The subject of this article is
controversial and content may be in
dispute. When updating the article,
be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a
neutral point of view. Include
citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay
calm and
civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and
do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached,
other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in
Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on
terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
On 30 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be
moved. The result of
the discussion was no consensus.
Move review close
I will quote it here:
In this move review, the community considers whether ModernDayTrilobite's very articulate and well-explained close really reflects what the community said. Arguably it doesn't, and many editors -- too many good faith editors to disregard -- feel that this close reduces to MDT's opinion in a hat box. I have to say that the close can't stand as written. I think that's a pity, because it is a very clear close that comes with a commendably detailed explanation of its basis in policy. It was a non-admin close, and yet I wish that more admin closes looked like that.
The article we're considering was previously called "Saffron terror", which is a problematic title for several reasons that are well-explained in the move discussion that MDT closed. It has been moved to "Hindu terror", which is also problematic for other reasons that are also well-explained.
The community hasn't coalesced around one of the options here, and I think that's because none of the choices is really satisfactory. The actual subject of the article is terrorism committed by Hindu nationalist groups in India in the 21st century. The challenge here is to find a pithy title that encapsulates this in a neutral, non-partisan way that isn't totally opaque to people who aren't Indian. We need new ideas about this.
I seriously considered overturning to relist, and I'm not going to do that, because it sends us back to the old choice between the two unsatisfactory titles. We've already had that conversation and we know it doesn't go anywhere helpful. Therefore we know we need to go back to the article talk page and come up with some better names.
From this discussion we already know some of the characteristics a satisfactory article title would have. We know that it has to encapsulate that these are Hindu nationalists -- "Hindu terrorism", read naively, implies forced conversion of Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains; whereas these terrorists' motives are political rather than religious. It's also unsatisfactory to ascribe terrorist acts to a spice or a colour.
If the article talk page discussion stalls or becomes stagnant, then I would suggest beginning a Request for Comment to ask previously uninvolved users to help workshop satisfactory titles. I'm not going to revert the move in the meantime, because that's unproductive when the community doesn't love Saffron Terror as a title either.
I haven't given you a word in bold, and this is intentional. This outcome is neither "endorse", nor "overturn", nor "relist". I haven't selected any of the options from the menu at
Wikipedia:Move reviews#Closing reviews because none of them resolve the problem in this case. Instead I'm providing a
narrative verdict. MDT's close does not stand, but it falls forward instead of falling back: all the article titles suggested so far are unsatisfactory, so please, go back to the talk page and come up with other possible titles for this article.— —
S Marshall's close of the
"Hindu terorrism" move review23:48, 29 April 2023
I have moved the page to a neutral descriptive title which should be less contentious than both "saffron terror" and "Hindu terrorism" while editors discuss potentially better titles. One such title could be "Hindutva terrorism". In my opinion "Hindu nationalist terrorism" is about equally good as "Hindutva terrorism".—
Alalch E. 01:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
That's not acceptable and I've reverted that move. Either propose a new title in an RM, or we retain the title as closed above. Names are not chosen by editors arbitrarily. —
Amakuru (
talk) 14:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
If I understand S Marshall's close, effectively we need an option that's neither "Hindu terrorism" nor "Saffron terror". There's one obvious candidate, since it came up in the original RM:
Hindutva terrorism. Any objections? (Bearing in mind any objection should have an alternative, since we have something of a mandate not to use the present title). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
No objection from me, and, in fact, I have suggested it multiple times. "Saffron terror" and "Hindutva terrorism" are synonymous. --
Kautilya3 (
talk) 16:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose. As I said multiple times, (1) Hindu terrorism encompasses much more than acts of terror resulting from Hindutva ideology, even if currently somewhat underserved by the current version of the article, (2) Hindutva terrorism fails
WP:COMMONNAME, and (3) Hindutva is a technical term that's not understandable outside of the group of Indian experts and Hindi speakers. —
kashmīrīTALK 16:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
