Category talk:Hinduism-motivated violence in India

Untitled

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Hindu Yuva Vahni, Bajrang Dal, Hindu Sena, and many more Hindu Saffron Terrorist Organisation Grups in India.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by talk) 01:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

Could someone propose criteria for inclusion into this category? Also, is anyone familiar with precedent set by inclusion criteria for any other controversial category? Blue Rasberry 16:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we could look at Category:Religious terrorism, Category:Christian terrorism, Category:Islamic terrorism, and Category:Jewish terrorism for hints. We could also go and ask the Terrorism Wikiproject. From what I can tell though...we should include people who are suspected to perpetrate the type of terrorism, any events that are or are suspected to be involved with said type of terrorism, and then any groups acting in such type of terrorism. Silverseren^C 16:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, criteria for inclusion in such categories involve having one or more independent reliable sources either use the term itself directly or use language which most reasonable people would consider to be substantively identical. In this particular case, I would think that items which have been included in the text of the page Saffron terror as examples of this phenomenon would be the ones which should be included in the category, as they have, apparently, been described in reliable sources as instances of this phenomenon. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So, to sum up the candidates, that would include the 2006 Malegaon blasts, the Mecca Masjid bombing, and...well, I guess not Ajmer Sharif Dargah Blast, since that's directed to a section in the article about the person. But the first two would fit. And then, any reliable sources that discuss others groups, people, or events with either the term Hindu terrorism or Saffron terror will count then, according to what you're saying? Silverseren^C 16:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much. It might be possible to create one or more subcategories, maybe something like Category:People who have been involved in incidents of alleged Hindu terrorism or similar, but considering some of them might be living, BLP concerns could potentially arise. If there are sufficient articles about people or other items directly relevant to specific incidents, then it might be possible to create subcats for those incidents, which could be made subcats of this cat. But I myself would definitely check about BLP concerns before placing any biographical articles in a category which might have potentially emotionally loaded language in the phrasing. John Carter (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...BLP's are always a problem. Well, we won't have to worry about making subcats until we have a sufficient number of articles in this cat as it is, so that's something we can discuss later. I'm going to go ahead and add those two articles to the cat and then i'll go and do a cursory search for news articles that use those two terms and see if I can find anything else that might fit. I'll make sure to comment about them on here first, before I do anything like adding them. Silverseren^C 16:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

John Carter, the major issue on this page in terms of inclusion is that certain attacks 2006 Malegaon blasts, 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings, and the Mecca Masjid bombing all appear to be the handiwork of Islamic groups, or there is a controversy over whether Hindu or Muslim groups orchestrated the bombings. Without reports of convictions, adding the category in question is a leap of logic, unsupported by the evidence. The page Saffron_terror#Alleged_examples_of_Saffron_terror explains this controversy better; we do not know if Hindu groups orchestrated all the attacks, 1 of them, 2 of them, or none of them. All we know is that there are allegations they may be behind the bombings. On the nomenclature of the category (which is also flawed) there are good arguments on a number of talk pages (and lower on this page indicating that Saffron terror is the more widely used phrase, and that calling it Hindu terror is a decision unsupported by the sources and unjustified by wikipolicies).Pectore^talk 22:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"Saffron terror is the more widely used phrase, and that calling it Hindu terror is a decision unsupported by the sources and unjustified by wikipolicies", except that it is a decision formed by consensus on the CfD page. Silverseren^C 22:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You obviously glossed over many sections of, if not all, of WP:RS and WP:V. There was no such consensus on said CFD; you have users here with actual knowledge of the situation and an understanding of the issue raising serious questions about the validity of inclusion of certain articles. You have not provided any arguments to the contrary; instead you have bandied about spurious allegations, forum shopped, and have evaded any response to the serious concerns mounted against the entries in said category.Pectore^talk 03:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop, break, backup please

Can we confirm here that the things being named have been called "Hindu terrorism"? There is talk on the saffron terror page about whether saffron terror is Hindu terrorism, and I do not think this has either been established or disestablished to consensus. Right now it seems that things which have been called "saffron terror" are being proposed for inclusion in this category. Please comment. Blue Rasberry 01:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So...you're essentially asking for reliable sources that call these events "Hindu terrorism", correct? Okay, here, here (for about the term in general), here, here, here, here, here, and here. I can go on, since that was all from a cursory search. Silverseren^C 02:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the sources you provided are unreliable (monsters and critics, indian muslims, asi news, kashmir watch, right side news). More reliable sources call it "Saffron terror" (118 ghits vs only 14 for "Hindu terror", because that is more accurate. Saffron is the color of the Hindutva movement. As I have literally noted ad nauseam, Hindutva is not an expression of Hinduism at all; it is merely a nativist expression of "Indian" vs. non-Indian (with the implication that Muslims are non-Indian). Until the obvious arguments against inclusion are answered (which I have painstakingly made on whatever new talkpage is being forumshopped), the inclusion of articles into this category, can and should be disputed, given the legal and political issues surrounding this alleged phenomenon. Pectore^talk 22:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I also think that the sources are unreliable, but for different reasons than Pectore. If the views really were from "monsters and critics, indian muslims, asi news, kashmir watch, right side news" then I think they would be notable because those views merit inclusion on Wikipedia when the sources identify the content as coming from notable persons or organizations. I feel that your sources do not do this.

I do not want to comment about all your sources except to say I do not think I am satisfied with the quality of any of them. If you want me to critique any one or two in more detail then choose the ones you think are most solid.

Let's not talk any more here because this talk is no longer about the use of the category. Bring this up at talk:Saffron terror. Blue Rasberry 02:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I get the impression from reading the articles that maybe Hindutva terrorism is the better name for this behavior. "Hindu terrorism" per se should probably only be limited to content which specifically deals with acts of terrorism enacted in large part because of the Hindu religion, because I think that would be most comprehensible to non-Indians, who tend to think of "Hindu" specifically in relation to the religion. Also, as Saffron terror seems to be the name of choice for this phenomenon, Category:Saffron terror could easily be created as the related category. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

@John Carter: Hindutva terrorism does seem like it would be a better title, since most of the terrorism is being done in the name of "Hindu nationalism" and not the Hindu religion itself. I would agree to a change like that. However, the Category:Saffron Terror was recently deleted in this CfD, which had the consensus of it being moved to this title, as "Saffron terrorism" was seen as being too specific and the category needed to be more general. I would say that a move to Category:Hindutva Terrorism is a good idea though.

@BlueRasberry: I know some of them were unreliable, sorry about that. I'll try to find others, but the first three (This, this, and this) are reliable, I think. Thoughts? Silverseren^C 19:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) @ John Carter, Hindutva terrorism is more appropriate than Hindu terror, but it runs into the issue that it is not a word used widely by the media (9 gnews hits, most of which are from Muslim interest blogs). Saffron terror was deleted because nobody thought the category should stay (either they mistakenly assumed it was religious terror, which it isnt, or they agreed that categorization would be problematic since no one has been committed of any crimes and no investigations have been concluded). There was no consensus on the CFD for any course of action, and the category was merely deleted without prejudice due to (the rather obvious) reason that no one advocated a keep or brought any arguments to the table.Pectore^talk 00:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

@Silver seren, explain and justify that a) Hindu terror is more accurate, and b) that is the term most widely used by the media. That is all, finding references doesnt cut it until you demonstrate that the references display that it is the most appropriate term to use (aka the one used more by reliable sources). You did this time bring reliable sources so kudos.Pectore^talk 00:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It may not be widely used, granted, but I think accuracy might be more relevant than usage. However, I certainly could see having a request for comment as per WP:RFC on the subject, and asking for input specifically from the various Hinduism and India related projects and work groups regarding which term to use. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I still haven't received any response from the sections I made in Wikiproject:Terrorism and Wikiproject:Hinduism. It's quite aggravating. :/ Silverseren^C 17:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That unfortunately happens a lot, particularly with smaller and less active ones like the Terrorism project. I have added a link to this dicussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India as well, and hope that might get some input. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Potential Articles for Conclusion

This is the section to propose potential articles that could be included under this category. Silverseren^C 16:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh I am...really unsure about this one, because there could be quite a bit of backlash from it, as it is a major volunteer organization of India, but as can be seen from the Criticisms and accusations] section...the belief is rather well founded. And this article directly mentions them under the Power section. What do other users think?

2. Prasad Shrikant Purohit One of the main suspects in multiple bombings across India that have largely targeted Muslims. Silverseren^C 16:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No, and no. First off, no RSS members have been accused of terrorism. Also, your carnegie endowment link talks about a risk of the RSS becoming a haven for terrorists, and not that the RSS is a group with ties to terrorism. For Purohit, a look at his page indicates that he is not a "Hindu" terrorist by any means, given his connections to the Intelligence Bureau, Wahhabis, and allegedly Israeli groups too.Pectore^talk 22:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that you are trying to fill up this category and give it some legitimacy, when reliable sources merely say that there are allegations such things occurred, and that there is a "controversy" over who is responsible for certain incidents. Edits in violation of WP:V and WP:RS (and WP:UNDUE in the case of the RSS) can, should, and will be reverted.Pectore^talk 22:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

3. Dara Singh (Orissa). It seems to me that this person is actually a rather perfect example of what we're looking for. His murders are confirmed to have been motivated by his Hindu beliefs against the people he thought were defiling it. Silverseren^C 17:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As I understand, identifying the use of the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" by third party sources is the precedent set by other terrorism categories. Have you identified a source applying either of those terms to this person? Blue Rasberry 19:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This article calls him a "Hindu fanatic", which I think pertains to what we're looking for. The definition of religious terrorism, from the Wikipedia article, is "acts that terrify, the definition of which is provided by the witnesses - the ones terrified - and not by the party committing the act; accompanied by either a religious motivation, justification, organization, or world view", so there is obviously a significant leeway in how you define it. But it seems clear to me that this man's actions, killing the family of Christians that were preaching Christianity was to both remove their influence and to frighten those that had begun converting to instead not do so. He did an act was that made to frighten others and it was backed by a religious motive. Isn't that religious terrorism? Silverseren^C 21:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What you are doing is original research. I am not going to support the application of the term "terrorism" to any article for which there is no associated source applying the term "terrorism" to the article's subject. Please let me know if you are aware of any Wikipedia precedent for doing otherwise. Blue Rasberry 15:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Then what about Prasad Shrikant Purohit, which I originally asked for above? Here is him being specifically called a terrorist. Silverseren^C 21:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Except, as I noted above it is not calling him a "Hindu terrorist". Purohit actually is noted as having alleged connections to Islamic groups, Israel, and Nepal so just exactly who is behind him and whether Abhinav Bharat is just a front organization/stooge is entirely uncertain. This ties in with the fact that the Malegaon case has not been solved, so again it is entirely inappropriate to place him in a category that claims his guilt when no justice system or agency has done so.Pectore^talk 23:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

His guilt of what, being a terrorist? I believe that is already well known, though you are correct about his exact affiliations not being known. His links to both Islamic and Hindu extremist groups means that we should include both such categories of terrorism on his page. His article should clearly define these links and explain how it has not been determined which one he was actually working with (since he was potentially working with both). But the article info doesn't have much to do with the categories we should add to it, besides the fact that they have to be related. Which is why we should have both of them, rather than none. Silverseren^C 23:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Purohit does not currently state anything about his involvement with Hindu organizations. The source you provided does not make it clear to me that he committed acts of terrorism to promote Hindu causes. This is big news and if reliable sources have been accusing this person of being a Hindu terrorist, then I would expect there to exist sources which clearly state this. If you think that my expectation is unrealistic or unfair, could you explain why? Blue Rasberry 14:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There's also this, which seems to show that we should add 2006 Malegaon blasts to the category. And this. He is a terrorist because he helped other terrorists, making him an accomplice (or an accessory, depending on if he was actually present at the bombings or not). Just like helping someone commit a murder, but not actually doing it yourself, makes you an accomplice to murder and, thus, a murderer yourself. Silverseren^C 16:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these links are great. They both are reliable sources and refer to either Hindu or Hindutva terrorism, so I say use them. It is totally irrelevant to me whether he actually is a terrorist or accomplice or anything else; I am only interested in whether a reliable source says these things. I would encourage you also to keep the discussion to the sources. Blue Rasberry 18:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So, which ones do you think those are enough of a reference to add? Both the Malegaon blasts and Purohit? Silverseren^C 18:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I support adding both, but could you bring this to the saffron terror page? If it is worth putting in a category then it is worth mentioning there, because that is where most of this talk happens. Blue Rasberry 15:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Since I haven't gotten any response on there for three days, I went ahead and added the two articles to the category. Silverseren^C 16:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems cool to me. Blue Rasberry 16:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Rename to Hindutva terrorism

I suppose I should get this started, since no progress will be made anyways. Yes, the buzzword for the media is Hindu terrorism, as well-explained here. But, since we know that the terrorism is being politically and socially/nationally motivated, but not religiously, calling it Hindu terrorism is likely the wrong way to go. This differs from other religions, like Christianity and Islam, where there is some room for terrorism and extremism to fit into being religiously-motivated. But it doesn't work in Hinduism.

