Talk:Hindu terrorism/Archive 1

article title
This article used to be at Saffron Terror, which is objectionable already for reasons of capitalization. The term is certainly in use, but less recognizable than "Hindu terrorism" or "Hindutva terrorism". "Hindu terrorism" was the term appearing in headlines in November 2008, always associated with the question "is there such a thing as Hindu terrorism" or "Hindu terrorism is a contradiction in terms because Hinduism is inherently peaceful". This mirrors discussions surrounding "Islamic terrorism" exactly. Many people also sTay that "Islamic terrorism is a contradiction in terms because Islam is inherently peaceful". Which is why we keep on Islamist terrorism used to be at that title for years, although presently exiled to Islamic terrorism. "Hindutva" is to Hinduism what Islamism is to Islam: both are political movements based on a religion, as distinct from the religion itself. The progress from religion to religious terrorism is always via such an intermediate step. You can be a Muslim/Hindu without deriving political chauvinism from your religion. If you do derive political chauvinism from your religion, you are an Islamist/Hindutvavadi, but that doesn't necessarily mean you endorse religious violence or "terrorism". If fron there you proceed to a creed that endorses violence, you will be a militant Islamist/Hindutvavadi, and if you further progress to acts of violence yourself, you will be into Islamist/Hindutva terror.

Obviously, the existence of an article on Hindu terrorism doesn't imply that Hinduism is prone to terrorism in any particular way, any more than Christian terrorism, Jewish terrorism or, for that matter, Islamic terrorism, imply that Christianity, Judaism or Islam has any sort of particular penchant for terrorism or violence. Some people will simply be violent bullies, and some people will be religious, and it is simply a matter of combinatorics that for some people these features will coincide, no matter what culture you are looking at.

--dab (𒁳) 06:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Saffron terror is the more common name and is the most accurate depiction as well. Purohit and the members of Abhinav Bharat do not fit within the rather institutional framework of Hindutva in India. Infact there are allegations he was both in cahoots with the Wahabis and a Zionist. I do not doubt your rationale otherwise, and agree that extremism does not necessarily follow logically from religious belief. However, the use of a neologism to describe events over which there is no consensus over the identity of the perpetrators is problematic. The Samajhauta express bombings an example of "Hindu terror", were found to be the work of Pakistani based infiltrators, while the Malegaon blasts still have Muslim suspects.Pectoretalk 23:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

obviously, each event will have to be assessed on its own merit. This can only be the article on the "alleged" connection of a number of events to Hindu nationalism. Like at Islamophobia, the article can discuss the term without endorsing its use. Any judgement on how well established the term or the concept is will obviously depend on the references cited. --dab (𒁳) 20:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverting my edits
Why are you removing my edits I've provided enough references (They are reliable)--owner wikipedia (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because they are poorly cited and make absolutely no sense in the context of the page. "Saffron" as a metaphor for Hindu nationalism was not even the same term when thuggee actually occurred. Plus calling people "POV pushers" for reverting utter garbage unmasks you as one yourselfPectoretalk 14:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict over POV
It has not been proven that Hindu nationalist groups were actually involved in the bombings or other events, it is only suspected, which is why the wording was "suspected to have been".

The sentence "It is also viewed as a term mooted by self declared secular elements to balance Islamic terrorism and thereby save Muslims from being scapegoated in the name of terrorism." comes from the source and is accurate, as it is viewed by some as such. Because we are dealing with purported nationalist terrorism, it is necessary to also have opposing viewpoints in the article, in order to maintain NPOV. That is what this sentence does. Silver seren C 21:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking to the discussion page.

"....and is accurate, as it is viewed by some as such" who are those some? Why it is accurate because of being viewed by some? Every one will have their own view. But when coming to a common encylopedia POV statements are not acceptable. You yourself have mentioned that "it is viewed", which is very much obvious. So now the ball is on your court to tell whether is it acceptable by wikipedia? Wasifwasif (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We have to rely on the sources at hand. That statement was referenced. I said some, because one reference is not enough to say most, so it is more proper to say some instead. I also believe the sentence should say some as well. But, either way, we are only here to report what the sources say, not impose our own opinions on the matter into the article. Silver  seren C 12:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I quote the Wikipedia essay on Neutral point of view: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". Therefore, a substantial view point that is sourced does belong to the article. As for the question of "who is this some" - seems it's a portion of the academia; and for that matter a portion of the general-population would have such a view. I would say that a plain some is enough.  Arjun  codename024 17:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Taking your point "...seems it's a portion of the academia". The view of the rest of general-population should also be considered. Particularly when dispute arises, the view of "some" will not help in building a neutral wikipedia article. Wasifwasif (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * yes, I Agree, and that is what i have been saying and i believe Silver seren is also saying the same thing. Both the views have to be accommodated.
 * View1: Saffron Terror as terror per se, perpetrated by .............................
 * View2: term mooted by self declared secular elements to balance ............................
 * I think we have a consensus here, don't we ?  Arjun  codename024 16:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, all views that are supported by reliable sources must be expressed in an article about the subject if we want the article to be truly neutral. Disavowing a viewpoint unbalances the article toward a POV, which is what we don't want to happen. Silver  seren C 18:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Me too agreed. Again don't use "suspected to be...." for one group's view and "done by..." for the other's. Wasifwasif (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done by? I don't see that wording anywhere. I see suspected to be for the Hindu group and then viewed and self declared for the other side. They are both presented with a little sense of skepticism, as there is no definitive proof for either viewpoint. Silver  seren C 11:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If there is no definite proof and if it is skepticised, then is itn't better in good sense to keep those views away from wikipedia that too in a most sensitive article.? Wasifwasif (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then that would mean having no articles about theories. All we do is present the information neutrally based on the information in the sources. That's all. Silver  seren C 20:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as a suggestion, if you think there isn't enough material to warrant a standalone article, you could always consider merging this into a section at Religious violence in India. While it is always a subjective decision whether something should qualify as "terrorism", there is certainly plenty of religious violence in India, and the incidents dubbed Saffron terror "by some" can be accommodated there. --dab (𒁳) 20:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not discussing the notability of the article, we're discussing the necessity of including a specific sentence or two. There is more than enough coverage and information on Saffron terror to legitimize having this article. Silver  seren C 21:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, as Silver seren rightly pointed out, the discussion is about a few disputed words and sentences and not about the warranty of entire article.Wasifwasif (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there exists no evidence that the blasts like Malegaon blast were organised/perpetrated by Hindu nationalists. Some Hindus were arrested but not evidently Hindu nationalists. Since, Hindu extremism in India has come off mostly as a product of Hindu nationalism; it is suspected so. Remember that Lt Col Shrikant Purohit disclosed under narco-analysis that he conspired with Islamist groups for the Malegaon blasts. Therefore, the word suspect is a must here.  Arjun  codename024  11:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Or as dab suggested, we have the option of merging this to Religious violence in India. (i know we are not talking this here, though)  Arjun  codename024 11:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the reports clearly says that RSS has links with Malegaon blast. . Also I don't understand the ideology behind calling the people who are followers of Gandhiji's assasin as Nationals. Its just a hype created by the Extreme terrorist calling themselves Nationals. Wasifwasif (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If Wasifwasif has a problem with calling the exponents of Hindu nationalism as "Hindu Nationalists" - he may talk that up in its talk page!!!!, not here. The ref you submitted above says : "one lost link in the whole case appears to be Sunil Joshi, who was RSS pracharak in Madhya Pradesh's Mhow with whom Devendra Gupta, the first suspect to get arrested in the Ajmer Dargah case, was associated".
 * The news-article clearly emphasizes the "suspicion". In my earlier post, i pointed out that suspicion also went towards other groups including Islamist groups. It's because of this that the article mentions that this terror is the one that is suspected to be perpetrated by Hindu nationalists (RSS is a Hindu nationalist org).  Arjun  codename024 14:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding this edit of Wasifwasif - In your 3rd reply in this thread, you have agreed to it. So, i request Wasifwasif to immediately undo his edit. The only reason i am not doing it is because i am committed to stick by the WP:3RR guideline.
 * @Wasifwasif: Be advised -- In the 24 hours prior to <19:55, June 8, 2010> you have done more than 3 reverts, in effect breaking the WP:3RR rule. Arjun  codename024 15:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) If the bone of contention is the removal of this statement  It is also viewed as a term mooted by self declared secular elements to balance Islamic terrorism and thereby save Muslims from being scapegoated in the name of terrorism then I agree with that removal. A single opinion piece does not a 'it is viewed as' make. It is also rather heavy interpretive baggage for what is declared to be a neologism. Academic discussions on the purpose of this term would be acceptable if available. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Arjun024, Thanks for reminding about 3RR. I forgot and failed to notice.

I already agreed to for the word "Suspected..." My objection is about the sentence It is also viewed as a term mooted by self declared secular elements to balance Islamic terrorism and thereby save Muslims from being scapegoated in the name of terrorism. As RegentsPark has rightly pointed out (he/she has never involved in the discussion earlier) that is to be removed. Wasifwasif (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wasifwasif in his reply agreed to keep the "it is also viewed as .." view (at that time he opposed mentioning the "suspicion") - Exactly opposite to what he claims in the just previous post. I do not firmly support keeping that sentence based on one rediff piece; My revert was more to the point that he made a sneaky removal of that sentence even after having agreed to keep it, which i deem very uncivil. Now, having obtained a consolation from RegentsPark, Wasifwasif tries to come clean. I felt that since we are talking about an alleged/suspected activity, opposing opinions are needed in the lead for the sake of neutrality. Suspicion in these cases has gone to other elements as well. Honestly, i do not think that much of scholarly/academic writings will be available on this - rather whats available are news reports and fourth-estate blogs/editorials.  Arjun  codename024 13:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * At the outset let me request you to discuss only about the article and not about a user. this will help wikipedia as well.

I havve agreed to User Silver seren's following comments.

Yes, all views that are supported by reliable sources must be expressed in an article about the subject if we want the article to be truly neutral. Disavowing a viewpoint unbalances the article toward a POV, which is what we don't want to happen..

Supported to add all views, not someone's. And below that i raised my concern for suspicion for particular group alone. Pls don't come to a conclusion on your own and please avoid commenting other users personally which will in no way help wikipedia to build articles.Wasifwasif (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Hindu Nationalists"
Wasif,

"Hindu Nationalists" does not mean "nationalists whose religion is Hinduism". Hindu Nationalism is a separate ideology, which advocates Hinduism as a basis for a nation state. These two have nothing in common. No one is comparing Gandhi and other leaders with "Hindu Nationalists".

Also anyone can be a nationalist. A terrorist, pacifist, murderer, saint all can be nationalists. It is not a stand alone trait. One can assassinate the father of the nation and still be a nationalist. It just means his idea of a nation is completely different from Gandhi. Dont get emotional here.

(Other than that i have no input on the POV dispute).--Sodabottle (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing to get emotional here. Its better to call them Sangh parivar rather than Hindu nationals which is a misleading term. Wasifwasif (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not misleading. It is a well used term. Like i said, they are a separate brand of nationalists (the "nation" they are "ists" of is not the republic of india). Anyway this discussion should be in that article's talk page--Sodabottle (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Rename or Merge discussion
section heading changed by Arjun024 on 2010-Jun-17

then section heading changed by DawnOfTheBlood on 2010-Jun-21

I oppose the merging of this article as the matters discussed in the target article is different from this. Wasifwasif (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a neologism, three articles in the reference list mention the term and all only in passing. It is better discussed in context (that of Hindu nationalism - I'm not sure how it can be discussed independently anyway). --RegentsPark (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wanted to suggest merger to Terrorism in India; but its kinda messy and it details incidents by state and doesn't really go into the motivation part. Well, there is another article Hindu Taliban but it happens to be a neologism as well, may be we can merge both to something like "Neologisms associated with Hindu Nationalism" ?  Arjun  codename024 20:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hindu Taliban may be a kind of Neologism but Saffron terror is never. So this article be as such.Wasifwasif (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The earliest reference to "saffron terror" i can find is this 2002 praveen swami article. Where as "Hindu Taliban" occurs as early as 1999. So if "Hindu Taliban" is a neologism, then "saffron terror" surely is. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I told "may be" and not "is" that too in my view since i never came across. Then both are not according to me. Wasifwasif (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reading through the article again, i feel this article has no legs to stand on its own. It should be merged with Terrorism in India and a given a summarized header in Hindu Nationalism. If sufficient material get written on it, then it can be spun out in the future.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with merging into Terrorism in India. I guess, my this edit shows how incompetent this article is on standing on its own. I more of feel the opposing argument to be the WP:IDONTLIKEIT way.  Arjun  codename024  08:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Its better to keep it here and improve it rather than, merging and spunning. Wasifwasif (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats the problem. There is nothing concrete to improve. Every addition will mean adding "alleged" "said to be" "but disputed by". In short it will be a "he said she said" collection bordering on libel. For a separate brand of terrorism we should be able to establish a)concrete motive b) concrete examples. Current inclusions are a)ongoing court cases b) allegations that are now contested. The article reads like an editorial instead of an encyclopedic article. What would be required to keep this article? At the least references from a)scholarly articles/books discussing "Saffron Terror" as a phenomena with proven examples. All said we have 3 in favour or merging 1 against. We need more opinions. Arjun, can you post this in the India noticeboard asking for more opinions?--Sodabottle (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics apprised.  Arjun  codename024 13:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

From the article on Hindu nationalism: "Hindu nationalism has been collectively referred to the expressions of social and political thought, based on the native spiritual and cultural traditions of historical India"- that would certainly not include Saffron terror. The reference cited by Arjun above is an opinion piece, appearing in TOI- Narcoanalysis is deemed unscientific by a recent Supreme Court judgment. The article should not be merged, there are enough references to prove it as a recurrent neologism. Cool hindu (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge. "Saffron terror" is a catchy newspaper phrase, not an article subject in its own right. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename, no merge. The actual problem now I look again is the title. We do need an article on "Hindu terrorism", whatever title it is at. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge. "Saffron terror" is used commonly by journalists and social scientists. One should ask the right people if a term is common or not. A contributor working only on football, would have not idea that the term "chucking" is "commonly" used in Cricket. Anyway, Saffron Terror, has nothing to do with Hinduism or nationalism. Some of our contributors are becoming emotional with their POV. One should understand that, if these minds had any other religion, they would have been doing the same thing. Don't Mother Teresa and Hitler share their religion? Khan.found (talk) 06:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)  User blocked as sockpuppet


 * Rename, no merge! Its absurd to merge Hindu Terrorism with Hindu Nationalism. Perhaps a rename is required here like Hindutva Terrorism. On a personal front, I would be ashamed if we talk of Hindu Nationalism and Hindu Terrorism in the same breath! --SuchiBhasin (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC) User blocked as sockpuppet


 * Rename, no merge! thats what i am keep on telling from the beginning. Hindu nationalism and Hindu terrorism are different. But Arjun024, and Soda Bottle are very consistent in this and are giving a misleading explanation. Wasifwasif (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I said merge with terrorism in india and give a mention in hindu nationalism. You are the one mis-representing what i said. My opinion was this article as it stands now is full of allegations full of "he said she said". Every single incident mentioned as a "terror act" has a counter argument saying it is not. My opinion still is the same - this has no legs as it stands. Even if it is renamed as "hindu terrorism", this needs better content.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh and BTW, if i wanted to do away the article by misleading explanations as you seem to imply, i wouldnt have asked for other opinions by posting in india noticeboard. Misleaders were indeed the majority - there were 3 of us arguing for merger against you arguing for keeping. I must be getting sloppy with my misleading skills. duh--Sodabottle (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What i see here is (1) an effort to brand extremism/violence as terror/terrorism and (2) deriving conclusions from some suspected activities and branding them Saffron/Hindu terror. Let me point out this revert of mine where i removed contents discussing about extremism/violence in an article that is supposed to have contents on terror. User:Wasifwasif tells me^ "Hindu nationalism and Hindu terrorism are different". Is this about the extremist violence? or is their any concrete evidence that acts by like Malegaon blasts were motivated by Hindu religion. It is a "suspected to be" make, even for the nationalist motivation. Also i gave accounts to how suspicion have fallen on other groups as well, mainly from the narco results of the accused. (Don't tell me now that narco results are not accepted in India from this month onwards). This  news piece says that one of the accused used to frequent anti-Muslim websites - Then why don't you call it Anti-Muslim terrorism because the motivation can be suspected as "anti-Muslim". sounds funny.. eh? . The media doesn't need concrete evidences to bring up catchy words especially with terrorism-suffix; they bring it up even on fringe suspicions. They still don't go anywhere more than inferences.
 * User:Khan.found tells me^ "Saffron Terror, has nothing to do with Hinduism or nationalism." - well then obviously it cannot be branded as Saffron/Hindu terror, because the terror has nothing to do with it; as he put it !!!!!. Well, i say - it's a neologism that's come out of a popular suspicion on Hindu nationalists. But, do you go and write a wikipedia article on this basis?  Arjun  codename024 18:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename, no merge - Rename it to Hindu Terrorism, lets face the reality. I agree with an editor above that personally speaking, I would be ashamed if we talk of Hindu Nationalism and Hindu Terrorism in the same breath!... remember, we do have Christian terrorism, Sikh extremism and Islamic terrorism. Let's be NEUTRAL in our thinking and editing--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename, no merge - @ Regents Park, you have to see this link - its no point living in denial. Cool hindu (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename to Hindu terrorism, no merge. While the term might be controversial, it is certainly notable, with 133 results on Google Book search, over 30,000 Google hits, with 5 mentions in media in the past week. utcursch | talk 07:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: SuchiBhasin and Khan.found blocked indef for sock-puppetry.  Arjun  codename024 17:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: DawnOfTheBlood is a sock of Singh6.  Arjun  codename024 09:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

So, it seems we are veering around to doing the rename honours- majority wins in a democracy? Cool hindu (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Pls be advised that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Socks[sic] and SPAs don't call the shots here.  Arjun  codename024 10:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is what is mentioned there.

Wikipedia is not a democracy

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision. Elections and votes are only endorsed for things that take place outside Wikipedia proper, such as when electing the Arbitration Committee.

We din't use any strawpolls here. The democracy Soda Bottle was mentioning here was the view of most of the editors in this discussion and he was trying good to bring a consensus. He has totally complied to what is mention in the above policy by bringing consensus. Wasifwasif (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Some people find it difficult to see similes/metaphors - they are afraid of getting exposed, go by literalism and try to act smart...Let us join in prayer that such people are guided- its the last hope (sic). Cool hindu (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Saffron Terror vs Hindu Nationalism
Saffron Terrorism is totally different from Hindu Nationalism. Hindu Nationalism is a feeling about the nation, culture etc., and has nothing to do with terrorism. Nationalism is an action or feeling to protect its uniqueness, the speciality. Terrorism is act of violence. While Nationalism has knowledge about the country, culture etc., terrorism does not has anything to do with that. Any country should need Nationalism and in India there is a need for Hindu Nationalism, but not a hindu terrorism.

So there shall not any question of merging this article with Hindu Nationalism. Akilash (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If we look at pages relating to these alleged attacks, people like Prasad_Shrikant_Purohit, are alleged to be linked to Wahhabis, so its unclear how "Hindu" these people actually are.Pectoretalk 22:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus check
I am not clear on the existence of consensus for a name change, so I am more formally proposing a name change from Saffron terror to Hindu terrorism. Below is a summary of the points made above. Is this name change cool?
 * "Saffron terror" is a neologism for the general concept of "Hindu terrorism"
 * The content and intent of this article is congruent to Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism, so naming this Hindu terrorism follows precedent
 * There is enough content here to justify its own article
 * No merge with Hindu nationalism; nationalism is not the same as terror
 * No merge with Hindu Taliban; that article is about an organization
 * No merge with Terrorism in India; not all terrorism in India is Hindu terrorism

Please state some support or opposition to this because the discussion above does not lead to a conclusion.  Blue Rasberry  04:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

To me, the above points compiled by User:Bluerasberry (in good faith) looks flawed as well. It says this can't be merged with Terrorism in India because not all terrorism in India belongs to this genre; by this logic Religion in India cannot discuss about Hinduism or Islam ; because neither all Indians are Hindus nor are all Muslim. Plus, I guess every one will agree with me that "Hindu Taliban" is not an organization.  Arjun  codename024 09:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Opppose : To name the article "Hindu terrorism"; the acts (2006 Malegaon blasts, Mecca Masjid bombing, Ajmer Sharif Dargah Blast) must be motivated by Hindu religion or Hindu philosophy; which has never been convincingly proved so or the "perpetrators" have never identified themselves to be conducting them for/motivated by Hindu religion. Just because the main suspects were Hindus does not make it "Hindu terrorism". if it were so, Oklahoma bombing would have been labeled an act of "Christian terrorism". As i have pointed out in my earlier posts in this talk page, the accused have confessed to police they conspired with organizations of other religious communities as well . One main accused said the blast was conducted to avenge the death of a friend who was killed in an attack by the proscribed organization Students Islamic Movement of India ; and another accused frequented anti-Muslim websites . So the motivation here does not come from anything "Hindu". The only inference one could make is that the acts were motivated against certain acts by certain Muslims and is more of an "anti-Muslim Terrorism". As far i see, an article on the neologism "Hindu Terrorism"/"Saffron Terror" is violating of WP policies.
 * Oppose - Arjun has made some good points above. I would also say that these groups are far right wing groups, more like ultranationalist than even Hindu in character.Pectoretalk 19:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Slow down, guys. I am not going to respond to Arjun just yet because I want to make sure we are speaking the same language, and I do not think we are.  It is my understanding by WP:TRUTH that it is not relevant whether these events are Hindu terrorism, and in fact they may not be Hindu terrorism.  What we are trying to determine is whether any reliable source has reported things as Hindu terrorism, regardless of whether other people would say these things are not Hindu terrorism.  And beside that, this issue is not about any particular events at all; this is about whether "saffron terror" is the same as "Hindu terrorism."  Can either of you substitute some other word for "saffron"?  What does saffron mean?  Blue Rasberry  00:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hindu terrorism would be terrorism motivated by some sort of purpose backed in Hindu scripture. There is no evidence that this is, or has ever been the case. Saffron (the color of Hindutva) terror would be terrorist attacks/terrorism that is motivated by Hindutva, a political movement that in reality is only tangentially related to Hinduism the religion, inasmuch as self-proclaimed "guardians of the Hindu community" are attempting to assert political dominance in India. There are allegations that the second has occurred, which makes it a better title.Pectoretalk 01:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See . I do not think it is appropriate for you to talk about evidence or Hindu scripture and I do not want to continue conversation of that sort.  This board is a place to discuss what meets Wikipedia standards for reliable sources and what those sources say.  So if a reliable source calls an event "Hindu terrorism," even if that source is wrong, then the event is a candidate for inclusion on this page.  Please talk to me about this if you think I am incorrect or if you do not understand what I am saying.
 * So neither I nor anyone else should provide evidence of Hindu terrorism, but instead just citations that some reports somewhere in the world at some point in time said something was Hindu terrorism, even if it actually was not.
 * Right now Hindu terrorism redirects to Saffron terror. Would you support separate articles for "Hindu terrorism" and "Hindutva terrorism"? In the list in my sandbox through the link above, I am seeing various sources describe the same events in both ways.  Blue Rasberry  17:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The logic that adding incorrect information is somehow beneficial, not only to Wikipedia in general, but to the educational value of this page in particular is ludicrous. Yes we go by the sources (and the ones provided were disappointing to say the least, see below), but this is a great time to use common sense; knowingly adding incorrect information is rather dishonest. A cursory read into this controversy will indicate that the term itself is disputed, there has been no closure to the events, and there is absolutely no agreement as to what even constitutes this phenomenon.
 * Saffron is the color of Hindu nationalist politics. Saffron terror has been used in a variety of reliable sources like NDTV for example.
 * There was/is most certainly a lack of veracity of arguments being put forth by the above sources (most of which were varying levels of politically motivated hack-jobs like those from Newspaper editorials and legitimate political parties to wingnuts like the International Committee of the Fourth International and and a group with ties to Al-Qaeda). Literally the only source that is both reliable AND uses the phrase "Hindu terror" (the complete phrase, not the word "Hindu" followed 300 words later by "terror", as the Indian Express article did) in the way it potentially "should" be used (as a description of attacks/groups in a non-political fashion) is the New York Times article.
 * I think the page is fine at its current title, especially when there have been no convictions of any kind. Once one of these wannabe Jihadis gets convicted, there may be a more convincing case for a move. As of now, when everything is speculation, and everything is disputed, I see no reason for a move.Pectoretalk 04:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hiding never gives any change
Hiding a history and truth will not give a change to the society. Dear Users, who ever want to hide the truth - better keep away from wiki.Akilash (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Platitudes aside, did you have a point? Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Akilash. Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It.--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Bombs/Godhra/Ktaka
The second two incidents are seen as "communalism", "pogroms", "violence" but the term terrorism and more specifically the phrase "Hindu/Saffron terror" have never been applied to these incidents. I have commented the Godhra and Ktaka incidents out but I would definitely like to see evidence to the contrary. With the recent leads in some cases, the bomb incidents should be the centerpoint of the page.Pectoretalk 22:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to reinsert these two incidents. I am not sure why you object to these being here.  These things were done to protect Hindu values, so the use of the word "Hindu" is secure; and the violence had the intent to make a non-Hindu group fearful, so the use of the word "terrorism" seems secure also.
 * The Godhra incident was already cited to the Press Trust of India which says "Sexual violence was being used as a strategy for terrorising women belonging to minority community in the state." Here is an academic paper which calls the Hindu reaction "terrorism." If this is not enough tell me what you want to see.
 * The BBC was one source using a phrase like Anti-Christian violence in Karnataka. Violence with an ideological message means terrorism to me; is this not terrorism to you?
 * Help me understand; if it is communalism then the "Hindu" part is established; "pogrom" in this case would be terrorism also, and I do not think anyone supposes this was just a random act of violence. I would be very curious to hear how you could think these incidents are either not Hindu or not terrorism.  Blue Rasberry  05:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Using the word "terrorizing" (which by the way was not used in conjunction with the word Hindu) found in ONE article to tar an entire incident is extremely weak logic. This by the way is an incident where many of the human rights "violations" were found to have never occurred. Pogroms are not terrorism, but even that is a moot point because the provided BBC evidence only alleges that this was the handiwork of the Bajrang Dal and other "Hindu" groups. The word "terror" is not even used in the BBC article. Lastly, you can find the references you want that casually mention both words, but unless it mentions "Hindu terrorism", "Saffron terrorism", or "Hindutva terrorism", it really has no place on this page. It not only has to be "Hindu" and "terrorism" but any alleged incidents need to be "hindu terrorism", which the above examples most certainly are not. Examples of communalism, bigotry, and ignorance maybe, but you need quite a bit of evidence to call it terrorism.Pectoretalk 23:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See .  Blue Rasberry  17:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted above, the sources in general are either ideological trash or sources that do not support the assertions made by yourself and Akhilesh (and assorted sock/meatpuppets). The two other incidents are examples of communalism, violence, and to some even pogroms, but they are not depicted by and large in reliable sources as being examples of terrorist attacks/activities (one or two articles does not cut it, the majority of articles must say that they are incidents of "Saffron terror), and therein lies the fundamental problem with their inclusion. One can continue to cherry-pick articles off the web, but the only attacks that are deemed as "Saffron" (or if you have an axe to grind with Hindu nationalism "Hindu") terror are the bomb blasts allegedly linked to members of the Bajrang Dal, Abhinav Bharat and other Hindutva groups over the past four years (Malegaon, Ajmer, Mecca Masjid, etc).Pectoretalk 02:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources to sort
Hey guys. There are a lot of sources to sort. I put some in my sandbox here, and I have a stack of academic papers to reference also that use the phrase "Hindu terror." Please review WP:TRUTH. It is my understanding that it does not matter whether an attack is "Hindu terror"; what is important is whether a reliable source has said that an attack is Hindu terrorism, so please state whether you disagree with that before talking about the actual truth, which is less important for Wikipedia purposes.  Blue Rasberry  17:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ALLEGED
Under ALLEGED, it is noted that "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes." Nobody has been convicted of any crimes, and the use of the phrase is obviously controversial. Please read policies before you meaninglessly cite them.Pectoretalk 00:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The use of the phrase is controversial. "Alleged" refers to an actual crime, not the concept of crime.  The bombings are "alleged" to have been done by certain people, but the concept of terrorism is itself not alleged so this ought not be in the lede when talking about the article's subject in general terms. I am sure that I support the omission of the word "alleged" in the intro.  Blue Rasberry  02:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Who is the source
User:Pectore recently made this edit adding a sourced statement which began by saying, "It has been claimed by observers..." I changed this to read "Journalist Kanchan Gupta has claimed..." because he was the source speaker and the article does not make it otherwise obvious which other observers are making claims. Could I ask that template be added after the word "observers" if this is debatable? Otherwise, can the named observer's identity either be restored as I had it or changed to identify the names of the actual observers?  Blue Rasberry  02:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Moot point. There are multiple sources corroborating the fact. Also, Wasif if you are reading this, just because a source contradicts your pre-held biases (which you edit by) does not mean its biased. You'll notice that Bluerasberry and I and Arjun and other users are at least working toward creating a better page.Pectoretalk 02:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I truly do not understand why you think this is moot. If "observers" are making claims, then I think it would be best to specify as many observers as possible by name.  The source you provided named one of them who is notable, and if there are others I think there is room for those also.  I am adding a note to the article requesting clarification.  Blue Rasberry  18:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a number of observers making the argument that the CBI's investigations into the BJP are politically motivated. What clarification? There are multiple sources, and links provided to each source, indicating to the user to click on them and read more.Pectoretalk 05:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The instructions at the template say here that beliefs ought to be attributed to the sources.  Since not everyone agrees with what is being said, and since two of the observers you cite are notable individuals and have their own Wikipedia articles, I think that it would be best to name these observers here.  Since you removed the template, I added the observers' identities.  If you want to list even more observers I would support this.  Blue Rasberry  14:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality
It should be a Neutral page rather than being a "Better page" in your point of view. 2,3 editors joining hands trying to hide certain proven facts will never sustain in wikipedia. When time passes on, i am sure this article will have a Neutral look rather than better look in your view. Wasifwasif (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A neutral look = better look. Also, pray do tell me how with no convictions anyone is hiding "certain proven facts"? Take your conspiracy theories to the blogs.Pectoretalk 22:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from name calling
Pectore, I and presumably the people who published the sources I have provided believe that we are being honest. Please WP:ASF and do not say they are "ludicrous." I am sorry that my sources are "disappointing" but being called either that or "ideological trash" does not constructively say how they do not meet WP:RS or how they violate WP:NPOV. Please do not suggest to I or anyone else that "this is a great time to use common sense," or that what another person is doing is "rather dishonest," or that anyone has "an axe to grind," or that people should "Please read policies before you meaninglessly cite them." Please do not say that the sources I have, many of which meet Wikipedia criteria for WP:notability and already have Wikipedia articles, are "wingnuts." You have stated no basis in Wikipedia policy for your suggestion that when persons are accused of terrorism then only if their government convicts them of the crime of terrorism, then should it be in Wikipedia. Wikipedia looks to the sources. Please keep your talk to that. If my sources are "cherry-picked" then you will not object to giving me more time to review the literature, because I am looking for additional sources. Until then, please be WP:NICE. We are both experienced Wikipedia editors and I do not like the way you treat me on this page. Life is too short not to work together; you make good points without adding insults to them.  Blue Rasberry  02:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If your sources do not hold up in water, that is unfortunately not my problem. Its not a reason to criticize me, its a reason to read further and examine the wide variety of sources through the various spectra of geography, reliability, political bent, language, etc. I have kept my talk to the sources, and merely because I've taken logical issue with them, does not indicate abusive or (as you allege) incivil) behaviour in any shape or form. Furthermore, just because something is notable does not make it reliable (like say the Organiser has commented on the issue, but its not the most appropriate source to cite on a controversial political topic such as this).
 * Your links to policy pages and appeals to said policy (without any reasoned argument for why a certain policy applies or even if it applies) lack relevance and are hence, "meaningless". Also, your attempts to characterize people not convicted of any crime as terrorists is a fundamental attack on ideas of justice we all ideally share, not to mention a violation of policies like WP:ALLEGED (which I quoted for you above, and explained the relevance of) and WP:LABEL (which notes that contentious labels be replaced with general words). Lastly, refrain from false accusations of "name-calling", it reduces the collegiality of discussions on the page. I can say whatever I want about sources; I have not said anything about you as an editor. I have only commented on your sources, it is you who has decided to comment on me as an editor (and assign motives). Either way the conduct discussion is going nowhere.Pectoretalk 23:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
I find absolutely no need for the empty subheadings Wasifwasif continues to keep adding on the page. The section is well-sourced, descriptive, and neat in a paragraph style depiction. Also, I'm not entirely sure what or who the "fanatics" and "Saffron terrorists (those not convicted of any crimes) are, but its evident someone has not read our policies on NPOV and WTA. Pectoretalk 18:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pectore is correct. This is a slow edit war and it ought to stop.  Wasifwasif, no one is objecting to the idea of you adding content, but there are some problems with the way you are doing it.  The sources are not clearly linked with the claims you are making.  Please come to the discussion board and show us how your sources match your content and let us help you make a good presentation.  Also, it is not appropriate to have empty section headings.  When you have source content then fill these in.  Blue Rasberry  18:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Have a look here.Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics. Wasifwasif (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had not been following that board and I appreciate you making me aware of it.
 * As for the empty headings though, I feel they need to go. Rule 7 of List of bad article ideas prohibits "Anything about which you are not going to write at least one complete sentence."  I am removing this for now; try again with content.  Blue Rasberry  15:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * the discussion in the notice-board was clearly headed toward a)use neutral language b) develop the subsections one by one. We definitely not decided to add the original non-neutral language ("fanatics" etc) and empty subsections back. (though i might have added the empty subsections back accidentally). So if the sub sections are to be put back, they have to filled out here in neutral language, agreed upon by others, then added to the mainspace.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Vice president assassination plot allegations
Headlines Today, owned by India Today, is the source for a video posted on YouTube which says that certain members of the RSS planned to assassinate the vice president of India. Related to that, the TV station broadcasting this video is in the same neighborhood as the RSS headquarters, and various other sources have said that a subsequent attack on the TV station by people coming from the RSS headquarters was an act of Hindu terrorism in response to the organization being accused of committing acts of Hindu terror.

