true. but Jai shri Ram is related more to religion than to communal violence. Also the sources cited are heavily biased against Hinduism. When a topic is mentioned in the encyclopedia, we mention what it is about, what is its history, etc. Not how it is being misused or being used in the wrong way. Moreover the article appears to be biased against Hinduism, like several other articles. Also The sources mentioned may be reliable for the wiki admins, but they should try and understand that now-a-days sources report only the negative facts about an incident or a topic. They fail to report any other stiff related to the topic. These sources often get up cited here on Wikipedia, creating a negative image i the mind of the reader. An encyclopedia article's purpose is to provide info, not incite Hatred or disregard for any community, group or faith. Even if a majority of sources say against it. Parlebourbon3 (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, almost all of the sources in #Removed references are high-quality academic sources. An allegation of bias, unsupported by reliable sources, does not reduce the weight all of these academic sources. I'd like to thank SerChevalerie for expanding the article to give the Origins section its due weight. — Newslinger talk 11:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove..that para has nothing to do with that incident and shree ram.. If one uses God's name for anything unethical, it is not the God's fault..Ur misguiding the belief of people by including a fight scene which goes on in almost any country into jai shree ram wiki.. The makers should remove it as soon as possible Fragilez190 (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC) — Fragilez190 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

•Retain - Just search Allah Hu Akabr(Takbir) article in wikipedia. You'll find all kind of terrorist attacks and lynchings are mentioned. So compared to that this is nothing. But I agree to add some more positive usage of 'Jai Shri Ram' which is used many devotional songs too.(source is Google. Search Jai shri ram lyrics) I'm new so I hope some one professional can add this.Anonymous2611 (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC) — Anonymous2611 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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)

About BJP

This article is edited by some fake editor and his claim is wrong so please take it down. Shucasm (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article must be taken down for the false narratives, it is just propaganda article, to defame hindu gods. Lalitkumar97 (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is far from reality and truth. It falsely portrays the true legeny of Shree Ram and it's slogan Jai Shree Ram. Please correct the page. 

 Yuganksharma (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yuganksharma: @Lalitkumar97: @Shucasm:: Please read WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The article won't be taken down, especially for the reasons you have all stated. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk 03:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

regarding lead

Jai Sri Ram is an old chant. It's recent usage by communal forces shouldn't be in the lead. See Takbir, the political and warfare usage of it are not in the lead, they are in another section. If no one disagrees, I'll move it. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 01:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Sri Ram, Jay Ram, Jay Jay Ram is a line in a chant. But the exact phrase "Jai Shri Ram" doesn't occur in it. Even if it did, it is not being used as a chant now. Why would one chant Ram's name while carrying out lynchings, burnings and lootings?
"Jai Shri Ram" in that precise form was created by Ramanand Sagar and it is repeatedly used in the Ramayan series by Hanuman and other warriors to derive strength and defeat their enemies. That is precisely what a war cry is. Watch this episode for ten minutes and you can see: Ramayan Episode 69.

Prem Sagar’s biography of his father, Ramanand Sagar, begins with the words “Jai Shri Ram”, reflecting not only the TV mogul’s preferred salutation, but also the slogan he made part of a vast swathe of Indian households through Doordarshan’s Ramayan.[1]

Ramanand Sagar took full credit for that:

He told Madhu Jain, 'Transporting everyone to that golden age, I have brought the college boy from the disco culture to the Ramayan. College boys don't say "Hi" any more, they say "Jai Shri Ram ki" "Long live Shri Ram."'[2]

The traditional greeting was and is "Jai Siya Ram".

When Chikhalia asked Sagar why his usual greeting was “Jai Shri Ram” and not “Jai Siya Ram”, he took note.[1]

No idea what he did as a result of that "note".

In Ayodhya, you will almost never hear a woman devotee, either a resident or a pilgrim, use the slogan “Jai Shri Ram”. It is always “Sita-Ram-Sita-Ram” that you hear being chanted.[3]

So, no, "Jai Shri Ram" was neither a chant nor a greeting. It was created as a battle cry and it continues to be used as one. So, obviously Sita has no place in it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Manik Sharma, The man who would make Ramayan: Ramanand Sagar's biggest endeavour is outlined in a new biography, Firstpost, 16 January 2020.
  2. ^ Tully, Mark (1992), No Full Stops in India, Penguin Books Limited, ISBN 978-0-14-192775-6
  3. ^ Prashant Panjiar, From Jai Siya Ram to Jai Shri Ram: How Ayodhya erased Sita, The Print, 19 October 2019.
Oh. I should have read the article and it's sources before jumping into this. Thanks for all the information. 👍 TryKid [dubious – discuss] 16:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Ramanand Sagar production of Ramayana serial was very popular in time , but it is totally irrelevant to compare with it Ayodhya dispute and Jay Shri Ram slogan, because it was the local people (people of Ayodhya) that were fighting for their rights from one generation after another generation irrespective of their political leaning.

Most of people have lack of knowledge of the Awadhi culture, tradition and language , because they only know North India in conventional political terms like "Hindi belt" that's why they don't know that in most our local folk song, there is large number of chantings and greetings like Ram-Ram, Jai shri ram, sita-ram, Jai sita ram and etc in Awadhi language

223.180.180.221 —Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2020

The expression was used all over the world as a greeting (on the name of Dharma) for starting any conversation.[ Mamadharma (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current description seems to be more descriptive. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

Parassharma1, the following sources you added in Special:Diff/970602628 are questionable and/or self-published:

Please don't cite unreliable sources like these into the article. — Newslinger talk 09:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newslinger, The sources which are ocnsidered reliable, in general report against the majority, or if I may state more clearly, they are biased against the majority. It is a natural tendency. So we must always see what the other side has to say. Now the main problem of the article is that it contains more criticism than information. Moreover, the criticism is presented in the opening paragraph of the article. If I dump all my ideologies out from my head, then upon reading the intro para itself, I will think, that the Jai Shri Ram slogan is connected with riots and BJP. I am not saying that these sources report fake news. They report what is true. However they report selectively, hence the negativity. I am asking you to look into this.
Another thing I wanted to say was that, people are citing statements of journalists within the article. For example Rana Ayyub's statement. Now that is bad. We should not pick up someone's personal opinion and cite it into an encyclopedia article. This should be removed.
And you may think that I am repetitive, I apologise for that, but the article should have neutral Intro, Historical background, popular use and then the misuse of the slogan. Not the other way round.
Parlebourbon3 (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The allegation that all reliable sources have a bias "against the majority" is an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that has become a perennial talking point of OpIndia (RSP entry). OpIndia is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia due to its poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. India has no shortage of journalism that is favorable to the "majority", and some of those sources are considered reliable enough for Wikipedia in some cases. They're certainly better than the blog of an apparel store, which was cited in the edit above. — Newslinger talk 03:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article starts with a prejudice against Hinduism?

I know that a large number of sources have reported use of Jai Shree Ram in communal violence. And might have been used. But an encyclopedia article should tell first, what the thing is. What it is about. Why it came into existence. Why it is famous. Etc. However this article starts with a prejudice against the use of the slogan.

For many, the slogan is simply a short prayer. To remember the Hindu Deity Lord Rama and seek his blessings. The slogan wasn't intended to be used in communal violence. Ever. However the people who edited the article over time have made the slogan look like a war-cry used by the Hindu organizations and Political parties, used only at the time of riots and for polarising people.

If the article is o be truly neutral, it should explain the slogan in following manner: 1. Introduction: A neutral one. Should not include its use in riots or mass polarisation. 2. History: Should tell about the origins of the slogan. 3. Popular use: Should tell about the slogan use in the Ramanand Sagar Ramayan. 4. Negative Use(Preferably misuse): Here one may write about its use in incidents involving violence.

After this you will notice, that 90% of the sources cited are for pt. 4. This gives a clear indication that the article is more about the misuse/negative use of Jai Shree Ram than the slogan itself.

Please consider this. I am just trying to improve Wikipedia's articles. Parlebourbon3 (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed order is fairly reasonable for the article body. However, the lead section of a well-developed article is a summary of the body, which means that the negative use or misuse would still be mentioned in the lead section. — Newslinger talk 11:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And for the rest, per WP-philosophy it's about bringing and using WP:RS about the expression Jai Shri Ram in a WP:DUE manner. Which is not always that easy. If you chose to read WP, you may encounter WP:DISC stuff. That doesn't in itself make it bad content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Parlebourbon3, do you have any reliable sources that can witness your claims? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, as I have already mentioned, I am just asking to re-orient the article, so that it starts with a neutral introduction, then telling its history, then its popular use and then a misuse. Also it is very very uncommon to find a source that supports a religion, leave alone a religious slogan. So lets not talk about that. Parlebourbon3 (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
at this point, the "misuse" is more popular than whatever popular use you're thinking of. I realized this a few weeks ago while reading this page: I've never ever heard Jai Sri Ram by actual devotees. They use "Siya Ram/Sitaram" or "Sitapat Sri Ramachandra Ki Jay". Jai Sri Ram only seems to be used by fanatics. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 13:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TryKid Ummmm...... I am pretty sure the proper use of this slogan is million times bigger than its small "misuse" and please think before calling majority of Hindus who chant Jai Shri Ram as "fanatic". If you have not heard of its use by devotees that does not mean it it not used.Krish | Talk To Me 14:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Krish! Agreed. Generalization of communities must not be done on the basis of a handful of news articles.
TryKid, That's because no one will write in a news article that so and so person offered prayers by chanting Jai Shri Ram. Since the slogan is in hindi, it is often used in mass gatherings. When these mass gathering are for prayers or a satsang or a bhajan, it is natural that no news channel or site shall report it. But if it is in a violent/communal attack, then definitely reporting is bound to happen(That isn't wrong either). It is truly a misuse of the slogan. I chant it once, when I pray after bath. So I think that there will be one person you will have heard of chanting jai sri ram. Also rather focusing on its use, we should focus on how the article is written, as that is the point of discussion over hear. -- Parlebourbon3 (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You people are free to believe whatever you believe. But we are limited to reporting what the reliable sources say. So if you do not have any reliable sources that witness your supposed religious usage, I suggest you withdraw and leave this article in peace. Without RS, there is nothing you can achieve here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 Well, I was just explaining that to TryKid. he said that he had never heard of an actual devotee chanting Jai Shri Ram. Also I am not saying that you should not report what the reliable sources say. I am just expressing my concern that the reliable sources might use the liberty of their 'reliableness' and may report only the negative about the topic, making the topic as whole negative. Also Krish! has provided list of reliable sources and news articles, where misreporting of misuse of the Jai Shri ram Slogan was done. i believe this must be incorporated into the article. Also the article should begun with a neutral intro atleast. Rest I leave it in your hands, since you are far more experienced and less biased in terms of editing. However please ensure that people like TryKid do not generalize an entire community, just to prove their point. that hurts. Parlebourbon3 (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just gave several WP: RS below about its usage in false cases which should be re-added since that time editors could not find any sources. I am happy to help.Krish | Talk To Me 14:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
False cases are of no interest to us. Only true cases are. We are not a "fact-checking" website. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly those false cases were examined and fact checked by the media publications/police etc. Wikipedia guidelines say that all sides of views should be included in articles and ignoring this side is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. I am appalled to hear this from you since this was a section just a few weeks ago but was removed because of lack of RS but know we have and you are saying it cannot be added?Krish | Talk To Me 14:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Krish!, you have opened a separate discussion for this topic, let's discuss it there instead of hijacking this thread. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a war cry ... its a mantra recited by hindus for spiritual purpose. why this bias towards hindus by Wikipedia Nemish1p (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Sanger: I hate to break it to you #Wikipedia fanbois: "consensus" is not possible on Wikipedia. It stopped being something that can be taken seriously, I'd say, in 2002. You really do need to develop a new and better way of deciding disputes; "consensus" is silly propaganda. Parlebourbon3 (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Sanger isn't exactly a credible source: he hasn't been affiliated with Wikipedia since 2002, and he now spends his time promoting the QAnon conspiracy theory on Twitter. Consensus is a policy that allowed Wikipedia to obtain its current level of prominence whether Sanger likes it or not. — Newslinger talk 06:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the joy of all

This article is now written about on OpIndia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu version of Christian persecution complex? Hmm.... TryKid [dubious – discuss] 11:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a thought. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How's that even relevant to our discussions here? It's not even a WP:RS (far from so). SerChevalerie (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CPC is not, it's idle chatting. But OpIndias article may increase the editing of the article and the talkpage, that's a heads-up for editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, I generally never rely on OpIndia's Articles as they are fairly biased, sometimes hateful even. My activity on this page is solely because of the manner in which the article is written, and not its content. The very fact that there is more criticism in the article about the slogan than about its history, tells us how poorly the article has been written.Parlebourbon3 (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parlebourbon3, if you know a lot about its history, then please help us find WP:RS for the same so that we may add it. If you cannot contribute constructively you are not welcome here. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV

I am afraid the background sections have overwhelmed the main body of the article. This is always a sign of WP:POV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, fair point I say, considering how I added the majority of the background. If I don't find anything significant about the slogan itself in some time, we could temporarily move the WP:UNDUE sections to the Talk page until the article can be balanced out. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in false cases

I just went through the article's history and the talk page history and found that the chant's "usage in fake cases" section was removed because of lack of WP: RS. I did some research and and found several sources for the fake cases and all are Reliable sources. So I thought they might be helpful here.

I hope they are helpful.Krish | Talk To Me 13:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krish!, what changes do you propose? SerChevalerie (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SerChevalerie I am not proposing any changes. I am saying this section should be re-added to the article to show that some incident about this slogan are false. This section was there in the article like few weeks ago but was removed because of lack of RS but now we have many.Krish | Talk To Me 14:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VNOTSUFF. You need to make a case for including any negative or false information because that is not what Wikipedia is about. We don't have enough information about the true cases as yet. So adding stuff about "false" cases would be WP:UNDUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By this logic, the whole "use in violent events" should be removed because these are very few events compared to the history of this slogan as per Wikipedia guidelines. And [this] says otherwise.Krish | Talk To Me 14:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no history of the slogan other than in violence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Said who? Your and my views does not hold any candle to wikipedia. It runs on several rules and regulations and not what you or me think.Krish | Talk To Me 15:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krish!:, Kautilya3 outlined the sources in "regarding lead" section. Give it a read. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 15:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TryKid I have read everything and it is time this section should be added as one of the aspects of the "violent events" that is being talked about in the article.Krish | Talk To Me 15:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to invite Newslinger to look at this re-adding request of the section since he was involved in the discussion when it was removed because of lack of reliable sources.Krish | Talk To Me 15:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krish!, you say that you are not proposing any changes and yet you insist that it should be added in the article. Further, you talk about the slogan's "history" but cite no RS for the same. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerChevalerie Seems like I did a mistake of commenting on this article as it's obvious you people don't want any help. As I said I have no interest in editing this article or any political or religious article. I only came here after I saw it trending on Twitter and thought to give my opinion. I have given sources for what you guys wanted few weeks ago and it's up to you if you want to use it or not. I won't be commenting here after this.Krish | Talk To Me 16:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only hindi expression

' Jai Shri Ram ' is not only hindi expression but also a nepali expression to praise the lord Ram. Should be edited. Nepal knowledge (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal knowledge, please share reliable sources that state the same, so that we may add it here. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indic languages share large amounts of vocabulary. Every "Hindi" word/phrase is probably used in like 10 other languages. Is it feasible to add them even in the unlikely scenario that RS exist to prove it? TryKid [dubious – discuss] 15:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nepali and Hindi both are derived from Sanskrit language. So some word/phrase can be similar. Since Nepal and India are only (most probably) countries with hindu majority, and Nepali and Hindi are their national language respectivly, including Nepali and Hindi will be fine. Nepal knowledge (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerChevalerie , Why did you replace 'Hindu Chant' with 'Hindi expression' ? 'Jai shri Ram' is common saying among all hindus, but all hindus don't speak hindi. And also in reference, it is referred as 'Hindu Chant'. 'hindi expression' should be replaced with 'hindu chant'. Bhattarai1237 (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhattarai1237, I had moved it to the "Religious" origins section, but as Kautilya3 pointed out, the source doesn't clearly mention it as a "Hindu chant" anywhere except for the title. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerChevalerie, it seems you don't want to replace 'hindi expression'. The source is more than enough to replace 'hindi expression' with 'hindu chant'. And 'Jai Shri Ram'is not referred as 'hindi expression' in the source . As I previously mentioned, 'Jai Shri Ram' is common saying among all the hindus, but all hindus don't speak hindi. Bhattarai1237 (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, he said that he didn't want to say "Hindu chant" because I objected to it. The BBC source says "Hindu chant" in the title, but there is no further mention in the body. It calls it a "slogan". Chants and slogans are quite different. "Expression" is quite neutral and can mean many things, including greetings, slogans, chants, war-cries, and what not.
Meanwhile, I haven't seen you provide any evidence for its Nepali usage or its significance. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3,Thanks for explanation. But scenario are different in Nepal, we only use 'Jai Shri Ram' for worshipping or praising lord Ram, not for slogans and war cries.

So articles related to this are rarely published. I will provide if I find any. Bhattarai1237 (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A pamphlet

This is the translation of a leaflet from the VHP Hindu nationalist group distributed in Gujarat during disturbances.[1]

Jai Shri Ram! Wake up! Arise! Think! Enforce! Save the country! Save the religion!
Economic boycott is the only solution! The anti-national elements use the money earned from the Hindus to destroy us!
They buy arms! They molest our sisters and daughters! The way to break the backbone of these elements is: An economic non- cooperation movement.
Let us resolve
  • 1 From now on I will not buy anything from a Muslim shopkeeper!
  • 2 I will not sell anything from my shop to such elements!
...
  • 10 I shall not receive any education or training from a Muslim teacher.
Such strict economic boycott will throttle these elements! It will break their backbone! Then it will be difficult for them to live in any corner of this country. Friends, begin this economic boycott from today! Then no Muslim will raise his head before us!
Did you read this leaflet? Then make 10 photocopies of it, and distribute it to our brothers. The curse of Hanumanji be on him who does not implement this, and distribute it to others! The curse of Ramchandraji also be on him! Jai Shri Ram!

(Signed) A true Hindu patriot

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, could it go in the "Transition" section? SerChevalerie (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is well beyond "transition" stage. This is Gujarat riots stage, by which time Jai Shri Ram had turned into an AK-47. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Violent incidents", then? SerChevalerie (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "transition period" was between 1988 and 1992, during which both "Jai Siya Ram" as well as "Jai Shri Ram" were used, apparently the former as a greeting and a "password", and the latter more as a call to arms. By the time the Babri Masjid was demolished, "Jai Shri Ram" took over. After 1992, it was a victory slogan, an invitation to participate in the Hindu Rashtra, and an imposition. If one did not respond to a VHP greeting of "Jai Shri Ram" with an equal response, he wasn't "Indian". The Gujarat VHP delegates that went to Ayodhya for Ram Shila Pujan taunted everybody along the way to utter "Jai Shri Ram". Anybdoy that did not obey was beaten and stabbed with trishuls. And they did the same on their return journey, including at Godhra. Thus were the 2002 Gujarat riots provoked.

Here is Jan Breman, who has done an enormous amount of work in Gujarat and has a solid understanding of it:

This explains the warlike, extremely aggressive character of the appeal for a national revival launched by the advocates of Hindutva. An interesting aside here is that the greeting 'Jai Siya Ram' has been transformed into the battle cry 'Jai Shri Ram' ('Long live Lord Ram'). The Hindu supreme god has assumed the form of a macho general. In the original meaning, 'Siya Ram' had been a popular greeting of welcome in the countryside since time immemorial. 'Siya' or 'Sitha' is the name of Rama's wife. The Hindu fanatics have now also banished her from the popular greeting by changing Siya to 'Shri' (Lord), thereby suppressing the feminine element in favour of masculine virility and assertiveness.[2]

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's helpful, thanks. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is greetings and not a war cry. That is a greeting on pamphlet same way as Zakir Naik or oother hate spreader utter Aslam Walequm that does not make it into a war cry. Hope this clears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.169.63 (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The Hindu call to arms, The Daily Telegraph, 18 June 2002.
  2. ^ Breman, Jan (1999), "Ghettoization and Communal Politics: The Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion in the Hindutva Landscape", in Ramachandra Guha; Jonathan P. Parry (eds.), Institutions and Inequalities: Essays in Honour of Andre Beteille, Oxford University Press, pp. 259–, ISBN 978-0-19-565081-5

A murder

Ehsan Jafri was a Member of Parliament from Ahmedabad:[1]

The attack started at 7 a.m., when the VHP started closing down shops. The police knew what was happening. Constables posted outside watched as the mob killed the owner of Ankur cycle shop just outside the society. A frightened Mr Jafri immediately called the police commissioner. Joint commissioner of police M.K. Tandon came for ten minutes at 11 a.m., while the crowds were swelling and shouting ‘Jai Shri Ram’. He left, assuring that he would send SRP troops. Soon after, a bakery and autorickshaw were burned right outside. The owners of the bakery were the first to be savaged by the mob.

Inside the house, Jafri pleaded with the mob to spare the women. They dragged him out on to the street. Outside, the former MP was stripped, paraded naked and asked to say ‘Jai Shri Ram’. He refused. His fingers were chopped off. Half dead, he was paraded around the neighbourhood. Then they hacked off his hands and feet. His body was dragged down the road and thrown into the fire. Later, the chief minister said that Ahsan Jafri was the first to fire at the mob. Witnesses deny this, and police officers say that there is no proof of this except a gun found in the remains.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bunsha, Dionne (2006), Scarred: Experiments with Violence in Gujarat, Penguin Books India, ISBN 978-0-14-400076-0

TO wikipedia

remove its reference as a war cry... it is certainly not .. infact its a mantra used by us in temples Nemish1p (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Nepal, people say 'Jay Shri Ram' while worshipping lord Ram. But in India, hindu nationalists organizations have misused it to torture other religion's people. Bhattarai1237 (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove as a war cry as this is author's opinion and never used in any battle. Different Regiments in India have different War Cry and slogans so this should be removed in violation of WP:NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.169.63 (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

I am contesting the claim sourced to Raksha Kumar's column in South China Morning Post. The article provides no evidence for the claim that "Jai Shri Ram" was "once a greeting" and contradicts multiple scholarly sources that say otherwise. We have no idea of the credentials of the author or the basis of her claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. It's the only RS that I could find so I added it there. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

Please replace "war cry" in the lede with a more neutral term. War cry can also mean "a call made to rally soldiers for battle" according to Google’s dictionary. A more appropriate term could be "rallying call" as the phrase is also used by the BJP merely to rally voters to their cause, and also used to rally some nuts into committing crimes.45.251.33.60 (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology of "war cry" is evidenced in multiple reliable sources. See the section above titled "#A pamphlet.. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay then, Kautilya3. Maybe this surge in right-wing editors adding their opinions on the talk page as well could be stopped or at least slowed down if you guys added an FAQ template resolving every vandal’s complaints (like the one that Newslinger put on Talk:OpIndia)? 45.251.33.60 (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
45.251.33.60 has drafted an FAQ at User talk:Newslinger § FAQs on all controversial Hinduism-related pages. The FAQ is now included on the top of this page, and is visible to all readers who are not using the mobile versions of Wikipedia. I've adjusted the FAQ to mention Jai Shri Ram directly, link to applicable policies and guidelines, and be consistent with these polices and guidelines. Please feel free to make further improvements at Talk:Jai Shri Ram/FAQ. — Newslinger talk 05:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has been keeping an eye on this article for well over a year in order to combat the repeated censorship of it, I find myself surprised to agree with the IP's edit request The reasoning is correct - it is a non-neutral term, and a neutral one has been proposed which is perhaps better supported by the references - for example, where the term is used in two places in the article body, only the first is referenced with anything close to using that term, and then it is misquoted: Ram's name [was made into] the rallying cry of [the] movement [which] to worried British officials was a "war cry" (my emphases). Dorsetonian (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid you have confused the 1920's slogan with the 1990's slogan, which are quite differnt. There are no "British officials" now. There are only scholars and commentators. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so the term "war cry" in the section Rama symbolism (1920s) misquotes its reference and should be replaced with "rallying cry", which is what is actually stated. The lead - as you say - refers to later use, and appears to have no references in the article to support it. Unless the term is shown to have been used in an actual war, "war cry" is purely and simply an exaggeration which is inflammatory and non-neutral. At most we can state that it is a "so-called" war cry, and not use the term ourselves. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't saying "Jai Shri Ram" is a war cry. It's saying that a political party adopted the phrase as a war cry. There's a distinct difference between these two things. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The lead says [The BJP] went on to use it as a war cry. That is us saying it was used by them as a war cry. Clearly it has not been, because they have never used it in war. At best, the original author used in an idiomatic sense, but an encyclopaedia requires scholarly precision - especially in the lead, and especially when it is clearly non-neutral. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "war cry" means it is used in war. The OED says:

A cry (whether a shout or a significant name or phrase) uttered by a body of fighters to encourage each other in charging the enemy or in rallying to the fray.

Cambridge English Dictionary says [1]:

a phrase or word shouted by people as they start to fight, intended to give them the strength and wish to fight harder.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But Google's dictionary (which I mentioned first) does give the military meaning first, and while I agree that OED & CED are more prestigious, more people will use Google first, Kautilya3. 45.251.33.234 (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the link. Google doesn't write dictionaries, as far as I am aware. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Google pulls the definition from Oxford Dictionary, which states [2]:

A call made to rally soldiers for battle or to gather together participants in a campaign.

SerChevalerie (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how lexico.com can be a reliable source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the official host for Oxford Dictionaries, I remember seeing an old link of Oxford redirecting to lexico at History-sheeter. Will have to research. In any case, I believe the issues have been addressed here. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

left wing editors with poor knowledge on Indian Culture should not comment on Jai Shri Ram as war-cry. Do you want to mean majority of Indians today wakes up in morning and greets other as Jai Shri Ram as a war cry with each other. This is violation of WK:NPOV. It should be removed. Jai Shri Ram is a pious word used by Hindus before start of day or any work.

killing people in the name of Ram is wrong but why they generalize all Ram bhakts?? Ram bhakts don't use it as war cry

According to this generalization based logic, we can also say that Ola hu uber is a slogan used before killing kafirs Basu021 (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jai_Shri_Ram&oldid=970952728"