For that reason, I propose that this category is renamed to Hindutva terrorism in order to be more accurate, since Hindutva refers to the nationalistic motivation that has been creating these acts against Muslims. Also, that any articles that are on subjects that have been labeled by secondary sources as "Hindu terrorism" be instead put in this category, with us knowing that Hindu terrorism is really supposed to mean Hindutva terrorism. Silverseren^C 22:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have placed a notice about this rename discussion on Wikiproject:Terrorism and Wikiproject:Hinduism. I have also informed the individual users Bluerasberry, John Carter, and Pectore as the main members of discussion on this Category talk page. I have also taken the liberty of informing the individual users that are active on the Saffron terror talk page. Namely: Qwyrxian, RegentsPark, and Wasifwasif. Silverseren^C 22:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hindutva terrorism is more accurate than Hindu terror, so its a step in the right direction. However the word used by the media is Saffron terror ("Saffron terror" (118 ghits vs only 14 for "Hindu terror" and only 7 for "Hindutva terror", three of which are from a Muslim blog and one from the RSS). Or, the the word actually used by the Indian government. Also as noted in WP:V the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. On to the principle of verifiability, the saturation of "Saffron terror" as a phrase is scales higher than that of "Hindutva terror", while there is not really a debate on the terms of what is truthful here.

That still does not take into account the fact that no investigations have been closed, nobody has been convicted of any crimes, and a number of the articles that are consistently being added to the category (regardless of the nomenclature) may hay have absolutely nothing to do with any "Hindu/Indian nationalist" type movement. This category, under whatever avatar it comes under, has a future but absolutely no use in the present until concrete details are found linking (difinitively) this "Saffron/nationalist/Hindu" ideology to actual terrorist attacks.Pectore^talk 22:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, your computer must be showing different Google results than mine. We might have different browsers or something. I'm seeing 127 results for Saffron terror, 232 results for Hindu terror, and 94 results for Hindutva terror. Indeed, the first result of the Hindutva terror search is this, which I believe is quite telling. Silverseren^C 22:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are using Google seraches, then at least use the more common terms, so not with "terror", but with "terrorism" or "terrorists". "Hindu terrorism" gives some 137,000 Google hits[1], "Hindutva terrorism" gives nearly 7,000[2], and "Saffran terrorism" gives, well, 1[3]. Google News archivs and Google books give similar results (Books: 178 for Hindu, 9 for Hindutva, zero for Saffran). So, looking at both common usage and usage in reliable sources (in English) gives a clear preference to keep the article at its current (Hindu) title. Whether is is the (politically) correct name isn't relevant, it is the verifiably most common name. Fram (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

First off you are not going to find anything for "Saffran" terror if you misspell "Saffron". Google hits, especially in this context are a horrible measure of reliable source treatment of the recent attacks (Malegaon, Mecca Masjid, Samjhauta) because there are tons of blogs which use loaded language (and have no journalistic oversight). Even a gbooks search in this context makes no sense because almost none of those books cover the 3-5 attacks noted in the Saffron terror page that have been termed as "Anti-Muslim/Hindu/Hindutva/Saffron terror". In terms of google news hits, especially those that are consistently being used in the media, Saffron terror has a major edge in recent coverage. Siver is correct in noting that earlier, the word "Hindu terror" was used more frequently, but recently that word has been phased out by the media (Jan - Dec 2010 Google Hits, 89 for "Saffron terror", 37 for "Hindutva terror", and 73 for "Hindu terror", with the recent totals that I noted above skewing heavily towards Saffron terror. There has been negligible treatment of these recent attacks, whether in the media or in books and scholarly journals, but in the status quo, the most accurate term is also the one preferred by the media currently, and that is Saffron terror.Pectore^talk 15:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for using Saffran instead of Saffron, that wasn't helpful of course. Saffron terrorism is indeed often used. Hindutva terrorism of course is still not preferable, but whether to have this at Hindu terrorism or at Saffron terrorism is less clear. Waiting for the current debate in the media about whether saffron terror is the right term or some political spin that is largely unwanted and will go away soon to end, may be the better solution. Fram (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hindutuva Terrorism looks more appropriate in terms of usage since 'Hindu' marks to hindu people and only a very few indulge in terrorism. Similarly it will be good if someone can suggest a name instead of Islamic terrorism which marks muslims as terrorists and only a few are so. Wasifwasif (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Um, you're spelling it wrong, it's "Saffron terror", which gives me 127 results. Also, we're not going for most common here, we all agree that Hindu terrorism is the most common term, but it is incredibly inaccurate, since it is portraying the use of religious values for the terrorism, when this is not true. The terrorism, as is currently understood, is being done in the name of Hindu nationalism, which is Hindutva. Silverseren^C 15:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Pectore removed my comment above. Silverseren^C 18:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the removal. There were multiple edit conflicts on the page, and I copied and pasted my statement into the box (inadvertently over your statement).Pectore^talk 20:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

CfD Opened

Please note that User:John Carter has opened a CfD here about renaming this category to Hindutva terrorism. Silverseren^C 19:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)