Talk:Hindu terrorism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Assertions of fact in the lead

"Saffron terror is terrorism conducted by Hindu extremists." - is a proclamation of fact. This has two assumptions stated as facts, read patiently:

A. There are extremists who commit terrorism for "Hindu" reason (whatever that is).
B. It is referred to as "saffron terror".

For A I will like to see a source that says unambiguously "Hindus" are committing acts of terrorism (since there is no word "alleged", I would not settle for anything less than a conviction).
For B I will like to see that source refer to such incidents as saffron terrorism.

Logic

Reason A and B are why we don't have a page called "blue terror". P. Chidambaram, Sushilkumar Shinde alleged that's how to describe their action. We must mention it in the lead. At this point, there is nothing more to this concept than allegations. Don't get me wrong I know Hindus are capable of murdering others and plot about it but not every act of violence is "terrorism".

Terrorism is more than just violence. It is done with an aim to strike fear in the hearts of the opposition and use that fear as leverage while coercing the government. I need something that unambiguously says such an incident took place where Hindu organizations took responsibilities and demanded concessions.

There is no hindu group designated as a terrorist organizations I don't know if Chidambaram is really an expert in the field of criminal psychology or analysis of terrorism. How is he an authority in discerning common criminal goals from "terroristic" goals?

More

This article is about the concept of "saffron terror" and its literary usage. We must explain carefully what it means to both parties to the controversy. It is a controversial phrase. It is not unremarkable. It has created a big wave of controversies in India to not mention it or frame it as though wikipedia knows Hindu extremists commit terorism and it is done for saffron reason, would be blatant bias.

Feel free to weigh in or I am going to put back what I have just now removed. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This was all covered at the DRN discussion, and only one editor objected to the wording. The problem is that you're misunderstanding what that sentence is doing. The first sentence must be, if possible, a definition of the title of the article (see MOS:LEAD). The definition of "Saffron terror" is "terrorist acts conducted to further the aims of Hindu nationalism". Now, as you and I (and I think many editors here agree), many acts which have been called Saffron terror do not, in fact, meet the definition. But that does not change what the definition of the phrase is. However, I do think you're somewhat right about the first sentence; the definition isn't linked to who does the act, but to their motivation. So, let me propose the following (alters the first sentence, keeps the second, adds a third):

Saffron terror is terrorism conducted to advance the goals of Hindutva. The colour saffron is associated with Hindu nationalism in India and to some right-wing groups that have been linked to militant attacks in the north and west of the country. However, the motivations for some acts described as saffron terror have not been determined or have been determined to be unrelated to Hindu nationalism.

I would then take the "The phrase..." part and start a new paragraph. I'm sure that there are other ways to word this, and welcome suggestions. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, first let me ventilate my reservations about your proposed edit, you write: Saffron terror is terrorism conducted to advance the goals of Hindutva. Is there any iron-clad proof that any sort of terrorism (b&w or colored I don't care) is conducted at all to advance the goals of Hindutva? Nope. We have allegations only.

Second thing is that we are talking about a phrase which was coined not by criminal psychologists but a political figure most probably. We are talking about its colloquial usage. Tertiary sources don't talk about saffron terror. I believe the word ″allege″ is fine and due. Kindly read the following:

It has sparked a big controversy in India and I think we must mention that it's controversial also. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Since we are uncertain about the goals of perpetrators or who the perpetrators might even be and we are basing on allegations only, let me propose something else so that we don't present conjectures as facts just yet. How about this:

  Saffron terror is a form of terrorism. [right in the second line or in second paragraph we may include→]Allegedly, saffron terror is conducted to advance the goals of Hindu Nationalism.

Feel free to comment. If we're to postpone the "alleged" part again I suggest we don't put anything in wikipedia's voice till then. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're not understanding or just not hearing. I used to believe as you did, but then I looked at other pages and just thought, in general, about how our pages work. For example, take a really extreme example: Flat Earth. That article doesn't start by saying "this is false belief". It starts by stating what the definition of Flat Earth is--it's an old model. It isn't even until the second paragraph that we learn that the model is, of course, wrong. The first sentence must define the title of the article. And, anyway, the sentence written as I proposed is neutral. It says that Saffron Terror, if it existed, would be acts of Hindutva terrorism. It's not actually asserting that any such acts ever occurred. It's simply saying the definition of the term.

The problem with your countersuggestion here is that it doesn't meet the requirements of MOS:LEAD, because it doesn't explain anything. The first sentence must explain clearly to the reader what the article is about, and that doesn't tell the reader anything other than what the title of the article already says. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I hear you don't worry. I also read WP:BEGIN. Flat Earth does describe the subject clearly by saying it's an "archaic belief that the Earth's shape is a plane or disk". It doesn't frame it as a counter argument against the concept of Spherical Earth. The problem is we are dealing with allegations and no proof either way, and framing them as assertions of fact.

You're damn right, the first sentence should be describing the subject and, here, it is the phrase "Saffron Terror" (yes it is an otherwise amorphous phrase because the terrorist acts are not yet attributed to any "saffron perpetrator" beyond the realm of doubt. No group has claimed responsibility for the attacks explicitly accepting "Saffron"/"Hindutva" reasons). We must clarify what does it imply. I cannot be clearer than this. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The most important thing that we need to understand is that we are not here to create a new definition.The definition Saffron terror is terrorism conducted to advance the goals of Hindutva has a lot of problems, do we have sources which say what is being said?. --sarvajna (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't find such a source. No. Furthermore, [1], [2], [3] these sources frame it as a personal surmise. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The same thing happened at DRN no one produced any proper sources and it was never closed, we do not have any source which says that Saffron terror is conducted by Hindu extremists or it is conducted to advance the goals of Hindutva, in fact the statement of advancing the goals of Hindutva would be original research. I would say that there are some incidents of terror that are collectively termed as saffron terror incidents. Now few Hindus have been accused of being the masterminds or whatever behind these incidents. These are just allegations.--sarvajna (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec)And I don't know how to clarify my position any more clearly either. This article is not about a phrase. It's about a series of events which have been labelled a certain way. All of the problems you are expressing are problems that should be solved in the body of the article, not in the definition/lead sentence.

Alright, let me give another try at a compromise:

Saffron terror are acts of violence that have been been described as being motivated by Hindu nationalism. However, the motivations for some acts described as saffron terror have not been determined or have been determined to be unrelated to Hindu nationalism. The term comes from the association of the colour saffron with Hindu nationalism in India and to some right-wing groups that have been linked to militant attacks in the north and west of the country.

Is that any better? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

yes sir, this looks lot better. --sarvajna (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Much better, albeit "have not been determined or have been determined to be unrelated to Hindu nationalism." - this seems awkward. Also consider changing "..to some right-wing groups that have been linked.." → "to some right-wing groups that have been alleged to be linked to militant.." thank you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 04:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian it's "south and west of the country" unless of course you include the transnational Samjhauta Express bombings which would make it "India barring eastern states". Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 16:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, easy stuff first: yes, it should be changed to south and west per comments below. Yes, that phrase is awkward; how about for that sentence it becomes: "However, in some cases the motivation for the acts has not been determined, and in others it has been determined to be unrelated to Hindu nationalism. But on the "alleged to be linked to"...are you telling me that the groups themselves are not militant? That's seems like a pretty extreme claim to me. I mean, yes, there is dispute as to whether or not the groups were involved with various actions, but adding that alleged there is switching the allegation from "attack carried out by group" to the allegation "group is militant". Aren't some of these well established as militant groups? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I think just linked would be fine, it is as good as saying allegedly involved. However I am not saying that these groups are militant groups (nothing is confirmed). --sarvajna (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I am saying the link is an alleged one. It should be explained clearly in the lead. I am not commenting on any group. I am commenting about the link between the events and these organizations RSS, BJP. Are there any cases against RSS or BJP? These are Shinde's personal beliefs which, while under political scrutiny, he couldn't back with irrefutable evidence. The case about Samjhauta Express didn't yield any conclusive upshot as to who might the perpetrators be and what might be their motivation. Is there anything else I am missing here?
Now commenting on the groups, if these groups were terrorist organizations they would have been banned right-away, does any source say that they are banned? Correct me if I am wrong, they might be militant or whatever we may like to call them but there is not conclusive evidence to frame them (RSS, BJP et al.) as "terrorist" groups and that too inspired by Hindutva or Hindu nationalism?

By "conclusive" I mean beyond the scope of reasonable skepticism. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

(I think,The main organisation which has been alleged to have links is Abhinav Bharat, ) If we have sources to prove (the group) that it is militant we can call it a militant attack, else shouldn't call it one. Personally i think we shouldn't call them militant unless we have conclusive evidence and in no way should this article tarnish the image of an innocent organisation --Naveed (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead was decided in consensus on the dispute resolution board. If you want to open it again we can start again. You are trying to subvert the changes again. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC))

Mrt3336 and Navhus are correct that there was no final decision at DRN--the matter was simply archived without conclusion or analysis. And if we can come to a consensus here, we can proceed in further editing. Okay, how about just taking out the latter half of that sentence: "The term comes from the association of the colour saffron with Hindu nationalism in India." That part is indisputable, right? I mean, everyone agrees about the link between Hindutva groups and the color saffron? That would make the new version:

Saffron terror are acts of violence that have been been described as being motivated by Hindu nationalism. However, in some cases the motivation for the acts has not been determined, and in others it has been determined to be unrelated to Hindu nationalism. The term comes from the association of the colour saffron with Hindu nationalism in India.

Any better? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have added two new references. Please find references for the "not determined etc etc etc." (Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

They're already in the body of the article. Every one (I think) of the events described has been disputed to not actually be motivated by Hindu nationalism. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the definition of the word. This was again something that was discussed on the dispute resolution notice board. Also, please provide references not assertions, as was demanded of me. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

The sentence isn't in the definition. It's more background information. There are clear sources in the rest of the article. Do you just want us to copy the sources from there? We can, though MOS:LEAD doesn't require that we duplicate sources in the body in the lead. But, if it will help end the dispute, I'm willing to look through the other citations in the article and pick out the ones that verify it. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

What definition? I assume you're asking about the definition of the phrase "saffron terror", am I wrong?
A. Which source is credible or reliable enough to associate terrorism with an entire community? B. Forget reliability, is there any evidence presented here at all which may certainly lead us to believe that any organization has perpetrated acts of terrorism for Saffron reason? We are all awaiting formal verdict from courts.
At this juncture it would immature to include speculative stuff in the very lead of an already contentious article. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• About the latest proposal by Qwyrxian, I tepidly support this version as well it is better than what the article has now. But I am still wondering why can't we label allegations as "allegations"? especially now since there has been no deposition of a source which talks about formal verdict/judgements of any kind on these organizations (Abhinav Bharat, RSS, etc). It's not up to us to decide whether or nor they are guilty. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Because the first sentence or two is a definition of the phrase "Saffron terror". The definition of "saffron terror" is (the stuff above). Then, the rest of the article should lay out the incidents, groups, and people who have been alleged to be involved in saffron terror. The analogy that was brought up at DRN is that even though people can be falsely accused of rape, the definition of rape is "to have sex with someone without their consent" (well, approximately, it's more complicated than that). It's not "allegedly having sex with...". The same thing should happen here. We should set out in the lead what Saffron terror is, and then attempt to explain how the term has been used, including, when known, how accurately it has been used. If I were to parse it in a very simple grammatical way, I'd say something like, "Person X is alleged to have done Event Y, which is alleged to be Saffron terror". Adding "alleged" into the definition would mean that the sentence would be "Person X is alleged to have done Event Y which is Saffron terror (i.e., something alleged to be related to Hindu nationalism)". The word "allege" needs to preface each action/person/event, not be embedded in the definition. I don't know if that's more or less clear, though it makes sense to me. I used to think as you do, but was definitely convinced the other way. I'll wait on Lowkeyvision to respond on my point about sources before making any change to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The second sentence proposed by Qwyrxian reads "However, in some cases the motivation for the acts has not been determined, and in others it has been determined to be unrelated to Hindu nationalism." It seems a bit confusing/ambiguous. Either the sentence should be split or made more clear. --Naveed (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@Qwyrxian: Well I will just have to repeat it again, the whole definition of the phrase is an allegation, made by an irresponsible and blithering politician, with a deep-rooted conflict of interest, which he later himself retracted and regretted. Am I not talking right today? These are, as of now, only at the stages of propaganda based on vote-bank politics and anti-campaigning against BJP by congress, and we ought to frame it that way as opposed to assertions of fact.

On your views about the very concept of definition I will say, if you mix two separate entities and form a new definition it is not to be automatically accepted. It might be personal synthesis.
If I mix Amish and Rape together to form a new phrase it will intrinsically be my personal claim (biased even) that there is some specialty about ′Amish rape′ which requires separate study or attention. Same goes for ′Saffron Terror′ or ′Christian Rape′ or ′Jewish Larceny′ or ′Buddhist Meditation′. Some are substantiated claims, others are not. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

@Navhus: I think ″confusing″ is not right description for it but ″awkward″ is. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not an allegation made by a politician though it was popularised by one. It was used way back in 2002 and the accusation was 'not' made by the congress. And it is not the congress investigating the case but NIA. --Naveed (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong but do kindly back your claims by sources which allude to the very first verbal use of ″Saffron Terror″ and doesn't point to Congress party, can you? Did NIA report mention "saffron terror" are these guys reading minds now before the investigations are properly conducted and concluded? And even if somebody or a political big-shot ever claimed such a thing would that automatically count as a reliable source for framing it as an assertion of fact in Wikipedia's voice? I guess not. Until formal judgement is presented on these matters, these are allegations based on opportunistic and cleverly divisive political strategy. Period. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

My comment is based on the article. All sources to back my claim is in the article. Kindly look at [[4]] and the whole article for clarity.--Naveed (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw the article and the reference you posted here. I have said what I could about the article, now about your source I think it's more about 2002 Gujrat riots and except for the last sentence doesn't mention any part of the word "terror". Even the usage of the term 'terror' is secondary issue, the point is that these are not to be categorized as "acts of terrorism" in the strictest sense of the word. These were common violence that recur in India every time a communal riot breaks out and it went both ways. Muslims also killed Hindus there. "Terrorism" is very big word (could not stress it enough) and we should be very cautious and well-equipped with irrefutable evidence (which is absent beyond flimsy allegations) before associating it with any community or creed. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead is fine as it is. If you think different give evidence by giving references that we can cite. Period.
Terrorism is in the title of the word Saffron Terror. Yes it is a big word and a lot of people are killed, raped and beaten as a result of Saffron Terror. If you think the definition should be rephrased, once again give references not just words. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

These people are using arguments of holocaust deniers. Give references if you want to talk about changing the definition. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

(edit conflict)

Per WP:BURDEN - you, not I, are required to provide evidence for your claim that Hindu extremists conduct terrorism for "saffron" reasons and you didn't provide one that meets the standard. I am simply asking others to follow what the sources are telling us. These are allegations. Was Shinde's apologetic remark not enough to prove that the government doesn't have enough to charge these groups with terrorism just yet? Read the sources or the article. There are plenty of sources. I am not asking for the deletion of this article. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Am I the one who asked for a change in definition or are you? YOU are the one asking to change the definition and there are references backing what is already written. So unless you have references- please read WP:BURDEN again. This feels like dealing with Holocaust deniers, I swear. Lowkeyvision (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

Lowkeyvision, how about sources 33 and 34 in the article, which show that the 2006 Malegaon blasts, in which Hindu nationalist groups were accused, were unlikely to have been committed by said groups. Alternatively, reference 35 plus any one of reference 36-38 shows that Abhinav Bharat was accused, but was, in fact, not involved (or, at least, that there is substantial doubt). Either of these two combinations could go after the second sentence of my proposal as evidence that there have been cases in which events have been described that have been described at some point as Saffron terror are not, in fact, the work of Hindu nationalists and/or that substantial doubt has been raised that it was the work of Hindu nationlists. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again, the definition of the word does not change based on the conviction or vindication of a particular incident. The 2002 Gujrat Riots are proof enough of Saffron Terrorism. They were pogroms conducted to oppress Gujrati muslims. Women were raped. Shops were burned. It was a good old fashion pogrom. http://www.flonnet.com/fl1906/19060080.htm. Dont forget Adolf Hitler was nominated Time Man of the Year. The fact that they cant prosecute these people is a result of the control these fascist right elements have in the country. The last person to oppose them has 25,000 paramilitary people march to his door. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

My god!. This is turning out to be like a street fight.This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. WP:NOTFORUM. Please also look into WP:NOT for clarity.Please also look into WP:TPG for talk page guidelines.--Naveed (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(Original quote Redacted) This is not a forum where you would be encouraged to share your own tendentious surmise, mind it! Wikipedia is not our fiefdom. We need to follow certain rules and guidelines. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Lets stick to facts. Find me sources for the definition. I am removing last statement. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

What definition? It is not a dictionary entry. The phrase is used arbitrarily, subjectively and those who use it are neither experts in the study of terrorism nor are they neologists by profession. Their opinions can only be stated as opinions nothing else and nothing more. It's a miracle that after all this the page still exists.

What is your issue with the proposal of Qwyrxian: "Saffron terror are acts of violence that have been been described as being motivated by Hindu nationalism." If you don't like it then too bad.

And context matters the reliable sources didn't say: "Saffron terror is terrorism conducted by Hindu extremists."; they are quoting others and those being quoted are not reliable in this field, how many times do I have to repeat it? BTW, Chidambaram did explain his stance on "saffron terror" remark: “The message is that the right wing fundamentalists are suspected to be behind some bomb blasts. Saffron terror ensured that the message is not lost,”[5]. I emphasized the word "suspected", even he cannot tell it openly. That's right, "suspected", it might very well be his conjecture. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't particularly aware (I think) of the term "Saffron terror" before stumbling across this article. Having read it, and some of the sources, and after looking at this thread I thought I'd risk making a couple of comments which may or may not be relevant. Qwyrxian's last proposal for the opening of the lead seems, to an outsider at least, very sensible and reflective of the sources. However, it seems to omit two notable aspects: (1) it's a controversial term and (2) it's a neologism. As a result of both, I would have expected the opening to be along the lines of: "Safron terror is a term used to refer to acts of violence that have been been described as being motivated by Hindu nationalism. Its use is controversial and has been criticized by [Hindu nationalists and others]. In some cases the motivation for the acts has not been determined, and in others it has been determined to be unrelated to Hindu nationalism. The term comes from the association of the colour saffron with Hindu nationalism in India" DeCausa (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with "Safron terror is a term used to refer to acts of violence that have been been described as being motivated by Hindu nationalism" except that it makes the sentence structure very awkward. I do not have a problem with "Its use has been criticized by [Hindu nationalists and others]." But "In some cases the motivation for the acts has not been determined, and in others it has been determined to be unrelated to Hindu nationalism." is a leading statement and is a bias one. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

Actually, I don't think that sentence reflects what's in the article. I've re-read the article - it's not an easy article to read for someone with little prior knowledge (e.g., me!) as it has all the hallmarks of a POV playground (more emphasis on tangential point and counterpoint than the basic facts). That sentence seems to say "we know who did it but their motivation hasn't been determined". But, instead, the article seems to be saying that the identity of the perpetrators of some of the incidents are disputed. I would suggest that sentence reads: "Responsibility has been disputed for some of the incidents attributed to perpetrators of safron terror, and other groups or individuals have been blamed". Or something like that. DeCausa (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

"it has all the hallmarks of a POV playground (more emphasis on tangential point and counterpoint than the basic facts). That sentence seems to say "we know who did it but their motivation hasn't been determined"." — Bingo! You've nailed it. The whole article seems inanely close to a conjectural/political propaganda. But that's for another time. The big issue is it is just comments and assumptions about a neologism, as opposed to objective fact. I made a draft about this tell me how it is and what ways it can get read of that conjectural stuff. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This source seems to give the definition required. "Mounting evidence against the alleged role of extremist Hindu groups behind attacks targeting Muslims have been called "Hindu terror" or "Saffron terror". The phrases, unlike the term "Islamic terror", which is used widely in India, have drawn criticism from right-wing politicians and Hindu groups." Darkness Shines (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

First, Saffron terror is also perpetrated against Christians as well[[6]]. Second, the same author states "A Hindu can be a terrorist but not a fundamentalist." Based on the tags and this statement, the fact that this is a blog/opinion piece-it is not a neutral piece to pick a definition on. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

The source provided by Darkness Shines is an opinion piece also I read that article but somehow I missed to find DS's definition.--sarvajna (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

And the source provided by Lowkeyvision does not link Abhinav Bharat to the attacks which were specifically intended to target Christians, like riots in Orissa and Karnataka. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 05:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it should noted that Saffron terror also targets Christians, not just Muslims. So the definition given by Darknessshines isn't accurate and vague as pointed out by sarvajna . (Lowkeyvision (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

Stop rashly labeling everything as "saffron terrorism". Why are you prolonging the resolution of the dispute? Let's put Qwyrxian's last proposal in place and take it from there. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your change out of good faith. The definition was agreed upon in a dispute resolution notice board. If you wish to discuss it, you are free to do so here. Please do not change it unless a consensus is reached as it is poor etiquette. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

(Personal attack removed) No definition was ever agreed at the DRN. It was closed due to inactivity but not due to consensus.--sarvajna (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Lowkeyvision has indicated an intent to retire from Wikipedia. I'll wait for one more day, but if there are no more objections, I'll go ahead and implement my last proposal. I don't mean to say it's perfect, but I think it's good enough, and that the rest of the article is really what needs attention. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see someone already did it. Good times. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

References

"North and west part of the country" in the definition

One of the attacks related to the topic has happened in the south eastern part of India (Hydrabad). Why is it getting reverted again and again to north and west part of the country"? I am changing it again. Please discuss here before reverting. --Naveed (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: I was self-reverting and it must have been reversed by mistake. I personally have no issues with this. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I rushed to comment on the proposal above, this issue has already been addressed. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 16:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Kindly elaborate CK. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 04:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Should it be "South and West of the country"? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 04:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Naveed's edit has taken care of "north and west of the country" which I objected to in the proposal above. No, it shouldn't be "south and west of the country". I was just pointing out that if at all one were to chose just two Indian regions, "south and west" would be more accurate than "north and west". Not mentioning any region at all is of course better than both. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 04:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. That's what I thought. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 04:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal - Comment Please

The article talks in detail about:

1. Investigation of Samjhauta Express bombing (Samjhauta Express bombings#Investigation)
2. Investigation of 2008 Malegaon blasts (29 September 2008 western India bombings)
3. Investigation of Mecca Masjid bombing (Mecca Masjid bombing#Suspected bombers)

