Talk:Hindu terrorism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Delhi Police allegations

Bharatiya29 Your recent edit shows you are simple violating WP:NPOV. This and this one, both shows your are using and adding your own opinion and version here. His father clearly said, "We did not join the AAP. Till 2012, I was in the BSP (Bahujan Samaj Party), after that my health deteriorated and I left politics. When Lok sabha election was about to take place, these people (AAP) came and we did it (wore the cap) for fun. This time, I even garlanded the BJP candidate. I’m not connected to politics".The Hindu Original video of his father and brother.The Quint His brother clearly said, they wear it because the is an act of respect to them by the party not any membership. There is no membership given. Now tell me in your reply through edit summary, you pointed this "I avoided it for being WP:UNDUE because then mentioning his father's association with the BSP" which is his past association but fail to mention the present association "This time, I even garlanded the BJP candidate.". This allegations are baseless and need not to be mentioned as the subject matter is about violence and there is no evidence if AAP or BJP is behind this. Dey subrata (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I would like to bring Kautilya3, El C, MarnetteD, Staszek Lem, Vanamonde93 to this matter, what do you people think of it. Dey subrata (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yup. The Delhi Police is hardly a reliable source. The allegation should be removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

First of all, this section itself should not be added until the scope of this article is clearly defined. As long as this section is present, any counter-claim disputing its association with "Hindu fundamentalism" has to be mentioned to present the whole picture. Now if you want to add a counter-counter-claim by the family members, feel free to do so. Anyway, just presenting the one side of the story is inappropriate. Bharatiya29 12:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The Delhi police are not a reliable source, and membership in any party is not mutually exclusive with any ideology. Portraying the shooter's (supposed) membership in the AAP as somehow contradicting the rest of the paragraph is both original research and an NPOV violation. I've removed the text in question. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Not worse than the existence of that recently added WP:NOTNEWS section on this page, given the lack of conclusion by the sources themselves that this had anything to do with "saffron terror". I just removed the OR done since February 3. ML ⁹¹¹ 05:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Saffron terror is violence motivated by Hindu nationalism, and the lead to clearly says so, WP:NOTNEWS is not valid here as the incidents are motivated by Hindu nationalism. Dey subrata (talk) 05:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

You agree that sources lacked mention of "Saffron terror" which is certainly enough to disqualify this incident. We cannot add everything that was motivated by 'Hindu nationalism'. Reliable sources contradict each other right now even if Hindu nationalism was involved and that's why you will have to wait but keep this problematic section removed for now. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

If a reliable source calls it "Saffron terror" it can belong, if not, it doesnt. Simple as that. Agree with D4iNa4 above.Pectore^talk 22:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a pretty disingenuous argument, because in the move request you were claiming that "Saffron Terror" is the more common name for Hindutva terrorism, and opposing the move for that reason. By that logic, anything described as Hindu nationalist terror also belongs here. On the other hand, if it doesn't, then it's a distinct topic, and your argument above has no logical basis. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, that comment is addressed to D4iNa4, not Pectore. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hindutva terror

Should we change the name of this page as "Hindutva terror" as it is more widely accepted term and fits more instead of saffron.

The hindutva terrorism is more widely accepted and incidents are reported in these terms only. It will be good if we change it. Edward Zigma (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose the move. Crawford88 (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The subject of this article is the term "Saffron terror" itself. Hence I oppose any sort of move. Instead the article should be cleaned up to resolve the made-up confusion about its scope. Bharatiya29 06:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes its not saffron terror its only hindutva radical terror who thinks that Islam should nt be in India. Akshat1233 (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

plz rectify .. there no saffron terror.. it's a political conspiration Dr krishna1 (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Scope of the article

The recently concluded move request has made it clear that the general consensus is to keep the scope of this article limited to the neologism "Saffron Terror", and not the propaganda/concept/phenomenon (or whatever one may call it) of Hindu/Hinduism/Hindutva terrorism. In light of this, an effort needs to be made to include only those events in the "Incidents" section which have been clearly termed as "Saffron terror" by a significant section of neutral reliable sources. This will obviously result in the removal of a major chunk of this troublesome section. As of now, only the first section, i.e. "1999 killing of Graham Staines" has an explicit reference to a source linking it to the term, meaning that the other sections need to be removed if a similar source is not provided for them. Even then, the question of whether a single source is significant enough to warrant a section here crops up. However, that is a different debate for the future. Bharatiya29 20:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. The lack of consensus to change the title does not in any way imply consensus for a dictionary definition of the neologism. Indeed the argument made by many of those opposing the move was that the common name for the phenomenon was saffron terror; literally nobody besides you makes any argument for changing the scope of the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not make an argument for changing the scope. I am rather making an argument for keeping the article restricted to its actual scope, which has always been limited to the term "Saffron terror". The move request was an attempt to change that and many of the arguments in support of it were based on widening the scope. (Including yours - Furthermore, the problem with the term "Saffron terror" was not that it was controversial, it's that it is something of a neologism.) The most recent AfD (2014 one) ended with no consensus and both Keep and Delete votes were based on the article's scope being the neologism.

• Keep votes by NeilN, Dwaipayanc, Rhododendrites, and ScrapIronIV were based on Saffron terror's notability as a term or neologism.
• Numerous delete votes, including that by Shrikanthv, AmritasyaPutra, and Vigyani were based on this topic failing WP:NEO, which is again a clear indication that the AfD was based on the article's scope being the neologism.
• Even back then, there were some rename votes which were based on the idea of widening the scope, similar to the arguments presented in favour of the recently concluded move request. There was no consensus in favour of that.

Hence, it is clear that there have been attempts to change the scope without any consensus for it and the article is in need of a cleanup to revert that. The major part of the "Incidents" section is thus WP:UNDUE. If you believe that the scope should be changed, achieve a consensus in favour of it. Till then, the original scope must be be restored. Bharatiya29 16:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• There has never been consensus to restrict the article to the history of the term rather than the phenomenon. The AfD was five years ago, and was closed "no consensus" with no further analysis of its contents. Also, two of the loudest "delete" voices have since been indeffed for sockpuppetry, and very many of those arguing to keep discuss the notability of the phenomenon, not the term. More importantly, the AfD was to determine notability, and the rename discussion to select a name. There has been no specific discussion about scope, and in the absence of that, the default scope is anything that reliable sources refer to as saffron terror, or by synonymous terms. If you want to restrict the article, you will need to establish fresh consensus here. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree with your assessment but continuing this discussion in its current form seems unfruitful. I shall start an RfC to determine the scope of this article. Looking forward to an insightful discussion. Bharatiya29 12:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing called saffron terror

People says about saffron terror but they dont know How islam Has destroyed akhand bharat and made it pakistan ,bangladesh and occupy half kashmir ,kashmiri pandits , that's why some Hindus have gone radical that Muslims shouldn't be in Bharat.thats how it all started. Akshat1233 (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This Talk page is there to discuss improvements to the Saffron terror article. Please read the Talk Page Guidelines. Your rant about the Supreme Court, Pakistan, Kashmir, Pandits etc. does not belong here. Also keep in mind that hate speech will certainly get you banned from Wikipedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Saffron terror is a term used by the center left political parties to garner votes from non-hindu communities Writewing09 (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes this is right

Shamit2005 (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

So called saffron terror

This is a term coined by the Congress party Minister P Chidambaram and Digvijay Singh to defame Hindus in their own country, for political reasons and for garnering the votes of Muslims and Christians. It is suggested to Wikipedia to please remove this topic from the main Wikipedia page, since such a thing never existed nor is present now. Rharipanth (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Does the term defame the Hindus more than the acts of saffron terror being committed? — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It only defames the people that identify with the terrorists. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

sources

sources for the blue padlock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.32.236 (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

2020 Delhi Riots

Hindutva fundamentalists were also involved in the 2020 Delhi riots. Please mention it. Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah Tahir Hussain was a Hindu right Vishnu Sooraj (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2021

It is basically a conspiracy theory against the hindus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.191.53.10 (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hindu Terrorism

This article should be called Hindu Terrorism, not "Saffron terror". There are articles on Christian Terrorism and Islamic Terrorism.

accusations

the samjhauta express bombings the masjid bomb blasts are mere accusations it doesnt even have good sources atleast confirm those edits the riots was started by muslims in godhra burning httpo://www.dw.de/modis-clearance-in-the-gujarat-riots-case-angers-indian-muslims/a-15874606

the Anti Terrorist Squad has prima facie ruled out the involvement of Hindu Nationalist groups like the Bajrang Dal in the Malegaon blasts citing two reasons:

RDX is only available to Islamist outfits. Bajrang Dal activists so far have only used crude bombs, nothing as sophisticated as the ones in Malegaon

https://web.archive.org/web/20121105055424/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-09-12/india/27800611_1_malegaon-blasts-p-k-jain-maharashtra-town https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/police-crack-malegaon-serial-blasts-case-spot-simi-hand/articleshow/610189.cms

then about samjhauta express it is alleged that it was done by lashkar-e-tayiba https://indianexpress.com/news/curious-case-of-qasmani-who-us-un-named-in-bombing/735185/0 https://web.archive.org/web/20110811144133/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-11/india/29531592_1_qaida-al-qaida-arif-qasmani https://www.npr.org/2011/05/12/136234805/foreign-policy-next-lets-get-bin-ladens-financiers

mecca masjid bombing

The South Asia Terrorism Portal,[1] the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses,[2] the National Counter Terrorism Centre[78] the United States,[3] and the United Nations[4] reported that Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami was actually behind the attacks while excluding involvement by any Hindu group. Noting this, security analyst Bahukutumbi Raman has questioned "the two different versions that have emerged from Indian and American investigators."[81] The South Asia Terrorism Portal cited Vikar Ahmed as a main suspect in the blast.[5][6] Mohammed Abdul Shahid Bilal, former chief of HuJI's Indian operations, is also regarded as a key suspect in the Mecca Masjid bombing. Later he was shot by unknown gunmen in Karachi on 30 August 2007

ajmer dargah attacks were mere accusations https://web.archive.org/web/20130927121847/http://ibnlive.in.com/news/ajmer-blast-accused-claims-shinde-forced-him-to-name-rss-chief-bhagwat/424426-3-239.html

Content relating to specific events must be about instances of the term's usage, not primarily about the events themselves

If the attacks and other incidents are supposed to stay in the article, the text must about how the term was used in relation to, or how it's use emerged from, these events. Not about the events as such. If this is not done after a while, any such event content can be removed, because the article is not a list of events but deals with a term, the historical context of it's usage, it's emergence, reactions thereof etc (see WP:WORDISSUBJECT). Unqualifiedly calling something an instance of Saffron terror "retroactively" when the term hadn't been popularized yet (which apparently happened in 2010 -- subsequent to the events), and when these events weren't being called that (or maybe they were but this article fails to establish it) is WP:SYNTH. Possible inclusion could be as historical context, but each event would have to be given due weight, and a source would have to be provided for each of these events being causally linked to the term's later spread in some way. — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Saffron terror describes incidents of terror motivated by Hindu nationalism in general. The attacks themselves are relevant and should remain in the article, but the article shouldn't claim that the exact term was used to describe the attacks before the term was even coined. Cipher21 (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

According to some it does, according to others, this term should not be used. This article is not about "incidents of terror motivated by Hindu nationalism". That could be another article, such as "List of Hindu nationalist terrorist attacks", it's about the term itself, a politically loaded neologism. The only things that should be contained in the article are things that make the reader learn more about this term, so why is the term used, how is it used, how did it originate, who is using it (and who is not using it), and what function does it have in the discourse. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The lead said, Saffron terror is a neologism used to describe acts of violence motivated by Hindutva. Hindu extremism is usually perpetrated by members, or alleged members, of Hindu nationalist organisations like Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) or Abhinav Bharat.[1][2][3] The term comes from the symbolic use of the saffron colour by many H/indu nationalist organisations.[4][5][6][7] -until you recently changed it (may I ask why?) - so it's alright. For reference, look at Islamic terrorism, which also has a list of incidents motivated by the latter. Cipher21 (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, saffron terror is not a term "used by some Indian politicians". Cipher21 (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

From archives, this looks like a rehash of a fairly recent scope debate on this page.

To elaborate a little, Hindu Terrorism and Hindu extremism (among many others) redirect here, so it isn't just WP:WORDISSUBJECT. The previous deletion discussions for Hindu terrorism, previous move discussion ^{(somehow missing from archives?)} for this page have also made clear that this is where those events belong. Hemanthah (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Pinging User:Alalch Emis to see if they need any further clarification of the scope. The accuracy notes, added on the basis of WP:WORDISSUBJECT, can otherwise be removed. Hemanthah (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I've been following the page, and wanted to reply sooner, but I haven't decided for myself yet on what the best idea is. I'm coming at this from a bit of "scholastic" angle. The only thing I want here is a normal coherent Wikipedia page that reads well and does not seem compromised in some way. The core problem is in the policy: WP:ISATERMFOR. The article can't start with X is word for / term for / neologism etc. But it can—when and only when the subject is the term itself. Clearly "Saffron terror" is a politically charged term with limited acceptance. It is also mostly tied to a certain period of recent history, approx. around 2008-2011 it seems. Therefore it is easy to conceive of this article as a typical WORDISSUBJECT article. If we do so we can't amalgamate the subject in such a way as to have it both as a conventional ground-facts article and a WORDISSUBJECT article, as that creates a POV problem. That's why the tag has been up since 2014. It's a glaring problem, and I don't think it needs further elaboration.