Here is what user:Wasifwasif has been trying to add to the article mainspace.

Attack on Headlines Today
Unable to tolerate the exposure of facts some 2000+ Sangh Parivar mob attacked the Headlines today office.The Hindu,Times of India,Hindustan Times, Express India.

Plot to kill Vice President of India
Headlines Today released a recorded video tested by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory which shows the plot to assasinate the Vice President of India Hamid Ansari, the second constitutional head of India by the Saffron terrorists. .One of the two fanatics discussing says that he carried 15 litres of Petrol but he din't get a chance. Malegaon key accused Purohit is back here too. "Our number one enemies are muslims. Let as start killing them from delhi" shockingly the so called nationalists say. They also discuss procuring ammunition.

The wording is a bit awkward and it is not wikified but the sourcing seems solid to me and the content seems relevant to the subject of this article, as the assassination plot is an event which sources are calling Hindu terrorism and saffron terrorism. Another source says that the attack on the TV station is a violent reaction to reporting on this assassination plot and the 2006 Malegaon bombings, and I think everyone here agrees that the latter is saffron terror, so the content has relevance to this article by that.

What is the problem with this content? Why do people object to its addition? Please state what sources do not meet WP:RS and why they do not meet this, or otherwise state that the content is irrelevant and why.  Blue Rasberry  15:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The content which I just removed had no sources at all and was phrased in a highly POV, biased manner. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are quite right and thanks for removing it, but that is not what I am asking about here. What do you think of these sources and the meaning of this content?  Is this story and are these sources worth working to include in the article? Why or why not?  Blue Rasberry  18:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the information should definitely be in the article, but we have to be careful to make sure that it is phrased in a neutral manner that only states facts from the source. We should make sure not to use any words that would represent a POV, bias, or an opinion. Keep it encyclopedic. :) Silver  seren C 18:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

YouTube video of Ravi Shankar
user:Silver seren removed a link to a YouTube video from the external link section saying, "Youtube videos, no matter what they are about, are not allowed on Wikipedia as reliable sources" in the comment box. It is correct that a YouTube video which is a WP:SPS is not allowable, but in this case, YouTube is the publisher and the speaker is the source. Also it is being used as an external link and must meet policies at WP:EL, which are different from those at WP:RS. It is my opinion that the source in the video, Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader), is qualified by his international fame as a Hindu spiritual leader to give a comment on Hindu terrorism, so in this case, the YouTube link meets WP:EL. If it were used as a source for a statement, I also feel that Ravi Shankar meets WP:RS.  Blue Rasberry  15:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Referring to WP:YOUTUBE, considering that the user hosting the video, qaaf2010, doesn't show any direct relation to the company that the video is from, Headlines Today, I can only assume that the video is copyrighted and is being illegally held on Youtube. It is for this reason that I do not think such a link should be used. Instead, you should find a news article on the topic that has the Youtube video embedded within it. In that manner, we would be associating with the news article and not directly with the possibly copyrighted video. Silver  seren C 16:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are totally in the right. This YouTube link should not exist here.  Blue Rasberry  16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My edit summary when I removed it shouldn't have said "no matter what they are about", since that isn't true. There would probably be cases where a Youtube video would be appropriate, but they are considerably rare. I have not seen such a case myself. Also, i'm used to the fact that, not too long ago, the policy was that you don't allow Youtube videos at all. An actual Youtube policy section is a new thing to me. I apologize if my edit summary was misleading, but it was still appropriate in this instance. Silver  seren C 16:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of large amount of content
I just reverted the edits by User:Asik5678. While it was a large amount of information that appeared to be true, no sources or references for the information was given. Because of that, I removed it. If sources can be found for the info, it can be added back in, though I think that should be done piece-meal and with discussion, so that we know how we want to organize it. Silver seren C 05:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not in the habit of calling anything "true," but I just reverted the same thing and they seem to be honest edits by a well-meaning editor who cut and pasted entire news articles. Please see WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:V.  Rewrite the content and provide sources.   Blue Rasberry  05:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I meant "true" in the sense that, at first glance, it didn't appear to be made up information, it was just that no sources were provided for it. How do you know it was copyrighted info, by the way, since s/he didn't give any sources? Silver  seren C 06:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

@Silver Seren. Stop removing the headings. there are many editors who can work on this topic. If you have concern with the sources, just discuss. Don't go ahead and simply vandal the sub headings.Wasifwasif (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted this above and I am posting it again. The empty headings are specifically against a Wikipedia rule. "Rule 7 of List of bad article ideas  prohibits "Anything about which you are not going to write at least one complete sentence."  Please address why you feel that this is a special case and that you are allowed to bypass this rule.  Blue Rasberry  14:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? I have no idea what you're talking about, in terms of headings. As I stated and opened for discussion above, all I did was revert the edits by User:Asik5678, who had added in information that was more than the size of the original article, but didn't use any sources and messed up the formatting of the page. So, instead, I reverted him and opened this section for discussion with him and others on the sources for that information so that we can see about reinserting it bit by bit with proper sourcing. I then notified him about that. I didn't touch these "sub-headings" that you're talking about.


 * And on a similar note, I am rather offended that you left a template-like message on my talk page. I have been around the block here on Wikipedia far longer than you have. Silver  seren C 16:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC).


 * Claiming to be a experienced wikipedian, you could have come up with some sourced contents rather than simply deleting it which anyone who is new can doWasifwasif (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC).


 * Sometimes deleting poorly sourced material is the only responsible choice. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Asik5678 was making claims that would be difficult or impossible to source, and I would say the same thing about the headings you are trying to add. It is not possible to have experienced Wikipedians spend time researching the claims that beginners make, especially since without a source no one even knows if the claim is correct.  For this reason, Wikipedia has a rule which says Competence is required.
 * Take things easy, slow down, talk to other editors more, and for the best response, consider proposing changes by proposing edits from your sandbox then posting a link to your work in the talk page, instead of changing the main article without talking about it with other people.  Blue Rasberry  14:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. This should be applicable to both the sides. Wasifwasif (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstandings
Bluerasberry, care to explain how the direct quote "One Arif Qasmani of Karachi was specifically named by the Department  as involved in the Mumbai suburban train blasts of July, 2006, and in the Samjautha Express blast of February, 2007" was  changed to claim that he was only involved in the Mumbai train bombings? I expect these "errors" will not occur again.Pectoretalk 17:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Expect these "errors" to happen often because everyone makes mistakes and I make more than most other people. The author of the source you used is not a native user of English language and does not well understand American politics, so I have trouble understanding what he is saying.  I am not arguing with you, I just do not understand and I said so in my note.  And I knew you would be right here on the talk page. :)
 * I deny changing the claim to say he was only involved in the Mumbai bombings; it was ambiguous before and I was trying to clarify. Here is what the article says
 * "...the US Department of Treasury gave the personal particulars of four persons... providing direct support to  Al Qaeda  and the LET and as  facilitating terrorist attacks, including the July 2006 train bombing in Mumbai."
 * Here is what you said:
 * "The United States claims the attack was linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba and Al-Qaeda."
 * And here is what you are quoting now
 * "One Arif Qasmani of Karachi was specifically named by the Department as involved in the Mumbai suburban train blasts of July, 2006, and ''in the Samjautha Express blast of February, 2007'"
 * Later the source says that "Arif Qasmani of Karachi" an Al Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba operative, and I just was confused about who was doing what since there are several issues here. Your edit was good and I only wanted to help it.  Blue Rasberry  18:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

SAAG info
Okay, so, let's start discussing the SAAG info. My first glance at the source is that the source is not reliable, because it appears to be self-published, and not at the standard of a newspaper or magazine. But maybe I'm missing something. Can the person who wants to add the info comment here? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SAAG is very much a reliable source, cited in numerous news reports, and noted as a great think tank in terms of their breadth and depth of analysis. "South asia analysis group" (with quotes) gets 685 google book hits. I am reverting your edit.Pectoretalk 17:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The report is an opinion piece (attributed to B. Raman) published by the group. Note also that none of the 'facts' linking LET and AQ to these acts are not sourced in that opinion piece. I don't think it qualifies as a legitimate reliable source. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First, the fact that a newspaper quotes someone does not at all make that someone a reliable source. Newspapers quote companies, individuals, and policy groups all the time that are not necessarily reliable.  So I just want to clarify that that is not a valid reason to find them reliable. I'm still doing some more research on them to determine if they are.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Another thing--they explicitly state they are try to "provide another point of view for the decision makers and other national/international think tanks." Thus, they are clearly not a a neutral point of view. If we do use them, we're going to have to do it carefully. For one, they definitely can't get their own section, because they're really just providing one opinion; a reasoned opinion, apparently, but still an opinion. In fact, that is already feeling like the best solution to me--it's okay to include a think tank's analysis, but not to give their analysis it's own section, because that's violating WP:UNDUE. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A number of points. I am for removal of the paragraph, but only because the information cited is already in a different paragraph.

Until either of you fundamentally answer these concerns and disprove them, it is a reliable source. I've asserted its reliability in a number of ways. I am however, open to hearing your issues with the source.Pectoretalk 22:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) B. Raman is an expert on terrorism and is noted as such in a number of publications. For example, he is a columnist for Outlook, one of India's best newspapers. His credentials are excellent in this area.
 * 2) The piece is not an opinion piece, though the English in the piece leaves something to be desired. If you end up doing any "more research" you'll see that all South Asian think tanks have this problem. Also this part of WP:RS should prove useful: "Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."
 * 3) Actually the article in question states sources, but they are not cited to strict MLA/Chicago/APA standards. Wikipedia English is not an American Encyclopedia, and English language sources need not look like the nice pages of say the Brookings Institution to be reliable.
 * 4) Next Q, your analogy is meaningless in this discussion. Explain how SAAG is not reliable, otherwise your statements lack any meaning. I cited the gbooks hits as an example of the contexts SAAG is cited in, which is to say, in conjunction with a variety of other reliable sources. Its data point and analysis is widely used, especially among those who study Asian geopolitics and terrorism. The Council on Foreign Relations, Australian Journal of International Affairs, and a variety of other sources (628 hits on google scholar for "south asia analysis group").
 * Addendum - Most think tanks have a bias. For example, Brookings says they want to "Secure a more open, safe, prosperous and cooperative international system.", advocating internationalism, something American conservatives despise. The Center for American Progress is more explicit saying they are "dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action." SAAG saying it wants to provide another point of view gives absolutely no indication of any bias.Pectoretalk 22:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course they have a bias, all think tanks have a bias, just like you say. However, please note the last thing I said--I'm willing to let the SAAG report in as an opinion of a think tank. As such, it doesn't deserve it's own section--for example, if you go to an article on U.S. foreign policy, you won't find a whole separate section on what the Brookings Institute has to say about any given issue.  Instead, their opinion (if included) will get one or two sentences, and be incorporated into an existing section.  So, I'm going to go read the two sources, the article, and then see how I can do the same thing here.  SAAG may be respected, but giving them their own section is a direct vioation of WP:UNDUE.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just tried to go in and add the SAAG info to another paragraph, but I couldn't find any reasonable way to do so. Ultimately, that SAAG report just repeats what is said in our other sources.  The only conclusion they come to is, in essence, it can't both be true that Hindu Nationalists (HUJI) and Muslim groups (LeT and Al Qaeda) are responsible.  The imply a little bit of preference for the U.S. accounts, since they assert that U.S. investigators "have better sources in Pakistan" that India, but that's clearly an opinion only, not backed up by any reliable facts.  The article doesn't even say for certain that the attacks were not Saffron Terrorism.  I mean, we don't need to cite SAAG just to say something like "SAAG, an Indian think tank, has pointed out that the Indian government accounts are not compatible with those of the U.S. Department of the Treasury."
 * So, Pectore, can you think of any way that the SAAG info can be embedded into the rest of the article, and is there anything it reliably says that our other sources don't already say? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I made the wrong edit with regard to your earlier edit actually. I was on the side of removal with regards to the information, but thought the information was being removed because of unjustified claims that SAAG is unreliable. Not to mention, I wasn't sure who was edit warring with who for inclusion in the article. I am for removal of the paragraph in question, because I had cited the article in the "alleged examples" section weeks before the new paragraph was added. In short, yes.Pectoretalk 07:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The current version seems much better sourced (and better weighted!). However, I still suggest removing B Raman from the list because all he says is that the US says so. What is the South Asian Terrorism Portal? Is it a reliable source? --RegentsPark (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the two sentences Raman is connected two, I think we should keep the first and delete the second. The first is necessary, because we don't have the actual US Treasury Department Report in question; if we did, we could link directly to that.  However, SAAG does appear to be considered reliable by a number of newspapers, meaning that I think we can rely on it's accuracy for reporting what the US TD determined.  For the second sentence, though, I'd delete it, because it's basically just repeating in the sentence--in effect, the sentence now reads (if you read in the hidden details) "The SATP, the U.S. (as reported by B Raman), the U.S., and the U.S. all think..."  So there's no need for both items on the list.  So I'm going to remove him from that sentence, and keep him in the first.  If someone really wanted, they could add the citation again after "United States," giving that entry in the list 2 cites, but it doesn't seem necessary to me.  As for SATP, according to their Wikipedia page, SATP, or, it's head at least, is considered an expert in terrorism in the area by several US newspapers/magazzines, so, again, it seems reliable, and it seems like their opinion is notable enough for them to have their own entry on that list. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Reason for reverting the lead
There's two distinct issues here, so let me discuss them separately.

Status of Jammu and Kashmir
The Wikipedia page Jammu and Kashmir clearly states that it is the "northernmost state of India." While the government section points out that is largely autonomous, including having its own political system, it is still legally a part of India. If you want to debate this issue, you'll need to take it up with people on that page; we certainly can't decide to override clear consensus over there. Now, there is a geographical area known as Kashmir, but, as far as I can tell, all of these bombing occurred within the state of India, right? If I'm wrong on that, it should say "India and Pakistan," as it makes more sense to refer to the countries, not the region (as that's more confusing). And let me clarify one more time--I'm not saying that you can present information here to make an argument that Jammu & Kashmir are independent (UN resolutions, etc.)--you need to make that argument over at one of those pages. Here, it would be strictly a POV inclusionQwyrxian (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2010 (UT

J&K is a disputed region recognised in United nations. It is not a region of India as per the United Nations and World Map. Even Google Earth Shows Jammu and Kashmir with Red Boundry.

I will discuss this issue with you on Monday 30 Aug.

I will also discuss Hindu terrorism.

Please bear with me. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by MalikFayaz (talk • contribs)

India has de facto over Jammu and Kashmir, and thats as far as this page needs to go in terms of the whole Kashmir fiasco This page is not and should not be a dump for Pakistani nationalist assertions about the status of Kashmir.Pectoretalk 17:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Malik, you're more than welcome to take this dispute to the Jammu and Kashmir phrase. It is clear from the way that page is written that there is consensus on Wikipedia to describe them as a part of India (except, of course, the parts of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan).  The encyclopedia must be consistent; as such, the logical place for you to attempt to effect change is at the J&K page, not here.  Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Listing of the bombings
The reason the bombings aren't being listed is that, per WP:LEAD, the lead should "define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." All of the bombings/incidents you listed are discussed in the article itself; we're just saying it doesn't belong in the lead (especially since, as the body of the article points out, the use of Saffron Terror in most of those cases isn't even close to accurate). Now, I will admit, I am on the fence on this issue--I could see a reasonable arguments saying that, since the term is disputed in all cases, it makes sense for the lead to list the major incidents that the term has been used for. I'd like to here Pectore's rationale on the removal.Qwyrxian (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I will come back to you on 30 Aug Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by MalikFayaz (talk • contribs) 16:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just saw the edit war on the page. My justifications for my edit are, that since "Safforn terror" is now the de facto official word (after Chidambaram's speech) we use that in the lead. I believe this is uncontroversial. Next, the lead should display what is uncontroversial and accepted about the subject, which is: a) it is a controversial phrase describing allegedly terrorist acts perpetrated by those that espouse Hindutva and b) it came into public discourse after the Malegaon blasts. Those two assertions are uncontroversial and accurately sum up the issues at hand. My other edit actually helps Malik Fayaz's POV (and he edits with a strong one) since I noted that the Congress government came out and used it in official capacity.Pectoretalk 17:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So do you think that we should list the other bombings labeled in the press/govt/wherever as Saffron Terror in the lead? Or should we reserve that list until later in the article?  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Later, because of the contentious nature of the blasts themselves; that is to say there are different "official" versions of who is responsible for them. In my view, the lead should only say uncontroversial facts (somewhat redundant) and leave it at that.Pectoretalk 01:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be uncontroversial to say that those bombing have also been labeled as Saffron Terror? I mean, I'm not saying any of this was actually Saffron terror (in fact, I think the point the article is making is that Saffron Terror doesn't actually exist), but if reliable sources labeled them as such, maybe the list should be in the lead.  Nonetheless, I'm fairly ambivalent on the issue; if when MalikFayaz returns he insists it should be added, then I think we'll have to try an RfC.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Other reliable sources also say that Islamic groups perpetrated many if not all of the attacks attributed to Saffron terror, and all these "reliable sources" are giving is pure speculation. The two facts I listed above were not contentious and make for a quick and uncontroversial lead. Inserting the list in the beginning, without any actual evidence, is tantamount to coloring the article. The lead in an article so contentious and with such political implications cannot and should not be a forum for mere rumours.Pectoretalk 17:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Pectore on this. What MalikFayaz says is immaterial as he is only trying to push his POV. Shovon (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dasgputa and Gupta comments
I have to say that I agree with the IP editor that said statement should be removed, although not for the reasons s/he says. The issue isn't with WP:RS, it's with WP:DUE. The article must represent POV in balance to the importance those POV exist in the real world. The opinions of 2 journalists do not really carry enough weight to deserve a mention in this article. If they were quoting experts who were making those claims, then we could keep them, but the journalist's and newspaper's opinions simply aren't important enough to include. So I'm going to remove the same sentences myself; please discuss here if you think I'm misreading their Due Weight. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think combining them all into a single sentence wouldn't be violating WP:DUE if we did that. Three references for a single sentence would be more than enough for it. Silver  seren C 23:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the text in question:
 * Journalists Kanchan Gupta and Swapan Dasgupta have claimed that the Intelligence Bureau and the Central Bureau of Investigation have been leaking statements to the media to promote the agenda of the Indian National Congress, and the newspaper Hyderabad Journal says the same and goes further by accusing the Intelligence Bureau of masterminding the Mecca Masjid Bomb Blast for the purpose of creating social insecurity between India and Pakistan.


 * I may disagree with Qwyrxian's assessment of the weight of this; considering the seriousness of the accusation (treason, corruption of major political figures, encouraging riots), the fact that the journalists are notable as opinion leaders in their own right, and the high profile of the news sources in which the opinions are published, I think that at least the first two references belong in this article somewhere. The unstated implication of including this sentence in this Wikipedia article is that these statements are representative of what other papers publish, and statements contrary to these are not getting published, and these two people happen to be notable among the people who are making statements like this.  That is why this statement by two arbitrary social critics should remain in the article until superseded by someone socially higher-ranking like a politician or academician or mooted with time passing and the issue no longer being central to the article's subject.  Like Qwyrxian and Silver seren, I do not see a problem with WP:RS with regard to the first two references; the claim by the third source is different from other sources and may not meet RS.  If a cut is to be made, I propose cutting everything past the first two sources if no one opposes removing the third source.  Blue Rasberry  01:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Bluerasberry is correct. Again one cannot simply take the Indian media at face value given the general unreliability of their news reports. Not only that, but Gupta and Dasgupta are accomplished journalists, each with sponsored columns in major Indian newspapers. Furthermore Qwyrxian, your reading of WP:UNDUE is indeed incorrect; you merely claim that the paragraph in question is giving undue weight with no real application of the policy in question. The flipside is that, these views are being promoted by a significant minority (there really is no "majority" view here), and also that their views deserve mention because this is not a dispute about flat earth or afact; it is a dispute of allegations, spite, and with strong political undertones. There is no justification for removal under WP:UNDUE, especially, when (as I have noted ad nauseam) no person has been convicted of any crime, and because many reliable experts dispute whether the blasts were the work of Hindu groups in the first place. As for the Hyderabad Journal, it meets WP:RS, and its allegations have been backed up by some Pakistani sources, so again it represents a significant and relevant minority view. In short, the status quo sentence (posted by Bluerasberry) should stand. Most people editing under IP's here are not trying to promote verifiable and relevant discourse, they are here to turn Wikipedia into a soapbox to harangue those they disagree with.Pectoretalk 14:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First, let's focus on these specific edits, not the goal of other editors. If this is a regular, commonly held opinion, then we should have no problem finding reliable sources that quote reliable people.  For example, except on matters directly relating to the media, we generally never report the opinions of U.S. journalists; rather, we report journalists reporting on other people, like politicians, professors, think tank workers, business owners, etc.  Journalists are reliable sources, but their opinions really should have no more weight than that of any other "normal" person.  If you really can't find them quoting better sources, I certainly question whether the opinion has due weight; but, wouldn't it at least be better to attribute the sentiments to the papers themselves?  So, how would you feel about a sentence like "According to several news reports,  the Intelligence Bureau and...", with the same references?
 * Pectore and I had a short discussion about this here.
 * Gupta and Dasgupta are occupying roles which encompass more than that of the typical American journalist in that they also publish their own opinions, and this is representative of the culture of journalism in India. I feel that Indian news sources do this more than American news sources, so I do not feel that standards which would be appropriate for American news should apply in all cases to Indian news.  I am an American, and I recognize the strangeness to which you are referring in the standards being used in this article as compared to articles which are less India-related.
 * As I stated in the link which I just gave, I feel that it is best to include the journalists' names because I feel that in this instance they present a social rank significantly above that of any given newspaper. Also the articles are presented as the views of the author, and the fact that these opinions were published in major newspapers does not indicate that the opinions are that of the newspaper itself.  I confirm that other newspapers publish these sorts of opinions and that rehashes of these opinions can be found, but already you are seeing this story three times so I wonder if you would be convinced by seeing additional sources which are less reputable.  I confirm that this sentence is stating a "regular, commonly held opinion" and although I cannot prove it, I would call it the opinion which would be most commonly found if one surveys all statements on this topic.
 * I recognize that you might reasonably expect what you call "normal" people to have commented on this; I would challenge you to find any other statement on this issue by anyone as notable as these guys so that we could include it in the article mainspace. I heartily invite inclusion of other viewpoints, but I myself cannot find sources for them.
 * I would prefer not to use the phrase "According to several news reports" without naming the authors themselves because the fact remains that the statement being presented is bizarre and fantastic by American journalistic standards, and because these are still opinion pieces printed by newspapers and not presented as news itself.  Blue Rasberry  00:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright...I'm willing to defer to the judgment of those more familiar with Indian news sources...I'm not quite sure that it's appropriate, but I'm assuming the two of you are acting in good faith in your depiction of the nature of Indian journalism. If the other editor who removed the information would like to continue to object, I think you'd want to take this to WP:NPOVN, which is the noticeboard for discussing point of view concerns, or possibly some part of WP:Wikiproject India.  01:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually on topics like these, we ignore IP editors, because on India-related pages, there is ceaseless trolling on their part. I doubt the IP will come to discuss, but let us see. However, Wikipedia is the English encyclopedia, not the American one. South Asia in general has thriving English language media, and very large readership as well. Applying American views on journalism to Indian newspapers is doomed to fail; since these papers and authors are considered "reliable", that should be the end of the discussion.Pectoretalk 12:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but if an IP editor engages in non-vandalizing activities, you are not allowed to ignore them. Wikipedia officially does not allow us to distinguish between the two types of editors--both push POV, both add unreliable source, both remove reliable content.  And I agree that we shouldn't apply American standards to all topics--I was merely trying to explain why I found it odd to consider a journalist's opinions to have due weight.  But, as I said, I'm will to AGF the two of you on this matter.  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (deindent). Naturally you are correct on the general idea. However (unless its something patently obvious), I would expect someone removing content to make a note on the talk page why (especially if they repeat their edit). You, myself, and Bluerasberry do this consistently (hence why we have fruitful discussions that have made this page relatively unbiased and factual). Almost no IP editors do, hence my distaste for those editors on controversial pages like this. Like I said though, lets see how the discussion progresses, I'll keep an open mind.Pectoretalk 13:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Many Indians" by itself is a bit too broad for my taste. We would need a couple of really good references to back that statement up. So, for now, i've changed the sentence to say "Many Indians comprising India's religious right...", since we know that that's true. Silver  seren C 14:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer the original formulation that used 'journalists'. I have no idea what many or few Indians believe, but the three citations say nothing about the beliefs of Indians in general. Barring a reliable source that cites the views of many Indians, I'm going to revert this change to the text. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC) BTW, that fact that some journalists believe this does not necessarily make this a fringe view. Note that these views are all expressed in opinion columns and it should be clear from the article that these are opinions. Ascribing them to journalists makes that clear. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC) --RegentsPark (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why not just use the original wording that said the criticism of the view. Adding all these modifiers will only make it more contentious and more of a troll magnet? I was for the original wording (that Bluerasberry made months ago) until the weaselly modifiers were added, which required balancing.Pectoretalk 16:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)