| Revision as of 01:09, 6 March 2013 editQwyrxian (talk | contribs)57,186 edits →Assertions of fact in the lead: suggest some refs to verify second sentence← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:56, 6 March 2013 edit undoLowkeyvision (talk | contribs)1,928 edits →Assertions of fact in the leadNext edit → | ||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 215: | Line 215: | ||
| :::::Am I the one who asked for a change in definition or are you? YOU are the one asking to change the definition and there are references backing what is already written. So unless you have references- please read ] again. This feels like dealing with Holocaust deniers, I swear. ] (]) 16:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)) | :::::Am I the one who asked for a change in definition or are you? YOU are the one asking to change the definition and there are references backing what is already written. So unless you have references- please read ] again. This feels like dealing with Holocaust deniers, I swear. ] (]) 16:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)) | ||
| ::::::Lowkeyvision, how about sources 33 and 34 in the article, which show that the 2006 Malegaon blasts, in which Hindu nationalist groups were accused, were unlikely to have been committed by said groups. Alternatively, reference 35 plus any one of reference 36-38 shows that ] was accused, but was, in fact, not involved (or, at least, that there is substantial doubt). Either of these two combinations could go after the second sentence of my proposal as evidence that there have been cases in which events have been described that have been described at some point as Saffron terror are not, in fact, the work of Hindu nationalists and/or that substantial doubt has been raised that it was the work of Hindu nationlists. ] (]) 01:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | ::::::Lowkeyvision, how about sources 33 and 34 in the article, which show that the 2006 Malegaon blasts, in which Hindu nationalist groups were accused, were unlikely to have been committed by said groups. Alternatively, reference 35 plus any one of reference 36-38 shows that ] was accused, but was, in fact, not involved (or, at least, that there is substantial doubt). Either of these two combinations could go after the second sentence of my proposal as evidence that there have been cases in which events have been described that have been described at some point as Saffron terror are not, in fact, the work of Hindu nationalists and/or that substantial doubt has been raised that it was the work of Hindu nationlists. ] (]) 01:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Once again, the definition of the word does not change based on the conviction or vindication of a particular incident. The 2002 Gujrat Riots are proof enough of Saffron Terrorism. They were pogroms conducted to oppress Gujrati muslims. Women were raped. Shops were burned. It was a good old fashion pogrom. http://www.flonnet.com/fl1906/19060080.htm. Dont forget Adolf Hitler was nominated Time Man of the Year. The fact that they cant prosecute these people is a result of the control these fascist right elements have in the country. The last person to oppose them has 25,000 paramilitary people march to his door. (] (]) 02:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)) | |||
| ::::::: RSS & BJP = Saffron Terror. Whether they are convicted of it or not, they have committed atrocities documented by world human rights organizations. The Ku Klux Klan was never convicted of many crimes it committed. They are the Ku Klux Klan of India. (] (]) 02:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)) | |||
| == "North and west part of the country" in the definition == | == "North and west part of the country" in the definition == | ||
Revision as of 02:56, 6 March 2013
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hindu terrorism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hindu terrorism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
 | India C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 December 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
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 (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)
- Strongly Support per User:Souravmohanty2005.
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 Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy. Could you please review those links and then concisely state a rationale for deletion which matches with one of Misplaced Pages's criteria? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Strongly Support per User:Souravmohanty2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.245.216 (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing you have said demonstrates why this article should be deleted or why it fails the notability criteria. Your personal opinion cannot have an article be deleted. Silverseren 01:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have blocked one of the above IPs as an open proxy. For future reference, please note that Misplaced Pages runs on consensus. Meatpuppetry such as getting friends, family, etc. and/or sockuppetry will not advance a group's position. Elockid 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
- 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)
- STRONGLY DISAGREE (Lowkeyvision (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)) This would be censorship. We do not live in Nazi, Germany.
- 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, the dispute is not yet resolved so please wait --sarvajna (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you (Lowkeyvision (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC))
- I've opened the DRN. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:27, 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))
- 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)
- 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))
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- ok, why should it be there but not here? --sarvajna (talk) 09:50, 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)
- 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 ]]. 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
- Please also look into this source ‘Saffron terror’: Ajmer blast probe first joined the dots Naveed (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
- Naveed the source that alleges RSS involvement also has RSS denying the allegations, please check. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:21, 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)
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)
Synthesis and POV
I will demonstrate it this way:
- Source A says: Saffron Terror is exactly the same as Hindu Terrorism (albeit, I am yet to encounter a reliable source propagating that notion)
- 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:
- This article has many sources (77 as of now). Not many explicitly talk about "saffron" terrorism?
