Talk:Hindu terrorism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Talk:Saffron terror
)

Move review close

I will quote it here:

In this move review, the community considers whether ModernDayTrilobite's very articulate and well-explained close really reflects what the community said. Arguably it doesn't, and many editors -- too many good faith editors to disregard -- feel that this close reduces to MDT's opinion in a hat box. I have to say that the close can't stand as written. I think that's a pity, because it is a very clear close that comes with a commendably detailed explanation of its basis in policy. It was a non-admin close, and yet I wish that more admin closes looked like that.

The article we're considering was previously called "Saffron terror", which is a problematic title for several reasons that are well-explained in the move discussion that MDT closed. It has been moved to "Hindu terror", which is also problematic for other reasons that are also well-explained.

The community hasn't coalesced around one of the options here, and I think that's because none of the choices is really satisfactory. The actual subject of the article is terrorism committed by Hindu nationalist groups in India in the 21st century. The challenge here is to find a pithy title that encapsulates this in a neutral, non-partisan way that isn't totally opaque to people who aren't Indian. We need new ideas about this.

I seriously considered overturning to relist, and I'm not going to do that, because it sends us back to the old choice between the two unsatisfactory titles. We've already had that conversation and we know it doesn't go anywhere helpful. Therefore we know we need to go back to the article talk page and come up with some better names.

From this discussion we already know some of the characteristics a satisfactory article title would have. We know that it has to encapsulate that these are Hindu nationalists -- "Hindu terrorism", read naively, implies forced conversion of Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains; whereas these terrorists' motives are political rather than religious. It's also unsatisfactory to ascribe terrorist acts to a spice or a colour.

If the article talk page discussion stalls or becomes stagnant, then I would suggest beginning a Request for Comment to ask previously uninvolved users to help workshop satisfactory titles. I'm not going to revert the move in the meantime, because that's unproductive when the community doesn't love Saffron Terror as a title either.

I haven't given you a word in bold, and this is intentional. This outcome is neither "endorse", nor "overturn", nor "relist". I haven't selected any of the options from the menu at

Wikipedia:Move reviews#Closing reviews because none of them resolve the problem in this case. Instead I'm providing a narrative verdict. MDT's close does not stand, but it falls forward instead of falling back: all the article titles suggested so far are unsatisfactory, so please, go back to the talk page and come up with other possible titles for this article.—
— S Marshall's close of the "Hindu terorrism" move review 23:48, 29 April 2023‎

I have moved the page to a neutral descriptive title which should be less contentious than both "saffron terror" and "Hindu terrorism" while editors discuss potentially better titles. One such title could be "Hindutva terrorism". In my opinion "Hindu nationalist terrorism" is about equally good as "Hindutva terrorism".—Alalch E. 01:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not acceptable and I've reverted that move. Either propose a new title in an RM, or we retain the title as closed above. Names are not chosen by editors arbitrarily.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, Hindu terrorism undoubtedly includes such phenomena as
religious fundamentalism. This article is the place for all of it. — kashmīrī TALK 19:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Can you point to examples of Hindus
reliable sources? UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Forced conversions (at gunpoint) by the Hindus are well documented (e.g., [1]. Whereas forced conversion is often included in the broader label of religious terrorism (e.g., [2] which includes many examples from all over the world). I hope you don't argue that systematic use of force (including killings) by a non-state actor against civilians is not terrorism. — kashmīrī TALK 22:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article you link doesn’t label the act as “Hindu [or any] terrorism.” As for whether or not systematic use of force (including killings) by non-state actor(s) against civilians is “[religion] terrorism” or not: my personal opinions do not matter. There’s a reason why the preferred term to refer to armed insurgents in Kashmir is ‘
WP:TERRORIST. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, and surprisingly surprisingly all murders in Kashmir are always attributed to "militants", because common crime does not exist there, right? Schoolteachers are murdered by students all over India,[3][4][5] yet only in Kashmir, teacher murders are immediately attributed by Indian media to "Pakistan-controlled militants" and not to, for instance, abused former students. By the way, the NYT source clearly indicated that the killing of 25 wedding guests were a common robbery - of the type that
has unfortunately happened elsewhere in India
, and it takes quite a lot of bad faith (or a nasty politician like L. K. Advani) to present common crime as "Pakistan-inspired sectarian violence".
So - yes,
WP:TERRORISM stands precisely because some people have no idea how things work in reality and are tempted to blindly stick news reports into what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. — kashmīrī TALK 10:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:OR like this you have pushed all over wikipedia. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The NYT article is extremely careful in attributing blame: the killings, attributed to Pakistan-backed Muslim insurgent groups (not: "carried out by"); gunmen who have been identified by Indian officials as Muslim guerrillas (not: who were guerillas); etc.
You must be naive to believe that only by coincidence these "terrorist attacks" happen during Clinton's visit to India or when the Hindu nationalistic BJP government is about to announce its Kashmir strategy on Kashmir. You must have also never heard of the Ikhwanis who have carried out some of the most ruthless attacks in J&K, attributed later to the militants.[6][7]
I'm not trying to defend anyone; I'm just standing against parroting official propaganda by someone who has clearly no slightest idea of how things actually work in J&K. — kashmīrī TALK 08:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah no, ignoring
original research. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Kashmiri, the arguments you raised here are either weak or wrong. Ill go through them one by one.
Overall, this is just poking holes in other article titles while not actually justifying the proposed title. You need to support your title, not just oppose others. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Captain: One by one:
  • Moving the goalpost
    ?: I didn't write that "Saffron terror" fails COMMONNAME but that Hindutva terrorism fails it.
  • Certainly, the article merits further work, especially to avoid content duplication with Hindutva and expanding to broadly construed Hindu terror. Reversal to "Saffron terror" would make it more difficult as some may see the new content as being out of scope.
  • Not getting it. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my point?
Lastly: You need to support your title, not just oppose others. Why? — kashmīrī TALK 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point by point:
  • Im telling you to read the policy, you will realise that the policy doesnt "fail" any title. And that your title, Hindu terror, does not satisfy the policy. The policy is WP:COMMONAME, not WP:SLIGHTLYMORECOMMONNAME.
  • Thats absurd. Removing Hindutva Terror since it overlaps with Hindutva?
  • Im saying its lack of recognition is a weak argument,and not very significant even if we accept it due to other multiple supporting factors for the title, more than the rest.
  • Because thats what you do in an RM. We are here to find the most appropriate title, and just pointing out flaws in other titles, while not addressing the massive number of flaws in the proposed title is not constructive. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ISBN 978-0-8157-0860-5

Requested move 30 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There is no consensus to remain at the current title, nor to switch to a different title. It would appear that the options with any significant support are options 2 and 3, with only minor amounts of support for option 1. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu terrorism → ? – What should the title of this page be? Four distinct alternatives have been presented thus far, but none have consensus. Given the copious discussion here, I don't see how further workshopping will be helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Options:

  1. Saffron terror (old title).
  2. Hindu terrorism (present title, lacking clear consensus).
  3. Hindutva terrorism
  4. Hindu nationalist terrorism
  5. Hindu extremism