These contents are mostly duplicated content from other pages (in brackets).
A. The sources, most of them, don't talk about saffron terror
B. Those sources which talk about saffron terror don't go into this much detail
and thus most of it is synthesis and bias on our part. I propose trimming these sections, with links to their corresponding parent pages, in such a way that they seem objectively more focused on saffron terror than reeling off the names of unconvicted individual Hindus based on "allegations". Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It would appear as censoring information. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

I can agree with trimming the sections, but not too far; 1 paragraph each is often a good target for summary style. For each event, maybe a few sentences of background, an explanation of how the term "saffron terror" got linked to the event, and any info we have about the disposition of the cases, including either affirmation or rejection of the ST label. One thing to be careful: in those cases where someone confessed but later recanted, we should include both pieces of information; clearly the person was lying either during the confession or afterward, but absent a final judicial/police decision, we can't determine which is "accurate". Qwyrxian (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah Sure, but I cannot do it unilaterally so will it be okay if I did it on a subpage of this page? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is that it would be better if you did it in a sandbox and put the link on the talk page --Naveed (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I said. But I was referring to "subpage" not my userpage since it's not solely my responsibility. Agreeable? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

ok :)--Naveed (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Shinde's Comments

Now that Shinde has apologised for his comments or that is what is written here can we remove it? --sarvajna (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

He said, “I had no intention to link terror to any religion. There is no basis for suggesting that terror can be linked to organisations mentioned in my brief speech in Jaipur.” Emphasis is my own. That is all the more reason to redact his previous comments on the page because now it will constitute an implicit POV on our part to frame as though he is linking organizations to terrorism. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

He had given both the comments and both have been exclusively reported by reliable sources hence we can have both the comments. We can say shinde said"XXXXXX..."on XX day. However he retracted on XX day by saying "XXXXX" --Naveed (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No? Why? We are not here to guess what might have meant or felt previously. He himself said that there is "no basis" to suggest linking terror with organizations/religion this way. Hence now his comments seem somewhat irrelevant and truly awkward. He has basically withdrawn the statement it's his prerogative.
So now if we state "In January 2013, Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde accused Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the main opposition party, for setting up camps to train "Hindu Terrorism" including planting bombs in 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings, Mecca Masjid bombing and 2006 Malegaon blasts" (regardless of whatever appendage we might like to include) it will be really unfair and undue. I underlined accused because he now is saying that his speech didn't suggest such a thing. In short what we are faced with is the fact that he did not accuse any organization. He is the source of the comment and he himself has indicated very patently that his comments are not to serve as any basis for linking terror with organizations. Hence he is not a reliable source (never has been).

Now I am starting to ask myself, what basis does this whole article have? Seriously we have build a near-propaganda article based fully on speculations. Violation of WP:SPECULATION and most probably WP:NOTDICT. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

We should remove both, basically per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. If the comments are now retracted, they probably don't have lasting encyclopedic value, unless the comments themselves significantly triggered other events (if they did, please tell me). We are not here to report on ever small detail of what people said, so if someone says something, took it back, and there aren't lasting repercussions, then we can take it out. However, let's discuss a little more before we edit. Were there any long term results? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any effect, apart from BJP and RSS's strident retaliations. These were tantamount to political gaffe and nothing more after his retraction. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Significance of the comments may be

1.This may be the first time a pollitical party was named.please look into Kamal Nath insists Shinde did not apologise for 'saffron terror' remark Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2283830/Kamal-Nath-insists-Shinde-did-apologise-saffron-terror-remark.html#ixzz2NAp1DG00 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook.

2. Though Shinde has expressed regret, congress isn't willing to accept that he has retracted Shinde may have got it right with 'saffron terror': Congress. :3. Recomendation to ban Abhinav Bharat. Hindu terror row: Abhinav Bharat to banned soon. Though this happens often.

4. Court case against Shinde.Saffron terror remark: Court reserves order against Shinde again. Though i am not sure about its long standing significance.Naveed (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no long-term significance. None of them is a real significance of Shinde's remark that will add any value to the understanding of the phrase "Saffron Terror" apart from the fact that it's controversial. You may create a section called "controversy".
About the prospect of Abhinav Bharat being banned soon, it hasn't yet happened. The text of the source (reliable?) doesn't spell it out explicitly when is it going to take place. So no need to engage in razzle-dazzle for it. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that we should give importance to what congress party thinks about BJP/RSS, Congress party is princiaplly opposed to BJP/RSS, once the Congress president called the Cheif Minister of Gujarat a Merchant of death now we cannot added it in his article. What Shinde said should be attributed to Shinde and if he has retracted from his comment than lets just remove it unless he comes out with another statement saying that he as a Home Minister still stand by his comment.--sarvajna (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Weather there r long time significance is not for you and me to decide. Only time will tell. Lets wait for sometime and see if there are long time significance. --Naveed (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK this section on talk page is specifically meant to discuss Shinde's comment, not sure what kind of long term significance you are speaking here, are you saying that we should wait for years till we remove Shinde's comment from this page accusing the main opposition party of terrorism although he has retracted his own statement? Also according to you how long should we wait to remove his comment? --sarvajna (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted User:Wasifwasif's this edit. I just want to repeat what I have told him elsewhere BJP is in opposition and it stalls parliament every now and than, I can give you a long list of occasions when BJP had stalled the parliament not just threatened. If government was afraid of opposition than no business would have ever been carried out. Shinde's comment has no weightage what so ever --sarvajna (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Draft

Please comment on: Saffron_terror/Investigations and allegations

1. I have tried to balance out the claims as fairly as possible.
2. I tried to focus the content as much on saffron terror as I could.

Please post here any changes you would like to bring. Or better yet, just change the draft. Cheers. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

First I like to congratulate Mr. T for taking the initiative, Great Work . I have added a lead to Samjhauta Express bombing section and arranged events in chronological order. In Mecca Masjid bombing I have removed the South Asia Terrorism Portal references as 1. they dont report directly. Most of their reports are based on some newspaper Eg. Indian express, The Hindu. Second their reports are conflicting On one hand the earlier reports blame it on ‘south India commander’ of the LeT Shaik Abdul Khaja However recent reports suggests the work of Hindu Right Wing extremist Rajender Chaudhary. Will work on the lead of mecca Masjid later. Please look into Terrorism related incidents in Andhra Pradesh since 2007 --Naveed (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Few queries:

1. How do you know that the source you presented is the latest?
2. This source (the source I introduced) claims HuJi to be behind Mecca Blast.

   Available evidence indicates that the HuJI has a strong network in western Uttar Pradesh. The HuJI modules active in Uttar Pradesh are reportedly being monitored from Bangladesh and coordination among the units is allegedly being done by Bilal, the suspected mastermind behind the May 18, 2007 blast at the Mecca mosque in Hyderabad, capital of Andhra Pradesh in southern India, in which 11 persons died. The serial bomb blasts of November 23, 2007 in court premises at Varanasi, Faizabad and Lucknow in which 15 persons died were orchestrated by the HuJI. One of the militants arrested in that case, Sajjad (a resident of Kishtwar in Jammu and Kashmir), is a relative of Mohammed Amin Wani, a HuJI militant arrested in January 2007 by the Delhi Police. According to police, Wani was trained in a camp at Muzaffarabad in Pakistan occupied Kashmir and subsequently in a HuJI camp at Reeshkhore in Afghanistan.

   . This source (you posted above) states it as "NIA claim Rajender alias Samunder alias Pehlwan along with one Amit planted bombs on the premises of the Mecca Masjid (Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh) on May 18, 2007."

We may use it as NIA's claim. Balance the text but I don't give my approval to delete that altogether. Also see what satp wrote about Vikar Ahmad and Mecca Blast. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The sources you introduced are old sources. Its from the year 2007 - 2008'. The source I quoted is recent and is from the SATP website.Naveed (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Rajender was arrested on December 2012 (The latest) according to SATP. Look into the same source I quoted. Its a time line which starts from 2007 but continues till 2012. And it is not my source. Its the source you quoted in the draft. --Naveed (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The same page you cite says: (emphases are my own) names Vikar Ahmad as a suspect.

Hindu Right Wing extremist Rajender Chaudhary was arrested in Ujjain (Ujjain District) of Madhya Pradesh. NIA claim Rajender alias Samunder alias Pehlwan along with one Amit planted bombs on the premises of the Mecca Masjid (Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh) on May 18, 2007. NIA special court remanded Rajender Chaudhary alias Pehalwan, a key accused in the Mecca Masjid Blast (May 18, 2007) in Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) case and Samjhauta Express blast of February 18, 2007, in 12-day NIA custody till December 28, 2012.

Hence it is precisely NIA's claim. Then the same page goes on to say

A suspected terrorist involved in the May 18, 2007 Mecca Masjid blast case, identified as Vikar Ahmed, and his accomplice, identified as Amjad, and two others escaped after open firing at a three member police team, who tried to arrest them near the crowded Indira Seva Sadan cross road in the Santoshnagar area.

Satp is not actually contradicting its stance. We need to mention both per WP:BALANCE.

P.S. In fact the page also currently says:

The Special investigation Team (SIT) of Hyderabad Police arrested ‘south India commander’ of the LeT, identified as Shaik Abdul Khaja alias Amjad, from Afzalgunj area of the city. Police said that the arrestee was linked to Mohammed Abdul Shahid Bilal, key suspect in the May 2007 Mecca Masjid bombing. Hyderabad Police Commissioner B. Prasada Rao said that Amjad was a resident of Moosaram Bagh and has been absconding since 2005. Amjad, who also goes by the noms de guerre of Saif, Pappu and Abdullah, is accused of having close links with other terrorist groups like the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HuJI) and the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), Rao said, adds The Hindu. Rao also mentioned that Amjad was in Hyderabad for a recce for a terrorist attack. At the time of his arrest, he had in his possession USD 348, Saudi Riyal 313, United Arab Emirates Dirham 225 PNR 28,640 and BNR 348, Rao said.

and

An ISI agent, Mohammed Abdul Sattar, a 27-year-old air conditioner mechanic, was arrested near Secunderabad railway station. Sattar reportedly confessed that he had received arms training in Pakistan in 2004 along with other ISI activists under the leadership of Shahid Bilal, a key suspect in the Hyderabad bomb blast.

We cannot censor one part and cherry pick the other. All the allegations are still valid and needs mentioning (nobody has been acquitted of the charges as of now). Please include the section about Rejender Choudhary. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

---

I am putting it in the article and hopefully that will draw some more attention to the content and we can continue improving it further. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sanatan Sanstha

This diff made me think, if the courts have held that these people ar enot terrorist why are we including it in Saffron terror page? There is nothing in the source which connects it to Saffron terror.--sarvajna (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The source does mention "Hindutva" and the public prosecutor claims they are, does it not merit a mention? You know better than me, really. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have striked my earlier comment because I think the source is not actually claiming the link as explicitly as it should have. As for the question whether or not they are terrorist, the court has given a judgement that they are not (and the charge of terrorism doesn't even apply to them). It leaves very little room for inclusion. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Correct, what public prosecutor thinks should not be included as it is his personal opinion.--sarvajna (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep an eye on the thread below, would you? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Rajendra Choudhary

NAVHUS (aka Naveed) is reverting my edits which I believe are absolutely legitimate. The SATP source clearly says that "NIA claim Rajender alias Samunder alias Pehlwan along with one Amit planted bombs on the premises of the Mecca Masjid (Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh) on May 18, 2007. NIA special court remanded Rajender Chaudhary alias Pehalwan, a key accused in the Mecca Masjid Blast (May 18, 2007) in Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) case and Samjhauta Express blast of February 18, 2007, in 12-day NIA custody till December 28, 2012."(emphases are my own)

It makes it NIA's claim, not SATP's own assertion of fact. SATP merely noted the arrest and NIA's claim. That's it.
Naveed wants to input it in such a way that will make it seem as though SATP itself is changing/contradicting its stance about involvement of HuJI and other non-saffron terror groups. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry may be I am not ready it completely but even Naveed's edits says that it is the NIA's claim and SATP reported it. How different is it apart from the placement --sarvajna (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Naveed (in good faith I assume)left it as "The South Asia Terrorism Portal cited Vikar Ahmed as a main suspect in the blast, and also noted that on December 3, 2008 Vikar Ahmed and an accomplice, Amjad were accused of firing at police officers attempting to arrest them in Hyderabad. However on December 2012 it reported Hindu Right Wing extremist Rajender Chaudhary as a key accused in the blast as per NIA's claim" (my emphasis)— There is a subtle difference in the language. Read it in context and you'll see that it is making it seem as though SATP itself is changing/contradicting its stance about involvement of HuJI and other non-saffron terror groups.
And my original edit summary was: "moving it above where other saffron terror allegations are. SATP didn't claim it as its own, it was NIA's claim and was published as such." Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Very subtle, but your comment makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.--sarvajna (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have never said that 'SAPT has claimed Rajendra Choudhary as the accused'. Please dont twist my words. I just said SATP has reported it and it is a fact. In fact they have never claimed anyone as a suspect in the Mecca masjid 2007 case. The just report terrorist incidents. Please look into this source. The same source quoted in the article. It says 'The Hyderabad city police have claimed that the Harkat-ul-Jehad-al-Islami (HuJI) was responsible for the twin explosions in the city on August 25, 2007'. Hence its The Hyderabad city police's clam not SATP's claim. Either we have both of them as SATP reported or remove both of them.--Naveed (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of anything. I assume it was inadvertent. Don't get me wrong please.
The portion where it says Hyderabad Police is claiming HuJI is behind the attack is referring to January 9, 2008. That means on January 9 Hyderabad Police have claimed it. It is talking about Rafi alias Sheik Abdul Kaleem, not Vikar Ahmad.
Now, I quote the portion (of the source you referred to above) which talks about Vikar Ahmad: "December 3 (2008): A suspected terrorist involved in the May 18, 2007 Mecca Masjid blast case, identified as Vikar Ahmed, and his accomplice, identified as Amjad, and two others escaped after open firing at a three member police team, who tried to arrest them near the crowded Indira Seva Sadan cross road in the Santoshnagar area of Hyderabad, capital of Andhra Pradesh." That is SATP's own assertion. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Mr. T's assertion is correct. SATP has not changed their narrative, even while also acting as a repository of news.Pectore^talk 14:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Frankly, I am a bit concerned about the whole validity of this edit. I think the whole thing can be reduced down to WP:SYNTH.

1. Is http://social.ndtv.com/wethepeople/permalink/20556 a reliable source for the claim : "It has been debated that term saffron terrorism is a misnomer considering the historical descriptions of saffron colour compared to the definitions of terrorism." Seems to me like this is an online discussion something in that vein.
2. And the second source is the opinion of one man namely, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat.

Please feel free to oppose or support or comment. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The first source is not at all reliable, second as you said is an opinion piece, we will have to attribute it to Mohan Bhagwat if at all used.--sarvajna (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if unopposed for a few more hours I myself will revert it. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• About validity and WP:SYNTH: The edit is basically about the usage or phrasing of the terms Saffron and Terror which I think is what the current section is actually dealing with. The current section has already dealt with usage of these terms in the perspective of the timing, situation and circumstances. However in this edit there is an attempt made to develop this section by dealing with the usage of these terms in the perspective of their descriptions based on cited sources.
• Regarding the first source: We can remove this source if it cannot be considered reliable.
• Regarding the second source: Am not sure whether we can mention it as the opinion of this person. Please give your suggestions in this regard. Because I came across similar descriptions from other sources like the one in the Indian daily The Indian Express about the usage and phrasing of the terms under discussion.

Please give your inputs and comments. --Quote (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/saffron-is-contrary-to-terrorism-govindacharya/738467 --Quote (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

When we use such sources we will have to write Govindacharya said... or ..as per Mohan Bhagwat. --sarvajna (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sarvajna (RK). IMHO if we are going to include anything from the second source we ought to also put the whole quote: "Terrorism and Hindus are an oxymoron and can never be related to each other. This was an attempt to weaken the strength of the Hindus in India and at the same time to appease the Muslims." But, I don't think the whole idea of it being a misnomer is DUE here as its only one man's personal opinion. Trimming is also an option to consider. Nevertheless, we may include it as his personal opinion. Everything else in that edit is flat-out irrelevant and redundant as the sources don't talk about saffron terror. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.indianexpress.com/news/saffron-is-contrary-to-terrorism-govindacharya/738467 ← as good a source as the previous one. Altough it's not an op-ed (it doesn't seem like one to me), we may include it as opinion of Govindacharya. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Academic sources

Are there academic sources on this article or is this merely a neologism? Simply because there are newspaper articles using this term without describing what exactly it entails does not make the subject notable. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If the term is widely used over a long period of time, so much so that it shapes major political decisions and discussions, it passes beyond neologism into regular use. I don't believe that there is any requirement that subjects receive academic coverage in order to be notable; if that were true, 99% of our pop culture info would be non-notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:109PAPERS. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

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

as you can see, there are not many high-quality sources for the use of the phrase, But I did find some worth checking :

• editor, Peter Chalk,. Encyclopedia of terrorism. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. 648. ISBN 0313308950. {{cite book}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Varadarajan, edited by Siddharth (2002). Gujarat, the making of a tragedy. New Delhi: Penguin Books. p. 206. ISBN 0143029010. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)
• Kak, Sanjay (editor). Until My Freedom Has Come: The New Intif. p. 197. ISBN 0143416472. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)
• Hibbard, Scott W. Religious politics and secular states Egypt, India and the United States. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 285. ISBN 0801899206.
• Advocacy, [contributors: Association for (2007). Poster women : a visual history of the women's movement in India. New Delhi: Zubaan. p. 83. ISBN 8189013815. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• P Bidwai implicitly frames it as a form of Hindutva Terrorism.[7]
• BP Routray implicitly frames any form of terrorism perpetrated by Hindus as "saffron terror" (India's Hindu Terror - S. Rajaratnam School of International Studires p. 2)

One thing is common that is "Praveen Swami" and not one gave a solid, justifiable definition of what "saffron terror" really is. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

How can a color represent terror? This article is Clear case of neologism . ~ TY of ^Walk 16:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi

Vanamonde93 is indulging in needless edit war, my edit summary was very clear. Saffron terror is a neologism, I am not sure who added it. Vanamonde93 should realize that everything that is sourced need not be included. They should understand the topic of the article before reverting the edits.-sarvajna (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, the precedent here is to not call anything "saffron terror" unless reliable sources call it saffron terror. The source you are using is not using the term "saffron terror". Please check the archives for past discussion of this. If you have any new arguments then state why you feel that the existing guidelines should be changed. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Relax people. Sarvajna removed content that had a source (maybe questionable, but superficially RS) without explaining why. Yes, I know its a neologism, so what? It can be applied retrospectively, too. The real reason is lack of proper sourcing. The least you could do is to say that, either in your edit summary, or preferably on the TP. Having encountered Sarvajna before, it seemed to me like this was an attempt to whitewash the article. Now that the change has been explained, I have no issues with it. Follow etiquette the next time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Raspberry, that was not a source I produced in the first place. It's been there for months, I think. If there was indeed past discussion about this source, why was it not removed then? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, your comment about me shows your lack good faith in fellow editors, do read this WP:AGF, second, why was it not removed? why do we have many articles in bad shape? why do many articles need better source. Because someone needs to work on them and we do not have enough people. -sarvajna (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not exhibiting lack of good faith. My judgement was based on past interactions, which is quite different. Second, I asked why was it not removed before, because Raspberry appeared to be AWARE of PAST DISCUSSIONS on this problem, and willing to discuss it on the TP, but not to actually change it. The only cases where a TP discussion does NOT result in a change, is when there is (a) consensus against the change, and (b) no consensus. In either situation, Raspberry had no business telling me to refer to such, and I was merely pointing that out. Obviously, I don't expect him to correct every problem on every page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

What's that mean, DS? :-)

Thinking on this, the term is a neo, however it is linked to extremism, it is what he term means after all. Hence, Hmm, I this the article needs to explain fully what this neo is. Now I am going back to the pub, it will be a few days before I poke my head in again. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Vanamonde93, sorry if I misspoke. I did not check the edit history. My understanding what that you added or readded disputed content which seemed not to use the phrase "saffron terror". I did not alter the article because I thought that Sarvajna did. Despite my not saying so, that "saffron terror" is a neologism has no relevance to anything. If right now reliable sources are published naming historical figures anywhere as Saffron terrorists then that may get mention in the article, because Wikipedia just looks at published sources regardless of whether they are contemporary. Peace. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry (talk), I can see how it appeared from your side too, and I have a feeling I might have reacted similarly. Peace. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Reverted an edit on 3 April 2014.

I have reverted edits by Wasifwasif: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saffron_terror&diff=602602502&oldid=602594079

What you added was merely a collection of allegation and it was unbalanced with no reference to the article subject. There is too much transitive inference. You also wrote incorrectly "five suspects belonging to..." when your citation itself said "Four of five Ajmer blast accused...". 'n' for 'in' is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Neither did it take into account recent developments. Jyoti (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

4 out of 5 people are linked with RSS. And yes, if you wantto change accused to suspects then you can very well go ahead and change that. But what is the rationale behind deleting for the reason like 'n' for 'in' is not acceptable on Wikipedia.? Wasif (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken/misrepresenting when you say what is the rationale behind deleting for the reason like 'n' for 'in' is not acceptable on Wikipedia?. The rationale is What you added was merely a collection of allegation and it was unbalanced with no reference to the article subject. There is too much transitive inference. You also wrote incorrectly "five suspects belonging to..." when your citation itself said "Four of five Ajmer blast accused...". Please respond to this.

When did I talk about changing accused to suspects? I have not.

Your edit had this story telling with no reference: On October 10, 2007, Suresh Nair, Mehul and Bhavesh Patel took a consignment of explosives from Sunil Joshi, who was later found murdered under mysterious circumstances in Godhra. They reached Vadodara n the same day and boarded a private bus for Udaipur. At Ajmer, however, the bomb was given to Solanki and Vasani planted it. Patel was also accused of having been involved in the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat, but was acquitted by the court. Please respond to this.

The section is now present in the article, in a succinct manner. This article should not be a compilation of other articles -- which, unfortunately it is at the present moment. Jyoti (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent Revert

I just reverted for the second time the addition of the section title "allegations proved false." Both convention and policy dictate that in such an instance, the section title is just the name of the incident; in cases where the connection to Hindu Nationalist groups has been made, the sections are not titled "allegations proven true." Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Needs improvement

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

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

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

IP comments

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

Editing reverts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mecca Masjid bombing

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

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

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

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