- This article lumps Hindu nationalists with terrorists. This article cleverly frames Hindutva as a form of terrorism.
- 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 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 06:42, 1 March 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, 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)
- 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)
- 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 14:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Assertions of fact in the lead
"Saffron terror is terrorism conducted by Hindu extremists." - is a proclamation of fact. This has two assumptions stated as facts, read patiently:
A. There are extremists who commit terrorism for "Hindu" reason (whatever that is).
B. It is referred to as "saffron terror".
For A I will like to see a source that says unambiguously "Hindus" are committing acts of terrorism (since there is no word "alleged", I would not settle for anything less than a conviction).
For B I will like to see that source refer to such incidents as saffron terrorism.
- Logic
Reason A and B are why we don't have a page called "blue terror". P. Chidambaram, Sushilkumar Shinde alleged that's how to describe their action. We must mention it in the lead. At this point, there is nothing more to this concept than allegations. Don't get me wrong I know Hindus are capable of murdering others and plot about it but not every act of violence is "terrorism".
Terrorism is more than just violence. It is done with an aim to strike fear in the hearts of the opposition and use that fear as leverage while coercing the government. I need something that unambiguously says such an incident took place where Hindu organizations took responsibilities and demanded concessions.
There is no hindu group designated as a terrorist organizations I don't know if Chidambaram is really an expert in the field of criminal psychology or analysis of terrorism. How is he an authority in discerning common criminal goals from "terroristic" goals?
- More
This article is about the concept of "saffron terror" and its literary usage. We must explain carefully what it means to both parties to the controversy. It is a controversial phrase. It is not unremarkable. It has created a big wave of controversies in India to not mention it or frame it as though wikipedia knows Hindu extremists commit terorism and it is done for saffron reason, would be blatant bias.
Feel free to weigh in or I am going to put back what I have just now removed. Mr T 08:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- This was all covered at the DRN discussion, and only one editor objected to the wording. The problem is that you're misunderstanding what that sentence is doing. The first sentence must be, if possible, a definition of the title of the article (see MOS:LEAD). The definition of "Saffron terror" is "terrorist acts conducted to further the aims of Hindu nationalism". Now, as you and I (and I think many editors here agree), many acts which have been called Saffron terror do not, in fact, meet the definition. But that does not change what the definition of the phrase is. However, I do think you're somewhat right about the first sentence; the definition isn't linked to who does the act, but to their motivation. So, let me propose the following (alters the first sentence, keeps the second, adds a third):
Saffron terror is terrorism conducted to advance the goals of Hindutva. The colour saffron is associated with Hindu nationalism in India and to some right-wing groups that have been linked to militant attacks in the north and west of the country. However, the motivations for some acts described as saffron terror have not been determined or have been determined to be unrelated to Hindu nationalism.
- I would then take the "The phrase..." part and start a new paragraph. I'm sure that there are other ways to word this, and welcome suggestions. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, first let me ventilate my reservations about your proposed edit, you write: Saffron terror is terrorism conducted to advance the goals of Hindutva. Is there any iron-clad proof that any sort of terrorism (b&w or colored I don't care) is conducted at all to advance the goals of Hindutva? Nope. We have allegations only.
Second thing is that we are talking about a phrase which was coined not by criminal psychologists but a political figure most probably. We are talking about its colloquial usage. Tertiary sources don't talk about saffron terror. I believe the word ″allege″ is fine and due. Kindly read the following:
- Okay, first let me ventilate my reservations about your proposed edit, you write: Saffron terror is terrorism conducted to advance the goals of Hindutva. Is there any iron-clad proof that any sort of terrorism (b&w or colored I don't care) is conducted at all to advance the goals of Hindutva? Nope. We have allegations only.
| it's a political strategy of Congress |
|---|
| Rajnath singh said, "Whatever Union Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde said was not uttered without a thought. Congress party is knowingly indulging in vote-bank politics by giving communal colour to the issue of terrorism. Though the home minister apologised to save the Parliament session, this has been the policy of the Congress...The UPA government has weakened the fight against terrorism by talking about Hindu terrorism. The same UPA government had given a detailed report about the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) in the Samjhauta Express blast case, on the basis of which the US had banned the LeT. But due to political reasons, the UPA government concocted the story of ‘Saffron Terrorism’. The BJP is completely against giving any religious colour to terrorism," |
- It has sparked a big controversy in India and I think we must mention that it's controversial also. Mr T 05:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Since we are uncertain about the goals of perpetrators or who the perpetrators might even be and we are basing on allegations only, let me propose something else so that we don't present conjectures as facts just yet. How about this:
Saffron terror is a form of terrorism. Allegedly, saffron terror is conducted to advance the goals of Hindu Nationalism.
- Feel free to comment. If we're to postpone the "alleged" part again I suggest we don't put anything in wikipedia's voice till then. Mr T 05:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Again, you're not understanding or just not hearing. I used to believe as you did, but then I looked at other pages and just thought, in general, about how our pages work. For example, take a really extreme example: Flat Earth. That article doesn't start by saying "this is false belief". It starts by stating what the definition of Flat Earth is--it's an old model. It isn't even until the second paragraph that we learn that the model is, of course, wrong. The first sentence must define the title of the article. And, anyway, the sentence written as I proposed is neutral. It says that Saffron Terror, if it existed, would be acts of Hindutva terrorism. It's not actually asserting that any such acts ever occurred. It's simply saying the definition of the term.
- The problem with your countersuggestion here is that it doesn't meet the requirements of MOS:LEAD, because it doesn't explain anything. The first sentence must explain clearly to the reader what the article is about, and that doesn't tell the reader anything other than what the title of the article already says. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- I hear you don't worry. I also read WP:BEGIN. Flat Earth does describe the subject clearly by saying it's an "archaic belief that the Earth's shape is a plane or disk". It doesn't frame it as a counter argument against the concept of Spherical Earth. The problem is we are dealing with allegations and no proof either way, and framing them as assertions of fact.
You're damn right, the first sentence should be describing the subject and, here, it is the phrase "Saffron Terror" (yes it is an otherwise amorphous phrase because the terrorist acts are not yet attributed to any "saffron perpetrator" beyond the realm of doubt. No group has claimed responsibility for the attacks explicitly accepting "Saffron"/"Hindutva" reasons). We must clarify what does it imply. I cannot be clearer than this. Mr T 07:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- The most important thing that we need to understand is that we are not here to create a new definition.The definition Saffron terror is terrorism conducted to advance the goals of Hindutva has a lot of problems, do we have sources which say what is being said?. --sarvajna (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't find such a source. No. Furthermore, , , these sources frame it as a personal surmise. Mr T 07:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- The same thing happened at DRN no one produced any proper sources and it was never closed, we do not have any source which says that Saffron terror is conducted by Hindu extremists or it is conducted to advance the goals of Hindutva, in fact the statement of advancing the goals of Hindutva would be original research. I would say that there are some incidents of terror that are collectively termed as saffron terror incidents. Now few Hindus have been accused of being the masterminds or whatever behind these incidents. These are just allegations.--sarvajna (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't find such a source. No. Furthermore, , , these sources frame it as a personal surmise. Mr T 07:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- The most important thing that we need to understand is that we are not here to create a new definition.The definition Saffron terror is terrorism conducted to advance the goals of Hindutva has a lot of problems, do we have sources which say what is being said?. --sarvajna (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- I hear you don't worry. I also read WP:BEGIN. Flat Earth does describe the subject clearly by saying it's an "archaic belief that the Earth's shape is a plane or disk". It doesn't frame it as a counter argument against the concept of Spherical Earth. The problem is we are dealing with allegations and no proof either way, and framing them as assertions of fact.
- Since we are uncertain about the goals of perpetrators or who the perpetrators might even be and we are basing on allegations only, let me propose something else so that we don't present conjectures as facts just yet. How about this:
- (ec)And I don't know how to clarify my position any more clearly either. This article is not about a phrase. It's about a series of events which have been labelled a certain way. All of the problems you are expressing are problems that should be solved in the body of the article, not in the definition/lead sentence.
