Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu jihad


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hindu jihad

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

New article with major POV problems. Nothing but a biased rant against Hindus. Topic could be covered in other existing articles such as Terrorism in India etc. Dmol (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete I have launched a jihad on this article. failed to find reliable sources for this article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, what sources exist (such as Asthana's &amp; Nirmal's Urban Terrorism : Myths And Realities for example) explain that you're mis-using the idea of jihad right here as much as it has been mis-used by others. Try having a Dharmayuddha instead. Uncle G (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely delete. The very existence of this idea is contested. I failed to find reliable sources to support the definition of this dubious ideology. The term is used and understood by very few people, which means that it is not notable enough. TYelliot (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: WP:ATTACK, WP:OR, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTNEWS -- BenTels (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OR. Also seems to have some major POV issues. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 12:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as soapboxing. Interestingly, there is a "Hindu Jihad' community hosted by Wikia - and founded today. It was started (and at this moment solely contributed to) by someone using the same username as the creator of this article. There are ghits for the term "Hindu jihad", and there are undoubtedly Hindu extremists, but this article would probably need totally rewriting to remove the inflammatory tone and unreferenced (and possibly suspect) claims in places. Peridon (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete giant biased rant about topics already covered well by pages like Saffron terror, Religious violence in India, and Hindu nationalism.Pectoretalk 16:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SOAPBOX Totnesmartin (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Article hindu jihad is changed
 * Hai i created this article hindu jihad, A word hindu jihad is refer to struggle, striving or dharma(sanskrit). I accept i enter some mismatching data's in topic hindu jihad. Please see the article history, on 4th octobar, i changed total irrelavant matter in this articles.


 * What i was enter before that data's are related to "hindu jihad attacks", soon i will create new page for older data's. I giving some answers to users who enter a commons about this article.


 * Dmol - he said this topic is covered under terrorism in india and it will hurt hindus. ANS : I accept my mistake dmol, i changed total data's and now it will not hurt hindus.


 * Uncle G - he jovially commanded about topic. TYelliot - he said their is no reliable source about data,s. ANS: now i have given all the data's.


 * Peridon, Pectore - they suggested topic name should be hindu extremist not hindu jihad, now i changed the data's. sorry to say that, i enter data's of other topic like hindu jihad attacks. Once again i am saying that please see the revised hindu jihad edition. mohasik(talk) 10:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC) - This comment was added by, not mohasik, who is a banned user.
 * Note: Mohasik isn't banned but blocked as sock of User:Asik5678. If the Ip says they created the article and sign as Mohasik, they rather evaded a block.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment It's just become am essay. A lot of religions start with 'slay the unbeliever' clauses built in. Some of them grow up out of it. In the others, most of the adherents do, but some become extremists. This is a problem with having 'holy books'. Peridon (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions).    Snotty Wong   confer 00:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. 94.58.82.131 (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

*Delete: The improvements don't solve the problem. References #1 and 13 are forums. #2, #4, 10, 11, 12 and 14 are blogs/self-published sites. #6 is a video uploading site, with no mention of this topic (even if the right video is found, it would probably still not be a valid reference for copyvio and/or reliability concerns). #3, 5, 8, 9, 10 are all direct references to the Bhagavad Gita, which is a primary source at best--any application of jihad to those texts would be an act of OR. Thus, not a single one of those "references" meets the requirements of WP:RS. If you are considered continuing to work on this article (either before deletion or after in your userspace), I strongly encourage you to read the policy on reliable sources and the policy on original research. (striking my previous comment because it pertained to a 100% different version of the article). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * REASON FOR RESCUE: ARTICLE IRRELAVANT DATA'S CHANGED ON OCT 04
 * keep: its a old concept, this AFD is implied on this article for before OCT 04. After than total irrelavent data'd are removed. now it has relavent sources--94.58.82.131 (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - has been doing some light but inappropriate canvassing with respect to this AfD.  Check their contributions for details.    Snotty Wong   soliloquize 14:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Needs work Some of this is personal opinions. I did some editing  to remove things that don't belong.  Please read the edit summaries if you disagree.  Google news search didn't find many references to the term, Google books showed a few more.  What is the term used in India for this sort of thing?  Listing the scriptures in the Hindu religion about such a thing, is fine for the article.  Listing historical battles or attacks based on the concept might be appropriate as well.   D r e a m Focus  17:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The original article had more information that would be suitable for the article. Listing various religious attacks against others, all of them with references to major news sources, is a good thing.  Its what the article's subject is about.  Are there any prominent religious or political leaders that encourage violence?  Or is it just people acting on their own?  When you have that many people over there, just having a small percentage of them randomly attacking people at times, isn't really a jihad.  Is someone who is on the television or other media a lot promoting these actions?   D r e a m Focus  17:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At least 35 people have died during weeks of anti-Christian attacks in Orissa and nearly 50,000 have fled their homes, remaining in state-run shelters.


 * Dozens of churches, prayer halls and Catholic-run schools have been attacked in the state, which is ruled by a political party allied to India's Hindu nationalist party.


 * Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1080745/Nun-attacked-gang-raped-40-men-anti-Christian-violence-India.html#ixzz11VUfHsts


 * Keep the original article, everything there having references, and this a serious issue. I'm surprise an article for this doesn't exist somewhere already.   D r e a m Focus  17:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * An article does exist, with a proper name for this. See below.   D r e a m Focus  03:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as ludicrous and see Articles for deletion/Brahmanical See. YHBT. Jack Merridew 07:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - speedy delete - This is like saying Islamic Nirvana or Christian Bhagwan. It's absurd and makes no sense. I am sure the creator of the article is inspired by Islamic orators like Zakir Naik who preaches that Hindu scriptures indirectly talks about Islamic teachings including Jihad and Muhammed - which is his rationale of urging all Hindus to convert. 117.97.42.226 (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge with Saffron terror. I have restored the original article, only to have to revert it when someone changed it back again.   Once it was nominated for AFD, someone went and erased it and changed it to something totally different.  I think everyone saying delete above was for the newer version.  Someone also tried to copy and paste the article over to  Hindu Terrorism.  I think merging the content of the article with Saffron terror might be the best option.   D r e a m Focus  03:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Invented term. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why the content belongs in the proper term for Hindu religious attacks against others, which is apparently Saffron terror. Please make sure you are seeing the proper article, and not the totally different one someone placed over it.    D r e a m Focus  03:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 94.57.19.128 don't erase other people's comments, including one person's delete vote, when you post something. Post your comments again if you want, but don't erase other people's post.   D r e a m Focus  04:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am striking out my delete vote above, as I was, in fact, responding to a totally different article (the one that cited the Bhagavad Gita 3 or for times). I haven't yet read through this version and its sources.  Perhaps we might want to consider closing this AfD as no-consensus but immediately re-opening another one since the two articles are so radically different (the previous one had literally no reliable sources, this at least appears to have some) that it will be hard to identify whether or not any of the previous rationale apply here.  Qwyrxian (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Never mind, I've now looked at about 2/3 of the sources, and in every case but one, the source is either unreliable (like online petitions, Billy Graham's site, blogs, etc.), or the paragraph does not match the citation (4 & 5), or the information is extremely outdated (the Malegaon train blasts) but the paragraph makes it sound like the debate is still ongoing (when it's not, except among fringe theorists). Ultimately, this version is no better, and possibly worse than the previous one, because it "seems" more reasonable when in fact it's using bad sources in bad ways to push an extreme POV.  This article is a terrible combination of POV-pushing, OR, and unreliable sources.   I'll put my short list of the first 11 sources and their problems on the talk page of the article.  Saffron Terror is much better at treating this subject properly--as a fringe theory promoted by a small set of groups.  There may be incidents of Hindu violence against other religions--there is no evidence for a "Hindu Jihad," and certainly little evidence for the items on this page.  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I found a reference for the Graham Staines part in the New York Times.[] I believe all the major events listed will be found in many credible news sources. Going to do additional work on there now.   D r e a m Focus  07:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What does the NYT article have to do with jihad? This is getting way beyond ludicrous. What exactly is the point in adding unrelated stuff to this article if you believe that everything should go in another existing article? I say speedy delete this and get it over with. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The name of the article can be changed quite easily. Is the article's name the only reason you wish to delete it?  Since there seems to be consensus that jihad isn't a proper term, I'll rename the article now.   D r e a m Focus  14:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No. The entire article is rubbish. I just wondered why you were adding unrelated material to the article when you believe that all this should go in another existing article (note the conditional). --RegentsPark (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't add, only restored the original article. I erased several paragraphs and found better references for things.   D r e a m Focus  19:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This entire article was originally in the article Hindu terrorism. It was copied word for word, and pasted over here. That article now redirects to Saffron terror without most of the detail.  Any act that can be verified by reliable sources, should remain, and the rest eliminated.  That's what's happening now.  I have renamed the article List of terrorist acts by Hindu extremists in India, since that is what the bulk of the article was about.   D r e a m Focus  14:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Rape and alleged hate campaign listed as "terrorist acts"? Now whats the definition of Terrorism!! The article is full of unsourced claims written in the style of rhetoric diatribe. To add to that; how reliable and impartial are sources like cathnews.com, christianpost.com, spcm.org, axisoflogic.com, persecution.org, [petitiononline.com] (I couldn't even insert this petition online link here because it says spam filer blocks)? 117.201.244.17 (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they raped and encouraged hatred to send terror to their enemies. They are terrorist acts.  And the only place cathnews is listed also has a link to the New York Times showing the same information.   D r e a m Focus  19:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SYNTH also a NPOV mess created by a POV pushing sockpuppet. POV fork of Terrorism in India--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete simply listing terrorist acts without a history and context from reliable sources is presenting it in a POV way. Terrorism in India is a more appropriate place to include this topic. LibStar (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.