What is your alternative? Hindu terrorism is, per the statement above, not going to be the title (and the scope of this discussion is just about naming, not broadening the subject o the article). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The current discussion insufficiently caters for the fact that we already have
Hindutva article, and thus this article should have a somewhat different, possibly broader scope. Hindu terrorism is a broader term than Hindutva whereas Hindutva terrorism is narrower. I object narrowing the scope of this article. —
kashmīrīTALK 22:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
It's ok, but Hindu nationalist terrorism (the title Alach E boldly moved it to) is qualitatively better. Hindutva and Hindu nationalism are essentially synonymous but the latter is far more natural and recognisable for any reader not intimately acquainted with Indian politics.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 16:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
If the move request is to be rerun with a search for a new title, then it should probably revert to the original longterm title of Saffron terror in the meantime, or else remain with the Hindu terrorism title that was chosen in the RM above. We can't just pick new names without the RM process, especially when there's such obvious disagreement on the nature of this title. In the end, if there is no agreement at all and no consensus for anything, then the original status quo is where it reverts. —
Amakuru (
talk) 17:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I must clarify: we should return to the original status quo while the search for a new title is underway, and must stick to it until such a time when consensus emerges. Otherwise the move to ‘Hindu terrorism’ is a fait accompli.
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 21:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
@
UnpetitproleX: At this point, with an RM started, it is better to stick to the current title to avoid confusion. You should just !vote in the RM below and assume that there is no status quo bias toward any title. Clean slate, so to speak.
RegentsPark (
comment) 22:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I disagree, a clean slate is returning to the original situation and then discussing a new title for move, otherwise the previous move stands upheld.
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 23:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I think it would be helpful if @
S Marshall: clarified their move request. While the close summary was comprehensive and clarified the underlying issues well, it would be helpful to get a firm statement on whether the article should remain at this title or revert to the original
Saffron terrorism. Otherwise the discussion on where the article should be titled at now could easily become a distraction.
RegentsPark (
comment) 18:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
In the closing statement, I wrote: I'm not going to revert the move in the meantime, because that's unproductive when the community doesn't love Saffron Terror as a title either.—
S MarshallT/
C 18:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I know it won't help to come up with a better name, but let me point out that Hindu terrorism is, ex definitio, a type of terrorism related to Hindu religious tenets; and not to any sort of nationalism (not least because there doesn't exist a "Hindu nation"). Succinctly: it's terrorism done in the name of Hindu religion, not of some nation. For this reason, while S Marshall's comment is otherwise very much to the point, it's difficult to agree with his proposal that We know that it has to encapsulate that these are Hindu nationalists -- "Hindu terrorism", read naively, implies forced conversion of Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains; whereas these terrorists' motives are political rather than religious.
Conversely, Hindu terrorism undoubtedly includes such phenomena as
forced conversions or terrorist attacks against religious minorities (
church arson, attacks against Muslim leaders or places of worship). These acts have little to do with the concept of "Hindu nation" and instead stem from, as far as I know, typical
religious fundamentalism. This article is the place for all of it. —
kashmīrīTALK 19:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Forced conversions (at gunpoint) by the Hindus are well documented (e.g.,
[1]. Whereas forced conversion is often included in the broader label of
religious terrorism (e.g.,
[2] which includes many examples from all over the world). I hope you don't argue that systematic use of force (including killings) by a non-state actor against civilians is not terrorism. —
kashmīrīTALK 22:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The article you link doesn’t label the act as “Hindu [or any] terrorism.” As for whether or not systematic use of force (including killings) by non-state actor(s) against civilians is “[religion] terrorism” or not: my personal opinions do not matter. There’s a reason why the preferred term to refer to armed insurgents in Kashmir is ‘
militants’ even when they
behead Hindu villagers for refusing to convert, single-out Hindu (and
sometimes also Sikh) civilians to gun down. Because we have something called
WP:TERRORIST.
