Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:09, 14 December 2014

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

India C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force.

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 December 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

it is a very shameful page Bhagva is not a terrorism its a symbol of spirituality . kindly please delete or remove this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.239.39 (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Should "Alleged acts of saffron terror" be a list in See Also section?

Right now this section is a compilation of excerpts from other Misplaced Pages articles and it constitutes 80% of this article. And the excerpts do not try to cite that they were labeled saffron terror or that they were motivated by Hindu Nationalism. It simply lists every incident where any suspect's name is Hindu -- that does not merit itself under this article, in most of the cases several Islamic terrorist organizations have been also suspected. I believe this section should point out the incidents that were labeled Saffron Terror and which were motivated by Hindu Nationalism in a succinct manner rather than be an index of all cases were any suspect was a Hindu. Jyoti (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are you making one suggestion in the heading, and another in your text? It can either be trimmed or deleted, not both. I agree that those incidents need sources calling them saffron terror, but as of now they are, for the most part, incidents which had a Hindu Nationalist motivation, so removal is not really an option; try to find sources, or give them a CN tag. If the tag is not responded to, then you can remove them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I would prefer them in See Also section. It simply lists every incident where any suspect's name is Hindu -- that does not merit itself under this article. I believe this section should point out the incidents that were labeled Saffron Terror and which were motivated by Hindu Nationalism in a succinct manner. I am not sure what to tag with cn -- they are not adding to the subject, not that they are missing source. Perhaps you are suggesting that I should search references and if not found I may tag the subsection heading with cn? Is that what you mean? Jyoti (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Not quite what I mean. The incidents mentioned here are, as per popular knowledge, instances of Saffron terror. But, as you rightly point out, we need sources labeling them "Saffron terror" or something similar, not just calling them acts of terror. So, what you should do is to apply a "full citation needed" tag, and in the "reason" field, mention that the source needs to connect the incident to the idea of Hindu nationalist terror. Alternatively, you could find such a source yourself, but I understand if you don't have the time for that. I could look into it myself when I have the time. Does that make more sense? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, much clearer! Thank you. :-) Jyoti (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I will take up the tagging work and trim duplicate content from other articles that constitutes more than half of this article. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Needs improvement

I have done a major proof-reading pass through the article and reworded the lead. The general quality of the article is low. Specifically, it suffers from a low "signal-to-noise" ratio. There is too little information and too much reporting of statements by supposedly prominent people. In one case, I noticed a paragraph with one short sentence saying that somebody was arrested, and an entire paragraph reporting what various people said about the arrest. Nothing is said who this person is, and what he/she did to deserve the arrest. If we cut out all the statements, the article might reduce to one-tenth of its size. There is over-reliance on newspaper reports, which might be the cause of this problem, and pretty much no use of scholarly sources. Gatade's book is put in the "Further Reading" section, but it doesn't look like any of the editors have read it. I also have other journal articles that I have located, and I will add them to the Further Reading section. In short, this article needs work. Kautilya3 (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I have a question regarding your previous edit, you mention Saffron terror or Hindutva terror and gave a single reference. I don't have the ref so is it just one person using saffron terror and Hindutva terror interchangeably or are there other sources. I don't think it would be correct to have a synonym when just one person is using another name. It has to be widely used .sarvajna (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is widely used. You can just google the term and see for yourself. In fact, I think "saffron terror" is falling out of use, and getting replaced by "Hindutva terror". (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Editing reverts

HiKautilya3 I do understand there is considerable work to be done in the page but alleging, would be completely wrong do let me know why you reverted it , would also like to know view point of User:Vanamonde93 on this as he had also reverted it before Shrikanthv (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said, that sentence is there to explain the term "saffron terror." So I am afraid the link to the organisations is a must. I can think of weakening the wording to "attributed to" instead of "perpetrated by", which is a bit more non-committal. Does that satisfy your concern? I will wait to hear from Vanamonde93 as well. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

On another note, even though the article only talks about conventional terrorism (bombings), the term used in the literature covers all acts of violence, including the 2002 Gujarat violence and the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, for which people have been convicted. So, there is more than "allegations" that we are talking about. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd more or less agree with what Kautilya has said. There are a fair number of cases where the perpetrators have been convicted; the Gujarat riots are a prime example. Also, there is no way to explain the term "saffron terror" without mentioning the organizations. I'd be willing to discuss wording. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The only events that are mentioned in this article are those which have not been proved, Riots are not acts of terror and saffron terror is a neologism to speak about Gandhi's murder is not correct. I would very much agree with Shrikanthv. Attributing acts of terror when nothing has been proven is wrong. We are supposed to consider people innocent till proven guilty. -sarvajna (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 lead is the summary of the article, the plenty of cases that you are speaking are not part of the article. In any case I am not sure what cases you are speaking about. Also why did you comment out the part of the lead? I had undone it, if you just had issues with my changes you should have reverted only those changes related to "alleged" term. -sarvajna (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, Kautilya3 Would ask following question, did not the "terrorist" have bank account in SBI may be why not mention that too , saying perpetrators were bank account holder of SBI, the current statment is amounting to WP:SYN, until and unless if the organisations were directly involved in planning and executing the events or any "terrorist" activity, please check even al-Qaeda is not being synthesised like its been done here and that to with out any source! . before jumping into conclusions please bring any sources stating that the organisations planned and executed mass killing and bringing fear to innocent people or any supreme court or UN or other international organisation calling them same, and mere suggesting "well known" , "fair number of cases" would not be reall argument in putting this up. Shrikanthv (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Mecca Masjid bombing

Why the heck is this section here ? , because they questioned possible involvement?, eventhough there were proof on who did this ? Shrikanthv (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Would you elaborate? -sarvajna (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

the passage says this and this guys were questioned & were alleged (saffron terrorists) and international organisations & enquiry points to other sources , so the whole passage is there because there were some alligation ? even after when they found out who were behind the attack ?Shrikanthv (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I will check and comment, currently at my work place. -sarvajna (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The Lead

I rewrote the lead on 17th November . My lead is based on the Jaffrelot article and Subhash Gatade's book (mentioned in the Bibliography). Nobody objected to anything till today when, all of a sudden, it has been hacked to death without any discussion. I am not happy about this. I will take it to WP:NPOVN. So, please state your objections here so that people can look at them (not edit summary lines, which is a lousy place to put discussion anyway). Kautilya3 (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a new section, first of all we need to understand that any acts of terror by Hindu nationalists cannot be considered as Saffron Terror, as it is mentioned in your version of lead as well as the older version the term is a neo. Second, the most of the non hindutva thing that you tried to remove/comment were agreed upon long back, there was a big discussion, something at DRN as well. I guess this will be of some help. Third, lead is the summary of the article body, we first update the article body and then write a summary. Edit summaries like there's plenty of examples where it is proven while reverting my edits makes no sense as there are no such examples in the article. Finally we need to consider people as innocent till proven guilty by the courts. Also I don't understand why you need to base your lead on some other article or book, base your lead on the Wiki article itself. -sarvajna (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please go ahaead with WP:NPOVN if you think this is absolutely necessary here. before going into right and wrong my only concern is the sentence in the lead

"The acts are allegedly perpetrated by members, alleged members and former members of the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Abhinav Bharat. However, in some cases the motivation for the acts has not been clearly determined, and in others it has been determined to be unrelated to Hindu nationalism."

would suggest something like this

"The acts allegedly perpetrated by individuals with hindu religion belief, against other religion members"

note that the lead is simple crisp and summarises what you want to say in the article rather the one above which is confusing and may be WP:SYN , also note that the word allegedly is used with full freedom please check this "alleged" here again we do not have any trial or anything going about the organisations mentioned and claims by other authors can also be considered if the word alleged is being used.Shrikanthv (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

As with our treatment of varna in lead sections, if there is any doubt regarding the role of a specific organisation in saffron terror then it might be better not to mention them in that connection in the lead. Instead, detail it only in the body, where it can be presented in a rounded manner. Sometimes it is difficult to treat things neutrally in lead sections without causing bloat and, frankly, I doubt most people read beyond that section, which makes it disproportionately a target for drive-by POV edits.

Just to clarify something else. I'm not convinced that sources have to specifically mention "saffron terror" in order to be included. Everyone knows what it means and there is no doubt that certain groups do engage in it, whether by name or otherwise. The same, of course, can be said of groups with extremist persuasions of other colours. I'm still tempted to say that this is a borderline WP:DICDEF/neologism article: it may well yet end up at AfD again. - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Shrikanthv: The terrorism stuff isn't really my forte. I am more of a politics guy. I was led to this article because we had to use "saffron terror" in some other context (probably Gujarat, can't locate it right now), and noticed that this page sucked. I did some research into it, found the Jaffrelot article and the Gatade's book, and rewrote the lead based on what I learnt from them. I don't think the old discussion is particularly relevant here, because it never rose above the level of P. Chidambaram, and the editor who instigated that discussion is now indefinitely blocked (no idea why).

Regarding your apprehension that talking about Hindu nationalist organisations somehow talks about "hindu religion belief," I have no idea how you got that impression. I don't know of anybody here or elsewhere that confuses the two. Neither are the acts supposedly against "other religion members", because the first victim of such acts was Mahatma Gandhi himself. Gatade's book has an entire chapter on it. Terrorism has no logic.

Regarding the use of "alleged," I don't find it necessary. We use "alleged" when we have to attribute acts to particular individuals, because individuals have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Here the BLP criteria govern that. Organisations don't have a presumption of innocence. Neither do they have BLP criteria. So, if reliable sources say they did it, we say they did it.

I have no idea what the sentence "However, in some cases the motivation for the acts has not been clearly determined" is trying to talk about. The reference said nothing about any motivations, nor does the article say anything about it. So by your own logic about the lead summarising the article, it doesn't belong in the lead. If the motivation wasn't Hindu nationalism, we won't call it "saffron terror" or "Hindutva terrorism". So, what is this sentence talking about? It doesn't make any sense.

You have said previously that my sentence makes the organisations look bad. That is not our problem. We are not here to make anybody look good or look bad. They look whatever they look based on what they are and what they do.

So, basically, I don't see any justification for any of the changes made to my lead. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Do we have any reference for "MG assassination" being "Saffron Terror"?
• The lead has been discussed previously. Like Sarvajna, Shrikanthv and Sitush said, improve the body of the article instead of holding on to "your version" of the lead. If you are not convinced you may pursue WP:NPOVN. --AmritasyaPutra 01:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The argument that the term is a neologism, carries no weight. If you genuinely believe that the term has received insufficient coverage, then according to WP:Neologism we shouldn't have this article in the first place; so somebody who holds that belief should nominate this at XFD. If the term is notable enough to have its own article, then we define and describe it exactly as the reliable sources do; which is what Kautilya had tried to do. Its nature as a neologism is then irrelevant. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I fully agree with Sitush that one doesn't need a source to label something saffron terror or Hindutva terror. Some people need you to produce sources to prove that you are alive. What can I say?

@AmritasyaPutra:, As I said, Ghatade's book has a chapter on Gandhi assassination: "First terrorist of independent India". Everything I have seen of Jaffrelot on the subject also mentions Gandhi assassination and Godse and Savarkar.

I see that you don't have any responses to my points stated above. That is typical! Kautilya3 (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya, read WP:OR. This has been discussed before, look at article history. --AmritasyaPutra 08:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

hindutva terror is pretty irrelevant for lead. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. About the reference: Pharos Group publishing has no record in academic publishing; it is an export firm. Ghatade is founder member of a 'New Socialist Initiative' committed to 'regeneration of revolutionary socialist politics'. Ghatade is an 'activist/journalist' with zero articles published in TOI or The Hindu (National Dailies). He is not a historian or academician. --AmritasyaPutra 10:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

AmritasyaPutra, Ah, it is nice that you check out the sources. But it would be better to check them out in the right places. Try these , , , , , , and search for his articles in EPW. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please continue our discussion with AFD Shrikanthv (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya, save your sarcasm. Pharos is not an academic publisher. Check their website and catalogue, they have zero academic record and their specialization is 'Islamic Books' not history. Ghatade is an engineer by training and a political activist. Of course, you did not find any articles published in TOI or The Hindu (National Dailies) by him. --AmritasyaPutra 11:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please continue our discussion with AFD Shrikanthv (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

coming back to the discussion Hindutva terror has nothing to do with this term, this term was very much in news during the events that are mentioned in the article, that is the reason why I gave the link t old discussion. I do not see how an old discussion suddenly becomes irrelevant just because the editor was banned. The discussion doesn't go beyond P.Chidambaram because there was nothing much to consider back then and still I don't see anything that can be considered here. Apart from the OR/SYN that some editors are trying to introduce by involving Gandhi's murder or riots into this article I don't see anything that can be done. The sentence "However, in some cases the motivation for the acts has not been clearly determined" was suggested by an admin because many acts which have been called Saffron terror do not, in fact, meet the definition . You would have known only if you have read the discussion properly. -sarvajna (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sarvajna, you really should do your research before making a statement like that. Numerous scholars have used it since Chidambaram; google scholar turns up nearly 20,000 results for it, and multiple RS discuss the topic (see the AFD). On what basis, then, do you claim that the discussion "doesn't go beyond Chidambaram?" Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That is ok. Sarvajna was explaining a comment I made about the old discussion not going beyond P. Chidambaram. But, I think all the sources that we are now talking about were already there. They didn't talk about them.

As for the line many acts which have been called Saffron terror do not, in fact, meet the definition, first of all, I find it to be too argumentative to be in a lead, and secondly I don't see any support for it in the rest of the article. Which acts? Who called them saffron terror? Why don't they meet the definition? Unless these questions are answered in the body, the sentence doesn't belong in the lead. So, if all you want to say is that somebody wanted it there a year ago, and we should continue to obey his/her edicts even if he/she is gone, I don't buy it. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The phrase that you quote: many acts which have been called Saffron terror do not, in fact, meet the definition -- is not present in the article. Straw man approach? --AmritasyaPutra 15:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya, you suddenly started to worry about the point "whats not present in the article should not be present in the lead" a good thing I feel. Coming to your point, if we start explaining everything in the lead, why have a body. What acts you say, have you even read the article? There is a section named "Alleged acts of saffron terror" and there are some acts were LeT is also accused and some acts where someone else is also accused. Looking at your argument I am starting to feel that you have really not tried to understand the old discussion. I request you to go back and read it first. That was a very weak argument IMO. _sarvajna (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Contents

I disagree with Sitush somewhat in that, as this is an article about the neologism, sources should be specifically using the term in order to be included. Otherwise the article could become an indiscriminate list of any acts of violence involving Hinduism. --NeilN 14:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That is the problem. Really, this is all "saffron terror" means. As a neologism, the article would likely be a paragraph in length. It should probably be redirected to something that is more generic in its coverage. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You've got the Usage and Criticism sections. These can be bolstered by coverage of notable incidents where the term is explicitly and constantly used. --NeilN 15:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to get very involved in this because it is a sure way to a block. Too many people are already taking sides for the wrong reasons, ie: religious and political beliefs. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The term has sufficient coverage to stay. In the immediately preceding section and this article's history Kautilya3 & Vanamonde93 insist that assassination of Mahatama Gandhi is "saffron Terror". Or they want to make a list of organization 'conducting' saffron terror (directly in the lead) without bothering to have any such mention in the article body or the organization's article page. This article should not be a list-of-saffron-terror/terrorists compiled by wiki editors. --AmritasyaPutra 15:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This term was pretty much coined by Chidambaram and Sharad Pawar in the 2000s. There was never a talk of this term nor any academic mention before these two started it. Since then, some reliable and some questionable sources have used it. But since As far as this article is concerned, I agree that this appears to be mainly a list of attacks than an article. As some have noted, at least one in the list was alleged by International experts on Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami. There appear some instances where citations do not appear to be WP:RS. --Sdmarathe (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sd, the article gives citations to a 2002 article and 2008 article, both by journalists in Frontline, before Chidambaram ever got into the game. Chidambaram did not coin the term.

As for other groups having been responsible (allegedly), for these kind of sensational items, something or other gets printed in newspapers everyday about what somebody said. It is only when the dust settles that we get the big picture. So, going by individual news reports is the wrong thing to do. The Gatade book says this: "Assemandnd, aka Naba and Kumar Sarkar, named absconding Hindutva militants, Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange, as the key plotters in that terror attack. Sources of the NIA disclosed that the confession in connection with the train blast practically rules out the involvement of other groups, while initial investigation into the attack had looked into the possibility of the involvement of Jehadi groups." Exhaustive excerpts from the confession were published by Tehelka and EPW. The Economic and Political Weekly said in its editorial on January 2011, "Now that we have Aseemananda’s confession, reading those police accounts of how Islamic terrorists executed these attacks shows the extent of the incompetence and duplicity of our men in khaki." Kautilya3 (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, Sitush, the term "saffron terror" is not important at all. I would be quite happy to rename this article to Hindutva terror, which is the other term used. In fact, Gatade seems to have switched deliberately from 'saffron terror' to 'Hindutva terror'. In any case, I don't want to get bogged down by terminology. It is of no consequence. It is the phenomenon that matters. That phenomenon is, quite unequivocally, that the Hindutva ideology is spawning terrorists. We should all be alarmed about it, and resist all attempts to air brush it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: No, this article is about this specific term. If you wish to write about the phenomena, please write another article, preferably keeping a lid on the soapboxing. --NeilN 00:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure that I am alarmed by it. It isn't a new phenomenon, there are plenty of sympathisers here on Wiki etc and, well, it is the way of the world just as much as jihadism or, historically, the Crusades etc. Once one gets alarmed, one runs the risk of losing the ability to judge things in a neutral manner. We are at least theoretically in a cocooned environment here and we should revel in that space. - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya re-read last section for Ghatade book -- it is unreliable. Kindly listen. --AmritasyaPutra 01:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Guys I am not implicating that there is no violence involved nor supporting either of the party, I do feel there is a diference between Riot and terrorism , here most of the gujurat violence is being miss named to terrorism and also unrelated event stiched up really a gossip or a consiperacy Shrikanthv (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Gujarat riots have been referred academically as riots and in some cases by some sources as conspiracy by both sides to a varying degree (Godhra train and aftermath riots with greater blame placed on Hindu rioters). However there is absolutely no consensus on Gujarat riots as acts of terrorism. That however does not negate the notoriety of the acts committed during those riots (again by both sides to uneven degree) - but it is absolutely not referred to as saffron terrorism. They were for the most part referred to as riot acts of horror but not terrorism. --Sdmarathe (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This is absolutely preposterous. Nominating an article for deletion for no reason at all. Gatade insisted on using Hindutva terror in place of Hindu terror not saffron terror. In fact, the word 'saffron' is just a colour, it is neither a religion nor an ideology, it is a colour which happens to have a religious or ideological significance, hence, the term is very neutral and doesn't point out to a particular religion or ideology, it only points out to a group of saffron-clad people or organisation who are allegedly considered a terrorist group, therefore, the term saffron terror.Thinkmaths (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thinkmaths: I agree with you that it is an unreasonable AfD. But now that it is there, the right thing for us to do is to participate in it. So, please express your views on there: wp:Articles_for_deletion/Saffron_terror#Saffron_terror. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, Sitush, Thanks for your advice. Wise words! Coming back to the topic, this page might have been about the term "saffron terror" originally, but it is equally about the phenomenon right now. The information is out there in the public domain and it will find its way here. I don't see how we can stop it, even assuming that it makes sense to stop it. So, the best thing to might be to start a new page on "Hindutva terror" from scratch and base it on good sources so that it doesn't degenerate into another fist fight. I will think about it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

the term saffron terror had only been started by congress for political gains and latched on by biased sources. What you call so called terror groups are only labeled for political and religious gains. No reliable scholarly source that is WP:NPOV had used the terrorist adjective to the groups you refer. They have however used The term right wing Hindu nationalist. The article at its very least should mention that it's an allegedly political term and elaborate on that if so desired. this should not be a list of "alleged" attacks some of which are not even referred to as terrorist acts and some are known linked to other groups. Sdmarathe (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sdmarathe: That's a cowardly cop out. For the same reason, I would claim that the word Islamic terrorism was started out by the Shivsena for political and religious gains and to vilify the All India Muslim League. The article discusses about the term which was first mentioned in a magazine named Frontline, this term was invented by the media for the purposes of explaining the alleged hand of Hindu extremists in acts of terror.14.139.128.13 (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• 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