However the subject could be reformulated to primarily be the ground-truth. In that case the first sentence wouldn't start with "[x] is a neologism". Then the first sentence would be something like "[x] is a [phenomenon]" / "[x] comprises terrorist acts motivated by" ... etc. And in addition we would have a terminology section which would comprise all of the current content dealing with the historical context and usage of the term. So my position is: primary subject defined as the term + list of events = NO; phenomenon as the core subject + terminology = potentially YES; just terminology, i.e. the term = YES. I have more thoughts on this, but I'll pause now to see what you think. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but this has been discussed extensively already, most recently just last year and the consensus, it seems to me has been exactly what you call "phenomenon+term". The wording can always be improved, and a good start for improvement would be removing the accuracy dispute tags that currently exist without justification. Hemanthah (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Phenomenon+terminology. When I first edited this topic this consensus was nowhere to be seen in practice, as no work according to this tentative consensus has been done. It's about more than wording, the article needs to be not rewritten, but written, because there is no coverage of the phenomenon, only pointing to an implicit phenomenon by listing several events. This is WP:SYNTH. The glaring problem was "softened" (read: only made worse) by substituting the missing sourced synthetic discussion of the phenomenon with a discussion of terminology. It made the article incoherent, and incredibly unconvincing. The factual claims are okay, but I dispute the relevance. If we agree that phenomenon+terminology is the way to go, first of all the phenomenon content must be written and referenced. I hope you're open to not the possibility of tag removal not being the absolute priority here. In a reasonable time frame they will certainly be removed one way or the other, but let's improve the article first. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Page starts with "Saffron terror is a neologism used to describe acts of violence motivated by Hindutva" and then there is a list of acts themselves with proper sourcing; each source mentioning how Hindu extremist organisations were involved in it. What's the implicit WP:SYNTH there? Hemanthah (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hemanthah, there is no need to keep the attacks tagged. It's like disputing whether 9/11 was done by al-Qaeda. Cipher21 (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. It gets tedious soon. Hemanthah (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read the policies I've linked to earlier such as WP:ISATERMFOR to understand my argument, which I've already laid out in some detail. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I have read them. I'm asking you to read the past history/discussions of this page because you keep linking to WP:DICDEF pages. It's pretty clear that established consensus is that it's more than just a word and you are rehashing a discussion with no new points.

If you object to the current wording, do improve it within the consensus, not against it. Hemanthah (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Alalch Emis, the oldest instance of the use of the term Saffron Terror - at least that which I can find - was actually in 2002, not 2007 or 2008. The 2002 Gujarat Riots, one of the most notable examples of the phenomenon, also took place at the same time, and nowadays Hindu extremism seems to be at an all time high, so I don't see how it's a politically charged term with limited acceptance tied to 2008-2012.Cipher21 (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Cipher21 What's currently written and sourced in the article establishes it as a politically charged term. You've posted what appears to be a great and very usable source; I haven't read it before. It needs to be included. Is this the earliest usage of "saffron terror"? — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Kashmiri: Your change (diff) to the first sentence would make for a fine first sentence, but I wonder if it's a valid summary of the lead per MOS:LEAD. If the body is currently about a term according to the WP:WORDISSUBJECT formulation of the scope of the article (sections are 'Historical context and origins [of the term]' and 'Usage [of the term]'), the first sentence should need to be about the term. If we want a first sentence that is about the phenomenon we need to write a "ground-truth" sourced section about the phenomenon that isn't a mere list of events whereby the reader is lead to an implicit synthesis ("You see, this is saffron terror"). Regards — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I get it. Thing is, a large part of the article discusses the phenomenon rather than the term; nearly all of the "Usage" section in fact describes instances of Hindutva terrorism, and not the linguistic usage of Saffron terror.

We have seen it already in Islamic terrorism and Christian terrorism where early versions focused predominantly on the term, on its definition, on the controversies the term generated, and whether the label should (or should not) be used for individual terrorist acts[7][8]. Over years, those early versions evolved to focus primarily on the phenomenon, relegating the debate on the terminology to Criticism/Controversies sections.

I think this present article should also evolve in this direction. It should ideally be renamed to Hindu terrorism (or Hindutva terrorism, but see the discussion about Islamic terrorism vs Islamist terrorism where the former prevailed) and, naturally, focus on the phenomenon. The term "Saffron terror" itself should only be mentioned as one of synonyms, and any related controversies should be dealt with in a dedicated section.

Regretfully, I won't have a capacity to do this at this time, as it would require weeks of discussions and consensus building about this sensitive topic. Only trying to propose a direction. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I rearranged the current material for a good start[9]. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is progress. We should look into sources that treat the phenomenon synthetically, like the one posted by Cipher21: [10]. The core section dealing with the subject as not-a-conclusion-a-wikipedia-editor-came-to-by-looking-at-the-self-selected-examples is still missing. The name of the section is of tertiary importance but it could be called something like 'Causes'/'Analysis'/'Phenomenon'. EDIT: Going further in this direction will provide grounds for the removal of the PoV template, in my opinion. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The name of the missing section could also be "History" where specific events are presented in appropriate historical context. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Bot conflict from having both ClueBot and Lowercase Sigma

User:Wikibhai110 added ClueBot to archive this page, even though MiszaBot^{(later Lowercase Sigma)} was already doing it. This has resulted in a split - a set of numbered archives till Feb 2020 and a set of monthly named archives since then.

I've created a new Archive 5 and copied all content from ClueBot's monthly archives to it. The archive search at the top is now comprehensive. Here's a set of diffs to verify content sameness.

Caption text

ClueBot Archive	Diff with newly created Archive 5
Talk:Saffron terror/Archives/2020/November	Special:Diff/1009183050/1056515619
Talk:Saffron terror/Archives/2021/March	Special:Diff/1028929591/1056515772
Talk:Saffron terror/Archives/2021/June	Special:Diff/1046420633/1056515873
Talk:Saffron terror/Archives/2021/July	Special:Diff/1052020936/1056515965
Talk:Saffron terror/Archives/2021/August	Special:Diff/1052020936/1056516059

As you can see from Archive 5 history, there are only 5 edits adding content and all the 5 diffs above show empty left sides, meaning I've added no new content. The sizes match ClueBot's archival edits (once same month edits are added together).

If there's anything I missed, let me know. I'll remove ClueBot in a while after those interested have had time to verify my changes (unless objections). I have done no change apart from adding that 5th archive page. --Hemanthah (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

oops, I'd removed cluebot, adding it back --Hemanthah (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I've removed cluebot now before it hits for this month. --Hemanthah (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. I was about to do it, but you've done it so much better. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! --Hemanthah (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

"Shock after leaders of several far-right Hindu groups allegedly call for genocide of minorities in India"

Just dropping it here: https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/haridwar-hate-speech-yati-narsinghanand-b1981970.html — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

See Haridwar hate speeches. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! Although I'm not certain this one-event page would survive a potential AfD a couple of months/years down the line. It might be prudent to begin incorporating its contents to Hindutva or here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I am glad you call it an "event". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Just like you :) [11] — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Reality

Does does communal conflict are terrorist activities??? Het666 (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, communal conflict can be terrorism against other Hindus and non-Hindus too. Terrorism is supposed to be violence that scares other people, so communal violence can eventually become terrorism.

If you mean "Islamic terrorism" by "communal conflict", yes, it is already covered in these articles and categories:

• Terrorism in India (Islamic terrorists are already mentioned)
• Category:Islamic terrorism in India
• Lashkar-e-Taiba

"Saffron terror" is about Hindu militants who also engage in similar actions.

PulauKakatua19 (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This article has been tagged with an NPOV dispute tag since 2014. Isn't it time to remove it? Cipher21 (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cipher21 I support removing it. Please remove. Venkat TL (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I oppose removing for the reasons already stated in the discussion in the above section. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Cipher21 I support removing it, this article has many issues. Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I oppose removing it, multiple outstanding issues not yet resolved.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

There are numerous outstanding issues, not least of which is that excuses by the terrorist groups claiming the phenomena doesn't exist, despite being entirely contradictory to the facts, are given more space over the course of the article than the acts themselves. Dankster (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Restore the mecca msjid bombing part

2007 Mecca Masjid bombing

Main article: Mecca Masjid bombing

The National Investigation Agency, Central Bureau of Investigation and Anti Terrorist Squad (India) questioned former members of the RSS On 19 November 2010, the Central Bureau of Investigation produced Swami Aseemanand before the court in connection with the Blast. But later he has retracted the confession citing the mental and physical pressure to provide that confession. 27.7.113.149 (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Requested move 25 February 2023

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

The result of the move request was: rough consensus to move. This was a lengthy discussion in which many arguments were raised, so I aim here to summarize the leading strands of the discussion rather than to provide a comprehensive list of claims made. There were two primary arguments that provided convincing support to the proposal:

• Several participants in the discussion argued that the term "Saffron terror" would be insufficiently WP:RECOGNIZABLE to the readership. Though it was widely agreed that "saffron" can be used as a metonymic adjective to refer to Hindu nationalism, there was not a clear case that such metonymic usage was common enough to make the term widely recognizable.
• Some participants noted that the term "Saffron terror" was also used to refer to Buddhist terrorism, especially in Burma. This created a WP:PRECISION problem with the "Saffron terror" title, which no supporters of that title addressed.

The two lines of argument discussed above established that the "Hindu terrorism" title was preferable to "Saffron terror" along two of the titling criteria. The discussion also included several popular lines of argument that ultimately proved to support neither title:

• There was no consensus on which title was the WP:COMMONNAME. Different parties in the discussion claimed that "saffron terror" was the common name, that "Hindu terrorism" was the common name, or that neither title had sufficient usage to be considered the COMMONNAME. Some evidence used to substantiate COMMONNAMEs was also argued to have been presented in flawed or biased ways, while other lines of evidence were unchallenged.
• Several supporters of "Hindu terrorism" argued that it would be WP:CONSISTENT with other article titles on religious terrorism. However, later in the discussion it was demonstrated that such articles are not actually consistently titled, and that some of the pro-CONSISTENT evidence in fact referred to redirects. Thus, WP:CONSISTENT does not ultimately support either title.
• The title "Hindutva terrorism" also received a fair amount of discussion, largely as a compromise title. However, several people criticized it as less common or recognizable than other options, and there seemed to have been a low level of enthusiasm for the title overall. Thus, a consensus did not emerge in favor of "Hindutva terrorism".

Opponents of the move largely sought to criticize the proposed title, "Hindu terrorism", rather than to give affirmative cases for retaining "Saffron terror". The main argument that was explicitly pro-"Saffron terror" was based on WP:COMMONNAME, a topic which I discuss earlier in this closing statement. Other arguments in opposition to "Hindu terrorism" included the following:

• It was asserted that "Hindu terrorism" was a smear term advanced by the BJP, but this argument held little water. Ngrams evidence raised in the discussion demonstrated that, while usage of the term "Hindu terrorism" has risen since roughly 2016, the term was still in regular use long before that.
• It was also argued that the term "Hindu terrorism" would create an inaccurate or ill-defined scope for the article, but these claims were contested and did not achieve much support.

In summation, the opponents of the move ultimately did not present arguments of comparable strength to the WP:CRITERIA-related arguments leveled in support of the proposal. Thus, while the supporters and opponents for this RM were roughly equal in number, the weight of arguments leads me to find a rough consensus to move the article as proposed. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Saffron terror → Hindu terrorism – The current page title fails at the basics of naturalness and recognizability. While since the late 1990s, "Saffron terror" has been a common phrase in South Asia for terror committed by Hindu extremist groups, for the global English-speaking audience that this encyclopedia addresses a straightforward descriptive title makes sense, per WP:NDESC, consistent with Islamic terrorism, Christian terrorism and Jewish terrorism. Literature-wise, as Ngrams makes plain, taking the full breadth of the literature, "Saffron terror" commands but a fraction of the mentions of the broader mentions of "Hindu terror" or "Hindu terrorism" - the latter being a term for which this page is already the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, meaning this page is already the only page on Wikipedia about Hindu terrorism, and not simple a page about the neologism that is "Saffron terror". Google Scholar also produces 182 results for "Hindu terrorism" to 147 hits for "Saffron terror", without even getting into the various other iterations, such as "Hindu terror" 99 hits, "Hindutva terror" 92 results, etc. that make plain that there is no clear WP:COMMONNAME. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Addendum: For reference, further clarifying the concurrence of these terms: "Hindu terrorism, also called saffron terror, thrives on the notion of Hindutva." Symbolism in Terrorism: Motivation, Communication, and Behavior Iskandar323 (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Lame whataboutery. "Saffron terror" still wins as WP:COMMONNAME. These violent incidents were not inspired by Hinduism but Hindutva as scholarly sources clearly note. Capitals00 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Capitals00: What are your metrics or analysis that support WP:COMMONNAME? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

It depends on what reliable sources are saying.[12],[13][14][15][16][17][18] As such "Saffron terror" is still WP:COMMONNAME. The term "Hindu terror" and whatever you have found for this term is mainly a part of a broader political campaign of Hindutva proponent Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) to smear Indian National Congress by falsely accusing them of using the term "Hindu terror", even after denials by the latter.[19][20] Capitals00 (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

That must be why usage of the term began in the 1940s, predating the 1951 formation of the BJP - that's what I call planning! But in any case, if the BJP, a.k.a. the Indian government, is using the term "Hindu terror" as part of an effort to smear its opponents, that still means the term has currency. As for the alignment between the term and the article, let's see what some sources say. For example the article: Good Faith, Bad Faith: Modi claims “Hindu terror” is an insult, but home ministry probes “Islamist & Sikh terrorism” states: "The BJP and its parent organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, have long held that there is no such thing as Hindu terrorism—the term gained traction against the backdrop of investigations into the Samjhauta Express blast of 2007 and the Malegaon blasts of 2008, among others." In the article we have: 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings and 2008 Malegaon blasts. And another: Invisibilizing Hindu terrorism through the “War on Terror”, which states: "Despite many cases of Hindu terrorism in India, the figure of the Muslim as a terrorist in Indian society lurks in no small part due to post 9/11 Western discourse of the “War on Terror.” That the Malegaon bombasts, Ajmer Dargah attack, and Mecca Masjid blast were carried out by Hindu terrorists is somehow comfortably forgotten in mainstream narratives." Yep, we also have 2007 Ajmer Dargah attack. The first of those two articles manages to write an entire article about the subject without mentioning "Saffron terror" once. I wonder how? Perhaps because it's not actually a useful descriptive term (let alone a common name), but just an alternative term. The second article makes a single reference to "Saffron terror", noting "Yet any reference to the term “saffron terror” to indicate growing Hindu terrorism in India can be used a disciplinary ground by the Election Commission of India for allegedly endorsing a “political conspiracy.”" Iskandar323 (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Terrorist incidents in South Asia 1970–2016

• Oppose - No evidence of usage in WP:RS has been provided. The very first of the OP's google hits for "Hindu terrirosm" is actually titled "Saffron terrorism"! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, you can see the sources for yourself all over the internet and in Scholar, and I've shared the Scholar link, and you obviously clicked on it, since you're using its results to try to make some sort of a point, though what exactly that is is unclear. So the first source is titled Saffron terrorism, yep, which tells us is that the terms are used concurrently, as expected. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  I am not interested in "Google hits" or "all over the Internet". I am interested in reliable sources (see that page) describing the phenomena/events of this article as "Hindu terorism". Until you provide such evidence, this proposal is a non-starter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  If you are actually disputing that "Saffron terror" is Hindu terrorism, which seems like a fairly absurdist stance to take, but each to their own, you should take your concerns to the redirect Hindu terrorism, for which this page is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Sources had already been provided above making the connection explicit before your comment. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to be heavy loading the existence of a redirect. Redirects are just aids for searching. They don't have any verifiability or NPOV requirements.

  Not only I am disputing that saffron terror is Hindu terrorism, I am not even convinced there is anything coherent called "Hindu terrorism". The WP:ONUS is on you to prove it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Ngrams is a bit unpredictable, but it doesn't just make things up, and the term is sitting on there plain as day, in addition to the already quoted sources above that use the term. Or you can look at any of the sources on Scholar where the sources are use concurrently and often interchangeably. Come on, just look at some sources. You have 80k edits. Don't just sit about quoting policy. The onus is on all editors to use their brains and not just quote policy to filibuster rational discussion. But here, I'll get you started: "Hindu terrorism, also called saffron terror, thrives on the notion of Hindutva." Symbolism in Terrorism: Motivation, Communication, and Behavior By Jonathan Matusitz, page 161 Iskandar323 (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nomination, which points out that main title header Hindu terrorism, a redirect to this article, is analogous to other such Wikipedia article headers — Christian terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Jewish terrorism redirect to Jewish religious terrorism, Buddhist terrorism redirect to Buddhism and violence or Category:Sikh terrorism. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• I've searched through google scholar, and the results are somewhat inconclusive: the slight tilt in favor of "Hindu terror/terrorism" is more than offset by the quality of sources using the term. Surprised as I am to be agreeing with Capitals00, they are quite correct above; a non-trivial number of the hits for "Hindu terror" come from denials that it is a phenomenon, and from non-RS. Given the fraught nature of the topic, I believe google hits are a bad metric here; we need to examine the best sources on the topic, and see what they use. As best as I can tell these sources are fairly evenly divided between "Saffron terror" and "Hindutva terrorism", and I prefer the latter as a more descriptive term that is less likely to confuse the general reader. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for that thoughtful input. I would agree that "Hindutva" is more descriptive than the present adjective and a potentially slightly more precise option than "Hindu" in the context, though somewhat less natural and recognizable for a global audience, but still better than "Saffron terror" - with a colour designation really doing very little to help the unacquainted reader understand the context. I found at least one academic source using "Saffron terror" in the context of Buddhist extremism in Burma [21], possibly in error? I meanwhile also tested "Hindu nationalist terror(ism)", but few sources seems to use that more long-winded phrasing. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Very hesitant support. I'll begin by saying that I dislike "[Religion] terrorism" as a title for any article, because it's an oversimplification, as any genuine scholarship of that religion will attest. It is particularly so for a religion as old and heterogenous as Hinduism. However, having examined the sources further, I think RegentsPark's point that "saffron terror" is imprecise is a serious concern; there's a non-trivial number of sources using "saffron" to refer to activity by Buddhists, and at least one frequently-cited piece using "saffron terror" to discuss persecution by Buddhists in Myanmar. Taken together with concerns about it being a neologism, and about it being jargon, I believe "Saffron terror" is a bad title. My personal preference would be to call the topic "Hindutva terrorism", but for "Hindu terrorism" vs "Hindutva terrorism" specifically, the former term is clearly used more often. I think this is a distinctly non-ideal outcome, and I don't think I would necessarily oppose a subsequent move to "Hindutva terrorism" if someone can demonstrate substantial usage; but this is where I land for the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see how that is viable. Did you find any sources that define the term? Do any of them devote even a section for 'Hindu terrorism'? Does it even meet WP:GNG? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  None of those questions have anything to do with the title of the article, as they also apply to "Saffron terror". Of the sources that come closest to discussing etymology, Gatade [22] prefers "Hindutva terrorism", which I've not objected to: Matusitz [23] uses "Hindu terrorism" primarily, and "Saffron terror" secondarily; and Gittinger [24] uses "Hindu terrorism" more often than "Saffron terror", despite the latter being in the title of her article. The usage is clearly mixed, but "Saffron terror" has an ambiguity problem. Also: I searched through reliable English-language news media (NYT, WaPo, BBC to begin with); the tilt in usage is quite clear, with "Hindu terrorism" being used about three times more often, and "Hindutva terror" not even registering. Again, were it up to me I'd use "Hindutva terrorism", but it's not been picked up by sources, and "Saffron terror" isn't viable any longer. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Capitals00. The term "Hindu terror" is at best creation of BJP to misrepresent its major opponent Congress. I don't think alternative 'Hindutva terrorism' will work because it would make more sense to merge this article to Hindutva. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  The term "Hindu terror" is at best creation of BJP to misrepresent its major opponent Congress.: Can you please explain this? How is it a creation of the BJP? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  As noted above, literature using the terms Hindu terror or Hindu terrorism dates back to the 1940s, 10 years before the BJP even existed, so to suggest that these are wholly recent terms is simply to misconstrue the evidence. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Show those sources from 1940s. Just ngram random search is not enough. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Here are your 40s sources: Fascist India by Patrick Lacey, 1946, page 45: "Heaven forbid that we should let Hindu terrorism warp our judgment when and if we must adjudicate again on communal rivalries."; Whys of the Great Indian Conflict by M. A. Mehtar, 1947, page 73: "The Mussalmans have been oppressed and persecuted by the excesses of the Hindu majority in the last ten years but Mr Gandhi never tried to improve matters or condemn Hindu terrorism against the Muslims", which is an excerpt from a 1946 presidential address by Muhammad Ali Jinnah also present twice elsewhere: [25], [26]. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources for anything, let alone this page? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I was asked for evidence of usage back in the 1940s, so I provided it. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support for several reasons:

1. To avoid figurative use in article titles – here, the figurative use of a plant name is not, in all probability, legible to the majority of readers.
2. To improve consistency with other articles listed by @Roman Spinner.
3. To avoid giving an air of whitewashing which occurs when uncomfortable phenomena are not named directly.

I'd also avoid the term Hindutva as it's much less legible for lay people. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Saffron, as used here, comes from Saffron (color) which is the color most used by Hindu supremacist groups, not Saffron the plant, which is unrelated to Hindu terrorism. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

... though this does somewhat exemplify the recognizability issue raised: "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." Iskandar323 (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

"Saffron politics", "saffronization" etc. were terms in vogue at that time. Perhaps the term has gone out of fashion. If so, "Hindutva terror" is readily available as an alternative. We won't need any big discussion for it because sources on this page itself have used it often enough. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The usage of "saffron" to denote a colour is very rare[27]. I venture to say that an average English speaker outside India wouldn't be able to correctly identify "saffron colour". — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

And yet loads of scholars used it in book titles: The Saffron Wave, The Saffron Tide, Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags, The Saffron Mission, Saffron Surge, Rise of Saffron Power, yet another Saffron Surge, and The Saffron Condition. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. Metonymy tends to sound nice in book titles. I mean, like "Roof of the World" instead of Tibet, etc. What I'd prefer to see here, however, is not a poetic figure of speech but a standard, common term. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Also subtitles: Fascinating Hindutva: Saffron politics and Dalit mobilisation. Also research papers: The Saffron Surge in Indian Politics: Hindu Nationalism and the Future of Secularism, The New Contours of Identity Politics: Saffron Mobilization of Dalit and Backward Caste in Uttar Pradesh, etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have an usage example elsewhere than in titles? — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

A news article from a couple of years ago. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Another one from last year. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

What's the point here exactly? I don't think anyone is doubting that the color has a symbolic relationship with Hinduism /Hindu nationalist politics /Hindutva. The point is that "Saffron terror" is impoverished as a descriptive title for those not already familiar with the genre. We could use Red terrorism for Communist terrorism and Green terrorism for Eco-terrorism, but it should be obvious how ridiculous an encyclopedia revolving around color-based metaphors would be. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"Hindutva terror" was featured on the original Ngrams evidence, where it didn't perform well. In addition to issues of overall prevalence, as noted above, "Hindutva" as a word that potentially has some recognizability issues for those not familiar with South Asian politics. It is a far from common word across the English-speaking world. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Pharaoh of the Wizards: I'm not aware of any evidence being presented that "Saffron terror" is the WP:COMMONNAME here. If you have found some, I would be grateful if you could present your findings. What I am aware of is that if you take the 265 Google Scholar hits for "Hindu terror" OR "Hindu terrorism" and then if you re-run the search excluding the term "Saffron terror", you still get 237 Google Scholar hits - suggesting that usage of the term is not that important to discussion of the subject at all, let alone positioning it as any kind of common name. By way of contrast, if you take the 147 Google Scholar hits for "Saffron terror" and exclude "Hindu terror" OR "Hindu terrorism", the results plummet to 28 Google Scholar hits, which means that the vast majority of sources discussing "Saffron terror" find it impossible to do so without mentioning either "Hindu terror" OR "Hindu terrorism" - suggesting that not only is it not the common name, but that its descriptive powers are impoversished at best and that its usage requires heavy supplementation by more descriptive terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Move. Firstly, the data used here is wrong, and further, the page is also very clearly about accusations of saffron terror, not 'hindu' terror, which would make the title widely inaccurate.

That aside, the flawed basis for the title move is also clear - A cursory glance at the Ngrams shows that it is an apples to oranges comparison. It combines Hindu Terror with Hindu Terrorism but only takes Saffron terror and its derivatives. As such, the Ngrams seems to have been manipulated in order to depict the preferred title as being more common in literature. Indeed, an actual fair comparison of the suggested title with current title shows the exact opposite conclusion as the one proposed : link to Ngram.

As for the google scholar search results, they are also rather noticeably inaccurate - As pointed out above by other editors, there is a steep discrepancy in the data used. At even a cursory glance, the first, fifth and sixth result in the search for "Hindu Terror" are all titled as "Saffron terror". The third result is about Hindu terror being a misnomer, so on and so forth.... The results can hardly be said to have any usefulness in this state.

In short, the proposal lacks merit in its entirety and is based upon incorrect assertions of fact. As such, the current title is sufficient and accurate.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp: I must demur on the point that the Ngrams is either flawed or misleading. There is no serious semantic difference between 'Hindu terror' and 'Hindu terrorism' - just because on is an 'ism' and the other is not does not make it different terminology. And anyone can have a play with the graph for thenselves. The point is, whatever way you dice it, 'Saffron terror' is far from any kind of common name and, as such, is worthy of discussion as a title. As for the scholar hits, do you think I linked them not thinking people would look at them? Yes, obviously Saffron terror is also referenced. No one is denying it is a term. The whole move is based on their synonymous meaning, but as noted, people love a bit of metaphor and wordplay in book and paper titles; that doesn't mean it it makes for a good descriptive title in a universal encyclopedia. The proposal from the outset was based on WP:NDESC and the relative utility of any of three alternative terms, Hindu terrorism, Hindu terror or Hindutva terror, relative to the current title, which is a visual metaphor with limited cultural, linguistic and geographical reach, and which very few outside of South Asia or South Asian studies will be familiar with. And it is a poor choice for readers IMO. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it means the same thing, but adding additional ways to catch one term in place of another makes for an unfair comparison, as the actual comparison showed. Again, while comparing Ngrams, you have exercised the same error - combining Hindu and Hindutva is again, not a direct comparison. As for the google scholar results, if the results are consistently about Saffron Terror, even when searching for your proposed title, it does, in fact, substantiate it as the COMMONNAME, and whataboutery wont change that. The other titles you proposed are either inaccurate or practically unused; due to which I oppose the move. I remain thoroughly unconvinced by your arguments. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi CapnJackSp, I didn't know about the "+" trick in Google ngram viewer. Now that I became aware, I tried out a more general search and the results indicate that the "Hindu terrorism" term has seen a rise very recently. It is still unclear why this is. One reason seems to be that BJP itself has mentioning that term in order to shoot it down. Another reason seems to be that the scholars have begun to use that term (now more comfortably because of the rising Hindutva violence), but I haven't even found a definition of the term anywhere. I think we need to wait for the dust to settle. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I already provided you with a source [28] with the definition. What's the issue? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding to that, Im not even sure if "Hindu terror" will be accurate for the information on this page. I think someone cited things like Islamic terror and Christian terror to support the usage here, but the key difference between those pages and the one here is that they are about religious fundamentalists carrying out terror attacks, whereas the topics covered in our article are specifically only about of Hindu Nationalist organisations; the basis of the ideology of the accused differ in this case. Hindutva Terror may be a more accurate term than Hindu Terror, with the only issue being it is practically unused by any good sources. Saffron terror means the same as Hindutva terror, and is much more common; which is why I opposed the move. Open to your suggestions. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• What is this article about in the first place, the neologism or terrorism in general? If the former would a separate article not be better (if the topic is covered as such)? If the latter then we need to see which usage is preferred, not seeing a tilt in favour of either scale as of this moment. On the topic of title consistency, I can see a pattern but not universally Buddhism and violence, Sikh terrorism (redirect), Mormonism and violence, Jewish religious terrorism do all deviate in one way or other from the proposed title here; perhaps more title variations can be explored. Gotitbro (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The issue is, the proposed new title has barely any matter to add; the term "Hindu terror" has very few examples to talk of, with little to no scholarly material on it. As for the violence carried out by Hindus on religious lines that would not be considered an act of terror (riots, vigilantism etc), that is covered in articles like this and this. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

This page currently exists in a nadir state that is a shadow of it's 2013 existence, when it was obviously not about a neologism. And it's obviously not about a neologism now, since the term has been around for three decades and is clearly in mainstream use. Whoever fronted the page with this 'neologism' first sentence was clearly, and presumably tendentiously, trying to edit the actual topic out of existence. I guess I'll try and figure out who this was. There is plenty more content, and plenty of sources (pertinent to all of the relevant terms), that can be fed into this subject. Whether whoever worked to grind the article down will gracefully allow it to be built back up is another question. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, not really ... ok, so it was introduced just weeks earlier in Feb 2013 and then edited warred over prolifically, including by you, among others, despite the attribution being wholly unverified information. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that saffron terrorism is not exactly out there as a recognizable title by the lay reader and, in that sense, Hindu or Hindutva (though that does require more parsing) terrorism is a lot clearer. From what I can see, the sources tend to use Hindu terrorism the most. JStor pulls up 18 "Hindu terrorism" articles, 13 "Hindutva terrorism" and 12 "Saffron terror" articles (which included a few on Buddhist terrorists in Myanmar). Hindu terrorism also dominates both Saffron terror/terrorism as well as Hindutva terrorism on my Google search (167,000/36,820/6,120). On Google scholar, the results are 162/148/92 with Hindu terrorism only slightly edging out Saffron terrorism though there were a smattering of Burmese buddhist terrorism articles thrown into the mix. It seems fairly clear to me that Saffron terror is not ideal both because it is not the dominant term as well as because there are non-Hindu saffron terrorists. We could go with the dominant Hindu terrorism title or settle on Hindutva terrorism as the most descriptive since the overall numbers for this phenomenon are quite small (167,000 hits on google search, 18 articles in JSTOR is not exactly up there in excitement terms).--RegentsPark (comment) 20:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  You're correct that, while I don't think "Saffron terror" as a distinct phrase is quite so common in reference to Burma (though I have seen at least one concrete and widely referenced example), as a more general rule, the symbolism of "Saffron" is as much a cultural feature of Buddhism as it is of Hinduism, so yes, aside from not being descriptive, "Saffron" can be confusing. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Saffron terror" is still used often and nobody (as clear from reliable sources) has seen any confusion related to this term. "Hindutva terrorism" won't make sense and would seem better merged with Hindutva itself. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom and WP:CONSISTENT --- Tbf69 P • T 18:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Doesnt hold here, ideology of the accused is religious nationalism, not religious fundamentalism as in the case of other religious terrorism articles that have been highlighted. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You're railing against a bit of a straw man here. You don't have to be a religious fundamentalist to participate in terrorism. In your comments further up, you argue from the perspective of consistency, but on the Christian terrorism page, many of the examples are not 'fundamentalist' in nature. In any case, it's something of a matter of perspective and/or semantics as to whether religious nationalism can be considered religious fundamentalism or religious extremism in any given context. As the article Putting the “Fun” in Fundamentalism: Religious Nationalism and the Split Self at Hindutva Summer Camps in the United States notes: "For the purposes of this article the terms religious fundamentalism, religious nationalism, and religious extremism are interchangeably defined ..." Iskandar323 (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

These are clearly not the same for our purpose, as you have been clearly told on the requested move in the Jewish religious terrorism page as well where you were mixing ethno-religious with religious ideologies. Whatever "interchangeability" the author of the article took for their convenience hold little value here ; These terms are very clearly different in their scope and motivations, and hence must be dealt with separately. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thankfully, published authors are reliable sources; you are not. And how about you keep your edit stalking to yourself, less it be construed as Wikihounding. Whataboutism is, as always, an irrelevance. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Published authors may be RS, I agree wholeheartedly. Wikipedia editors (such as yourself or me) are not. And according to the author, "For the purposes of this article the terms........are interchangeably defined". The sentence is rather clear; For the purposes of the article, the terms have been used interchangeably. It does not imply that the terms are in general, interchangeable or equivalent. Your extrapolation that they are, is your own opinion. Further, a single source does not outweigh the large majority of sources. Even if you were to drag up some obscure article from somewhere, it would still not be enough to flip the title.

As for your thinly veiled accusation of wikihounding, it may be best to actually read the page - What "disruption" have I caused, to the project or to you? Kindly elucidate as to how pointing out that you raised a similar RFC, with the same incorrect assumptions, which has now been closed as "Not Moved" is a form of harrassment. Keep in mind that attempting to cower someone in an editorial dispute with frivolous claims is WP:DE. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:CONSISTENT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that these two policies if applied correctly would actually support "Saffron Terror", not "Hindu terror". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose No clear case for "Hindutva" or "Hindu" terror. As such, we should continue to retain the present title since the term is still widely used.[29] Accesscrawl (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Capitals00 and Kautilya3, and strongly oppose move based on WP:CONSISTENT, because it does not apply; of the five examples given above, Buddhist terrorism redirects to Buddhism and violence, Jewish terrorism redirects to Jewish religious terrorism, and Sikh terrorism redirects to the militancy section of Khalistan movement that’s three out of five, so clearly '[religion] terrorism' is not how such articles are consistently titled across wikipedia. Hindu terrorism already redirects to this page, and strong evidence in favour of a move has not been presented. The two articles that do follow the ‘[religious] terrorism’ (Christian, Islamic) are the two religious terrorisms around which extensive scholarship exists (just check the size of their leads, compared to this article). That does not apply to an ill-defined term for an ill-defined topic that barely meets WP:GNG. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Most of this article is indeed dedicated just to the contention surrounding the term, and accounts of three individual bomb-blast cases. If you take out the details about the three cases (which anyway belong to the main articles of those blasts), then you're left only with the controversy surrounding the term. That’s what most of this article is. So in its current form, it most certainly should not be moved. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  And there is no page on Muslim terrorism either. People claiming WP:CONSISTENT have no clue what they are talking about.

  Islamic terrorism and Christian terrorism start with a definition. "Hindu terrorism" has no definition. How is that for "consistency"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  I’d actually argue that this page shouldn’t even exist. The term should be covered in a section in the Hindutva, Hindu nationalism, or Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh articles—whichever is more apt. Most of this article is just WP:CONTENTFORK. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? It's clearly 'Hindu' as an adjective here - just as with the example "Christian", where in the context it is an adjective for something pertaining to Christianity (but elsewhere means a devotee). Iskandar323 (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's not because there is not other material, only because this page is minimalist with respect to the subject matter. Read any of the first three sources if you are interested in the substance that is missing from this article. Iskandar323 (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relist, to allow more discussion about how this topic is discussed in reliable sources; whether they use "Saffron terror", "Hindu terrorism", or "Hindutva terrorism" BilledMammal (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The proposer seems to have realised that NDESC is not valid here, which was in his own word the basis of the whole proposal. The numbers in the proposal have been debunked. The proposers have not even been able to put forth a well sourced definition of what their proposed title, "Hindu Terror" is! RS clearly prefer Saffron terror over "Hindu Terror" (see discussion below). A similar request by the proposer at Jewish religious terrorism has been closed as "Not Moved". Dont see what basis is left under which this page can be moved. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move review

Move review started here: Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2023_April. Capitals00 (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Reversion of sourced content

@Capitals00: Maybe you missed the memo on your talk page, but I'm still awaiting the explanation of this wholesale revert, and this repeat revert, of the same diverse range of edits under two entirely lacking edit summaries. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It is your own WP:OR that term "Hindu terrorism" was used since 1940s. The source does not say this. This explanation was already provided to you in edit summary.

"The BJP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh have long maintained that "Hindu terrorism" does not exist, and maintained a stated position that rejects "any link between religion and acts of terror", despite the term gaining traction in the wake of the Samjhauta Express and Malegaon bombings." This is being added in the wake of the latest page move which is nothing but a WP:SUPERVOTE. I would recommend you to hold on until we have resolved this issue. But even if that was not the case, this paragraph looks repeatitive. Enough denial has been already added on this page. Capitals00 (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Capitals00: I'm sorry. You are going to have to explain to me in a little more detail how pointing to a source that shows usage of the term in the 1940s and stating it has been used since 'at least' the 1940s is OR. It is a self-evident, plain-as-day statement of fact, along very basic WP:COMMONSENSE lines. The existing sentence about the term "Saffron terror" even deploys exactly the same common sense. There is simply a source from 2002 that shows (without stating) the demonstrable usage of the term in that time period.

So far, that is the only part of your extensive revert that you have even half explained. Why did you revert this edit moving the controversy material to the end of the page, which is where such sections sit on every page on this platform? And why did you delete the introductory sentence that I added linking the section to the page title?

Aside from the 1940s pretense above, why did you revert all of this reliably sourced material added to the terminology section, including the widely reported and republished example of a prominent 1946 speech using the page's main term, and also the separately sourced statement about when the term gained traction (sourced very clearly to the referenced source)?

Finally, why did you removed this very straightforward addition to the lead that does exactly what the lead is supposed to do, which is to summarize the content of the article. Given that about 50% of the article is dedicated to these attacks, how was the removal compliant with requirements of MOS:LEAD?

Given your to date disinterest in explaining this revert, which incidentally also removed reliable, secondary sources, it is is very hard not to view this as a WP:BADREVERT and particularly WP:MASSR given the limited explanation. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE cannot be used for justifying your WP:SYNTH. Capitals00 (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

You are blaming "Hindu terrorist organizations" here for 2008 western India bombings, Mecca Masjid blast, 2006 Malegaon bombings, etc. but can you show where they were convicted for these incidents? Also you are supposed to avoid using the term "terrorist" in accordance with WP:LABEL. Capitals00 (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Capitals00: You still have not provided any explanation for the mass revert above, a silence that is increasingly becoming deafening. As for "You are blaming..." er, no. The reliable, secondary source provided, i.e.: Hindu, Sikh, Christian and Jewish Terrorism says exactly that. You continue to delete content blatantly supported by reliable secondary sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources

I checked the sources mentioned in the beginning.

1-Saffron Terror: Splinter or Symptom? JULI GITTINGER

2-Pawns In, Patrons Still Out: Understanding the Phenomenon of Hindutva Terror SUBHASH GATADE

3-Confronting the Reality of Hindutva Terrorism Praful Bidwai

4- Google book mentions Hindu terrorism

5- Hindutva terror cases: NIA on the backfoot as apex court questions complicity charges

If you people are naming the artile as Hindu terror then use sources which is named as Hindu terror in the title.

The support votes for move shows that Timothy Dalton can be moved to James Bond? Or Shah Rukh Khan be moved to Baadshah of Bollywood? Venus 4321 (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Radhakrishan quote

I took ou th note with the quote from S. Radhakrishnan because his comments were not in the context of terrorism. Not sure why the edit summary didn't survive but figured I'd better explain the removal somewhere! RegentsPark (comment) 21:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Counterfactual revert

@Kautilya3: Come on then. Let's hear your explanation as to why you are removing reliable sources, including two peer-reviewed sources, from the article. You don't really need consensus to add factual, reliably sourced information to this encyclopedia, especially when the addition is so stragihtforward, so I assume you have a very good reason indeed for reverting here. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

First of all, you were attempting to broaden the scope of the article, which is currently regarding the term "saffron terror". You can't do that unilaterally.

Secondly, your identification of "saffron terror" with "Hindu terrorism" is problematic, as the above discussion has clearly revealed. Neither do your sources settle the matter. (Mind you, I explicitly asked for sources in the above section, and you brushed me off.)

Julie Gittinger, whom I find a respectable scholar, is using the term "Hindu terrorism" in a generic way to mean terrorism perpetrated by (some) Hindus. She never bothered to define the term. Neither did she say that "saffron terror is also known as Hindu terrorism". In fact, she sided with our position when she says: "It could be argued that Hindu terrorism is not religious violence, but political (another reason I am partial to the non-religious label of saffron)."

Matusitz is some third or fourth rate junk scholar who plagiarises Wikipedia without even being clever about it. His line "The term comes from the association of the color saffron with Hindu nationalism.[1]" is lifted from this very page. He added a WP:FAKE citation to Bidwai, who said nothing about "saffron terror". His definition of Christian terrorism: "Christian terrorism consists of terrorist attacks committed by groups or individuals who appeal to Christian motives or goals for their actions." is also lifted from our Christian terrorism page. It is no wonder that he has no definitions for "Hindu terrorism" and "Sikh terrorism", only his own rambling POVs. This is not a reliable source for anything. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes brother I strongly agree with you.. 202.142.121.165 (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

And also, why is "Tamil Tigers" a separate section? Why is it not part of "Hindu terrorism"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

This page clearly isn't about a neologism; it is about a form of terrorism, as clearly outlined by its series of incidents. That someone daftly wrote a bad first line and bad short description is neither here nor there. As you can see from the previous version of the page that you have linked to, the page has been systematically bastardized and chipped away over the past decade to be less and less substantive and encyclopedic than the 2013 version. As I mentioned before, if you seriously intend to continue arguing that these are distinct terms, i.e.: that Hindu terrorism, for instance, should not direct here (dubious), you should stop beating around the bush and raise a redirect for discussion talk on that page. Otherwise, if I turn the redirect Hindu terrorism into a page, I expect not to hear a word of complaint from you. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thats.... An interesting way to discuss, thats for sure. Regardless, as for the merit of the matter; I have yet to see anything that you added which corresponds to "Hindu terror". The only sources I see being used to support that are talking of saffron terror, but mislabelling it as Hindu terror. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

More interesting than engaging with arguments that terms don't exist or that sources mentioning those terms don't exist. With friends like these, it's no wonder this page is such an uninformative mess. Since 2013, it's clearly been eviscerated by those who would like nothing more than to assert that the subject is but a neologism conjured out of thin air. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

This page lists those incidents which have been described as "saffron terror". If you have other incidents and other descriptions, please feel free to go and start a new page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: And both of the two journal sources you deleted reference the same terror incidents, literally on the first page of each - you don't even have to sign in to see it! And the first source was titled "Saffron terror" - what on earth is justification for removing a reliable source on "Saffron terror" from the article on "Saffron terror", as opposed to say moving it, or performing literally almost any variation on editing between actual work and just deleting it? On this neologism point, are you genuinely saying that you cannot see that this article is about a broader subject, and not just a neologism, which is clearly a tendentious framing that has been worked in some time between the 2013 version that you highlighted and the present? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

So I see that the 'neologism' lead was introduced unsourced back in 2013, and you have played no small part in maintaining this unverified information. All that has changed is that while a decade ago you freely admitted that 'Saffron terror' and 'Hindutva terror' were the same thing, today you are silent on the subject. So, since you are a 'neologism' defender, I'd like to see your best source for the lead statement, because no source in the article supports this. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I am still saying that "saffron terror" and "Hindutva terror" are the same thing. Search for those terms on this very page. My 2014 edit was probably going to back an earlier version of the lead. (I don't really remember, I was still a newbie editor at that time.) But you can see Talk:Saffron terror/Archive 4 for the consensus at that time, in particular NeilN's comments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• There is no "Hindu terrorism", that's why it was a good move to revert the edit. Iskander, looking at above dicussion and in this section as well, you got all your answers and I think you should really find another subject now. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• No opinions at the moment on framing the introductory sentence, and there's genuine room for disagreement as to how to title it and introduce it. But I don't see how it's reasonable for this to be a page about the neologism anymore; there is too much scholarly material discussing the phenomenon of terrorism motivated by right-wing Hindu nationalism. The page is about this phenomenon, which at this point is clearly more notable than the neologism itself. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. We don't need to stick to the neologism line any more. Both "saffron terror" and "Hinduva terror" are well-established terms now, and they can be used interchangeably. But "Hindu terrorism" (Iskandar's favourite) is a wooly, ill-defined idea. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have not problem with "Hindutva terror", which is also more recognizable and descriptive; hence why I illustrated it as one of the alternatives in the move discussion, and I do appreciate the point that it is a slightly tighter term. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that "Hindutva Terror" is a more recognisable term than "Saffron Terror" ; The search results seem to substantiate that rather clearly. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

As of 2022 in scholarly sources "Saffron terror" is still a neologism. The article already has a broader scope. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

If the best recent mention for 'neologism' is in a footnote in an only tangentially related 2021 article about the Discursive Practices of Digital (Counter)Publics, then I think that really proves the opposite point. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I also disagree about Hindutva terror. We need to use WP:COMMONNAME and The term hindutva is understood and used only by a handful of people who are already familiar with the phenomenon. An average Joe, esp. outside India, he'd be searching for "Hindu terrorism".

Also worth repeating RegentsPark's observation that the term Saffron terror is used to denote Buddhist terrorism in certain countries. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

That is a non-point. People searching for "Hindu terrorism" come here via redirects. The page title should correctly describe this topic and this page. If you title it as "Hindu terrorism" then how will you define it? What will you include here and what will you exclude? Flippant claims of WP:COMMONNAME don't write a page for you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: That the redirect comes here implies that no one has a problem with that association and that this topic is already the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for 'Hindu terrorism'. I have no seen any information that suggest otherwise. What are the examples of 'Hindu terrorism' that one could not also categorize as 'Hindutva terrorism'? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You are ignoring the main issue here. You are mixing "Hindu" and "Hindutva" by ignoring the differences between the two. "Hindu" is a religion; "Hindutva" is a political ideology. The entire contents of the page are regarding the ideology and the followers of the ideology who have been accused of terror. Your claim of "recognizability" and COMMONNAME has been clearly dismissed in the discussion above. If you are unable to even declare what you think "Hindu Terror" is, or able to find quality articles on it, then that "renamed" article is bound to be about Saffron terror, mislabeled as Hindu terror. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Ignoring the obvious mistakes here, i.e. "Hindu" is either an adherent or an adjective for Hinduism rather than the religion itself, Hindutva is routinely translated as "Hindu-ness" and is semantically barely a hop and a skip away from the former. It adds a little precision in the context, in that it hones in on 'Hindu nationalism' more specifically, but in essence it is little different from defining, for example, Islamic terrorism as "Muslim-ness terrorism", i.e.: terrorism associated with the assertion through violence of a Muslim, a.k.a. Islamic, identity. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

A very wordy semantic argument that establishes nothing; your assumption that Hindu and Hindutva are interchangeable is incorrect by a mile. At which point your argument falls apart completely. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I did not say they were interchangeable, but in this specific context, there is little meaningful distinction in much of the literature, and for obvious reasons. I do not disagree that there might be a meaningful distinction to be made, which is why I've said "Hindutva terrorism" is also workable. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hindutva terror is equivalent to Saffron terror, except it is a barely used term with even fewer supporting sources than "Hindu terror". Makes no sense to make that change. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

'Barely used' it is not. There are numerous scholarly sources on Hindutva terrorism, including: Confronting the Reality of Hindutva Terrorism, Pawns In, Patrons Still Out: Understanding the Phenomenon of Hindutva Terror, The Rise of Hindutva, Saffron Terrorism and South Asian Regional Security (and don't be misled by the title on this one - the article states: "Using adversarial threat analysis framework, the paper first establishes Hindutva terror as a potent threat...", etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The irony of the fact aside, that you have to rely on articles titles "Saffron Terror" to try and show how "Hindutva terror" is more common than the former; your own search results that you used to start this RFC clearly prove that in comparison to Saffron Terror, Hindutva terror is a barely used term. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Well it sure beats relying on just making the same impoverished straw man arguments over and over again. For the umpteenth time, you should see overlap of the terms in sources, given that they are the same bloody subject. That is a good thing. Everything that I have said on this page hinges on this assumption. That a source says "Saffron Terror" in the title and then goes on to describe the subject as about "Hindutva terror" then that tells you what I have been saying all along, which is that "Saffron" is very pretty sounding, but when it gets down to the nitty gritty of actually explaining the subject, more precise, descriptive terminology is required - and hence why my entire premise is based on WP:NDESC - again for the umpteenth time. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

What you have argued in above para is a non issue. No one disputes that "Saffron" is the same as "Hindutva". Dont know where you got that impression, but everyone agrees on that point here. If you had bothered to read my response a few paras above, Hindutva terror is equivalent to Saffron terror.

The incorrect argument you are making, is that "Hindutva" is a better title than "Saffron"; your own Ngrams that you provided crushes the argument of "recognizability"; your claims of WP:NDESC makes no sense as "Saffron" is not a judgmental phrase, and the mountain of research on the term substantiates that it is a better descriptor of the material on this page.

You might say it is being repeated the "umpteenth time", but it is the wrong argument being repeated the umpteenth time - Being said multiple times does not make the argument correct. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Another strawman. The DESC in NDESC stands for 'descriptive', not non-judgemental. I.e. Hindu or Hindutva are words that do what they say on the tin; "Saffron" is a flower, colour, and an allegory for all things Buddhist, Hindu, and, in the case of terror, usually Hindutva terror (though sometimes Buddhist too). Iskandar323 (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I hope you know what "strawman" means; an argument that refutes the entirety of your argument is not a strawman. As for the NDESC part, I think you need to re read the policy, and do it more carefully this time. The policy does not dictate that we must have descrptive titles (which is what you seem to have understood of it). It simply points out that a descriptive title may be appropriate in some scenarios, and if so, we should make sure it is neutral and non judgmental. Since in this case the proposed title is clearly worse (read the multitudes of arguments above), the policy does not apply on the proposed title; As Saffron is not judgemental, it does not apply to the current title. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The proposal is not clearly worse - though if that's your interpretation that is fine. There are a variety of different discussions ongoing on this page, not least the point about "Saffron" as terminology containing a high degree of ambiguity between Buddhist and Hindu cultural references. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

See, this is a strawman, and a good example of it. Take note for your own edification. You are responding simply to the part about "clearly worse", while ignoring the thrust of the argument, which is about NDESC being used here as your primary argument; or in your own words, your "entire premise is based on WP:NDESC". Now that you have (hopefully) read the policy you were quoting, it should be easy to realize that NDESC is a policy to decide what titles qualify as a possibility, not what the title should be ; As such, the correct thing from a good faith editor would be to accept the error instead of hand waving about there being "a variety of different discussions" on the page. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

This is reminiscent of the discussion about Islamic terrorism vs Islamist terrorism. The consensus there was to use Islamic. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

And that page clearly defines what the term means! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

When the discussion about Islamic terrorism vs Islamist terrorism happened, it had already been seven years since 9/11. “Saffron/Hindu terror” is yet to have its 9/11 moment. (Not to imply that violence—especially political and communal—by Hindus isn’t a well-established phenomena, but it is covered under Hindutva, or under Hindu nationalism, which are infinitely more well-defined than this ill-defined neologism.) UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Sorry, could you explain the connection between this thread and the neutrality tag that you've insisted on restoring. I started this thread over one of your reverts and I never restored my edit, so what's the neutrality issue now? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft a well-sourced lead paragraph, setting out the "Hindu terrorism" narrative. (And drop lawyer-politicians of the previous century. They are not reliable sources for anything.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean ... I could draft a lead, and so could you, but that suggestion isn't an answer to my question, which was: what is the current, outstanding neutrality issue that you have tagged the article for? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Kautilya, what does this edit summary even mean? If you believe the outcome of the move request is inappropriate, then challenge the closure at move review or AN. Otherwise, the closure needs to be respected. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
  • As I said above, draft a lead paragraph setting out what the topic is, and what it is supposed to mean. Right now, a POV title has been tagged on to a practically dead topic, and you guys believe it all makes sense. I am not convinced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

    You have added a tag because you disagreed with an RFC; this remains inappropriate, because you have not described objections to the content as it stands. Absent such objections, anyone should feel free to remove the tag. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

    I have added the tag because of the content of the page, as it exists, is POV-ridden. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

    Perhaps you could be more specific so that editors can know/address the problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

    You need to explain that, Kautilya. An assertion is not enough. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

    The title is "Hindu terror" yet there is not a single own-voice use of the term "hindu terrorism" in the article, and no discussion of ostensible hindu terrorism, as one of the world's religious terrorisms—only discussion of "saffron terror" as the neologism that it is, clearly anchored in the realm of political discourse. And there is a list of incidents with a tenuous relation to the preceding prose. To then insert "hindu terrorism" in the first sentence seems like an original conclusion that the article covers and explains hindu terrorism. At the same time, it's widely known that there is broad disagreement about hindu terrorism (denoting religious terrorism) as a notion. It is different from terrorism by the hindutva (religious-nationalist terrorism). The POV tendency here is to insert one's opinion that, as many great religions each have their terrorism, hinduism must also have its terrorism. —Alalch E. 09:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

    I sort of agree - the article is missing at least a few paragraphs on all those (unfortunately) daily acts aimed at terrorising religious minorities in India – attacks on mosques[30], burning of churches[31], etc. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

    @Kashmiri: In the RM you wrote: The phenomenon of Hinduism-motivated terrorism is well documented and this article needs to allow adding such content – Hindu terrorist acts not strictly linked with Hindutva ideology. Of all the proposed titles, only Hindu terrorism captures it well. This cycles back to the few paragraphs that we have discussed and that I also consider to be (critically) missing. You should not wait for the RM to conclude so as to give you a license to add what you believe to be missing. Would you like to start writing those paragraphs? Would you share some more sources so that I might start writing them? —Alalch E. 08:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

    @Alalch E. I'm afraid I might not be able to do anything here for the next couple of days due to WP:REALLIFE commitments. I don't have sources at hand and tend to rely on Google searches; online sources are also easiest to verify. Please feel free to go ahead, and I'll do whatever I can to support. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Ref

I went through this ref. The source does not contain any reference to Hindu Terror, and the only mention of Saffron Terror is the title. The body is about the 2002 riots, and the only reference to terror in the article does not mention Hinduism, Hindutva or Saffron. It seems like WP:OR to extrapolate any reference from the source when the article is not about the topic at hand. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's a secondary source, e.g.: Jahangir, J.; Mehmood, S. (2022). "Saffron Terrorism in India" (PDF). Research Journal of Political Science. 11.: :"Praveen Swami, an Indian journalist, coined the term "Saffron terror" for the first time in 2002." Iskandar323 (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 30 April 2023

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

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

---

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

Options:

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

Survey

• Option 2, keep current name, oppose move. The current name is not broken. I agree with Kashmiri in previous discussion: (1) "Hindu terrorism" encompasses much more than acts of terror resulting from Hindutva ideology, even if currently somewhat underserved by the current version of the article, (2) "Hindutva terrorism" fails WP:COMMONNAME, and (3) Hindutva is a technical term that's not understandable outside of the group of Indian experts and Hindi speakers. Arguments (1) and (2) also apply to "Hindu nationalist terrorism", while "saffron terror" is just a silly euphemism, also not the common name, and also not understood except by a small subset of readers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Argument one and two are wrong, and argument 3 isnt enough to justify the naming of an article with a name that is completely inaccurate. See the comment here. As for your comment on common name, do note that going by actual evidence, Hindu terror is clearly not the common name. See the comment here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnJackSp (talk • contribs) 09:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1, the status quo ante per arguments already provided on the first RM, and strongly oppose the current backdoor retaining of 'Hindu terrorism'—there was no consensus for the first move, so why is it the current title? UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  For instance, in the discussion above, an editor has presented this article as an example of “Hindu terrorism,” despite the fact that the article itself doesn’t call the incident an example of Hindu terrorism at all. This goes on to demonstrate the kind of WP:OR and misrepresentation of sources that the move enables. Any act of extremism by any Hindu Tom, Dick or Hari will be added to the article regardless of whether reliable sources describe those acts as ‘terrorism’ or not. What is this if not an original claim of these acts being terrorism made in wikivoice? UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  • and Option 5 second in preference after 1. Certainly more common (2:1) than the no-consensus current one. Oppose all others. UnpetitproleX (talk)

• Option 2. Don't agree that this title, Hindu terrorism, did not gain consensus. The present title achieved consensus in the previous move request through the inclusion of community consensus. According to the objective closer, supporters of the move expressed policy-backed arguments, WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:PRECISE in particular. Opposition to the page move did not provide policy-based args that effectively countered WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:PRECISE. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Thats just plain false. Its not that people didnt raise objections, its just that editors ignored the objections over and over and over and over, and refused to answer. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

No one said people didn't raise objections. What was said is that the substance of those objections did not match the policy arguments made by supporters. Still don't. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you trying to seriously say that a term without a reliable definition is the basis of a claim for WP:PRECISE? How is Hindu Terror Precise? It is obviously not, editors just said "Saffron terror wasnt precise", and ignored that Hindu terror wasnt precise either (which has been acknowledged by those supporting Hindu terror as a title, as well as the closer in the last statement). Some people silently ignore that a title, Hindutva Terror, exists that is better than both of these. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

(sigh, you've drawn me in again) The reason "Hindutva Terror" and "Hindutva terrorism" have found disfavor is because the word "Hindutva" is not easily RECOGNIZABLE (a policy) to readers. Better for the general reader when we title the article Hindu terrorism (not "Hindu Terror"), a more recognizable phrase. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

And again, even in this reply, you have ignored the fact that WP:PRECISE (a policy) doesnt allow Hindu Terror/Terrorism as the title, and havent offered any arguments to contest that either. Thats my point here, Hindu terror fails on multiple grounds, but editors keep glossing over them. Hindutva terror only has one weak argument to be made against it on recognisability grounds. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Like the way you say "one weak argument" to belittle Wikipedia policy. When we look at the choices, option 4, is the longest, but not really precise nor favored as a title for this article. Of the other four options, all are about the same precision, and so all would be allowed, moreso under WP:CONCISE. Not for anything, Capn, but you seem to be making things up as you go, still embarrassed by the strong policies you can't fight, PRECISION, RECOGNIZABILITY, and possibly NATURALNESS and CONCISION to boot. Fare thee well, and do feel free to get in the last word! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

You are rebuking arguments that havent been made. I never said the policy was weak; I said the argument for citing the policy was weak, since several leading newspapers outside India have started using the term "Hindutva" in their reports ( such as The Wall Street Journal and Al Jazeera). Option 4 isnt supported by me, either, no idea why its quoted.

No, not all are similarly precise. Hindutva Terrorism and Saffron Terrorisms have reliable definitions from academic sources, that state what these terms are used to refer to. Hindu terror does not. If we cant even define what the title of the page means using reliable sources, the title is hopelessly imprecise. Thats why I have been saying WP:PRECISION does not allow Hindu Terror/Terrorism.

Not sure why you brought up Naturalness and Consision, if you can elaborate on it it would be great. I have provided logical arguments for both supporting my title and opposing the ones I feel inappropriate. Others have only given votes and vaguely mentioned policies without explaining why those policies apply. That doesnt make me embarrassed at all. And I have no issues with you replying to me, as long as you discuss with thought out arguments; Its not important to have the last word, its important to have a constructive discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 Per WP:CONSISTENCY with Islamic terrorism, Christian terrorism, etc. I don't see why this page should have an exception to the rule, either they all get moved at once or not at all. I'm sure most followers of Islam or Christianity would agree that it doesn't line up with their belief system, either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 There is no reason that this article shouldn't line up with Islamic terrorism and Christian terrorism, and the name fits in with WP:PRECISE. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  I can think of one (big) reason: look at the definitions of the phenomenon provided on the three articles. UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Please explain. All are carried out by extremist factions who are militant about their faith. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

One is by Islamic extremists, one is by Cristian extremists, one is by Hindu nationalist extremists.

At this point this is bordering WP:IDHT, you have been told this multiple times; Religious Nationalism is not the same as Religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnJackSp (talk • contribs) 15:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Hindutva Terror, option 3 as this is the only article title apart from saffron terror which is actually accurate. Multiple votes in this RFC cite "Consistency" , "Precision" , "Common name" when these arguments have been debunked already in the move request and move review that followed. I will restate this here, since many on this rfc were not part of the discussion earlier and seem not to have read it fully.

• WP:CONSISTENT is being applied claiming alignment with Islamic terror and Christian terror. The CONSISTENT argument actually supports Hindutva Terror, since the article is not about Religious terrorism, rather, about Religious Nationalist terrorism (See Jewish religious terrorism and the failed RM there for how articles like this are titled)
• WP:PRECISE is being applied by a lot of editors to support, with one caveat - Editors keep avoiding the fact the the title, "Hindu terror", is hopelessly imprecise, to the extent that even till now, with over a month since the move request for it began, no one has come up with a reliably sourced definition for it. How can a title be precise when you cant even reliably say what it is? Editors have been dodging this question throughout the last two discussions.
• WP:COMMONNAME states , When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.. If we look at the usage of terms, Saffron Terror is more common than Hindu terror (see this analysis); it is clearly not the "single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used" (sic) name. Therefore, Hindu Terror is not the WP:COMMONNAME, and that policy cant be used to support Hindu Terror.

I also strongly oppose Option 2 - In the last Move request, where it was discussed to death, the title of Hindu Terror was found to be inaccurate and unsatisfactory. It also has a bunch of issues conflicting with our naming policies, which render it unusable. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, your COMMONNAME arg does have some substance. Problems arise though, when different ngrams are compared. Your comparison, Hindu Terror vs. Saffron Terror, changes significantly when compared with Hindu terrorism vs. Saffron Terror. And while "Saffron Terror", the old title, does see much usage with ngrams, I found that adding "ism" to the end makes it drop off completely. I don't think ngrams help here, so we should stick to WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:PRECISE, which in this case outweigh COMMONNAME by a large margin. Hindu terrorism (not "Hindu Terror") appears to be much favored, all things considered. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Here are ngrams for Hindu terrorism vs. Hindutva Terror and Saffron Terror vs. Hindutva Terror. COMMONNAME just does not support the less recognizable "Hindutva Terror". And option 3, "Hindutva terrorism", won't even show up on the ngrams chart! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I dont think you understand the COMMONNAME policy correctly. You have to show that one title is the Obvious common name, for that policy to apply to any title in the discussion. Here, the policy does not apply at all. We are not measuring WP:SOMEWHATMORECOMMONNAME, either the policy applies or it doesnt. You cant reject Hindutva terror saying it isnt "supported" by COMMONNAME.

WP:PRECISE is exactly why Hindu Terror cant be the title, it fails the policy by a mile due it it being a factually wrong description of the contents of this page and a term that is so imprecise it doesnt even have a reliably sourced definition. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Please try not to embarrass yourself any further. Done with ya. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Would be great to get a reply with policy based arguments instead of allusion to supposed embarrassment. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2. The phenomenon of Hinduism-motivated terrorism is well documented and this article needs to allow adding such content – Hindu terrorist acts not strictly linked with Hindutva ideology. Of all the proposed titles, only Hindu terrorism captures it well. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2: There's not really a great scope for confusion here. As with all forms of religious terrorism, this one does what it says on the tin. A minority of extremists employ violent tactics in an attempt to force their views on others. It's simple and concise, and any average reader will know exactly what it is about, without confusion over specialist terms like "Hindutva" or the niche color metaphor of "saffron". As noted, this is the same setup as with Islamic terrorism -or Christian terrorism - concepts readers will be familiar with and understand as parallel. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2: (Summoned by bot) I wholeheartedly endorse the arguments of SMcCandlish, Paine Ellsworth and Iskandar323. 'Hindu terrorism' may not be clearly the COMMONNAME to a non-expert English-speaking readership, but the alternatives aren't either and the alternatives fail to be inherently WP:RECOGNIZABLE. I am reminded of the arguments against the term 'Islamic terrorism', which many regard as an oxymoron or as imprecise and/or offensive to Islam - but is used by us partly as it is the most easily understandable term. I don't think consistency is necessarily a virtue, but in this instance similar considerations apply to other forms of terrorism inspired and justified by religious conviction/identification. Hindu Terror is inherently ambiguous, but no one is proposing that truncated form. Pincrete (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 "Hindutva terrorism" speaks of the ideological motives. "Hindu terrorism" does not do that because no one gets inspired by Hinduism but Hindutva ideology to commit violent act as clearly described by reliable sources. Dympies (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hindutva is a term that adds little meaning, but a huge dose of unrecognizability. As a term usually translated as "Hindu-ness", using "Hindutva terrorism" just gives you "Hindu-ness terrorism" and a foreign term in an en.wiki page title. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

This argument is wrong, and you seemed to have accepted this when you suddenly stopped replying in the thread where this was discussed between you and me. Trying to equate Hindu with Hindutva either shows a complete lack of knowledge of the two terms or an attempt at being intentionally misleading. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That the same discussion as we had at ''Islamic terrorism'' vs ''Islamist terrorism'', with the consensus for the former. Here, ''Hindu'' serves to distinguish the broad type of terrorism from terrorism motivated by other religions, rather than trying to precisely capture the motivation behind individual acts. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Apples to oranges comparison. You are comparing Islamic vs Radical Islamic, in which case Islamic is used. We are comparing Hindu vs Nationalist Hindu, in which case Nationalist Hindu (Hindutva) is the motivation. See Jewish religious terrorism and the RM there for consistency based arguments. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

We are comparing? Who are the we in this sentence? Are you talking about your meat cabal? You must be, looking at the very same people who !voted for Option 3, vote-stack along the same lines on every ARBIPA discussion of WP.

Your worst nightmare 10:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC) 119.153.38.84 (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Your lack of english comprehension is not my problem. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp: No, we're not talking ''nationalist'' Hindu. This article's subject is religious terrorism, not nationalistic terrorism. Is it so hard for you to understand the difference? — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The above statement is completely false. Till the last month, the article was clearly about Saffron Terror, which is a term used interchangeably with Hindutva Terror. Even now, the article is about Hindutva Terrorism only, with the sole exception of changes to lead where "Hindu Terror" has been equated with Hindutva terror. This change has been done by certain editors even though the close of the last Move Review, when the title was moved, has concluded that the new title is wrong. All this in no way makes "Hindu Terror" the title, it only reinforces that the title is wrong. Till now, there is no supposed incidents of Hindu terror on this page, just Hindutva Terror. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 Current title makes zero sense. The article is about politically motivated violence that needs to be described as such. There is no need to need to cause confusion. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 per well-argued points made by SMcCandlish, P.I. Ellsworth, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, JML1148, kashmīrī, Iskandar323 and Pincrete. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 Sources seem too clear over ideological motives. They are religious, not political. Any other option except "Saffron terror" makes no sense. Those talking about WP:CONSISTENT are selectively using it. We don't have Sikh terrorism but Khalistan movement. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Sorry, what? "Any other option except 'Saffron terror' makes no sense"? Um...you !voted for "Option 3", which is not "Saffron terror", is it. What's up? Am I missing something? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 09:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I supported Option 3, then I went to talk about "any other option" and found only "Saffron terror" to be sensible but I am not ready to support it over Option 3. Thanks ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that! I see now that what you wrote does make perfect sense, so... my bad. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 Hindutva terrorism" speaks of the ideological motives and Hindu Terrorism is not the Commonname.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose 1 & 5. I am as yet undecided on what the best option is; there are issues of precision and popularity that render each of the remaining options sub-optimal; but these two are clearly the worst. There are precision and jargon issues with "saffron terror": scholars have used it to refer to terrorism committed by Buddhists, and it isn't necessarily clear to anyone without an understanding of the connotations of "saffron". Arguably it's even more jargon than "Hindutva terrorism", as the latter has at least a clear etymological connection with Hinduism. And "Hindu extremism" is just a more general phenomenon, with a different body of sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 The sources describe politics by Hindutva groups as motivation. As Audrey Truschke describes, "Hindutva and Hinduism are distinct. Hindutva is a narrow political ideology whereas Hinduism is a broad-based religious tradition. Many Hindus oppose Hindutva ideology, both in India and in the US-based diaspora, and it is offensive to conflate the two." Founder of Hindutva Vinayak Damodar Savarkar also said Hinduism isn't same as Hindutva.[32] That means the distinction between Hindu and Hindutva is very important and any rejection of this fact would be gross error. >>> Extorc.talk 18:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 as the best available choice. It has been already clarified that the information is specific to Hindutva does "Hindu" or "Hinduism" also becomes irrelevant. As above mentioned, there is also no Sikh terrorism but Khalistan movement, that's why option 2 and 5 are misleading. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  WP:WAX-style examples are irrelevant - maybe it should be Sikh terrorism, since there are more than enough sources terming it as such, and it would be consistent and not exceptional versus other religious terrorisms that way, but that's a discussion for that page. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:WAX is a policy on deletion, where it is indeed applicable. However, when weighing "consistency" arguments, we do need to look into other articles like Khalistan Movement, Jewish religious terrorism, Buddhist extremism. These do not fit the "consistent titling" some have claimed. While singular examples may be brushed away, not all of them can. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, hence while I said WP:WAX-style. But to the flawed analogies, yes, Sikh terrorism redirects to Khalistan Movement, since 2009, but only because no one has tried to create a Sikh terrorism page since with proper sources. Buddhist terrorism likewise does not exist simply because nobody has yet ever attempted to create it. The Jewish religious terrorism page meanwhile currently exists in its form because modern, specifically Israel-related forms of political violence and terrorism currently exist at Zionist political violence, and some editors in the recent move discussion (a modest affair) thought these should remain distinct. The jury is still out on that. The topic is also complicated by the fact that "Jewishness" is an ethnicity with a strongly racial component to its identity politics, to the extent that the term "secular Jew", in the sense of person who believes themselves to be racially Jewish but irreligious, exists as a category- hence the opinion can be mooted that when Jewish violence is discussed and it is thought to be religious in nature, its religiosity needs to be specified because 'Jewish', in of itself, can entail the irreligious. That is not really the case with Hindu identity, which is not such a heavily racialized ethnic identity as Jewishness, but a religious and cultural ethnicity that encompasses a continent and is distinctly multi-racial in its composition. Hence secular Hindu is not a term with wide currency. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The complications you list are also applicable here. The ideology at hand is Hindutva (nationalism), not religious extremism like in the pages that are quoted for consistency (like Islamic terror and Christian Terror). In any case, the existence of the pages quoted, and the deviation of this page's ideology from articles like Islamic terrorism and Christian terrorism ensure that the WP:CONSISTENT argument just doesnt work. The claim that all of them should be titled "Religious Terror" stems from a flawed understanding that religion is the only driving force for terror. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 per the WP:SKYISBLUE and WP:SPADE, owing to the fact that moving to Hindutva terrorism from the current title will narrow down the scope of the article. The following comparison further settles the religious vs political debate:

A	B	Comments
Hindus, Hinduism, Hindutva	Jews, Judaism, Zionism	People, Religion, Ideology
Hindu nationalism	Jewish nationalism	B. redirects to Jewish national movements disambiguation page
Hindu extremism	Jewish extremism	A. Option 5; currently redirects to this article B. redirects to Jewish fundamentalism
Hindu terrorism	Jewish terrorism	A.Option 2; current title B.redirects to Jewish religious terrorism
Hindutva terrorism	Zionist terrorism	A.Option 3; currently redirects to this article B.redirects to Zionist political violence

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

What this table shows is exactly proving that Hindu terror is the incorrect title for this page. The fact that Zionist Terrorism is clearly separated from Jewish Terrorism shows that similarly, Hindutva terrorism' should be separated from Hindu terrorism and it should not be confused together as some editors have done. The rest is just a comparison of redirects, not article titles; it holds zero value in the page move discussions where only titles matter the most. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The topic can be subdivided later if there is enough material, but that's not clear for now. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 as the most viable option. Second choice would be Option 1. The rest are misleading because they inaccurately represent the subject. Capitals00 (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 Like I had said on MR too that the new page title had no consensus, and now option 3 seems most justifiable as it points to the ideological motives better than other options. desmay (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Please do not use RfC for move discussions. {{subst:requested move}} is perfectly capable of handling open-ended names and multiple options. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Terror vs. Terrorism

While it may seem to some that there is confusion between the terms "Terror" and "Terrorism", I don't think that's the case. When ngrams are studied, the term "Terror" is often much more prominent than "Terrorism". In fact if "Terror" is changed to "Terrorism", the name often falls off the ngrams graph completely. I found that happens when "Saffron Terror" is changed to "Saffron terrorism", and when "Hindutva Terror" is changed to "Hindutva terrorism". So possible confusion aside, an ngrams analysis often prefers "______ Terror" (or "______ terror") over "______ terrorism". To me, that pretty much throws COMMONNAME out the window as a supporting policy for any potential title of this article. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Using "terror" to refer to terrorism is WP:NEWSSTYLE.—Alalch E. 21:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Apart from being NEWSSTYLE, in my experience 'terror' is often used by news sources before a motive has been established. Anything that frightens people and causes panic can reasonably be described as 'terror', whereas 'terrorism' presupposes a political motive of some kind. Pincrete (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

This point about political motives is pretty key, because some discussion participants here appear to mistakenly believe there is some sort of distinction between religious terrorism, per se, and religious nationalist terrorism, whereas, in reality, (geo-)political goals lie at the heart of all terrorism. 'Religious terrorism' is just a concise form of 'religiously motivated political violence'. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: You are 100% incorrect. The vast majority of terrorism in many countries is domestic terrorism (criminal terrorism)[33][34], which is not linked to any geopolitical goals. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It is either (race/social/environmental) politics or geopolitics. The first source you quote states: "Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals..." Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Where do you have any geopolitics in it? In, say, environmental activists damaging 5G towers or blocking oil rigs or fishing vessels? — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Going around in circles re: WP:CONSISTENT?

• Since WP:CONSISTENT is being argued again for "Hindu terrorism", here’s what the close of the earlier RM, which has been neither upheld nor withdrawn in theory (but remains de facto upheld), Several supporters of "Hindu terrorism" argued that it would be WP:CONSISTENT with other article titles on religious terrorism. However, later in the discussion it was demonstrated that such articles are not actually consistently titled, and that some of the pro-CONSISTENT evidence in fact referred to redirects. Thus, WP:CONSISTENT does not ultimately support either title. (boldfaced by me). UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The lack of total consistency there is partly due to the articles covering a range of topics, including attitude of religion X to violence - current campaign of violence by members of religion X and "specific (often past) campaign of violence by members of religion X". Only the middle kind is comparable, and that is broadly consistent when a COMMONNAME is not established. Absence of total consistency is not the same as total absence of consistency. Pincrete (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

We dont name as "<religion> terror", we name as "<ideology> terrorism". If the ideology is religion, then it is named as "<religion> terrorism", but that is not the case here. In this case the ideology is Hindu Nationalism (Hindutva) , resulting in "Hindutva Terrorism". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hindu nationalism is not identical to Hindutva - hence those are separate pages. As to the part before that, no, we don't name articles <religious> terrorism, because we label them <religious adjective> terrorism, as in the case of Islamic terrorism and Christian terrorism. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The organisations accused on this page, RSS and Abhinav Bharat, were both based on Hindutva. And even on our Hindu Nationalist page, Today, Hindutva ... is a dominant form of Hindu nationalist politics in India. However, if you insist on Hindu Nationalist Terror as the title I am open to considering it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Also unsure, but this and your comment in the survey section made me think - You seem to be heavily emphasising on "Religious" in your answers. I hope you are not under the impression that religion is the only reason for terrorism. We dont title "<religious adjective> terrorism", we title "<ideology adjective> terrorism". (Im not too concerned with the somewhat insignificant difference between "<ideology> terrorism" and "<ideology adjective> terrorism", so I have used your preferred style). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp Incorrect. We name "<religion> terrorism", as you can see in other similar articles. This is because such acts are often motivated by simple, stupid religious hatred and not by any ideology. Those Hindu mobs burning churches in Meghalaya Manipur or Nagaland have most likely never heard of Hindutva, much like Christians attacking Muslims in the west are not necessarily adherents to fundamentalist ideologies.

If you're trying to limit this article to Hindutva, then you seem to deny the existence of Hindu religious hatred and terror other than by one carried out by Sangh Parivar. Which is basically a political bias on your end. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

No, we dont name as <"Religion Terror">. Look at articles like Khalistan Movement, Buddhist extremism, Jewish religious terrorism, all of which are in direct contradiction to your format, focusing on Ideology and not necessarily using Terror/Terrorism. The only articles you have to support your theory of CONSISTENCY are Islamic terrorism and Christian terrorism, so by all means this is a show of us not following any specific template, with "ideology" being the identifying characteristic when we do label something as Terrorism. Your argument of limiting titles to religious terror only is based on a flawed basis that all terrorism emanates from religion.

I do not think there has been any implication by me as to lack of violence by Hindus, and I object to your characterisation of my opinion as such. However, such information already exists on several pages on Wikipedia - If compiled, it would be a separate article as the current contents clearly do not fall under Hindu Terrorism. This RFC is a discussion of the best title for the current article, not a debate over whether we should rename it and rewrite from scratch. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

PS: Though as a separate point, which church was burnt down in Meghalaya? I cant seem to find any RS about it, I hope you dont rely on Twitter for news. I did read about one in Manipur if thats what you are referring to, though that violence was not really religious. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

For those who may not be up to date with NE India, there has been recent violence between people of the Meitei and Naga, Kuki communities in Manipur and some parts of Nagaland and Meghalaya, over a proposed change in status of the Meitei to be recognised as a Scheduled Tribe. You can read more here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Why on earth are you posting this here?! This is prototypical WP:FORUM crap. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

As there was a claim that the violence was about "Hindu mobs burning churches in Meghalaya Manipur or Nagaland" (sic), I added this here for context. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MR

• Move review can be found here at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 May#Hindu terrorism. Dympies (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

.

Move review close

I will quote it here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I haven't given you a word in bold, and this is intentional. This outcome is neither "endorse", nor "overturn", nor "relist". I haven't selected any of the options from the menu at Wikipedia:Move reviews#Closing reviews because none of them resolve the problem in this case. Instead I'm providing a narrative verdict. MDT's close does not stand, but it falls forward instead of falling back: all the article titles suggested so far are unsatisfactory, so please, go back to the talk page and come up with other possible titles for this article.—
— S Marshall's close of the "Hindu terorrism" move review 23:48, 29 April 2023‎

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

That's not acceptable and I've reverted that move. Either propose a new title in an RM, or we retain the title as closed above. Names are not chosen by editors arbitrarily.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• If I understand S Marshall's close, effectively we need an option that's neither "Hindu terrorism" nor "Saffron terror". There's one obvious candidate, since it came up in the original RM: Hindutva terrorism. Any objections? (Bearing in mind any objection should have an alternative, since we have something of a mandate not to use the present title). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
  • No objection from me, and, in fact, I have suggested it multiple times. "Saffron terror" and "Hindutva terrorism" are synonymous. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As I said multiple times, (1) Hindu terrorism encompasses much more than acts of terror resulting from Hindutva ideology, even if currently somewhat underserved by the current version of the article, (2) Hindutva terrorism fails WP:COMMONNAME, and (3) Hindutva is a technical term that's not understandable outside of the group of Indian experts and Hindi speakers. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    • What is your alternative? Hindu terrorism is, per the statement above, not going to be the title (and the scope of this discussion is just about naming, not broadening the subject o the article). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

      The current discussion insufficiently caters for the fact that we already have Hindutva article, and thus this article should have a somewhat different, possibly broader scope. Hindu terrorism is a broader term than Hindutva whereas Hindutva terrorism is narrower. I object narrowing the scope of this article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's ok, but Hindu nationalist terrorism (the title Alach E boldly moved it to) is qualitatively better. Hindutva and Hindu nationalism are essentially synonymous but the latter is far more natural and recognisable for any reader not intimately acquainted with Indian politics. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  If the move request is to be rerun with a search for a new title, then it should probably revert to the original longterm title of Saffron terror in the meantime, or else remain with the Hindu terrorism title that was chosen in the RM above. We can't just pick new names without the RM process, especially when there's such obvious disagreement on the nature of this title. In the end, if there is no agreement at all and no consensus for anything, then the original status quo is where it reverts.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. We should return to the status quo ante of ‘Saffron terror.’ UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  I must clarify: we should return to the original status quo while the search for a new title is underway, and must stick to it until such a time when consensus emerges. Otherwise the move to ‘Hindu terrorism’ is a fait accompli. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  @UnpetitproleX: At this point, with an RM started, it is better to stick to the current title to avoid confusion. You should just !vote in the RM below and assume that there is no status quo bias toward any title. Clean slate, so to speak. RegentsPark (comment) 22:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree, a clean slate is returning to the original situation and then discussing a new title for move, otherwise the previous move stands upheld. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think it would be helpful if @S Marshall: clarified their move request. While the close summary was comprehensive and clarified the underlying issues well, it would be helpful to get a firm statement on whether the article should remain at this title or revert to the original Saffron terrorism. Otherwise the discussion on where the article should be titled at now could easily become a distraction. RegentsPark (comment) 18:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  In the closing statement, I wrote: I'm not going to revert the move in the meantime, because that's unproductive when the community doesn't love Saffron Terror as a title either.—S Marshall T/C 18:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• I know it won't help to come up with a better name, but let me point out that Hindu terrorism is, ex definitio, a type of terrorism related to Hindu religious tenets; and not to any sort of nationalism (not least because there doesn't exist a "Hindu nation"). Succinctly: it's terrorism done in the name of Hindu religion, not of some nation. For this reason, while S Marshall's comment is otherwise very much to the point, it's difficult to agree with his proposal that We know that it has to encapsulate that these are Hindu nationalists -- "Hindu terrorism", read naively, implies forced conversion of Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains; whereas these terrorists' motives are political rather than religious.

Conversely, Hindu terrorism undoubtedly includes such phenomena as forced conversions or terrorist attacks against religious minorities (church arson, attacks against Muslim leaders or places of worship). These acts have little to do with the concept of "Hindu nation" and instead stem from, as far as I know, typical religious fundamentalism. This article is the place for all of it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to examples of Hindus forcibly converting Muslims, Sikhs, Christians etc which were described as “Hindu terrorism” in reliable sources? UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Forced conversions (at gunpoint) by the Hindus are well documented (e.g., [35]. Whereas forced conversion is often included in the broader label of religious terrorism (e.g., [36] which includes many examples from all over the world). I hope you don't argue that systematic use of force (including killings) by a non-state actor against civilians is not terrorism. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The article you link doesn’t label the act as “Hindu [or any] terrorism.” As for whether or not systematic use of force (including killings) by non-state actor(s) against civilians is “[religion] terrorism” or not: my personal opinions do not matter. There’s a reason why the preferred term to refer to armed insurgents in Kashmir is ‘militants’ even when they behead Hindu villagers for refusing to convert, single-out Hindu (and sometimes also Sikh) civilians to gun down. Because we have something called WP:TERRORIST. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, and surprisingly surprisingly all murders in Kashmir are always attributed to "militants", because common crime does not exist there, right? Schoolteachers are murdered by students all over India,[37][38][39] yet only in Kashmir, teacher murders are immediately attributed by Indian media to "Pakistan-controlled militants" and not to, for instance, abused former students. By the way, the NYT source clearly indicated that the killing of 25 wedding guests were a common robbery - of the type that has unfortunately happened elsewhere in India, and it takes quite a lot of bad faith (or a nasty politician like L. K. Advani) to present common crime as "Pakistan-inspired sectarian violence".

So - yes, WP:TERRORISM stands precisely because some people have no idea how things work in reality and are tempted to blindly stick news reports into what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: No, the NYT articlr does not attribute the crime to a common robbery. Neither does any WP:RS say that the targeted killing of the Hindu and Sikh teachers, who were singled out by militants for their religion, was an incident of teachers murdered by “abused students.” The killers weren’t even students of the school. I wonder how much WP:OR like this you have pushed all over wikipedia. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The NYT article is extremely careful in attributing blame: the killings, attributed to Pakistan-backed Muslim insurgent groups (not: "carried out by"); gunmen who have been identified by Indian officials as Muslim guerrillas (not: who were guerillas); etc.

You must be naive to believe that only by coincidence these "terrorist attacks" happen during Clinton's visit to India or when the Hindu nationalistic BJP government is about to announce its Kashmir strategy on Kashmir. You must have also never heard of the Ikhwanis who have carried out some of the most ruthless attacks in J&K, attributed later to the militants.[40][41]

I'm not trying to defend anyone; I'm just standing against parroting official propaganda by someone who has clearly no slightest idea of how things actually work in J&K. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah no, ignoring WP:RS and doing WP:OR is all this is. You claimed that the massacre was a common robbery, the NYT article states that [survivors] said the killers struck after the villagers refused demands from the gunmen that they become Muslims and prove their conversion by eating beef. This is forbidden among Hindus, who regard cows as sacred. The survivors said that the killers forced other villagers to watch as they singled out their victims, killing many of them by cutting their throats. As for having “clearly no slightest idea of how things work in J&K,” I can only laugh. It is indeed not merely a coincidence that these massacres happen when the Indian government announces plans of resettlement of Kashmir’s displaced Hindu minority back in Kashmir. In any case, this is not a forum about terrorism in Kashmir. I can only hope that responsible editors will prevent this article becoming a steaming pile of original research. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Kashmiri, the arguments you raised here are either weak or wrong. Ill go through them one by one.

• You said Hindutva terrorism fails WP:COMMONNAME. Ummmm.... how does a title "fail" WP:COMMONAME?. The policy doesnt actually contain anything about disqualifying a title. Indeed, if we look at the usage of terms, Hindu terror is less used than Saffron terror so Hindu Terror is by no means the WP:COMMONNAME.
• Hindu terrorism encompasses much more than acts of terror resulting from Hindutva ideology, even if currently somewhat underserved by the current version of the article .... by which you mean that the current article isnt about Hindu Terror, but you want to make it about Hindu Terror? Thats not a valid reason to change the title.
• Hindutva is a technical term that's not understandable outside of the group of Indian experts and Hindi speakers . Not exactly correct, but even if taken at face value, with the rising use of the word "Hindutva" in RS outside the subcontinent it is relatively minor compared to the issues with your proposed title of Hindu Terror. As such, this can be satisfied with appropriate redirects.

Overall, this is just poking holes in other article titles while not actually justifying the proposed title. You need to support your title, not just oppose others. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Captain: One by one:

• Moving the goalpost?: I didn't write that "Saffron terror" fails COMMONNAME but that Hindutva terrorism fails it.
• Certainly, the article merits further work, especially to avoid content duplication with Hindutva and expanding to broadly construed Hindu terror. Reversal to "Saffron terror" would make it more difficult as some may see the new content as being out of scope.
• Not getting it. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my point?

Lastly: You need to support your title, not just oppose others. Why? — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Point by point:

• Im telling you to read the policy, you will realise that the policy doesnt "fail" any title. And that your title, Hindu terror, does not satisfy the policy. The policy is WP:COMMONAME, not WP:SLIGHTLYMORECOMMONNAME.
• Thats absurd. Removing Hindutva Terror since it overlaps with Hindutva?
• Im saying its lack of recognition is a weak argument,and not very significant even if we accept it due to other multiple supporting factors for the title, more than the rest.
• Because thats what you do in an RM. We are here to find the most appropriate title, and just pointing out flaws in other titles, while not addressing the massive number of flaws in the proposed title is not constructive. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

References

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

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

Clarifying that I’m not saying that Amakuru has abused wiki policy, but that that the current title was pasted on the article last through their hands. The decision to not return to the original status quo was theirs (and of the original RM’s reviewer). UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The thing is though, the original discussion found a consensus to move, and the move review did not overturn that decision. So there was no particular reason why the original title should be restored. Instead, the MRV directed participants to continue the discussion and work towards a fresh conclusion. That was attempted, but no fresh conclusion was reached, it was no consensus. That means the status quo at the time of the move closure, which was the title of "Hindu terrorism", remained in place. My move back to that title was simply restoring that status quo. Had the original MRV finding been to overturn to no consensus, then I would have acted differently, so this isn't really anything to do with my decision making. For what it's worth, as someone who has not particular opinion on this, I endorse the closure here, the whole issue seems intractable at this point and everyone stepping away is to be advised. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Amakuru, the current move request wasnt a move request from Hindu Terror to some other title - It was a Move request to find out which title was the correct one. As such, even Hindu Terror is a 'No Consensus' title per the close. Per policy, we are required to revert to the last stable title, which would be Saffron Terror. I think we will have to wait till the close of the current MRV, but just wanted to point this out. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

If I may add that while editor Amakuru did not mention this, the most recent RM resulted in a lot of support rationales for two of the five choices, and little or no support for the other three. One of those other three was the old status quo title, which was supported by only one editor, yourself. That means that while there was no consensus for any of the five choices, there was an obvious, strong consensus to not move the article back to its earlier status quo title. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 09:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Note - This is a personal opinion of the editor which has been contested several times. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Note that rather than being a personal opinion, it is a fact that resulted from the most recent RM. To ignore the fact that there was an overwhelming consensus against "Saffron Terror" does not in any way detract from its veracity. To contest this fact merely means to contest the truth. Only "stars" can get away with stuff like that, according to the actions of an ex-president of the US. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Note that this is a misrepresentation based on ignoring prior discussions :) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

No, Sparrow, my description is a faithful representation based on ignoring prior discussions. Wikipedia places precedence on current consensus, not on old news. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

By current consensus, your preferred title has no consensus and as such should be rolled back to the stable version. Your entire argument rests on stale discussions. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Not so, and you can't have it both ways, Sparrow. Not so, because I don't have a "preferred title" at the moment. And the current title gained consensus in the first RM and has not lost that consensus, which is why the article is still currently titled "Hindu terrorism".

You just cannot have it both ways! Above you accuse me of "a misrepresentation based on ignoring prior discussions", and here you say, "Your entire argument rests on stale discussions." How exactly can I make an argument that rests on "stale" discussions, and be "ignoring" prior discussions??? You just dig the hole deeper and deeper. Shameful bit of reasoning there, what? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It lost consensus in the last move request.

There is no consensus to remain at the current title

I think you are confused about what I said, so Ill clarify for the reader - You ignore the discussions we had as if they never happened, to repeat the same arguments. All the while, you take up the old RM as a shield while also saying we shouldnt use "old news". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you are confused about what I said, so Ill clarify for the reader

Thank you so much, Jack, now allow me to do the same. Hindu terrorism as the current title did not "lose consensus" in the last move request. On Wikipedia, when a title gains consensus it keeps consensus until one of two things happens: 1) there is a consensus against the title in a future discussion, 2) there is consensus for another title in a future discussion. Neither has happened. So "Hindu terrorism" is still the only title that has gained (and kept) its consensus support. Editors and readers do not have to take my word for it. A good and understanding read (or re-read if necessary) of WP:CONSENSUS and some of its links will confirm everything I've said. You wanted policies and guidelines? There are your Ps and Gs. "Hindu terrorism", the current title, gained consensus in the first RM and did not lose the title in the first MRV. Then in the second RM that title went up against four other possible names and did not lose its standing, it remained the title. I mean, it's no Cassius Clay, but as the title for this article, Hindu terrorism keeps and is still wearing the belt! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 07:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Its again the same argument rehashed again.

It didnt gain consensus - The Mover review invalidated the original close (it fell forward, but it fell nonetheless), and said the title could not be Hindu Terror. The current close affirms that.

You are ignoring WP:STATUSQUO by using a pretend "consensus". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Just more out-of-process hand-waving. Everything I wrote is well within the Ps and Gs. STATUSQUO is not being ignored, because the current title is now the status quo as established in the first RM and MRV. The second RM upheld it as the status quo, so it remains the title of this article until editors can garner consensus for another name in a future discussion. Happy Days! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 07:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, what made it the Status Quo? It has been challenged since before it was the title. Second RM declared it to not have consensus for the title. As such, it reverts to the stable title, after which you can take up the discussion you wish. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

And again (and again and again until it hammers in) editors came to consensus for the current title and against the old title in the first RM. That decision was implicitly upheld by the first MRV. So after that first MRV, when the title of this article did not change and remained at "Hindu terrorism", its status as the consensual title was carried into the second move request. None of the other four titles gained consensus over the current title, so it still remains the title. And no matter how many times it is "challenged", it will stay the title until there is consensus against it or until another title gains (or regains) consensus over it. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 07:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Its the blunt end of a hammer being bludgeoned, its not going to hammer in. You are still repeating the consensus that fell in the MRV, and then was declared "no consensus".

Status Quo is Saffron Terror, policy based title is Hindutva terrorism, yet you keep fighting for Hindu terrorism since some editors stubbornly use WP:ILIKEIT. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't fight for any particular title, unlike you who fights so ardently for a title that has not yet gained consensus, Hindutva terrorism, and now you split your ILIKEIT to support a title that lost consensus, Saffron terror. Instead I fight for Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, which are crystal clear in this case. The current title is still the title because it still enjoys consensus, it is still the status quo. So it will remain until it is unseated by a better title, whatever that title may be. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 08:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

PS If there is a title that I favor, it would presently be "Hindu nationalist terrorism", which is thus far better than all other titles put together, imho. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 08:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@S Marshall: What say you? MDT's close does not stand, but it falls forward instead of falling back: all the article titles suggested so far are unsatisfactory doesn't sound like "MDT's close stands as long as a bunch of people insist on keeping with one of the unsatisfactory article titles" to me, but the MR close is too ambiguous to do much with it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 10:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• As I said in the MR, I think that we have yet to reach consensus about what the title should be. I think that Hindu terrorism has a lot more support than Saffron terror. But I do not think that this article should be called Hindu terrorism and I hope that a better title can be found. I suggest trying some alternatives -- personally I like AlalchE's suggestion of calling it "Hindu nationalist terrorism".—S Marshall T/C 16:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  • The problem is, while your closure said neither is satisfactory, you implicitly endorsed the result by refusing to call it "no consensus" after the move was executed. Thus the burden is on those who opposed to find support for an alternative while the side that supported the present title can just sit back and repeat their position. It's a frustrating closure because it's functionally "endorse, but feel free to try another RM" but says that it's not endorsed (sortakinda). It tries to find a third way, but fails to actually do so. Do with that what you will. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Mention 2002 Gujarat riots

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