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 22:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah, and surprisingly surprisingly all murders in Kashmir are always attributed to "militants", because common crime does not exist there, right? Schoolteachers are murdered by students all over India,
[3][4][5] yet only in Kashmir, teacher murders are immediately attributed by Indian media to "Pakistan-controlled militants" and not to, for instance, abused former students. By the way, the NYT source clearly indicated that the killing of 25 wedding guests were a common robbery - of the type that
has unfortunately happened elsewhere in India, and it takes quite a lot of bad faith (or a nasty politician like L. K. Advani) to present common crime as "Pakistan-inspired sectarian violence".
So - yes,
WP:TERRORISM stands precisely because some people have no idea how things work in reality and are tempted to blindly stick news reports into what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. —
kashmīrīTALK 10:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Kashmiri: No, the NYT articlr does not attribute the crime to a common robbery. Neither does any
WP:RS say that the targeted killing of the Hindu and Sikh teachers, who were singled out by militants for their religion, was an incident of teachers murdered by “abused students.” The killers weren’t even students of the school. I wonder how much
WP:OR like this you have pushed all over wikipedia.
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 06:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The NYT article is extremely careful in attributing blame: the killings, attributed to Pakistan-backed Muslim insurgent groups (not: "carried out by"); gunmen who have been identified by Indian officials as Muslim guerrillas (not: who were guerillas); etc.
You must be naive to believe that only by coincidence these "terrorist attacks" happen
during Clinton's visit to India or when the Hindu nationalistic BJP government is about to announce its Kashmir strategy on Kashmir. You must have also never heard of
the Ikhwanis who have carried out some of the most ruthless attacks in J&K, attributed later to the militants.
[6][7]
I'm not trying to defend anyone; I'm just standing against parroting official propaganda by someone who has clearly no slightest idea of how things actually work in J&K. —
kashmīrīTALK 08:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah no, ignoring
WP:RS and doing
WP:OR is all this is. You claimed that the massacre was a common robbery, the NYT article states that [survivors] said the killers struck after the villagers refused demands from the gunmen that they become Muslims and prove their conversion by eating beef. This is forbidden among Hindus, who regard cows as sacred. The survivors said that the killers forced other villagers to watch as they singled out their victims, killing many of them by cutting their throats. As for having “clearly no slightest idea of how things work in J&K,” I can only laugh. It is indeed not merely a coincidence that these massacres happen when the Indian government announces plans of resettlement of Kashmir’s displaced Hindu minority back in Kashmir.[1] In any case, this is not a forum about terrorism in Kashmir. I can only hope that responsible editors will prevent this article becoming a steaming pile of
original research.
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 19:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Kashmiri, the arguments you raised here are either weak or wrong. Ill go through them one by one.
You said Hindutva terrorism fails WP:COMMONNAME. Ummmm.... how does a title "fail"
WP:COMMONAME?. The policy doesnt actually contain anything about disqualifying a title. Indeed,
if we look at the usage of terms, Hindu terror is less used than Saffron terror so Hindu Terror is by no means the WP:COMMONNAME.
Hindu terrorism encompasses much more than acts of terror resulting from Hindutva ideology, even if currently somewhat underserved by the current version of the article .... by which you mean that the current article isnt about Hindu Terror, but you want to make it about Hindu Terror? Thats not a valid reason to change the title.
Hindutva is a technical term that's not understandable outside of the group of Indian experts and Hindi speakers . Not exactly correct, but even if taken at face value, with the rising use of the word "Hindutva" in RS outside the subcontinent it is relatively minor compared to the issues with your proposed title of Hindu Terror. As such, this can be satisfied with appropriate redirects.
Overall, this is just poking holes in other article titles while not actually justifying the proposed title. You need to support your title, not just oppose others.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 08:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Moving the goalpost?: I didn't write that "Saffron terror" fails COMMONNAME but that Hindutva terrorism fails it.