Survey

  • Option 2, keep current name, oppose move. The current name is not broken. I agree with Kashmiri in previous discussion: (1) "Hindu terrorism" encompasses much more than acts of terror resulting from Hindutva ideology, even if currently somewhat underserved by the current version of the article, (2) "Hindutva terrorism" fails WP:COMMONNAME, and (3) Hindutva is a technical term that's not understandable outside of the group of Indian experts and Hindi speakers. Arguments (1) and (2) also apply to "Hindu nationalist terrorism", while "saffron terror" is just a silly euphemism, also not the common name, and also not understood except by a small subset of readers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Argument one and two are wrong, and argument 3 isnt enough to justify the naming of an article with a name that is completely inaccurate. See the comment here. As for your comment on common name, do note that going by actual evidence, Hindu terror is clearly not the common name. See the comment here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnJackSp (talk • contribs) 09:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1, the status quo ante per arguments already provided on the first RM, and strongly oppose the current backdoor retaining of 'Hindu terrorism'—there was no consensus for the first move, so why is it the current title? UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For instance, in the discussion above, an editor has presented this article as an example of “Hindu terrorism,” despite the fact that the article itself doesn’t call the incident an example of Hindu terrorism at all. This goes on to demonstrate the kind of
    wikivoice? UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Option 2. Don't agree that this title, Hindu terrorism, did not gain consensus. The present title achieved consensus in the previous move request through the inclusion of community consensus. According to the objective closer, supporters of the move expressed policy-backed arguments,
    ed. put'er there 00:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thats just plain false. Its not that people didnt raise objections, its just that editors ignored the objections over and over and over and over, and refused to answer. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one said people didn't raise objections. What was said is that the substance of those objections did not match the policy arguments made by supporters. Still don't.
ed. put'er there 16:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Are you trying to seriously say that a term without a reliable definition is the basis of a claim for WP:PRECISE? How is Hindu Terror Precise? It is obviously not, editors just said "Saffron terror wasnt precise", and ignored that Hindu terror wasnt precise either (which has been acknowledged by those supporting Hindu terror as a title, as well as the closer in the last statement). Some people silently ignore that a title, Hindutva Terror, exists that is better than both of these. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh, you've drawn me in again) The reason "Hindutva Terror" and "Hindutva terrorism" have found disfavor is because the word "Hindutva" is not easily
ed. put'er there 11:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
And again, even in this reply, you have ignored the fact that
WP:PRECISE (a policy) doesnt allow Hindu Terror/Terrorism as the title, and havent offered any arguments to contest that either. Thats my point here, Hindu terror fails on multiple grounds, but editors keep glossing over them. Hindutva terror only has one weak argument to be made against it on recognisability grounds. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Like the way you say "one weak argument" to belittle Wikipedia policy. When we look at the choices, option 4, is the longest, but not really precise nor favored as a title for this article. Of the other four options, all are about the same precision, and so all would be allowed, moreso under
ed. put'er there 15:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
You are rebuking arguments that havent been made. I never said the policy was weak; I said the argument for citing the policy was weak, since several leading newspapers outside India have started using the term "Hindutva" in their reports ( such as The Wall Street Journal and Al Jazeera). Option 4 isnt supported by me, either, no idea why its quoted.
No, not all are similarly precise. Hindutva Terrorism and Saffron Terrorisms have reliable definitions from academic sources, that state what these terms are used to refer to. Hindu terror does not. If we cant even define what the title of the page means using reliable sources, the title is hopelessly imprecise. Thats why I have been saying
WP:PRECISION
does not allow Hindu Terror/Terrorism.
Not sure why you brought up Naturalness and Consision, if you can elaborate on it it would be great. I have provided logical arguments for both supporting my title and opposing the ones I feel inappropriate. Others have only given votes and vaguely mentioned policies without explaining why those policies apply. That doesnt make me embarrassed at all. And I have no issues with you replying to me, as long as you discuss with thought out arguments; Its not important to have the last word, its important to have a constructive discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 Per
    WP:CONSISTENCY with Islamic terrorism, Christian terrorism, etc. I don't see why this page should have an exception to the rule, either they all get moved at once or not at all. I'm sure most followers of Islam or Christianity would agree that it doesn't line up with their belief system, either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
One is by Islamic extremists, one is by Cristian extremists, one is by Hindu nationalist extremists.
At this point this is bordering WP:IDHT, you have been told this multiple times; Religious Nationalism is not the same as Religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnJackSp (talk • contribs) 15:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hindutva Terror, option 3 as this is the only article title apart from saffron terror which is actually accurate. Multiple votes in this RFC cite "Consistency" , "Precision" , "Common name" when these arguments have been debunked already in the move request and move review that followed. I will restate this here, since many on this rfc were not part of the discussion earlier and seem not to have read it fully.
I also strongly oppose Option 2 - In the last Move request, where it was discussed to death, the title of Hindu Terror was found to be inaccurate and unsatisfactory. It also has a bunch of issues conflicting with our naming policies, which render it unusable. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your COMMONNAME arg does have some substance. Problems arise though, when different ngrams are compared. Your comparison, Hindu Terror vs. Saffron Terror, changes significantly when compared with Hindu terrorism vs. Saffron Terror. And while "Saffron Terror", the old title, does see much usage with ngrams, I found that adding "ism" to the end makes it drop off completely. I don't think ngrams help here, so we should stick to
ed. put'er there 11:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Here are ngrams for Hindu terrorism vs. Hindutva Terror and Saffron Terror vs. Hindutva Terror. COMMONNAME just does not support the less recognizable "Hindutva Terror". And option 3, "Hindutva terrorism", won't even show up on the ngrams chart!
ed. put'er there 11:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I dont think you understand the COMMONNAME policy correctly. You have to show that one title is the Obvious common name, for that policy to apply to any title in the discussion. Here, the policy does not apply at all. We are not measuring WP:SOMEWHATMORECOMMONNAME, either the policy applies or it doesnt. You cant reject Hindutva terror saying it isnt "supported" by COMMONNAME.
WP:PRECISE is exactly why Hindu Terror cant be the title, it fails the policy by a mile due it it being a factually wrong description of the contents of this page and a term that is so imprecise it doesnt even have a reliably sourced definition. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Please try not to embarrass yourself any further. Done with ya.
ed. put'er there 16:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Would be great to get a reply with policy based arguments instead of allusion to supposed embarrassment. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2. The phenomenon of Hinduism-motivated terrorism is well documented and this article needs to allow adding such content – Hindu terrorist acts not strictly linked with Hindutva ideology. Of all the proposed titles, only Hindu terrorism captures it well. — kashmīrī TALK 10:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2: There's not really a great scope for confusion here. As with all forms of religious terrorism, this one does what it says on the tin. A minority of extremists employ violent tactics in an attempt to force their views on others. It's simple and concise, and any average reader will know exactly what it is about, without confusion over specialist terms like "Hindutva" or the niche color metaphor of "saffron". As noted, this is the same setup as with Islamic terrorism -or Christian terrorism - concepts readers will be familiar with and understand as parallel.
    Iskandar323 (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Option 2: (
    WP:RECOGNIZABLE. I am reminded of the arguments against the term 'Islamic terrorism', which many regard as an oxymoron or as imprecise and/or offensive to Islam - but is used by us partly as it is the most easily understandable term. I don't think consistency is necessarily a virtue, but in this instance similar considerations apply to other forms of terrorism inspired and justified by religious conviction/identification. Hindu Terror is inherently ambiguous, but no one is proposing that truncated form. Pincrete (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Option 3 "Hindutva terrorism" speaks of the ideological motives. "Hindu terrorism" does not do that because no one gets inspired by Hinduism but Hindutva ideology to commit violent act as clearly described by reliable sources. Dympies (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hindutva is a term that adds little meaning, but a huge dose of unrecognizability. As a term usually translated as "Hindu-ness", using "Hindutva terrorism" just gives you "Hindu-ness terrorism" and a foreign term in an en.wiki page title.
    Iskandar323 (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This argument is wrong, and you seemed to have accepted this when you suddenly stopped replying in the thread where this was discussed between you and me. Trying to equate Hindu with Hindutva either shows a complete lack of knowledge of the two terms or an attempt at being intentionally misleading. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That the same discussion as we had at ''Islamic terrorism'' vs ''Islamist terrorism'', with the consensus for the former. Here, ''Hindu'' serves to distinguish the broad type of terrorism from terrorism motivated by other religions, rather than trying to precisely capture the motivation behind individual acts. — kashmīrī TALK 18:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apples to oranges comparison. You are comparing Islamic vs Radical Islamic, in which case Islamic is used. We are comparing Hindu vs Nationalist Hindu, in which case Nationalist Hindu (Hindutva) is the motivation. See
Jewish religious terrorism and the RM there for consistency based arguments. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
We are comparing? Who are the we in this sentence? Are you talking about your
cabal
? You must be, looking at the very same people who !voted for Option 3, vote-stack along the same lines on every ARBIPA discussion of WP.
Your worst nightmare 10:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC) 119.153.38.84 (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Your lack of english comprehension is not my problem. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CapnJackSp: No, we're not talking ''nationalist'' Hindu. This article's subject is religious terrorism, not nationalistic terrorism. Is it so hard for you to understand the difference? — kashmīrī TALK 10:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above statement is completely false. Till the last month, the article was clearly about Saffron Terror, which is a term used interchangeably with Hindutva Terror. Even now, the article is about Hindutva Terrorism only, with the sole exception of changes to lead where "Hindu Terror" has been equated with Hindutva terror. This change has been done by certain editors even though the close of the last Move Review, when the title was moved, has concluded that the new title is wrong. All this in no way makes "Hindu Terror" the title, it only reinforces that the title is wrong. Till now, there is no supposed incidents of Hindu terror on this page, just Hindutva Terror. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I supported Option 3, then I went to talk about "any other option" and found only "Saffron terror" to be sensible but I am not ready to support it over Option 3. Thanks ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that! I see now that what you wrote does make perfect sense, so... my bad.
ed. put'er there 11:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Option 3 Hindutva terrorism" speaks of the ideological motives and Hindu Terrorism is not the Commonname.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1 & 5. I am as yet undecided on what the best option is; there are issues of precision and popularity that render each of the remaining options sub-optimal; but these two are clearly the worst. There are precision and jargon issues with "saffron terror": scholars have used it to refer to terrorism committed by Buddhists, and it isn't necessarily clear to anyone without an understanding of the connotations of "saffron". Arguably it's even more jargon than "Hindutva terrorism", as the latter has at least a clear etymological connection with Hinduism. And "Hindu extremism" is just a more general phenomenon, with a different body of sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 The sources describe politics by Hindutva groups as motivation. As Audrey Truschke describes, "Hindutva and Hinduism are distinct. Hindutva is a narrow political ideology whereas Hinduism is a broad-based religious tradition. Many Hindus oppose Hindutva ideology, both in India and in the US-based diaspora, and it is offensive to conflate the two." Founder of Hindutva Vinayak Damodar Savarkar also said Hinduism isn't same as Hindutva.[8] That means the distinction between Hindu and Hindutva is very important and any rejection of this fact would be gross error. >>> Extorc.talk 18:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 as the best available choice. It has been already clarified that the information is specific to Hindutva does "Hindu" or "Hinduism" also becomes irrelevant. As above mentioned, there is also no
    Sikh terrorism but Khalistan movement, that's why option 2 and 5 are misleading. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Buddhist extremism. These do not fit the "consistent titling" some have claimed. While singular examples may be brushed away, not all of them can. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, hence while I said
Iskandar323 (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The complications you list are also applicable here. The ideology at hand is Hindutva (nationalism), not religious extremism like in the pages that are quoted for consistency (like Islamic terror and Christian Terror). In any case, the existence of the pages quoted, and the deviation of this page's ideology from articles like
WP:CONSISTENT argument just doesnt work. The claim that all of them should be titled "Religious Terror" stems from a flawed understanding that religion is the only driving force for terror. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Option 2 per the
    WP:SPADE
    , owing to the fact that moving to Hindutva terrorism from the current title will narrow down the scope of the article. The following comparison further settles the religious vs political debate:
A B Comments
Hindus, Hinduism, Hindutva Jews, Judaism, Zionism People, Religion, Ideology
Hindu nationalism Jewish nationalism B. redirects to Jewish national movements disambiguation page
Hindu extremism
Jewish extremism
 A. Option 5; currently redirects to this article
B. redirects to Jewish fundamentalism
Hindu terrorism
Jewish terrorism
 A.Option 2; current title
B.redirects to
Jewish religious terrorism
Hindutva terrorism
Zionist terrorism
 A.Option 3; currently redirects to this article
B.redirects to Zionist political violence

War Wounded (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What this table shows is exactly proving that Hindu terror is the incorrect title for this page. The fact that
Jewish Terrorism shows that similarly, Hindutva terrorism' should be separated from Hindu terrorism and it should not be confused together as some editors have done. The rest is just a comparison of redirects, not article titles; it holds zero value in the page move discussions where only titles matter the most. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The topic can be subdivided later if there is enough material, but that's not clear for now.
Iskandar323 (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Discussion

Please do not

use RfC for move discussions. {{subst:requested move}} is perfectly capable of handling open-ended names and multiple options. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I've started an AfD.—Alalch E. 02:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terror vs. Terrorism

While it may seem to some that there is confusion between the terms "Terror" and "Terrorism", I don't think that's the case. When ngrams are studied, the term "Terror" is often much more prominent than "Terrorism". In fact if "Terror" is changed to "Terrorism", the name often falls off the ngrams graph completely. I found that happens when "Saffron Terror" is changed to "Saffron terrorism", and when "Hindutva Terror" is changed to "Hindutva terrorism". So possible confusion aside, an ngrams analysis often prefers "______ Terror" (or "______ terror") over "______ terrorism". To me, that pretty much throws COMMONNAME out the window as a supporting policy for any potential title of this article.

ed. put'er there 12:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Using "terror" to refer to terrorism is
WP:NEWSSTYLE.—Alalch E. 21:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Apart from being NEWSSTYLE, in my experience 'terror' is often used by news sources before a motive has been established. Anything that frightens people and causes panic can reasonably be described as 'terror', whereas 'terrorism' presupposes a political motive of some kind. Pincrete (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This point about political motives is pretty key, because some discussion participants here appear to mistakenly believe there is some sort of distinction between religious terrorism, per se, and religious nationalist terrorism, whereas, in reality, (geo-)political goals lie at the heart of all terrorism. 'Religious terrorism' is just a concise form of 'religiously motivated political violence'.
Iskandar323 (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Iskandar323: You are 100% incorrect. The vast majority of terrorism in many countries is domestic terrorism (criminal terrorism)[9][10], which is not linked to any geopolitical goals. — kashmīrī TALK 09:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It is either (race/social/environmental) politics or geopolitics. The first source you quote states: "Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals..."
Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Where do you have any geopolitics in it? In, say, environmental activists damaging 5G towers or blocking oil rigs or fishing vessels? — kashmīrī TALK 10:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going around in circles re: WP:CONSISTENT?

  • Since
    WP:CONSISTENT is being argued again for "Hindu terrorism", here’s what the close of the earlier RM, which has been neither upheld nor withdrawn in theory (but remains de facto upheld), Several supporters of "Hindu terrorism" argued that it would be WP:CONSISTENT with other article titles on religious terrorism. However, later in the discussion it was demonstrated that such articles are not actually consistently titled, and that some of the pro-CONSISTENT evidence in fact referred to redirects. Thus, WP:CONSISTENT does not ultimately support either title. (boldfaced by me). UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The lack of total consistency there is partly due to the articles covering a range of topics, including attitude of religion X to violence - current campaign of violence by members of religion X and "specific (often past) campaign of violence by members of religion X". Only the middle kind is comparable, and that is broadly consistent when a COMMONNAME is not established. Absence of total consistency is not the same as total absence of consistency. Pincrete (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We dont name as "<religion> terror", we name as "<ideology> terrorism". If the ideology is religion, then it is named as "<religion> terrorism", but that is not the case here. In this case the ideology is Hindu Nationalism (Hindutva) , resulting in "Hindutva Terrorism". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iskandar323 (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The organisations accused on this page, RSS and Abhinav Bharat, were both based on Hindutva. And even on our Hindu Nationalist page, Today, Hindutva ... is a dominant form of Hindu nationalist politics in India. However, if you insist on Hindu Nationalist Terror as the title I am open to considering it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also unsure, but this and your comment in the survey section made me think - You seem to be heavily emphasising on "Religious" in your answers. I hope you are not under the impression that religion is the only reason for terrorism. We dont title "<religious adjective> terrorism", we title "<ideology adjective> terrorism". (Im not too concerned with the somewhat insignificant difference between "<ideology> terrorism" and "<ideology adjective> terrorism", so I have used your preferred style). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CapnJackSp Incorrect. We name "<religion> terrorism", as you can see in other similar articles. This is because such acts are often motivated by simple, stupid religious hatred and not by any ideology. Those Hindu mobs burning churches in Meghalaya Manipur or Nagaland have most likely never heard of Hindutva, much like Christians attacking Muslims in the west are not necessarily adherents to fundamentalist ideologies.
If you're trying to limit this article to Hindutva, then you seem to deny the existence of Hindu religious hatred and terror other than by one carried out by Sangh Parivar. Which is basically a political bias on your end. — kashmīrī TALK 08:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, we dont name as <"Religion Terror">. Look at articles like
Jewish religious terrorism, all of which are in direct contradiction to your format, focusing on Ideology and not necessarily using Terror/Terrorism. The only articles you have to support your theory of CONSISTENCY are Islamic terrorism and Christian terrorism
, so by all means this is a show of us not following any specific template, with "ideology" being the identifying characteristic when we do label something as Terrorism. Your argument of limiting titles to religious terror only is based on a flawed basis that all terrorism emanates from religion.
I do not think there has been any implication by me as to lack of violence by Hindus, and I object to your characterisation of my opinion as such. However, such information already exists on several pages on Wikipedia - If compiled, it would be a separate article as the current contents clearly do not fall under Hindu Terrorism. This RFC is a discussion of the best title for the current article, not a debate over whether we should rename it and rewrite from scratch. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Though as a separate point, which church was burnt down in Meghalaya? I cant seem to find any RS about it, I hope you dont rely on Twitter for news. I did read about one in Manipur if thats what you are referring to, though that violence was not really religious. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For those who may not be up to date with NE India, there has been recent violence between people of the Meitei and Naga, Kuki communities in Manipur and some parts of Nagaland and Meghalaya, over a proposed change in status of the Meitei to be recognised as a Scheduled Tribe. You can read more here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth are you posting this here?! This is prototypical
Iskandar323 (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
As there was a claim that the violence was about "Hindu mobs burning churches in Meghalaya Manipur or Nagaland" (sic), I added this here for context. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MR

.

No consensus: why has the article not reverted to the original status quo?

This is a blatant abuse of wiki policy to force the disputed result of the original RM, which in the RM review has not been upheld. This is exactly what I meant when I said that a discussion without returning to the original status quo is nothing but a backdoor retaining of the new title. That’s precisely what has happened here. @Amakuru: pinging you since you are the one who moved the article to the current title. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying that I’m not saying that Amakuru has abused wiki policy, but that that the current title was pasted on the article last through their hands. The decision to not return to the original status quo was theirs (and of the original RM’s reviewer). UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is though, the original discussion found a consensus to move, and the move review did not overturn that decision. So there was no particular reason why the original title should be restored. Instead, the MRV directed participants to continue the discussion and work towards a fresh conclusion. That was attempted, but no fresh conclusion was reached, it was no consensus. That means the status quo at the time of the move closure, which was the title of "Hindu terrorism", remained in place. My move back to that title was simply restoring that status quo. Had the original MRV finding been to overturn to no consensus, then I would have acted differently, so this isn't really anything to do with my decision making. For what it's worth, as someone who has not particular opinion on this, I endorse the closure here, the whole issue seems intractable at this point and everyone stepping away is to be advised. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru, the current move request wasnt a move request from Hindu Terror to some other title - It was a Move request to find out which title was the correct one. As such, even Hindu Terror is a 'No Consensus' title per the close. Per policy, we are required to revert to the last stable title, which would be Saffron Terror. I think we will have to wait till the close of the current MRV, but just wanted to point this out. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I may add that while editor Amakuru did not mention this, the most recent RM resulted in a lot of support rationales for two of the five choices, and little or no support for the other three. One of those other three was the old status quo title, which was supported by only one editor, yourself. That means that while there was no consensus for any of the five choices, there was an obvious, strong consensus to not move the article back to its earlier status quo title.
ed. put'er there 09:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Note - This is a personal opinion of the editor which has been contested several times. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that rather than being a personal opinion, it is a fact that resulted from the most recent RM. To ignore the fact that there was an overwhelming consensus against "Saffron Terror" does not in any way detract from its veracity. To contest this fact merely means to contest the truth. Only "stars" can get away with stuff like that, according to the actions of an ex-president of the US.
ed. put'er there 04:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Note that this is a misrepresentation based on ignoring prior discussions :) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, Sparrow, my description is a faithful representation based on ignoring prior discussions. Wikipedia places precedence on current consensus, not on old news.
ed. put'er there 20:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
By current consensus, your preferred title has no consensus and as such should be rolled back to the stable version. Your entire argument rests on stale discussions. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not so, and you can't have it both ways, Sparrow. Not so, because I don't have a "preferred title" at the moment. And the current title gained consensus in the first RM and has not lost that consensus, which is why the article is still currently titled "Hindu terrorism".
You just cannot have it both ways! Above you accuse me of "a misrepresentation based on ignoring prior discussions", and here you say, "Your entire argument rests on stale discussions." How exactly can I make an argument that rests on "stale" discussions, and be "ignoring" prior discussions??? You just dig the hole deeper and deeper. Shameful bit of reasoning there, what?
ed. put'er there 18:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It lost consensus in the last move request.
There is no consensus to remain at the current title
I think you are confused about what I said, so Ill clarify for the reader - You ignore the discussions we had as if they never happened, to repeat the same arguments. All the while, you take up the old RM as a shield while also saying we shouldnt use "old news". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confused about what I said, so Ill clarify for the reader
Thank you so much, Jack, now allow me to do the same. Hindu terrorism as the current title did not "lose consensus" in the last move request. On Wikipedia, when a title gains consensus it keeps consensus until one of two things happens: 1) there is a consensus against the title in a future discussion, 2) there is consensus for another title in a future discussion. Neither has happened. So "Hindu terrorism" is still the only title that has gained (and kept) its consensus support. Editors and readers do not have to take my word for it. A good and understanding read (or re-read if necessary) of
ed. put'er there 07:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Its again the same argument rehashed again.
It didnt gain consensus - The Mover review invalidated the original close (it fell forward, but it fell nonetheless), and said the title could not be Hindu Terror. The current close affirms that.
You are ignoring
WP:STATUSQUO by using a pretend "consensus". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Just more out-of-process hand-waving. Everything I wrote is well within the Ps and Gs. STATUSQUO is not being ignored, because the current title is now the status quo as established in the first RM and MRV. The second RM upheld it as the status quo, so it remains the title of this article until editors can garner consensus for another name in a future discussion. Happy Days!
ed. put'er there 07:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, what made it the Status Quo? It has been challenged since before it was the title. Second RM declared it to not have consensus for the title. As such, it reverts to the stable title, after which you can take up the discussion you wish. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And again (and again and again until it hammers in) editors came to consensus for the current title and against the old title in the first RM. That decision was implicitly upheld by the first MRV. So after that first MRV, when the title of this article did not change and remained at "Hindu terrorism", its status as the consensual title was carried into the second move request. None of the other four titles gained consensus over the current title, so it still remains the title. And no matter how many times it is "challenged", it will stay the title until there is consensus against it or until another title gains (or regains) consensus over it.
ed. put'er there 07:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Its the blunt end of a hammer being bludgeoned, its not going to hammer in. You are still repeating the consensus that fell in the MRV, and then was declared "no consensus".
Status Quo is Saffron Terror, policy based title is Hindutva terrorism, yet you keep fighting for Hindu terrorism since some editors stubbornly use
WP:ILIKEIT. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Don't fight for any particular title, unlike you who fights so ardently for a title that has not yet gained consensus, Hindutva terrorism, and now you split your ILIKEIT to support a title that lost consensus, Saffron terror. Instead I fight for Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, which are crystal clear in this case. The current title is still the title because it still enjoys consensus, it is still the status quo. So it will remain until it is unseated by a better title, whatever that title may be.
ed. put'er there 08:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
PS If there is a title that I favor, it would presently be "Hindu nationalist terrorism", which is thus far better than all other titles put together, imho.
ed. put'er there 08:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@S Marshall: What say you? MDT's close does not stand, but it falls forward instead of falling back: all the article titles suggested so far are unsatisfactory doesn't sound like "MDT's close stands as long as a bunch of people insist on keeping with one of the unsatisfactory article titles" to me, but the MR close is too ambiguous to do much with it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 10:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in the MR, I think that we have yet to reach consensus about what the title should be. I think that Hindu terrorism has a lot more support than Saffron terror. But I do not think that this article should be called Hindu terrorism and I hope that a better title can be found. I suggest trying some alternatives -- personally I like AlalchE's suggestion of calling it "Hindu nationalist terrorism".—S Marshall T/C 16:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is, while your closure said neither is satisfactory, you implicitly endorsed the result by refusing to call it "no consensus" after the move was executed. Thus the burden is on those who opposed to find support for an alternative while the side that supported the present title can just sit back and repeat their position. It's a frustrating closure because it's functionally "endorse, but feel free to try another RM" but says that it's not endorsed (sortakinda). It tries to find a third way, but fails to actually do so. Do with that what you will. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

@Portwoman please cite the sections you are using to remove "alleged". The citations do have cases where the news only states "close to" or the like. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im not using sections, but refering to references which state otherwise. Portwoman (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am asking you to cite the portions of those references that mention what you are trying to implement. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Portwoman do NOT change the lead till you acheive consensus for your edit. You have not only not achieved consensus, you have also not made any efforts to provide any sourcing for it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither does this mean that you have achieved consensus.
so, please wait and let other editors conclude wit their respective opinions.Portwoman (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS. Its up to you to show why your proposed wording is correct. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually the onus is on the editor who originally added these words, to prove that they follow the sources listed. — kashmīrī TALK 19:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current sentence closely follows a version that has been in place since atleast the last five years - [11] - Possibly much older. At this point, it is very much the longstanding status quo and would require consensus to change. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a live encyclopaedia. It's really ok to remove wrong information even after 20 years. — kashmīrī TALK 22:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously.
But that wasnt the point, was it? The onus lies on someone trying to change longstanding info. My response was to you saying the onus was on someone else; That is not so.
If someone is changing longstanding info and gets reverted,
WP:ONUS apply. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That said, terrorism is not a phenomenon unique to organisational members. Lone wolf terrorism is a well-attested phenomenon also in India (shall I mention Nathuram Godse?) — kashmīrī TALK 22:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "alleged members" was added in 2014[12] when the article was titled Saffron terror. The lead in that edit read:

Saffron terror is a neologism used to describe acts of violence apparently motivated by Hindu nationalism. They are perpetrated by members, alleged members and former members of the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its affiliate organisations such as the Vishva Hindu Parishad, Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram and others.

It was added by @Kautilya3: (pinging so he can weigh in on the discussion). Schazjmd (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I stumbled upon a webpage discussing Hindu terrorism, and I was surprised to see the name of RSS (Rashtriya Swyamsevak Sangh) mentioned there. It should be noted that RSS is a nationalist organization, not a terrorist organization. I kindly ask for the prompt removal of its name from that page. Kunal582002 (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite RSS group being a nationalist organisation within, the attack investigations and the supreme court hearings bought up perpetrators linked with the group. And there's nowhere mentioned RSS is a terrorist organisation. It's only declared that some RSS leaders involved in the terrorist incidents as stated above. So I don't think any changes are required, as it seems to be an ideological diversion here. Constantiyespole (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mention 2002 Gujarat riots

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots Constantiyespole (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hindu_terrorism&oldid=1218550839"