- Alright, let me give another try at a compromise:
Saffron terror are acts of violence that have been been described as being motivated by Hindu nationalism. However, the motivations for some acts described as saffron terror have not been determined or have been determined to be unrelated to Hindu nationalism. The term comes from the association of the colour saffron with Hindu nationalism in India and to some right-wing groups that have been linked to militant attacks in the north and west of the country.
- Is that any better? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- yes sir, this looks lot better. --sarvajna (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Much better, albeit "have not been determined or have been determined to be unrelated to Hindu nationalism." - this seems awkward. Also consider changing "..to some right-wing groups that have been linked.." → "to some right-wing groups that have been alleged to be linked to militant.." thank you. Mr T 04:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian it's "south and west of the country" unless of course you include the transnational Samjhauta Express bombings which would make it "India barring eastern states". Correct Knowledge 16:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, easy stuff first: yes, it should be changed to south and west per comments below. Yes, that phrase is awkward; how about for that sentence it becomes: "However, in some cases the motivation for the acts has not been determined, and in others it has been determined to be unrelated to Hindu nationalism. But on the "alleged to be linked to"...are you telling me that the groups themselves are not militant? That's seems like a pretty extreme claim to me. I mean, yes, there is dispute as to whether or not the groups were involved with various actions, but adding that alleged there is switching the allegation from "attack carried out by group" to the allegation "group is militant". Aren't some of these well established as militant groups? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think just linked would be fine, it is as good as saying allegedly involved. However I am not saying that these groups are militant groups (nothing is confirmed). --sarvajna (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am saying the link is an alleged one. It should be explained clearly in the lead. I am not commenting on any group. I am commenting about the link between the events and these organizations RSS, BJP. Are there any cases against RSS or BJP? These are Shinde's personal beliefs which, while under political scrutiny, he couldn't back with irrefutable evidence. The case about Samjhauta Express didn't yield any conclusive upshot as to who might the perpetrators be and what might be their motivation. Is there anything else I am missing here?
Now commenting on the groups, if these groups were terrorist organizations they would have been banned right-away, does any source say that they are banned? Correct me if I am wrong, they might be militant or whatever we may like to call them but there is not conclusive evidence to frame them (RSS, BJP et al.) as "terrorist" groups and that too inspired by Hindutva or Hindu nationalism?By "conclusive" I mean beyond the scope of reasonable skepticism. Mr T 14:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am saying the link is an alleged one. It should be explained clearly in the lead. I am not commenting on any group. I am commenting about the link between the events and these organizations RSS, BJP. Are there any cases against RSS or BJP? These are Shinde's personal beliefs which, while under political scrutiny, he couldn't back with irrefutable evidence. The case about Samjhauta Express didn't yield any conclusive upshot as to who might the perpetrators be and what might be their motivation. Is there anything else I am missing here?
- I think just linked would be fine, it is as good as saying allegedly involved. However I am not saying that these groups are militant groups (nothing is confirmed). --sarvajna (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, easy stuff first: yes, it should be changed to south and west per comments below. Yes, that phrase is awkward; how about for that sentence it becomes: "However, in some cases the motivation for the acts has not been determined, and in others it has been determined to be unrelated to Hindu nationalism. But on the "alleged to be linked to"...are you telling me that the groups themselves are not militant? That's seems like a pretty extreme claim to me. I mean, yes, there is dispute as to whether or not the groups were involved with various actions, but adding that alleged there is switching the allegation from "attack carried out by group" to the allegation "group is militant". Aren't some of these well established as militant groups? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Is that any better? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- (I think,The main organisation which has been alleged to have links is Abhinav Bharat, ) If we have sources to prove (the group) that it is militant we can call it a militant attack, else shouldn't call it one. Personally i think we shouldn't call them militant unless we have conclusive evidence and in no way should this article tarnish the image of an innocent organisation --Naveed (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- The lead was decided in consensus on the dispute resolution board. If you want to open it again we can start again. You are trying to subvert the changes again. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC))
Mrt3336 and Navhus are correct that there was no final decision at DRN--the matter was simply archived without conclusion or analysis. And if we can come to a consensus here, we can proceed in further editing. Okay, how about just taking out the latter half of that sentence: "The term comes from the association of the colour saffron with Hindu nationalism in India." That part is indisputable, right? I mean, everyone agrees about the link between Hindutva groups and the color saffron? That would make the new version:
Saffron terror are acts of violence that have
beenbeen described as being motivated by Hindu nationalism. However, in some cases the motivation for the acts has not been determined, and in others it has been determined to be unrelated to Hindu nationalism. The term comes from the association of the colour saffron with Hindu nationalism in India.
Any better? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have added two new references. Please find references for the "not determined etc etc etc." (Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC))
- They're already in the body of the article. Every one (I think) of the events described has been disputed to not actually be motivated by Hindu nationalism. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- That has nothing to do with the definition of the word. This was again something that was discussed on the dispute resolution notice board. Also, please provide references not assertions, as was demanded of me. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC))
- The sentence isn't in the definition. It's more background information. There are clear sources in the rest of the article. Do you just want us to copy the sources from there? We can, though MOS:LEAD doesn't require that we duplicate sources in the body in the lead. But, if it will help end the dispute, I'm willing to look through the other citations in the article and pick out the ones that verify it. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- What definition? I assume you're asking about the definition of the phrase "saffron terror", am I wrong?
A. Which source is credible or reliable enough to associate terrorism with an entire community? B. Forget reliability, is there any evidence presented here at all which may certainly lead us to believe that any organization has perpetrated acts of terrorism for Saffron reason? We are all awaiting formal verdict from courts.
At this juncture it would immature to include speculative stuff in the very lead of an already contentious article. Mr T 12:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- What definition? I assume you're asking about the definition of the phrase "saffron terror", am I wrong?
- The sentence isn't in the definition. It's more background information. There are clear sources in the rest of the article. Do you just want us to copy the sources from there? We can, though MOS:LEAD doesn't require that we duplicate sources in the body in the lead. But, if it will help end the dispute, I'm willing to look through the other citations in the article and pick out the ones that verify it. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- That has nothing to do with the definition of the word. This was again something that was discussed on the dispute resolution notice board. Also, please provide references not assertions, as was demanded of me. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC))
- They're already in the body of the article. Every one (I think) of the events described has been disputed to not actually be motivated by Hindu nationalism. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- About the latest proposal by Qwyrxian, I tepidly support this version as well it is better than what the article has now. But I am still wondering why can't we label allegations as "allegations"? especially now since there has been no deposition of a source which talks about formal verdict/judgements of any kind on these organizations (Abhinav Bharat, RSS, etc). It's not up to us to decide whether or nor they are guilty. Mr T 11:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Because the first sentence or two is a definition of the phrase "Saffron terror". The definition of "saffron terror" is (the stuff above). Then, the rest of the article should lay out the incidents, groups, and people who have been alleged to be involved in saffron terror. The analogy that was brought up at DRN is that even though people can be falsely accused of rape, the definition of rape is "to have sex with someone without their consent" (well, approximately, it's more complicated than that). It's not "allegedly having sex with...". The same thing should happen here. We should set out in the lead what Saffron terror is, and then attempt to explain how the term has been used, including, when known, how accurately it has been used. If I were to parse it in a very simple grammatical way, I'd say something like, "Person X is alleged to have done Event Y, which is alleged to be Saffron terror". Adding "alleged" into the definition would mean that the sentence would be "Person X is alleged to have done Event Y which is Saffron terror (i.e., something alleged to be related to Hindu nationalism)". The word "allege" needs to preface each action/person/event, not be embedded in the definition. I don't know if that's more or less clear, though it makes sense to me. I used to think as you do, but was definitely convinced the other way. I'll wait on Lowkeyvision to respond on my point about sources before making any change to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- The second sentence proposed by Qwyrxian reads "However, in some cases the motivation for the acts has not been determined, and in others it has been determined to be unrelated to Hindu nationalism." It seems a bit confusing/ambiguous. Either the sentence should be split or made more clear. --Naveed (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- @Qwyrxian: Well I will just have to repeat it again, the whole definition of the phrase is an allegation, made by an irresponsible and blithering politician, with a deep-rooted conflict of interest, which he later himself retracted and regretted. Am I not talking right today? These are, as of now, only at the stages of propaganda based on vote-bank politics and anti-campaigning against BJP by congress, and we ought to frame it that way as opposed to assertions of fact.
On your views about the very concept of definition I will say, if you mix two separate entities and form a new definition it is not to be automatically accepted. It might be personal synthesis.
If I mix Amish and Rape together to form a new phrase it will intrinsically be my personal claim (biased even) that there is some specialty about ′Amish rape′ which requires separate study or attention. Same goes for ′Saffron Terror′ or ′Christian Rape′ or ′Jewish Larceny′ or ′Buddhist Meditation′. Some are substantiated claims, others are not. Mr T 12:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)- @Navhus: I think ″confusing″ is not right description for it but ″awkward″ is. Mr T 12:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- It is not an allegation made by a politician though it was popularised by one. It was used way back in 2002 and the accusation was 'not' made by the congress. And it is not the congress investigating the case but NIA. --Naveed (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I may be wrong but do kindly back your claims by sources which allude to the very first verbal use of ″Saffron Terror″ and doesn't point to Congress party, can you? Did NIA report mention "saffron terror" are these guys reading minds now before the investigations are properly conducted and concluded? And even if somebody or a political big-shot ever claimed such a thing would that automatically count as a reliable source for framing it as an assertion of fact in Misplaced Pages's voice? I guess not. Until formal judgement is presented on these matters, these are allegations based on opportunistic and cleverly divisive political strategy. Period. Mr T 12:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- It is not an allegation made by a politician though it was popularised by one. It was used way back in 2002 and the accusation was 'not' made by the congress. And it is not the congress investigating the case but NIA. --Naveed (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- @Navhus: I think ″confusing″ is not right description for it but ″awkward″ is. Mr T 12:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- @Qwyrxian: Well I will just have to repeat it again, the whole definition of the phrase is an allegation, made by an irresponsible and blithering politician, with a deep-rooted conflict of interest, which he later himself retracted and regretted. Am I not talking right today? These are, as of now, only at the stages of propaganda based on vote-bank politics and anti-campaigning against BJP by congress, and we ought to frame it that way as opposed to assertions of fact.
My comment is based on the article. All sources to back my claim is in the article. Kindly look at ] and the whole article for clarity.--Naveed (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I saw the article and the reference you posted here. I have said what I could about the article, now about your source I think it's more about 2002 Gujrat riots and except for the last sentence doesn't mention any part of the word "terror". Even the usage of the term 'terror' is secondary issue, the point is that these are not to be categorized as "acts of terrorism" in the strictest sense of the word. These were common violence that recur in India every time a communal riot breaks out and it went both ways. Muslims also killed Hindus there. "Terrorism" is very big word (could not stress it enough) and we should be very cautious and well-equipped with irrefutable evidence (which is absent beyond flimsy allegations) before associating it with any community or creed. Mr T 16:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- The lead is fine as it is. If you think different give evidence by giving references that we can cite. Period.
Terrorism is in the title of the word Saffron Terror. Yes it is a big word and a lot of people are killed, raped and beaten as a result of Saffron Terror. If you think the definition should be rephrased, once again give references not just words. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC))
- The lead is fine as it is. If you think different give evidence by giving references that we can cite. Period.
- I saw the article and the reference you posted here. I have said what I could about the article, now about your source I think it's more about 2002 Gujrat riots and except for the last sentence doesn't mention any part of the word "terror". Even the usage of the term 'terror' is secondary issue, the point is that these are not to be categorized as "acts of terrorism" in the strictest sense of the word. These were common violence that recur in India every time a communal riot breaks out and it went both ways. Muslims also killed Hindus there. "Terrorism" is very big word (could not stress it enough) and we should be very cautious and well-equipped with irrefutable evidence (which is absent beyond flimsy allegations) before associating it with any community or creed. Mr T 16:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- These people are using arguments of holocaust deniers. Give references if you want to talk about changing the definition. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC))
- Per WP:BURDEN - you, not I, are required to provide evidence for your claim that Hindu extremists conduct terrorism for "saffron" reasons and you didn't provide one that meets the standard. I am simply asking others to follow what the sources are telling us. These are allegations. Was Shinde's apologetic remark not enough to prove that the government doesn't have enough to charge these groups with terrorism just yet? Read the sources or the article. There are plenty of sources. I am not asking for the deletion of this article. Mr T 16:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Am I the one who asked for a change in definition or are you? YOU are the one asking to change the definition and there are references backing what is already written. So unless you have references- please read WP:BURDEN again. This feels like dealing with Holocaust deniers, I swear. Lowkeyvision (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC))
- Lowkeyvision, how about sources 33 and 34 in the article, which show that the 2006 Malegaon blasts, in which Hindu nationalist groups were accused, were unlikely to have been committed by said groups. Alternatively, reference 35 plus any one of reference 36-38 shows that Abhinav Bharat was accused, but was, in fact, not involved (or, at least, that there is substantial doubt). Either of these two combinations could go after the second sentence of my proposal as evidence that there have been cases in which events have been described that have been described at some point as Saffron terror are not, in fact, the work of Hindu nationalists and/or that substantial doubt has been raised that it was the work of Hindu nationlists. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Once again, the definition of the word does not change based on the conviction or vindication of a particular incident. The 2002 Gujrat Riots are proof enough of Saffron Terrorism. They were pogroms conducted to oppress Gujrati muslims. Women were raped. Shops were burned. It was a good old fashion pogrom. http://www.flonnet.com/fl1906/19060080.htm. Dont forget Adolf Hitler was nominated Time Man of the Year. The fact that they cant prosecute these people is a result of the control these fascist right elements have in the country. The last person to oppose them has 25,000 paramilitary people march to his door. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC))
- RSS & BJP = Saffron Terror. Whether they are convicted of it or not, they have committed atrocities documented by world human rights organizations. The Ku Klux Klan was never convicted of many crimes it committed. They are the Ku Klux Klan of India. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC))
- Lowkeyvision, how about sources 33 and 34 in the article, which show that the 2006 Malegaon blasts, in which Hindu nationalist groups were accused, were unlikely to have been committed by said groups. Alternatively, reference 35 plus any one of reference 36-38 shows that Abhinav Bharat was accused, but was, in fact, not involved (or, at least, that there is substantial doubt). Either of these two combinations could go after the second sentence of my proposal as evidence that there have been cases in which events have been described that have been described at some point as Saffron terror are not, in fact, the work of Hindu nationalists and/or that substantial doubt has been raised that it was the work of Hindu nationlists. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Am I the one who asked for a change in definition or are you? YOU are the one asking to change the definition and there are references backing what is already written. So unless you have references- please read WP:BURDEN again. This feels like dealing with Holocaust deniers, I swear. Lowkeyvision (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC))
"North and west part of the country" in the definition
One of the attacks related to the topic has happened in the south eastern part of India (Hydrabad). Why is it getting reverted again and again to north and west part of the country"? I am changing it again. Please discuss here before reverting. --Naveed (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Clarification: I was self-reverting and it must have been reversed by mistake. I personally have no issues with this. Mr T 07:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like I rushed to comment on the proposal above, this issue has already been addressed. Correct Knowledge 16:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Kindly elaborate CK. Mr T 04:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Should it be "South and West of the country"? Mr T 04:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Naveed's edit has taken care of "north and west of the country" which I objected to in the proposal above. No, it shouldn't be "south and west of the country". I was just pointing out that if at all one were to chose just two Indian regions, "south and west" would be more accurate than "north and west". Not mentioning any region at all is of course better than both. Correct Knowledge 04:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. That's what I thought. Mr T 04:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Naveed's edit has taken care of "north and west of the country" which I objected to in the proposal above. No, it shouldn't be "south and west of the country". I was just pointing out that if at all one were to chose just two Indian regions, "south and west" would be more accurate than "north and west". Not mentioning any region at all is of course better than both. Correct Knowledge 04:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like I rushed to comment on the proposal above, this issue has already been addressed. Correct Knowledge 16:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- ^ "Beware of saffron terror too, warns home minister". economictimes.indiatimes.com. Economic Times. 2010-08-26. Retrieved 2010-10-10.
- ^ PC defends ‘saffron terror’ remark Deccan Herald - September 1, 2010
- Rise of Hindu 'saffron terror' New straits Times - August 25, 2010
- Rise of Hindu 'saffron terror' New straits Times - August 25, 2010
- Rise of Hindu 'saffron terror' New straits Times - August 25, 2010
- C-Class India articles
- High-importance India articles
- C-Class India articles of High-importance
- WikiProject India articles
- Unassessed Crime-related articles
- Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
- Unassessed Terrorism articles
- Unknown-importance Terrorism articles
- Terrorism task force articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles