Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:24, 14 December 2014

Saffron terror

• Articles for deletion/Saffron Terror
• Articles for deletion/Saffron terror

Saffron terror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Clearly against WP:NEO , serious lack of secondary source for the term "saffron terror" , most of the references cited are from news and mostly "alleged". also the article uses general term of "alleged" without any consent to "alleged", and a mixture of linking the meaning of saffron in national flag to terrorist activites is a clear WP:SYN . Usage of many groups with mere alligation, taking newspaper as sources is amounting to WP:GEVAL. and finally confusing lines used with prooving and disprooving in the same line as the total output (final meaning) is amounting to Synthesis Shrikanthv (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:NOTNEO: To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. --AmritasyaPutra 10:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep This is a ridiculous AfD that should be rejected without any consideration. The term "saffron terror" produces about 50,000 google hits and "hindutva terror", which is a synonym, produces 26,000 . The notability of the subject is not in doubt. There is a 300 page book on the subject, cited in the Bibliography of saffron terror and reviewed in an academic journal , and another book by Christophe Jaffrelot, a world-leading authority on Hindu nationalism, is being written as we speak: . The nominator and his friends are engaged in a cover-up operation as far as I can see. Apparently, they do not want Hindu acts of terrorism brought to light. From the academic review of the book, we note: "For anyone who has not been following the news about Hindutva terrorist attacks, the sheer number and wide geographical distribution of these attacks is astonishing, and indicates, as the author suggests, a turn from communal pogroms to terror attacks as the favoured strategy for “the reactionary political project of building fascism”. It is apparent that at least in the 21st century, Hindutva terror has been far more active in India than Islamist terror." Misplaced Pages should not bend to fascism and terrorism. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we wait for Christophe to complete his book? The other book is published by Pharos, check their website and catalogue; they have zero academic record and their specialization is 'Islamic Books' not history. The writer, Ghatade is an engineer by training and a political activist and amateur journalist; there are zero articles published in TOI or The Hindu (national dailies) by him. He is not a historian or academician. --AmritasyaPutra 11:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• All Jaffrelot has written in his life is about anti Hindu nationalism including while during his studies. So I would not count him as WP:NPOV although he may be a WP:RS. Same for Ghatade who is not even a WP:RS. But regardless, when you are defining a certain term, mere WP:RS is not enough, you would need WP:NPOV. Additionally WP:WINAD. Majority of scholars define these acts as riots and not terrorism. Riots are riots, terrorism is terrorism. As far as fascism is concerned, it requires an Authoritarian system - one that is certainly not being supported by the said groups. Common Law (supported by these groups), religious liberty (supported by these groups) is not a sign of fascism. Of course, by having common law for every citizen in the country is somehow fascism, I am afraid that most western coutries including US and Euro countries are the same.--Sdmarathe (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Please keep your emotions at check , divide the article from your emotional attachments to it, as User:AmritasyaPutra puts it there is only statment of the word in all the newspaper article and has very few or nil secoundary sources describing or critically analysing it. currently the article is stitched up to as to give weight to the word WP:NOTNEO or make it famous. again note that the books stated by you "Godse's Children: Hindutva Terror in India by Subhash Gatade " itself looks like a stitched work of many historical events, note that the book is released on 2011. when Gandhi was killed nowhere was it called hindu terror during the period of the event, if some author calls it hindu terror after 60 years of the event in one of his book and not even notable enough will not give due weight to in wikipedia. and doubt on its notability except for use in wikipedia reference. Shrikanthv (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe "emotions" are exactly what brought you here. In this edit , you said that a key sentence in the lead "demeans organisations." In this comment on the talk page , you said that the lead suggests that "individuals with hindu religion belief" are being accused. So, you want your favourite organisations to look good and you want hindu religion to look good. You want this article gone so that you can continue your denial. So, this is a politically motivated AfD. It is not done in the best interests of Misplaced Pages. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Kautilya3, you were warned on your talk page about personal attacks by another editor for mindless accusations here. Be civil and discuss content, take your complaints to ANI if you mean it. --AmritasyaPutra 01:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - Per Misplaced Pages:GOSSIP, we should not promote any kind of political propaganda. The "alleged" speculations have no weight. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - According to the guideline that AP linked so conveniently, the term needs to be discussed, and not just used, by multiple reliable secondary sources. Here they are;
  • Gittinger, Juli (10 September 2011). "Saffron Terror: Splinter or Symptom?". Economic and Political Weekly. 46 (37). {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  • Swami, Praveen (2002). "Saffron Terror". Frontline. 19 (6).

Both of these are in widespread use as RS across the 'pedia. More can be provided if necessary; but last I checked, two sources satisfied the criteria for "multiple." This meets GNG very comfortably. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Please note both the sources (above mentioned) are amounting to WP:OPINION and are from magazine and a newpaper also themselves refering to newsarticle which are again opinions of others Shrikanthv (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Nonsense; EPW is an excellent academic journal, and Frontline is non-academic but certainly has rigourous editorial oversight. What part of "reliable and secondary" do they not satisfy? Besides, you seem to be equating "research" with "opinion," which is ridiculous. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I have not questioned the degree of excellence of EPW journal , the "research" in the general is on the "opinons" of the people and am not equating a research to a opinion Shrikanthv (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - Accurately and neutrally describing the term is not promoting political propaganda. The term has been described in newspapers and books. , --NeilN 14:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• NeilN you are probably correct, what you think about the circumstances that have lead this AFD? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Bladesmulti: I opened a new section here. --NeilN 14:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is probably the case. It needs improvement but not in the way of here-is-saffron-terror(ists)-list-according-to-wiki-editors. --AmritasyaPutra 15:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• NeilN pecular mention in from 350 odd pages it is mentioned ones and that too the book is still a new print and the book just only uses the word without any description ones! out of again 350 odd pages, I do not believe this can be used to make the word ready for a dictonary Shrikanthv (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Ready for a dictionary" is not part of WP:NEO. --NeilN 07:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• The word dictionary was used in indirect meaning suggesting it (saffron terror) has very little mention in the sources qouted and nothing to do with dictionary use Shrikanthv (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep The term is used by mainstream newspaper and publications. There are sufficient number of citations in the article to support that. And the term has been, it seems, in use at least since 2002. Kautilya3 has discussed the notability in detail in his keep voting above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment No one is questioning the notability here (at leat not me), this AFD should discuss the issues like WP:NOTDIC -sarvajna (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:NOTDIC and WP:NOTNEO: This is clearly created for its shock value and does not contribute much academically as it appears to be just a collection of references from other pages and few reliable sources. Some in list have actually been referred by international experts to opposite conclusions than mentioned in the article. This article hence appears nothing more than a list of alleged acts and not really a legitimate article. The term itself has been coined by Chidambaram and Sharad Pawar as a political ploy to defame Hindu nationalism and Hindutva political parties. Voting for Deletion of this article as this seems to only promote the creation of Congress party's appeasement politics for political gains --Sdmarathe (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This user has been cavnassed. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Heck No. I have commented and have followed this page when I was reading other related pages. Do you not even care to look at talk page? Should I level the same charge when you and AsceticRose came out of nowhere when I was being edit warred by vanamonde? Please stop making such baseless accusations.--Sdmarathe (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, that the nominator has canvassed you is a fact. If you would have come here of your own accord, you may simply say so. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. despite reading the comments and links to talk page edits, you do not want to believe. So apparently simply saying so was not enough. --Sdmarathe (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I think Sdmarathe's "I have commented and have followed this page when I was reading other related pages" is clear. Shrikanthv, if you're going to notify individual editors, be prepared to provide a reason as to why you notified those editors and not others. Further allegations of canvassing should be made at WP:ANI if need be as little will be done here. --NeilN 02:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

He's not. He's just notified since he was heavily involved with this page. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Would you care to show us where he was involved? Kautilya3 (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Confused with a number of other political party and pages where terrorism was a subject. Although he has still edited a few related pages like Shiv Sena, Naroda Patiya massacre and more. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sdmarathe had commented on the article talk page discussion related to this AfD before Shrikanthv posted a neutral one line for participation on his talk page and India Notice board. By your standard, this edit is also canvassing, no? But why look there because he is in your support? --AmritasyaPutra 12:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sitush has deliberately stayed away from this AfD. To drag him in here is in bad taste. Do you realize you are being too noisy in here? Why don't you relax and let people do their thinking? Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

pot? --AmritasyaPutra 13:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep -BECAUSE subject simply meets the Misplaced Pages's standard of inclusion. We have talk pages to discuss contents of the article. WP:AFD is only meant to discuss the inclusion and exclusion of a particular subject, That's it. Get your arguments straight! (see also, comment above left by User:NeilN) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delete For all the reasons given above.VictoriaGrayson 05:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Not sure I'm seeing the nom's logic here. The topic is valid and should be included in the encyclopedia. §FreeRangeFrog 05:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
• Rename Unaffiliated editor. The title 'Saffron terrorism' fails the Neo requirements (until a secondary source spends a page on a neologism then it isn't notable--no secondary source does, so...). But 'Hindu Terrorism' is certainly a notable topic. The Matusitz book (that is the most substantive secondary source for 'Saffron Terrorism') uses that as the section heading and there are thousands of secondary sources on that particular substantiation. I think the good faith opinions on both sides can meet in the middle for the article being titled 'Hindu Terrorism' (which already redirects here) which is certainly notable and less problematic than 'Saffron Terrorism'. Peace. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
• Rename at least in the short term per AbstractIllusions above. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delete I cannot see any articles about the topic in scholarly sources. There are not even sources that say something like "it is a term used by x to describe y", All we have are scattered references to use of the term and we do not know if all the speakers are referring to the same thing. And do not rename or save as a re-direct. TFD (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The term saffron terror had only been started by congress in early 2000s for political gains and latched on by biased sources. What has been labeled the 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. They have however used The term right wing Hindu nationalist that include fringe rogue elements. Such elements exist in all Right or Left wing groups or parties in India (case in point Akbar Owaisi in AIMIM - who has incited crowds by defaming Hindu Gods and threatened repeatedly against the entire country). This 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 laundry list of alleged attacks some of which are not even referred to as terrorist acts and some are known linked to other groups. It only adds to sensationalizing the term --Sdmarathe (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Arguments against the deletion of this Article

The word Saffron terror has been carefully chosen by the journalist and not by the Congress as many people are suggesting here. Saffron is a colour, it is neither an ideology nor any religion, it was only a colour to begin with which later on happened to have a religious or ideological significance. Hence, the term Saffron terror is very neutral and can be applied to Buddhists as well not just Hindus. In fact, I consider this term to be very misleading, I would want it to be changed to Hindu terrorism or Hindutva terrorism, but keeping in mind the neutrality of this word, it shoudld remain as it is. The media also could have easily used Hindu terrorism just like the way Islamic terrorism is used, but they chose neutrality.

But the point here is nominating an article for deletion without any reason. This article can be made better through editing, adding pictures etc, but certainly not by deleting. If you want this article to be deleted, then I wish the article on Islamic terrorism be deleted as well. I might also claim this word to be an invention of Shivsena or the US army for political gains, becuase the point is the whole Misplaced Pages itself must be neutral, if Saffron terror is going down, then Islamic terrorism has to go.Thinkmaths (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates