Jump to content

Talk:Hindu terrorism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

2008 Mumbai attacks section

The information in that small section is properly sourced to three reliable sources ([1], [2], [3]). I really do not see this as POV pushing at all, as Shovon76 stated it was when he reverted it. SilverserenC 20:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is about as fringe a view as you can find out there. It does not need this level of coverage anywhere.--RegentsPark (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
How is it fringe, if it is discussed by an entire television station, a minister, and one of the leading journalists in the country? SilverserenC 20:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
How is it fringe? The investigations seemed to have yielded (by a consensus of ALL intelligence Agencies and experts involved) that the attacks were the work of the LeT with the possible hand of Al-Qaeda and the ISI [4]. One Pakistani television station, which we do not even have a name for, unfortunately cannot be classified as anything but fringe. As for Antulay, his comments were not even taken seriously by his own party (who judging by the whole Saffron terror craze would no doubt jump at the chance to finger Hindutva and the Sangh Parivar as responsible) [5]. Lastly, using Sanghvi's op-ed to argue the theory is not fringe is hilarious, because Sanghvi starts his article out by saying "I’m not going to insult your intelligence by explaining why AR Antulay is wrong when he says that a conspiracy led to the death of Bombay Anti-Terrorist Squad chief Hemant Karkare and two other officers. If you’re the sort of person who reads this column, then you’ll know that this conspiracy theory is utter rubbish". Fringe + Fringe + Fringe = Fringe.Pectoretalk 21:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The idea is fringe, the viewpoint is not

Pectore and I had a discussion about this previously here; note especially the first paragraph of his last comment. I differ with his view on this and believe that NPOV is maintained by reporting prominent nonsense when it is sufficiently labeled as nonsense. Every country and place has people who say and believe absurd things; there is no need to promote what they say, but the fact that they say crazy things is notable.

I am of the view that this article should not be about saffron/Hindu terror, but instead about what reliable sources say about saffron terror. I do not dispute that Antulay is promoting a fringe theory and that his viewpoint should not be presented in this article as plausible.

What is not fringe is that notable Pakistanis (Zaid Hamid, who is notable, was the person on the tv show) accuse Hindus of terrorism, and that Antulay, a cabinet minister, one of the highest government officials in India, has also promoted this idea. If the viewpoint of a cabinet-level government minister (and presumably the population base which he represents) is not enough to merit inclusion, what is? Should not this article be a review of what prominent entities have called Hindu terrorism, and is this not a prominent viewpoint?

Should items in this article be what the consensus says is saffron terror, or should this article be about what the consensus sees as prominent viewpoints on saffron terror? What is Wikipedia policy on this? Blue Rasberry 01:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The question comes down to whether Hamid's viewpoint, and that reported on the tv station, is actually meets Wikipedia's definition of WP:FRINGE. If it does, we should include the view only very lightly and with all due indication that the primary consensus of reliable sources is that the opinion is fringe. Simply because a major government official says something does not remove something from the category of Fringe (for example, consider the treatment of some of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's opinions regarding the 9/11 attacks, or the Holocaust for that matter). Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't mention it, but that we need to be very careful not to make it sound like the view is any more believable just because Hamid said it. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess it depends on how prominent these conspiracy fringe theories are. If one odd person holds the view, then it is not worth covering - whatever the status of that person. If, on the other hand, these views are expounded by a reasonable minority, then we should mention it - clearly labeled. However, either way, this article is not the right place for conspiracy theories about the Mumbai attacks.--RegentsPark (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I must not have been clear. Of course Hamid's viewpoint meets WP:FRINGE and of course this article is not the place for conspiracy theories. What we have though is reporting on this reporting - the Times and the editorial by Vir Sanghvi are both saying that a viewpoint about saffron terror exists and that it is absurd. Expounding of the viewpoint does not belong here, because it is fringe. But the fact of the existence of the fringe viewpoint is itself not fringe, because the viewpoint came from reliable sources and - more importantly - was notable enough to become critiqued by reliable sources.
Of course no one knows exactly how many people have this viewpoint. But I can say that it is enough to put the material on Pakistani tv in the mouth of a notable political commentator, and for an Indian cabinet minister to support it, and for a major Israeli media network to report the existence of the Pakistani viewpoint, and for other government officials to also comment on how absurd it is, and for the editorial director of the Hindustan Times to devote a column to it.
RegentsPark is concerned about someone mistakenly thinking the view is believable, but there are already denouncements of claims of terrorism in the article. Put this new claim under the heading of "Prominent false accusations of saffron terror", and maybe some of what is already in this article could go under the same heading. Blue Rasberry 03:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
If these theories are prominent, then perhaps a subsection in the 2008 Mumbai attacks titled 'conspiracy theories' is something we can explore. Conspiracy theories about those attacks should go there rather than here. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little confused, RegentsPark--why don't they go here? Isn't this the article about alleged Hindu terrorism (and, in fact, the article that points out it is highly unlikely)? If Hamid accused a Hindu terrorist group of committing the attacks, wouldn't that be him alleging a case of Saffron Terror? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Well, there are a couple of issues here. First, this is obviously a fringe theory (about as fringe as a theory can get!) and, as per WP:FRINGE we need to make sure that it does not get undue weight. Since the theory is about the 2008 Mumbai attacks, it is properly contextualized in that article and, with an appropriate section heading and proper wording, it would be clear to the reader that this is a fringe theory. On the other hand, including it in this article will take the theory out of its natural context and will give undue weight to it. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A R Antulay has denied that he ever doubted somebody other than Pakistan terrorists to have killed Karkare. He has made clear that he had not said who had killed karkare and co, but only questioned who had sent them to the cama hospital. (see [6]) Now, due to his poor communication skills, his first statement was misconstrued; and a thirsty pakistani media more contorted it to suit their audience. So, there is nothing here worthy to be added to an encyclopedia. 117.204.88.154 (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC) About Zaid Hamid; he's a man who cries "The Americans executed the 9/11 attack". His word deserves no wikipedia space. 117.204.88.154 (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand. Of course the theory is fringe--this is the the fringe theory's page! The more I think, the more it sounds to me like saying that, on the Flat Earth page, that we couldn't report a famous person talking about the fringe theory that the Earth is flat. Isn't this, in fact, the only correct place to put such information? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, the theory is about the mumbai attacks in specific and not about saffron terror in general. Fringe theories, assuming that they are not too outlandish to included, should be in the article that they specifically address. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Alright, maybe I'm confused. My understanding, based on what I got from the sources as well as the conversation above, is that the very concept of "Saffron Terror" or "Hindu terrorism" is itself fringe (just like the way we regard U.S. complicity in the 9/11 attacks as fringe). And that labeling the Mumbai attacks as Hindu terrorism is just saying "Here's one more part to our fringe theory." Did I mistakenly oversimplify Saffron terror in my mind? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know whether saffron terror is fringe or not, but let's assume it is. In that case, collecting fringe accusations about specific terrorist actions and then including it in a fringe topic is a really bad idea. Mathematically, fringe1 (.0001) * fringe2 (.0001) equals infinitesimal (.0000001) but including fringe2 in fringe1 is additive, or .0002 and results in an increased credibility of both fringe1 as well as fringe2. If we keep including fringe accusations about various terrorist acts in this article, then the credibility of this article goes up and rubs off on the credibility of the included fringe material. The key is not to take things out of context because that gives the fringe theory a new, unwarranted context. In the 2008 Mumbai attacks article, the theory, if includable, would be properly contextualized in a subsection titled 'Conspiracy theories'. In the Saffron terror article, on the other hand, the theory would now be contextualized as a part of a terrorist movement on the part of Hindus giving it a much broader, and much less warranted, context. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Except that Saffron terror is most definitely not fringe. If you look in current Google news here, not even in the Archives, but in current news within the past month, there are 27 results. It is a widely carried and used term in both the media and politics in India. The term "Hindu terrorism" is used even more prevelantly. Thus, your fringe times fringe argument really doesn't work. SilverserenC 15:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Even if it is not fringe, the argument works because it adds credibility to the 2008 attacks claim. If neither were fringe, then the situation would be different. The larger point is that placing a fringe view in a larger context decontextualizes the specific nature of that view and ends up making it more credible. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The theory in question is fringe, because every investigation has found Muslim terrorists responsible for the Mumbai attacks, only to be contradicted by one Pakistani news station and some political soapboxing by a Muslim politician looking for politicians. Saffron terror is also quite fringe, but mainly because no one has been charged with any crimes (and probably, given India's justice system will ever be).Pectoretalk 15:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion of such fringe theories in an article that is about a topic almost fringe can only be seen as a motive to promote such a view. Albeit its innate low authenticity (no offense intended), Wikipedia articles play a crucial role in shaping world opinion; more so because they rank high in google searches. Even, journalists cooking up news articles and book authors look it up. Given such circumstances, inclusion of such details will lead to these fringe stories being published in "reliable sources" and thus complete a full cycle end up in wikipedia. Why should such theories be promoted? 117.204.89.129 (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There is absolutely no reason to include something as fringe as this in the article. Whereas the Samjhauta, Malegaon, Ajmer, and related attacks maybe had a Saffron hand behind it, the 2008 Mumbai attacks did not. In fact the conspiracy theory in question does not even suggest that Hindus carried out the attacks, only that they allegedly killed Karkare, which of course has been roundly debunked as well.Pectoretalk 17:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Good point, I agree with that. The Mumbai attacks were certainly done by Islamic militants from Pakistan, there's no question about that. The aftereffect of that though, I think, is that the US is far too quick to blame Lashkar-e-Taiba for the other events in India, when the other things were against Muslims, so it's improbably that Lashkar-e-Taiba had much of a hand in it. Especially when India has been obtaining other evidence that is pointing toward something not Islamic related. Hopefully, they'll convict Purohit soon enough and then go about finding exactly what group he was backing. SilverserenC 17:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The counterview is that this "Saffron terror" craze is a tool to gain Muslim votes and to marginalize the BJP, with the extension that India's investigative services and justice system are uninformed and not on par with agencies such as the CIA and ISI. Neither of these views are valid approaches for writing an article that should tightly reflect the discussion of "Saffron terror" in the media.Pectoretalk 20:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Merging with Hindu jihad

Please join the discussion at Talk:Hindu_jihad#merging. Proposure to merge the content from Hindu jihad over here. Dream Focus 03:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That article currently has no salvageable material, none. There is no sort of thread tying the original examples together (its literally Mohasik's commentary on random Indian events) and the new version merely misquotes and extrapolated nonsense on some Hindu religious texts. Also an AFD is going on, so the discussion might as well be there.Pectoretalk 03:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Addition to Category

Bluerasberry requested that I bring this here to get further responses from others related to the Saffron Terror discussion and the discussion going on at Category talk:Hindu terrorism, per here. To quote my comment there:

"There's also this, which seems to show that we should add 2006 Malegaon blasts to the category. And this. Purohit is a terrorist because he helped other terrorists, making him an accomplice (or an accessory, depending on if he was actually present at the bombings or not). Just like helping someone commit a murder, but not actually doing it yourself, makes you an accomplice to murder and, thus, a murderer yourself. SilverserenC 16:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)"

Bluerasberry agreed that the sources given seem to be enough to add those two articles to the category, but we wanted to get some other opinions on the matter. SilverserenC 19:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Full Rewrite

Cluebot just reverted an IP editor's "full rewrite" as possible vandalism. While, I think ClueBot was probably wrong to call that vandalism, it was definitely not an acceptable edit. I just wrote the following on the IP's talk page, but figured I should post it here to so that others can see and we can have centralized discussion if needed.

First, before completely rewriting an article, I strongly recommend discussing it on the talk page. Second, your new article was highly POV, which is not allowed per WP:NPOV. Third, it didn't even fit the meaning of the page. That is, while the attacks against women (the sexual violence) may be an example of some Hindus being violent against non-Hindus, that definitely was not terrorism, because it was not an intentional act by an organized group to cause terror to another group. I strongly suspect you are one of the people involved in the now deleted article Hindu jihad, as I recognize a number of the claims. That article was deleted for clear reasons; unless you can fix the fundamental defects in that information, please do not attempt to re-add it elsewhere. It is possible that one or two of your sources and sentences could be incorporated into Saffron terror, but not the whole article. Please discuss any further comments on that article's talk page.

So, if anyone wants to discuss those edits, feel free to do so here. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Article is not neutral

To me, the article does not seem to be neutral. The overall structure of the article promotes a view that Hindu terror is a conspiracy by INC/UPA. Several references seem to be misinterpreted to support this view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoorv020 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I second that. The article on Hindu extremism has been redirected towards this and the whole issue of terrorism in Hindu religion in being revolved around conspiracy, saffron and Hindu Nationalism which is not neutral at all. Sarmadhassan (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
This article is extremely difficult to keep neutral because of the extreme POVs from both sides. I've pretty much given up on it, even though I was the one that originally rewrote it way back when. SilverserenC 14:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Do any of you congress party members have any reliable sources from civilized countries (ie not the thugs of the Congress Party government controlled Indian bullshit media) backing the notion of a "Hindu terror conspiracy" or whatever? Every single claim of "Hindu terror" so far has been debunked by US government and organizations from civilized countries, and every single claim is maintained by UPA government propaganda outlets.Meanstheatre (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I would love to see more sources on both sides. Do you have a US government source debunking a Hindu terror claim? Blue Rasberry 20:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Strong words there. I think we would all like to see supporting sources. TheMike •Wassup doc? 20:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Apoorv, the sources have been inconclusive on what actually transpired. Your cries of a conspiracy are as vapid as those presented by Meanstheatre a few lines below. Also meanstheatre, there is evidence right wing groups may be behind one or all the blasts they are alleged of committing, and if not, are at least involved in some sort of violence and rhetoric against Indian citizens. The real issues is to what aim these attacks were undertaken, if they were religious in nature (doubtful), promoting one political party, against one group (the anti-Muslim attacks line of thought is plausible), or merely anarchist. Also, meanstheatre, I highly doubt anyone on this page is a member of any Indian party, much less the Indian National Congress. In the future, please refrain from ad hominem attacks, and focus on content. As for Sarmadhussein's attempts to fork the article to create Hinduism attack pages, there is little logic in that statement, and even less evidence of neutrality on his part.Pectoretalk 22:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Apoorv, can you state specifically which references you believe are being misinterpreted? I think that if we focus on specifics, that will help us stay civil and actually create progress.

Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian - A recent example of misinterpretation of references. The news article http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Co-conspirators-saw-RSS-man-as-ISI-mole/articleshow/7244756.cms is used to claim in the main article that ISI had a role in the hands, even though the news article states that this was only the opinion of one of the conspirators.
The recent wikileaks reports, as well as confessions of Islamic militant Dawood Gilani to authorities in the civilized world just about debunk every claim made by Indian government propaganda outlets. In the light of this gigantic global slap to the faces of the congress party thugrats, it is highly likely (even expected), that their minions will be in cybercafes all across India, policing accessible sections of the web to try and do "damage control" by promoting their nonsense and trash on ostensibly authoritative websites. Wikipedia is an ideal place for the million or so congress party goondaas to "gang up" and promote their POV. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate to point out the distinct possibility that many of the users promoting congress party propaganda are Congress Party members blatantly violating WP:COI.
As far as this article is concerned, it is a matter of prioritizing reliable sources (the US goverment, homeland security, CIA, NSA, United Nations, SATP etc) over propaganda outlets (Congress party government, congress party controlled media, congress party controlled police , judiciary, and other Indian executive groups). To give a bunch of illiterate thuggees from the Congress Party the same credibility and weight as sources from civilized countries is a giant leap of WP:UNDUE and WP:RS violations.Meanstheatre (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lack of reliable sources. Most of the sources are either reports from the US agencies (which do not have access to all the data of Indian investigators), and who have an interest in the outcome(Hindu terror plays into Pakistan's hands which undermines their "war on terror"), and on the other hand Indian investigative agencies which leak selected materials (which cannot be independently verified) and are for the most part under the control of the government. I think the best policy is to state that most of the sources are unverifiable(which also involves the conspiracy allegations) and to extensively document all claims and counter-claims. Apoorv020 (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

At this rate, we can never make this article neutral. In response to Meanstheatre, please provide any proof to your claims. If Wikipedia is an ideal place for the "million or so congress party goondaas to "gang up"", then it is also an ideal place for the opposition to gang up. Let us not discuss this here. That is not the point of having a talk page. This is not a forum for discussing the policies of the party.
Coming to the point, what is your definition of "Congress party controlled media"? If you can, please provide some 'examples' of them. Have a look at WP:RS. Also, please try and keep the tone of your comments neutral, because we all must keep civility. Have a good day.
Coming to Apoorv020's comments, please note that third party sources are usually considered very reliable. The best option would be to include third party sources. TheMike •Wassup doc? 09:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
@MikeLynch - Third party sources have to prove their reliability. If a news articles says that this is based on a leaked version of confessions(which are formally never released), then the article may be considered moderately reliable if published by a major newspaper. Analysis of events by other people(like US ambassdors) should probably be treated as uncorrobrated interpretations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoorv020 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not a correct application of Wikipedia policy. See WP:TRUTH to see that Wikipedia does not concern itself with publishing what is true. This is not the place to determine who is correct and who is incorrect; all major newspapers entirely meet WP:RS as do official statements from governments, especially as they are interpreted by third parties.
It is completely irrelevant if any act is "Hindu terror" or "Saffron terror." The only thing that matters in this article is what reliable sources have claimed to be these things. If the article summarizes what sources say, then it is neutral, regardless of whether anything in reality is actually "terror" or not.
Wikipedia is not a forum. Do not discuss the article's subject, and keep to discussing the sources. Blue Rasberry 16:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but Wikipedia policy is concerned with determining that sources are reliable, which is what I read Apoorv020 as saying (although xe may be applying that policy differently than I would). Furthermore, we also have to interpret the sources through the lens of WP:DUE. If, for instance, 100 sources say that Saffron terror is entirely a fiction created by the government, and 50 say it's "real", we report both, giving preference to the prior theory. If the 100 sources are highly regarded national or international news sources, while the 50 are local pieces written in a non-neutral way, we further discount the 50. And if the 50 aren't even reliable, or only sometimes reliable, we may end up discounting them entirely (per WP:FRINGE). The problem is that for those of us like myself who don't live in India, it's very hard to determine if the belief "Saffron terror is real" is a plausible but unlikely theory, like "The CIA was involved in the Kennedy assassination," or is entirely a fringe theory equivalent to "The moon landings were faked." Both theories appear in Wikipedia somewhere, but are dealt with differently and to different levels. We actually do have the responsibility and "right" to investigate to what degree any given theory is believed in the real world. Rasberry is correct that we don't do this by trying to decide what is "true," but we are still allowed to way the quality of the evidence based on how reliable and impartial the sources are. Having said all of that, I don't know how to apply that principle to this topic, but I want to make it clear that it's not as simple as "Probably reliable source reported it, therefore we reported it"--a whole host of other policies apply when determining what content to include, and, ultimately, consensus will play a large role. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Both of your views are true. We can't speculate on what the truth actually is. It is true that this article is not neutral in its present form. Saying exactly what Qwyrxian has said, " We actually do have the responsibility and "right" to investigate to what degree any given theory is believed in the real world". At the same time, we can't go on broadly calling all Indian newspapers 'unreliable', or 'congress controlled'. TheMike •Wassup doc? 07:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Fake wikileaks cables

The fake wikileaks cables released by some section of the Pakistan media on 9 December 2010 are in the context of Pakistan's anti-India rhetoric. All mainstream sources report it as fake anti-India or fake cables attacking India. There is a mention about Hindu fundamentalists / extremists; but that is about the government siding with them. There is no discussion of the Indian government siding with Hindu fundamentalists / extremists there. There are no mainstream news reports about this fake cables in the context of saffron terror. It is just a synthesis. We have been very particular about what to include here. To quote Pectore above, "... you can find the references you want that casually mention both words, but unless it mentions "Hindu terrorism", "Saffron terrorism", or "Hindutva terrorism", it really has no place on this page. It not only has to be "Hindu" and "terrorism" but any alleged incidents need to be "hindu terrorism", which the above examples most certainly are not." I request that the same standards be applied in this case as well. 14.139.128.14 (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

My first inclination before reading this explanation was to assume the IP was wrong, but it looks to me on closer examination that xe is correct--unless these fake cables explicitly alleged terrorism, they don't belong in the article. I think the info should be removed, unless some other aspect of the fake cables did use one of the key terms/ideas. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think so too. Guess it has to be removed. TheMike •Wassup doc? 07:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry; I didn't realise ( from the signature) you are MikeLynch 14.139.128.14 (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I see the removal of material, but still a reference to politics exists. I think it should be removed too. It does not factor in a discussion of 'Saffron Terror' by itself. TheMike •Wassup doc? 08:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of sources/references

As I wrote earlier (under the heading "neutrality of article"), several references seem to be deliberately misinterpreted. I had given an example about reports of ISI involvement in one of the attacks. That has since been changed. However, several other references are still not correctly interpreted (example: Reference on let involvement in samjhauta blasts, which actually refers to 2006 mumbai blasts ). Hence i have added the Cite check tag to the article, which warns users that references may be inappropriate and/or misinterpreted. I think that this tag may easily be removed after a few hours worth of verification. Apoorv020 (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Read the source which you deleted. It speaks about the Samjhauta express and Mecca Masjid blasts. I have reverted that edit. TheMike •Wassup doc? 14:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on adding a new section titled "Organizations and people"

I tried to add a new section titled "Organizations and people", which would have a list of organizations/people allegedly connected with saffron terror. Pectore shot my idea down, saying that the information is already present in the page. However, I believe that the information is present only in diffuse form across several articles and that there is a lack of information on some people like Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakr. I believe that this article will be a natural place for such information to exist. Can we come to a consensus on the decision of adding such a section? Apoorv020 (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The article would be incomplete without mention of Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur. TheMike •Wassup doc? 09:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree. There should be a section on the organizations and people who are allegedly associated with Saffron terror. Shovon (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Disagree - this leads to a problem faced by many other articles - dispersed development. If possible, let's list the organizations and include names of prominent members thereof, and link these internally to main articles for those organizations. If an org does not have its own page, it probably isn't notable enough to be mentioned here either. Secondly, this page is for discussion of the larger movement being called Saffron terror; discussion or detailing of individual organizations is not under purview. Nshuks7 (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. That will make article look inclined more towards "terror" rather than nationalism. Sarmadhassan (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Since a week has passed by without any dissent, I shall make the proposed changes. Apoorv020 (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It would certainly be good if the matter of the proposed section is integrated into the article. TheMike •Wassup doc? 12:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Hindu terrorism category

I don't understand why people are removing Category:Hindu terrorism from the article. Saffron terror is the main article is the category, the one that the category is primarily referring to, hence the main spot it takes above everything else in the category. Prior to making the category, it was decided on this very own talk page that the category should be under the title of Hindu terrorism, because it is broader. There was a later attempt to rename it to Hindutva terrorism, to be more specific that the category was not about a religion, but a nationalist viewpoint, though it was decided there that, because of the lack of sources using Hindutva in relation to the terrorism and the more widely understood terminology of Hindu terrorism, that name was kept. So, please explain to me why the category is being removed from this page? SilverserenC 01:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Because you have no RS to prove it. And all those categories were added today by a Muslim trying to "populate" the category, by assigning things like terrorist bombings conducted by Islamic Terrorists to the category. "Saffron Terror" is not the same as "Hindu Terrorism," and the only way to come to that conclusion is either by a lack of understanding of the issues at play, or an ideological agenda. If "Saffron Terror" is "Hindu Terrorism," then the Nazi Party should be under the category of "Christian Terrorism." Don't be absurd and confuse Nationalism with religion. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
You clearly don't understand what Saffron terrorism is. It is not religiously motivated at all and the Hindu terrorism category is not meant to be saying that it is being conducted by religious Hindus, but by nationalistic Hindus that fall under Hindutva. Essentially, it's political terrorism, not religious terrorism, and I think you're confusing the two. SilverserenC 02:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I have to concur; this article was, at one point, even called Hindu terrorism (or that article was merged here, I don't remember the exact sequence of events). The article itself says in the first line that these are acts allegedly inspired by Hindu nationalism. Putting it in that category doesn't mean that all or any of these acts were actually motivated by Hinduism, merely that these acts are associated in reliable sources with Hinduism, rightly or wrongly. If this were a BLP, we would be required to be more careful, but as it is not, it seems practically non-sense to not include the main in the category. You give an example above about Nazi Party; actually, the correct example would be if Christian terrorism were not in Category:Christian terrorism. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
In fact, if you look at Template:Terrorism under the Religious links part, you'll see that Hindu is under there and it directs to this article. SilverserenC 04:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Which should probably be changed, actually. Hmm...that's giving the wrong idea. I'll go raise it on the Template talk page. SilverserenC 04:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Template discussion is here. Feel free to comment. SilverserenC 04:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, SS just made my point for me, by saying, "It is not religiously motivated at all..." That's why the phrase "Saffron Terror" is applicable, but the phrase "Hindu Terrorism" is not. "Hindu Terrorism" implies religion, even though groups associated with "Saffron Terror" use the word Hindu to refer to all religious groups indigenous to India. The Nazis were nationalistic Christians...but not based primarily on a Christian religious theology, so they don't fit into Christian Terrorism...as opposed to Eric Rudolph, for example, who is a "Christian Terrorist." Using the phrase "Hindu Terrorism" to describe "Saffron Terror" is a clear POV attempt to create an "equivalent" Hindu "version" of groups like The Taliban or Lashkar-e-Taiba...and seeing these edits coming from Pakistan further sheds light on the motivations behind these edits. It's original research, not supported by RS, and not deserving of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Oh yeah, and nobody has addressed my previous point about attacks carried out by Islamic Terrorists being categorized under "Hindu Terrorism," either... Bryonmorrigan (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
As I already told you, there was a prior CfD, where the discussion was to rename the category to Hindutva terrorism, but the consensus there was to leave it how it is, as anyone who gets confused about whether Hindu means religious can just go to this article and see that it is talking about Hindu nationalism. We can always place a note in the category if you feel that it is necessary to distinguish that we're talking about nationalistic terrorism and not religious terrorism. SilverserenC 04:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Again, I don't think you (Byronmorrigan) are understanding the point--putting this in the category "Hindu Terrorism" doesn't mean that it refers to attacks done for religious reasons; rather, it means that it refers to actions which have been described by some as being related to Hinduism. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Not even that, it refers to actions related to Hindu nationalism. Either way, i've added a note to Category:Hindu terrorism that points out that it is about political and nationalistic terrorism, not religious terrorism. Feel free to tweak it if you feel my wording is poor. SilverserenC 05:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
(deindent) I see no point in persisting to add a flawed and deceiving category name to the page (something everyone appears to agree on is that the name is deceiving). Qwyrxian, you are completely missing the point about Hinduism. It has been repeated ad nauseam in the Indian media that Hindu nationalism has little to nothing to do with Hinduism the religion (the movement was started by an avowed atheist). Bryonmorrigan is absolutely correct in noting the nomenclature is flawed, and this is absolute ground from emptying the category. There is no violation of wikipolicy on the part of anyone emptying these categories when they are flawed, and also give allegations (as opposed to "convictions") an exalted place on Wikipedia.Pectoretalk 15:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Realized that was somewhat rant-like. We might as well re-create a "Saffron terror" category and then populate pages that reflect actual convictions from there. That's a solution that solves issues of nomenclature, as well as (if any of Thakur, Purohit, Aseemanand are convicted) be an area for categorization.Pectoretalk 15:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Two things. 1) The Category:Saffron terror was deleted because it was too specific and it was decided that it should be more broad. I advocated for changing it to Hindutva terrorism originally at CfD, but changed my mind after all of the other good arguments for keeping it at Hindu terrorism. Therefore, no matter how much you think that it is a "flawed and deceiving name", trying to remove stuff from it is going against consensus and is entirely a POV action. And 2) You don't seem to understand how categories work either. Suspected people related to the subject are also included in the category, because they have some relation to the subject. You don't have to be convicted to be included in the category, you just have to be suspected of it in reliable sources. In this case, we have reliable sources and a court case accusing him of it, doubling the necessity of keeping it on Purohit. The same applies for all of the bombing articles and why you can have both Islamic and Hindu terrorism categories in the same article when two separate groups (the US and India in this case) suspect different perpetrators. SilverserenC 18:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The idea that "Hindu Terrorism" had anything to do with the 2006 Malegaon blasts is nothing more than an unsourced conspiracy theory, and has no more "relevance" than putting the 9/11 attacks under the category of "Jewish Terrorism," because some conspiracy theorists have come up with that equally ludicrous "theory." Not all theories are RS, and the article itself clearly shows that law enforcement does not take this conspiracy theory seriously, and have arrested a bunch of Islamic terrorists in connection with it, and extracted confessions. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, you're right, I didn't realize the article had been updated with that info. At this point, it would be inappropriate to include the category on that article. SilverserenC 21:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict aimed mostly at Silverseren) 1) Firstly, the existence of a category does not mean articles must be added to it based on your personal views (which you have been doing for months). Secondly, there was no consensus on the CFD, which defaults to a keep (for your convenience "The result of the discussion was: Keep/no consensus."). Removing articles from a category with no broad consensus on its own existence, and one with deeply flawed nomenclature, is not "entirely a POV action". Such allegations are absolutely baseless and display an obstinate refusal to critically evaluate Wikipolicy as well as the general notes of mainstream newspapers covering the events. As shown here, and in the edit histories of the linked pages, there have been and are a number of users that dispute using the "Hindu terrorism" category. There is absolutely no consensus for inclusion, and claiming that there is is tantamount to blatantly falsifying the status quo.
2) I understand exactly how categories work, thank you. They reflect sourced material on the pages. For example Islamabad_Marriott_Hotel_bombing. Almost certainly the handiwork of Islamists of some sort. Yet there is no Category:Islamic terrorism category. Why? Because unlike you, the editors of that page understand 1) someone must be convicted of terror first to be called a terrorist 2) that to call a terrorist attack part of a phenomenon, there needs to be a conviction of some group belonging to that phenomenon 3) Categorization is just like accusations on Wikipedia, they need to be sourced and when questionable err on the side of exclusion. There is no indication from reliable sources that these allegations and charges have come to any fruition, any convictions, any true breakthroughs. There are even allegations some confessions have been made as a result of torture. Is Wikipedia really a forum for your crystalballing? I, and Wikipolicy think not.Pectoretalk 20:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The one thing you don't seem to understand is that the CfD was about renaming the category, not for deleting it and there was strong opposition to your singular vote of deletion when that wasn't the subject of the CfD. There is clear consensus on it's existence, there is no consensus on the proper name for it. You've been trying to twist that CfD around to mean something else for a long time and there is clear consensus for keeping the category itself.
...*coughs* Have you read the note in Category:Islamic terrorism? It specifically states "This category is for topics related to both proven or suspected cases of terrorism or violence significantly motivated by beliefs attributed to Islam is some form." Suspected, do you see? I don't know the reasons why that article doesn't have the category on it and there was likely a discussion on the talk page at some point about it. But that doesn't apply to this discussion. Suspected terrorism in reliable sources in relation to Hindu nationalism and Hindutva is clearly merit for inclusion of the category, per that line at Islamic terrorism. Suspected by a government is reason enough to include it for our readers to be able to go through the category and access any article related to the subject. SilverserenC 21:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I second what you have said and this is the main point I have been trrying to convey to Pectore, in vain. They do not neccessarily have to be proven to subjectively be in a category; if there are multiple WP:RS from several sources which cite a connection to Hinduism, the addition of the category becomes implicitly relevant. Mar4d (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This might be a discussion we want to have on the category talk page, but take a look at the description on Category:Eco-terrorism; there, it's made very clear that being in the category doesn't make one an eco-terrorist. In fact, FBI Counterterrorism Division is in the category! If we made the category description clearer, then maybe that solves the problem. If we extend the description/logic of the Eco-terrorism category to Category:Hindu terrorism, then even if this article explicitly proved that, despite being linked to Hinduism/Hindutva in sources, every single act was perpetuated by radioactive mutants from outer space, it would still belong in that category. Pectore, if we fix the category description to make this clear, would you agree then that the category does belong here? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I already added a note to the top of the category that describes what it is about. If you feel that that note needs to be more extensive, feel free to expand it. SilverserenC 03:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(deindent) There was no consensus on the CFD which is quite obvious from the statement "no consensus" (without the non-existent qualifiers that you have given) of the closing administrator. I fail to see what sort of insipid logic serves as a foundation your claim that I twisted the CFD around. As is evident from the multiple users that have removed this particular category with its obviously flawed nomenclature, there was no consensus for any decision of any form, either then or now. That is entirely evident from the discussion. Next, the "suspected" on Category:Islamic terror quite clearly implies a consensus that an Islamic group is behind the attack. The latest CFD on that category was a huge embroilment, with a number of tangential yet relevant issues like WP:BLP taking stage front and center. In this case, where is the consensus on the attackers? None. The provenance of every single attack is disputed, with some Indian sources (including organs of the Indian National Congress claiming it was Hindutva groups) and others including think tanks and American sources claiming otherwise. No government has banned these groups or named them as terrorist, and verifiability is a much higher goal than your particular view on navigation. Mar4d has tried to convey nothing, instead spending time attacking my alleged political views, and removing reliable sources that undermine his edits. Its entirely evident from this discussion that any actual discussion of WP:CAT has clearly fallen by the wayside. With people's biographies in particular, BLPCAT states clearly "Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal."Pectoretalk 03:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

On a related subject, its immaterial whether you agree about WP:BLP. So you disagree with the other relevant standards of verifiability and concepts of justice as well, and this shows in your editing patterns. Don't accuse users of editwarring when it is obvious from even a superficial look at the edit-history that you are guilty of not only revert-warring, but attempting to shove discussions under the table.Pectoretalk 05:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Me sending you to a centralized article talk page so we aren't discussing the same subject across multiple talk pages is not "shoving discussions under the table". Verifiability is already in the articles in question, there are reliable sources discussing the use of Saffron/Hindu terrorism and also government investigations in regards to that. SilverserenC 06:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've tried a new wording for the description of Category:Hindu terrorism; I basically copied the description given in Category:Islamic terrorism, with the added proviso that we're talking about Hindu nationalist movement, not the Hindu religious movement. If you take a look, you'll see that the wording is extremely vague, taking great pains to be uncertain as to whether or not any given page is "actually" Hindu terrorism or is simply "alleged" Hindu terrorism. I'm hoping this might be a more acceptable wording for everyone. Maybe. But I somehow doubt it. I do want to say that this doesn't change the legitimate sentiment above--that we can still have debates about whether any given article belongs in the category. To make a really bad analogy, one source calling something Hindu Terrorism or Saffron Terror, even if that's a reliable source, is not enough to stand against a dozen reliable sources that don't make such an attribution. But I believe that, with the new wording, it should at least apply to this page (I'm not a follower of the 3 other articles currently in the category, so no comment there). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not like this because it fosters discussion of what is and is not Hindu terrorism without respect to the sources. I want to sidestep all discussion. I propose a change to 

This category is for topics which reliable sources have related to 'Hindu terrorism'

There should be almost no debates about whether something goes into the category. If a reliable source uses "Hindu terrorism" in relation to an event, then it goes in the category. If not, then do not include it.

Wikipedia is not a place to discuss what is and is not Hindu terrorism; Wikipedia is a place to point out what reliable sources say. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian's plan is far more sensical. To be frank, the issue is still in the flawed wording of the category, as well as the rampant speculation that surrounds these cases. On Bluerasberry's plan, "have related to" is an untenable wording; so if we have a source like Frontline which is leftist claiming the 2002 Gujarat violence is "Saffron terror" then the Guj violence article gets placed in the category? In spite of that being the only reliable source referring to the large scale mutual riots as such? The articles themselves point out very clearly, and verifiably who certain people think are responsible, and if anyone has been convicted. Categorization is minor and also not essential. In fact, when dealing with allegations, categories serve no purpose, since categorization implies an approval of a certain POV on the issue. Its obvious from even a cursory look at the sources, that what this controversy boils down to is politics. One party is in power and using its government organs to investigate those opposed to it, and Wikipedia need not use a non-essential part of the article to uphold a precisely political view until people are convicted and investigations are approved by a court of law.Pectoretalk 18:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Pectore (regarding Bluerasberry's plan). One reliable source using the term is not sufficient. I hate to be judgemental about a whole country, but this is especially true with India, since papers are allowed to be openly political, even in "news" stories. In terms of categories, Wikipedia editors can and should argue about what goes into a particular category. Again, look to Eco-terrorism. Clearly Sea Shepherd Conversation Society belongs in this category (since it was designated an eco-terrorist group by several governments), as do it's core members. But what about someone who once expressed an opinion about the group, either positively or negatively? What about a newspaper which published a comment by such a person? What about the reporter who wrote the article....? You can see where I'm going with this. Categorization requires judgment calls, just the same as editing does. The difference with editing is that we can use qualifiers like "Some people said this person is X, while others said it's Y." But a category provides a very strong link, and identification almost, with a particular subject. Thus, we must be extra careful (and super-duper-extra-special careful with BLPs). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Plus, the phrase "Hindu Terrorism" is such a loaded term, almost guaranteed to ensure that the people who come to Wikipedia for information will get the wrong impression, and equate it as the Hindu religious "version" of Islamic or Christian terrorist groups, when the category is actually talking about pan-Indian "Dharmic" nationalism, including groups from many different religions, and not...in any way...satisfying the criteria for "religious terrorism" used on Wikipedia pages like Islamic Terrorism and Christian Terrorism. It would be like grouping American anti-immigration or Tea Party groups under the heading "Christian Terrorism." It does no service whatsoever from an educational standpoint, and is only being used by ideologically-motivated editors (with the help of people who appear ignorant of Indian politics) in order to make it seem like India is running rampant with terrorist groups blowing people up in the name of Vishnu, Krishna, Shiva, or Kali...when nothing could be further from the truth. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
That's not what we're discussing, Bryon, the name is what it is. SilverserenC 01:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed on the referencing. However, the point is that the articles currently in the category have been done so specifically because an Indian government investigation (or other country) has connected Hindu/Saffron terrorism with it. We're not just going off of reliable sources, but actual investigations. SilverserenC 01:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
@Silverseren Could you please point out which of the substance under consideration is not from reliable sources? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's all in reliable sources. It's in sources also because of the government investigations. But I was just pointing out that calling these events as resulting from Hindu/Saffron terrorism is not just a random news reporter's opinion. They have been called as such as government agencies and are reported as such because of that in reliable sources. This isn't the case of an opinion piece calling an event some sort of terrorism. SilverserenC 06:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
After Union Home minister of India talking about 'Saffron Terrorism' in a meeting of 'chiefs of State police forces', there is little doubt over official recognition of the word. Another link 1, etc. though as mentioned, I am not sure the legal weight of such reports at all at this point of time. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
As a side note, I would like to point out that more discussions and time on the page is not of too much merit. There are 4 cases mentioned in Saffron Terrorism page mainly, each of which has somewhat dubious and unproven claims, gist of which is as follows: (1) Ajmer Dargah Blast: 5 members of RSS arrested, Swami Aseemanand's confession is present. Swami Aseemanand is common to more cases mentioned, initially blamed on LeT, also mentions involvement of ISI. (2)Samjhauta Express bombing: Accusation on Abhinav Bharat, Swami Aseemanand confessed again this time with bizarre fact of Pakistan's ISI patching up with Saffron Terrorism, though there are reports of other's(LeT, JeM, David Headly, Abhinav Bharat, etc.) involvement. (3) 2008 Malegaon blasts: Confessions from Swami Aseemenand, Lt Col Prasad Purohit, Abhinav Bharat, Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, etc. though there are reports of other's(LeT, Al Qaeda) involvement. (4) Masjid bombing: Abhinav Bharat is accused & Confession of Swami Aseemenand is present, though other's(HuJi from many sources) involvement in this case is prominent. What remains is the 'other allegations' part, then criticism etc. This article does not look like it should make editors spend a lot of time on it, atleast till judgements are given by courts. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This Nonsense about Breivik

Whoopee. He collected some emails. That's it. There is no reason to be putting such tabloid nonsense on this page...and certainly no reason to be un-reverting my deletion of nonsense like that, posted by a banned user with a history of this kind of POV vandalism, and placed at the front of the article for purely prejudicial purposes. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Until a reliable source states unambiguously that Breivik was engaged in Hindu nationalist terrorism (which, of course is ludicrous, since the reports I've sen describe him as a right-wing, white supremacist, Norwegaian-nationalist), that cannot be in this, or any article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
What do you consider the sources given in the section as then? They state things like "Norwegian mass killer Anders Behring Breivik hailed India's Hindu nationalist movement as a key ally in a global struggle to bring down democratic regimes across the world" and "Anders Behring Breivik, the confessed killer of 76 people in the July 22 bomb and gun attacks in Norway, has praised the Hindutva movement and warned that "India will continue to wither and die unless the Indian nationalists consolidate properly and strike to win."" That seems to have a direct relation to this subject, since he was advocating terrorist actions fueled by Hindutva, which is, by definition, Saffron terror. Now, I fully agree that the section placed into the article is not written well and desperately needs to be rewritten, but I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that the subject is not relevant to this article. SilverserenC 04:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Do the links prove anything about Saffron Terror? Is an extremely right wing Hindutva group involved? Is Saffron Terror involved because "Anders Behring Breivik hailed... praised... "? How is this directly related to subject? Please be clear on this otherwise stop wasting time. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Also stop the propaganda that "since he was advocating terrorist actions fueled by Hindutva, which is, by definition, Saffron terror.". ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
That a person who committed violence supported other forms of violence (i.e., Saffron terror) does not mean that he has anything to do with Saffron Terror. The information may belong in his article, but certainly not in this one. That's like saying that because Dave Barry spends half of a book discussing the US Post Office that information about Barry belongs at US Post Office. In other words, all we have prof of is that Breivik supported a particular cause; if he also wrote about supporting a certain US political candidate, would you recommend adding him to that article? Putting him here is reversing cause and effect. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Breivik also expressed support for many American Conservative news outlets and pundits, often quoting them directly. His comments do not deserve to be on the WP pages of Fox News, World Net Daily, or Pam Geller. Also, for the record, Osama bin Laden praised American Nationalism and the American Far Right prior to the 9/11 attacks, but that doesn't belong on pages dealing with them, either. I'm sure we could find praise from Hitler for a bunch of things...but they don't deserve to be smeared either. Like I said, this is tabloid, guilt-by-association nonsense, and probably one of the most egregious abuses of POV I've seen on WP since the attacks. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
(deindent). Which terrorist actions did he advocate? The ones that have not been proven in a court of law? The ones that could very possibly be allegations of a single political party and certain users' viewpoints? The addition of such nonsense into the article is completely baseless. What terrorist attack did Breivik commit in the name of Hindutva? Granted though I will say this. At least this instance of "Saffron terror" isn't shoddily evidenced. Nevertheless, the killing of a group of people in the name of Anti-Islam sentiment without any real connection to India, Hinduism or Hindu nationalism does not merit inclusion into the article.Pectoretalk 04:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
You should see the nonsense added to the Christian terrorism article. Terrorists generally belong to some kind of group that is attempting to advance some kind of agenda. Breivik worked alone, sure he terrorised his victims, but he is just an unhinged mass murderer in the mould of Martin Bryant. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

SAFFRON TERROR by Praveen Swami,Frontline,Volume 19 - Issue 06, Mar. 16 - 29, 2002

According to this link http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl1906/19060080.htm 'Saffron terror' had started in 2002 from the 'gujrat riots' , however according to the present article 'Saffron terror' is used only after 2008 and no mention of the Gujrat riots is given. We could also use it to describe the origin of the word 'Saffron Terror'.Could we include it somewhere in this article? Please give ur openions. Naveed 10:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navhus (talk • contribs)

You could make a new section titled Origin above the Investigations section and discuss it there. SilverserenC 16:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
While I agree the info should be added, we shouldn't use the term "origin" unless we can show pretty conclusively that this is the first actual use of the term in print. Instead, it would be better to include a sentence somewhere that says, "The first known use of the term is in a 2002 article in Frontline", etc. That's still borderline OR, since we're really saying "It's the first use known to us, WP editors", but I'm comfortable with it in this case. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
OK I have added it under Usage. Please look into it and make corrections if needed Naveed (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the best we can do is say that it is the first known use and then trade it out with something else if something earlier is found. That's all we can really do in that regard. SilverserenC 14:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I've rephrased as Silver seren suggested; I agree that we cannot definitively state that this is the first use of the term. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Investigations and allegations

I think the whole "Investigations and allegations" section is unnecessary because the article should describe the origin and use of the term. This section seems like being more appropriate for something like Hindu terrorism. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saffron Terror, and there was some consensus that Hindu Terrorism and such terms not be used. Lynch7 12:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Sanathan Sanstha in Organizations and alleged people

There has been Allegations against involvement of Sanathan Sanstha in various blasts[7].Two of their memebers have also been convicted[8]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navhus (talk • contribs) 07:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the WP article makes it extremely clear that the organization has not been alleged to be involved in Hindu terrorism, at least not by anyone reliable. The fact that their members have been convicted in no way can be allowed to taint the group by association. Just because an organization has members that commit criminal acts does not mean that the organization itself is bad. If anyone has any evidence that the group itself has been legitimately accused, then they could possibly go here, though it will depend on exactly what the evidence says. I've asked Mike Lynch to reconsider his re-addition of the info. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Nomination

  • STRONGLY SUPPORT this nomination. The word Saffron Terror was coined as a part of Indian National Congress propaganda to appease the minority of India[citation needed] (Muslims and Christians). Congress has turned a blind eye to illegal/forcible Christian Conversions of Hindus, Separatist movement in Kashmir, Ethnic Cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits in the Kashmir Valley, Islamic terror and many more Anti-Hindu movements. This article has to be DELETED IMMEDIATELY to stop the Congress Propaganda at least on an encyclopedia. I'm open to any number of questions regarding my accusations. Thanks. Sourav Mohanty (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

81.106.76.207 (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC) This article should be deleted as its not based on any facts but is pure propaganda against Hindus..Arjun

Here is the previous deletion discussion about this article. The result of that discussion was that this page was found not to meet the deletion criteria in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Could you please review those links and then concisely state a rationale for deletion which matches with one of Wikipedia's criteria? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I have blocked one of the above IPs as an open proxy. For future reference, please note that Wikipedia runs on consensus. Meatpuppetry such as getting friends, family, etc. and/or sockuppetry will not advance a group's position. Elockid (Talk) 02:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Haha, this is not the parliament. It survived an AfD, there's a 99.999% chance it will survive a CSD. Please state relevant policies before making nominations. Keep personal opinions out of the equations; they'll only lessen your standing in the community. Lynch7 04:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, no one cares if it is Congress propaganda or whoever's propaganda. It doesn't matter to Wikipedia what Congress does or doesn't do. The term and concept are documented in newspapers well, and that's what is necessary for inclusion. Keep debates related to policies. Lynch7 04:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with User:MikeLynch. I was wrong when it comes to citing Wikipedia policies. But, contents of this article are hugely exaggerated and it seems as if Hinduism preaches to export Terror! Credibility of this article is poor. If there's an Article with the name 'Saffron Terror', then why not an article called ' Green Terror ' to signify Islamic Terrorism ??? Sourav Mohanty (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Please actually read through the article again. Nowhere does it state that there is actually such a thing as "saffron terror"; instead, this article is explaining that a large number of media and government groups have used the term "saffron terror"; the article even implies that the term is improperly applied in many/most cases. In other words, this article's purpose is to describe the concept, just like we have articles on the Flat Earth, even though it's obviously false. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Nicely explained Qwyrxian, Saffron Terror is just a term, introduced probably by a Congress member. It has received significant coverage in media, and that's why its here on Wikipedia. As simple as that. You are welcome to clean up the article, though I'm not sure it will be taken well, especially after this post you've made. If you'll read the article properly, it is fairly objective in a lot of places, when it comes to reporting incidents (as there is no POV involved there; its just plain reporting of facts). Lynch7 16:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
First of all, no it wouldn't, because censorship is when a government forbids access to information. Private organizations are always free to publish whatever they want. Second, you're responding to a discussion from more than a year ago--the article is not currently being nominated for deletion. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes. The article is currently NOT nominated for deletion. So the response seems meaningless. Wasif (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The word alleged

Cant use the word "allege" in the definition of a word. For example:

A dog is not an ALLEGED 4 legged animal.

A criminal is not an ALLEGED person who has broken the law. You can ALLEGE someone is a criminal but you can't use word alleged to define the word itself.

(Lowkeyvision (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC))

The example of dog doesn't serve and purpose here, yes your example of criminal is also not so good. Nothing is proven in any case cited here on the page. The term itself was coined to describe the acts of people who have allegedly done something and might have allegedly inspired by some ideology. Nothing has been proven at all in any of the cases so there is no question of standard definition here. Alleged is very much required. --sarvajna (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Ratnakaar.kulkarni is absolutely correct here. In fact, Lowkeyvision, your second sentence is just jumbled up grammatically. You can, for example, define a "criminal defendant" as "someone who is alleged by the state to have broken the law", or, more simply, "someone who has allegedly broken the law" (approximately; it's an imperfect definition). In this case, the acts of terrorism were allegedly perpetrated by Hindu nationalists. That is, the acts of terrorism/violence certainly happened, and no one is alleging that they didn't exist. However, what is uncertain is who committed the crimes (or why the committed them, in some cases); thus, they are "alleged" to have been committed by Hindu nationalists. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Though the example given by Lowkeyvision is not apt, the content what he meant seems exact. You can allege someone to be a Saffron terrorist. But you cannot allege the term itself. Doesn't makes meaning to say in the definition of the term to be alleged. Wasif (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, yes it does make sense. Like in my example: The definition of "criminal defendant" is "someone alleged to have committed a crime". The definition of "saffron terror" is "an act of terrorism committed by someone for reasons that are allegedly Hindu nationalist". The word is, in fact, a necessary part of the definition, because (if you read the page), the whole point is that most cases of so-called "saffron terror" actually have nothing whatsoever to do with Hindu nationalism; if we remove the word alleged, we could only then describe cases where there is proven Hindu nationalist motivation. I am now going to revert it back in. We can continue discussing this, but until you can show that consensus has changed, the article needs to remain in its pre-dispute state. If you want, we can pursue dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
In your analogy you use the word "defendant", which is a bias qualifier. If someone is a "Defendant" then they are defending against an allegation, so your analogy doesn't fit. Is an Islamic Terrorist someone who allegedly follows Islam? Is someone who is a Christian Fanatic, a fanatic who is allegedly Christian? Saffron is the color of the organizations that proclaim Hindu Nationalism(RSS and BJP). The phrase "Saffron Terrorism" is no different than saying "Hindu Nationalist Terrorism"- and that is why the phrase was coined. If you feel that it belongs in dispute resolution I am willing to contest your claims. I urge you to read WP:ALLEGED. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC))
But saffron terror is a fundamentally different term, because the vast majority of cases called "saffron terror" in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with "saffron" (i.e., Hindu nationalism). As for dispute resolution...hmmm...we can either open an request for comment, or go to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Which do you prefer? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you that the term can get misused, but maybe you can create a section the page about false flag claims or talk about the abuse of the term under criticisms. The term "Islamic Terrorism" also gets misused and so does the term "Christian Fundamentalist". We can not change the dictionary, only make sure that the words are used rightly. Lets use dispute resolution notice board because it involves third party administrators who are neutral/impartial. Lowkeyvision (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC))
I've opened the DRN. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you (Lowkeyvision (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC))
I have reverted the edits by Lokeyvision[9], the dispute is not yet resolved so please wait --sarvajna (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ajmer Dargah blast

Has no place here, it belongs in the Hindu nationalism article. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would it belong on Hindu Nationalism article as well? --sarvajna (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I did not say "as well" I said it should not be here, but there. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
ok, why should it be there but not here? --sarvajna (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
All the suspects arrested were members of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. And not a one of the sources used even mentions "saffron terror" Or nationalism either that I can see. So it certainly has no place here. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with you on the Saffron terror but however I think we can find sources which would put the Ajmer blast under the umbrella of Saffron Terror. If we do not find any then we can remove it. Also coming to the point of suspects being the members of RSS, that doesn't qualify this event to be included in Hindu Nationalism either as even you say there is no mention of Hindu Nationalism.Thanks P.S: I am involved in another dispute regarding this article at DRN and some other related disputes so if you may want to consider a third opinion as well.--sarvajna (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
In this country, Do you really need a proof to say that RSS are Hindu nationals? I suspect the article is being slowly weakened by a few editors.In Ajmer case, the arrested people are 'alleged' and teh court should decide on them. Till then they can be preceded with alleged tag. But abrubt removal is nothing but vandalism and i am revrting it.Wasif (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
There are reliable sources that sujests that the Ajmer blast is part of saffron terror. Please look into these sources [[10]][[11]]. If u want more sources i would provide them to you. Thank you.Naveed (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Please also look into this source ‘Saffron terror’: Ajmer blast probe first joined the dots Naveed (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
First & second sources do not mention "saffron terror" at all. Third seems to be an opinion piece from a columnist, I would not call using "saffron terror" in the headline much of a source, given the article says "It is worth mentioning that the evidence gathered in the aftermath of the Samjhauta Express blast on February 19, 2007, is similar to the materials and equipment used in the Ajmer Dargah blast as well as the modus operandi. One can infer from this that the Samjhauta Express blast could be the handiwork of the same terrorist outfit responsible for the Ajmer Dargah blast." which is pure conjecture. Please provide more, and better sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The definition of saffron terror is "Saffron terror is a phrase used to describe terrorism in India, allegedly perpetrated by Hindu nationalists" and there r clear allegations that it was done by Hindu nationalists....what else do u need? Naveed (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok heres another source for Abhinav Bharat to be involved in Ajmer blast, Hindu extremist group alleged to be involved in Saffron terror Abhinav Bharat under ATS scanner for '07 Ajmer blast Naveed (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok heres one more proof and I dont think its an openion piece [12]

Naveed (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Heres one more link NIA to probe all saffron terror cases and Ajmer Blast is part of the list. I think we should also include September 2008 Modasa blast. --Naveed (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If that is the definition then this article should be a redirect to the Hindu nationalism or Hindutva. This article is just a POV fork really. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
BTW your sources, NDTV says "may also be the hidden hand behind the Ajmer blasts." again it is conjecture. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Names

This edit made me think whether should we really include the names of Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, Lt. Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit and Swami Aseemanand. These people are relatively unknown and have just been accused of some crime. There has been no conviction. So, is it not against WP:BLPCRIME --sarvajna (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That edit has been changed. I have removed all the names. Please look at the page now Naveed (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they do not exists. Good work --sarvajna (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No convictions

Links of those involved in various incidents with such as the RSS have not been proved, for example the RSS denies alleged links with the Ajmer accused. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please provide sources for your statements.Naveed (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, no, we need sources that prove the involvement of RSS. If no such sources exist, the claim can't be in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Note, the above was directed at Navhus, not YK. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
What are the sources that only alleged? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC))
You have the issue backwards. WP:BLP requires strong evidence they are involved, usually evidence that they were convicted (or at least that there's ongoing legal proceedings). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis and POV

I will demonstrate it this way:

  1. Source A says: Saffron Terror is exactly the same as Hindu Terrorism (albeit, I am yet to encounter a reliable source propagating that notion)
  2. Source B says: Hindus'(People who were born in Hindu families) might be involved in a fatal event/attack.

We synthesize it by saying that each act where people from hindu families are involved is "saffron" terror? Saffron is the color what Hindu Sadhus were. It's an UNDUE vilification of Hindu saints and the fundamentals of Hinduism.

When Islamists attacked USA with imprimatur of Bin laden, did we call it the "Mullah terror"? We called it Islamic terror that too because they explicitly took Allah's name before committing such a crime (it's in the records). It's not one isolated event. Even though there are literally thousands of places in Europe, USA and India where Mullahs (& other Islamic theologians) openly, that's right dauntlessly with no apparent respect for communal harmony, invoke Islamic fundamentals as a pretext to instill hatred in their followers' heart and to goad them to perpetrate violent acts of terrorism (beheading, suicide bombing, illegal funding of terrorist organizations, etc), we didn't and still don't call it Mullah terrorism as it would be a violation of WP:SYNTH.

Two issues:

  1. This article has many sources (77 as of now). Not many explicitly talk about "saffron" terrorism?
  2. This article lumps Hindu nationalists with terrorists. This article cleverly frames Hindutva as a form of terrorism.
  3. This article mentions those organizations as terrorist organizations, who are not convicted of Terrorism or banned as "terrorist organization".

Can we do something about it? I am not asking for the deletion of the article per se. I am right now asking for some trimming based on the lack of express usage of the term saffron terror. Where they don't use the "saffron terror", don't include that source. I will do my bit but first tell me if it's acceptable or not. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that we must only include events (examples) that have been explicitly called "Saffron terror" by the media, or in cases where the attackers admitted (in some way, shape, or form) that they did it for "Saffron" reasons (i.e., Hindutva, Hindu nationalism, etc.). That is to say, if a group or individual says "We did this to preserve India from the encroachment of Muslims" or something like that, that meets the definition, and warrants inclusion. However, if we have a case where the perpetrators motive is unknown, and the media has not labelled it Saffron terror, then it should be removed.
As for terrorist groups, we don't need them to have been convicted of terrorism, but we do need them to be explicitly labelled as terrorists. And even then, we should not say "Group X is a Saffron Terror group" using Wikipedia's voice; rather, we have to say something like "According to the (State Minister/Anti-Terror Organization/Media Person X, group X is a Saffron Terror group". If I can draw an analogy from my part of the world, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is not directly called, in Wikipedia's voice, a terrorist organization, but we do point out that several countries call them eco-terrorists. We need to be very careful to play the same line here.
I apologize for not really having the time/interest to dig into the sources in great detail right now, but that's what really needs to be done: every single source needs to be examined to make sure that the connection between the events/groups/people is explicit, and then we need to make sure we clarify who is making the connections. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I like your comment Qwyrxian. Appreciate your effort. I hope you don't mind me highlighting some parts of your comment:
we don't need them to have been convicted of terrorism, but we do need them to be explicitly labelled as terrorists
only include events (examples) that have been explicitly called "Saffron terror" by the media, or in cases where the attackers admitted (in some way, shape, or form) that they did it for "Saffron" reasons (i.e., Hindutva, Hindu nationalism, etc.)....
And I agree. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
There have been various discussion regarding POVs.I request you to look into the above section Speedy deletion Nomination before coming to a conclusion. Secondly this is Wikipedia, hence you are free to edit anything. If you think anything should be removed please do so, However please look into the previous discussions and also look into the archives concerning discussions on POV before removing or adding anything.--Naveed (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Why would I be looking at a discussion that took place almost a year and a half ago esp. when I am not asking for deletion? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Not only that discussion. Please also look into the archives. The issues of POV is not new. It has come in for a lot of discussions. In fact the POV tag was there for a long time and has JUST been removed. IF u look into all the archives u will come to know why the article is titled "Saffron terror" and not any other. --Naveed (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Again, Navhus, he's not asking for the article name to change. He's saying that some of the details in the article should possibly be removed because reliable sources don't refer to them as Saffron terrorism. That's good, right? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
He is free to add and remove sources based on reliability and Notability --Naveed (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Again, Navhus, not trying to change the title/remove the page. I am more inclined on scrupulously seeking feedback in the talk before I integrate a bold change to this contentious page (because I don't like getting reverted for no reason), what is your problem with that? Am I not allowed to feel the air before editing? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
You are free to make any change you like. However the change should be based on the sources quoted and the sources should be reliable and Notable. A change mentioning "West and North India" where the source clearly states an attack in Mecca Masjid , Hyderabad is NOT acceptable. --Naveed (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I saw your edit. Don't worry it's okay. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hindu_terrorism/Archive_2&oldid=1152482875"