Talk:Saffronisation

Old, unsigned
I think this page should be merged as section in the page of Hindutva

Neologism
This article documents WP:NEO "A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing". Both "Saffronization" and "Saffron Brigade" are Neologisms. Nihar S (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis
The basic definition in the first line itself is synthesised. One of the three references provided does not exist. The other two do not define what is "saffronisation" but use it just in passing.Nihar S (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

true. I have cited the definition from the 2003 Encyclopedia of Religious Freedom. As for "neologism", the article is up front about this term being a political neologism, and it is duly placed in Category:Neologisms. --dab (𒁳) 07:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Content
Shouldn't this article discuss the actual events of saffronization, not merely the meaning of the term? Uday Reddy (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It most certainly should. I also think that the term "Saffron Brigade" has no relevance here; if anything, it should be on the Sangh Parivar page. I have boldly removed it; revert me if you will (anybody, that is, not just Reddy) but please discuss. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Notable Examples
Building on the legacy discussion on the Notes section being longer than the article itself (see above), perhaps we should create a section of notable examples of saffronisation ? Adding a section of a few notable examples would give context by demonstrating the acts of saffronisation. There was a notable example at JNU. Before I read up for other examples, can we reach a consensus about creating a brief section for notable examples ? Maslowsneeds (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Some senior editors think that the pages on neologisms should just discuss the terms but not the phenomena. But I think it is fine to expand the article, and, if it comes to that, we can split it into a separate article. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. I'm not trying to overwhelm the article with examples, maybe just 3 or so, so we can see the neologism in practise. I don't know if I want to unleash the creation of a list-class, spin-off article. Let's see what others think. If it is too controversial, I'll just make my amendments about saffronisation on the respective articles of universities where it's been observed. No worries. Maslowsneeds (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We all know that the heaviest usage of "saffronisation" is in the context of the saffronisation of the school text books. There should be at least a small section on it.
 * The trouble here has been an effort by the Hindu nationalists to paint the term as an effort to disgrace Hindu asceticism. The controversy has been introduced by Murli Manohar Joshi, but he was of course being disingeneous because, being an RSS pracharak, he knows that the RSS has been using a Saffron Flag since the 1930s. So explaining why "saffron" is being used as a metaphor in this term is an important objective for this article.  - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that what you described helped me understand the two ways of viewing saffronisation better than what is being communicated by the article, and that was all I was really looking for. Rather than needing to provide examples, what if what you described in your talk comments above served as a model to communicate with clarity in the article the complexities of saffronisation ? I see hints of it in the article, but, seeing as how this brief article has undergone heavy amendments, maybe that's gotten lost in all the revision ? I just wish the article was as express as your talk comments, so people (or really, I) could "get it." Let me think about it some more. Maybe it's better to just leave this article alone and, instead, to just keep trying to focus the article's description to match what you just now wrote in your talk comments ? Maslowsneeds (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I can write about the history of saffron, but I will leave it to you to expand the saffronisation of text books. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * O.K., I will be posting a section later today. This is very complex. Given that this article speaks to saffronisation, I'm giving examples of that, as it relates to textbooks. But I will go out of the way to note that textbook revisions have become cyclical (now). I'm completely open to input to make sure that there is a NPOV here. Maslowsneeds (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Bharatiya Janata Party.png

POV problems in the article
, I noticed you reverted my edits to the article. I was wondering what specific problems you had with them. You only said "Sanitized?", could you elaborate on that? I went into detail on what the POV problems were in my edit summaries and atomized all the changes so you don't have to revert them all at once unless that is you had a problem with every single one. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 05:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have restored my changes due to the lack of response I have received here. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 06:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Chess. Thanks for responding; I'll reply later, due to busy times at work. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Just a note to say that the first paragraph of "textbook saffronization" likely warrants rewriting; citation 4 doesn't seem to support all the relevant content. That said, POV concerns need to be described here, with reference to the sources, before we start rewriting the article wholesale. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I described them in detail in my edit summaries but if you do not want to read them I will elaborate here:
 * "Impose" is not a neutral word. It is loaded terminology with connotations of force. Instead, neutral words should be used depending on context.
 * "Critics use this political neologism[1] to refer to the policies of right-wing Hindu nationalists (Hindutva) that glorify Hindu fundamentalism and propagate Islamophobia, Christianophobia and xenophobia." presupposes that those policies actually do these things. I don't see a reliable source supporting this; this should be qualified with "refer to the policies ... that they say glorify Hindu fundamentalism..."
 * The first sentence of the 21st century textbook controversy states that the BJP conducted a study that "found" Marxism and Eurocentric overtones. This is a word to watch and needs to be replaced due to its implication of truth when that isn't necessarily the case; likewise for the unfounded claim that there was a "study". I doubt there was a scientific study and this should be refactored to clarify that the "BJP says textbooks have Marxist and Eurocentric overtones".
 * The sentence "For example, when the medieval period of India is saffronised, it is described as "a dark age of Islamic colonial rule which snuffed out the glories of the Hindu and Buddhist empires that preceded it"." is incredibly misleading, as it implies that the textbooks themselves actually say the words "dark age of Islamic colonial rule" when in reality that is a description of the textbooks by critics of the perceived saffronisation policies (see the source). This needs to be changed to clarify that the critics have said those words; although preferably I'd like this sentence to be replaced with some other example entirely as "critics say..." is weasel wording even if the original source uses that.
 * "The BJP was open in its intent to saffronise education" is editorializing and ambiguous. Did the BJP actually say they were going to saffronise (that word explicitly) education? If so, the sentence should read "the BJP has said..." with an actual citation. If it's critics or someone else claiming that the BJP is intending to saffronise education, it should be made clear who is accusing the BJP of saffronising education and be refactored with "xyz has said that the BJP's policies show an intent to saffronise education".
 * These are the biggest (but not the only issues) I see in this article right now. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 17:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, these may be somewhat reasonable complaints. But the 12 edits of yours that reverted also removed "right-wing" from the lead sentence. "Impose" might not be a great term, but "promote" is too weak to convey "saffronisation". The term means they made it "saffron", Hindu nationalist.

Are you copy-editing or actually editing? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's insulting that you consider copy-editing (a lot of what I do) to not be "actually editing" and I would prefer it if you didn't say that. I removed right wing from the lede sentence since it was included in the second sentence (do we need it twice?) and the policies weren't described as inherently right wing by the sources I saw in the article. "Promote" is weaker on purpose; we are trying not to take a stance. Perhaps "implement" or "advocate" would be better in the lede sentence. Merging the second and first sentences could also work and simply describe it as "saffronisation is a term used by critics of right-wing Hindu nationalists to describe policies that they say glorify Hindu fundamentalism..." The term is a pejorative one generally used by critics of these policies anyhow. For the second use of the word "impose" I think "change how textbooks recount history" is neutral.
 * I made these changes in twelve different edits so that it would be possible to discuss the individual changes with diffs. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 00:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Copyediting means improving the language without changing the substance. If you are copyediting, you are encouraged to say so in your edit summary so that we will assume that any changes you make to the substance were innocent mistakes. Othewise, you will get the violent reactions of the kind you are getting. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of what copyediting is (as I copyedit frequently on other articles) and while some of my edits to this article were copyediting most of them generally were not. That is why I did not designate them as such and they were not mistaken. I don't really think the responses I've gotten so far are "violent reactions" beyond the thinly veiled implication that I was "sanitizing" the article. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 06:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree like any term it's been misused even if the policies had justification, however their are indeed cases where a clear bias is present, but this is also the extreme left in India, sadly Wikipedia only chooses to report selectively making it a one-sided and biased site, but it's still a beautiful site none the less. 108.39.84.90 (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Deleted "Context of history textbook production..." section
This section has no obvious relevance to Saffronisation as a whole, should certainly not be a top level topic, and is clearly just POV-pushing Hindutva apologetics (despite the transparent attempt to make it seem NPOV by including a line about how "the right doesn't like this too!"). The title of the article is not "Historiography of India" or "History of Indian textbooks." Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)