Certainly, the article merits further work, especially to avoid content duplication with
Hindutva and expanding to broadly construed Hindu terror. Reversal to "Saffron terror" would make it more difficult as some may see the new content as being out of scope.
Not getting it. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my point?
Lastly: You need to support your title, not just oppose others. Why? —
kashmīrīTALK 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Point by point:
Im telling you to read the policy, you will realise that the policy doesnt "fail" any title. And that your title, Hindu terror, does not satisfy the policy. The policy is WP:COMMONAME, not WP:SLIGHTLYMORECOMMONNAME.
Thats absurd. Removing Hindutva Terror since it overlaps with Hindutva?
Im saying its lack of recognition is a weak argument,and not very significant even if we accept it due to other multiple supporting factors for the title, more than the rest.
Because thats what you do in an RM. We are here to find the most appropriate title, and just pointing out flaws in other titles, while not addressing the massive number of flaws in the proposed title is not constructive.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 14:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. There is no consensus to remain at the current title, nor to switch to a different title. It would appear that the options with any significant support are options 2 and 3, with only minor amounts of support for option 1. (
non-admin closure) EggRoll97(
talk) 20:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Hindu terrorism → ? – What should the title of this page be? Four distinct alternatives have been presented thus far, but none have consensus. Given the copious discussion here, I don't see how further workshopping will be helpful. Vanamonde (
Talk) 19:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Options:
Saffron terror (old title).
Hindu terrorism (present title, lacking clear consensus).
Hindutva terrorism
Hindu nationalist terrorism
Hindu extremism
Survey
Option 2, keep current name, oppose move. The current name is not broken. I agree with Kashmiri in previous discussion: (1) "Hindu terrorism" encompasses much more than acts of terror resulting from Hindutva ideology, even if currently somewhat underserved by the current version of the article, (2) "Hindutva terrorism" fails WP:COMMONNAME, and (3) Hindutva is a technical term that's not understandable outside of the group of Indian experts and Hindi speakers. Arguments (1) and (2) also apply to "Hindu nationalist terrorism", while "saffron terror" is just a silly euphemism, also not the common name, and also not understood except by a small subset of readers. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 22:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Argument one and two are wrong, and argument 3 isnt enough to justify the naming of an article with a name that is completely inaccurate. See the comment
here. As for your comment on common name, do note that going by actual evidence, Hindu terror is clearly not the common name. See the comment
here. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CapnJackSp (
talk •
contribs) 09:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 1, the status quo ante per arguments already provided on the first RM, and strongly oppose the current backdoor retaining of 'Hindu terrorism'—there was no consensus for the first move, so why is it the current title?
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 23:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
For instance, in the discussion above, an
editor has presented
this article as an example of “Hindu terrorism,” despite the fact that the article itself doesn’t call the incident an example of Hindu terrorism at all. This goes on to demonstrate the kind of
WP:OR and misrepresentation of sources that the move enables. Any act of extremism by any Hindu Tom, Dick or
Hari will be added to the article regardless of whether
reliable sources describe those acts as ‘terrorism’ or not. What is this if not an
original claim of these acts being terrorism made in
wikivoice?
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 23:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 2. Don't agree that this title, Hindu terrorism, did not gain consensus. The present title achieved consensus in the previous move request through the inclusion of community consensus. According to the objective closer, supporters of the move expressed policy-backed arguments,
WP:RECOGNIZABLE and
WP:PRECISE in particular. Opposition to the page move did not provide policy-based args that effectively countered WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:PRECISE. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 00:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Thats just plain false. Its not that people didnt raise objections, its just that editors ignored the objections
over and
over and
over and
over, and refused to answer.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 14:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
No one said people didn't raise objections. What was said is that the substance of those objections did not match the policy arguments made by supporters. Still don't. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 16:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Are you trying to seriously say that a term without a reliable definition is the basis of a claim for WP:PRECISE? How is Hindu Terror Precise? It is obviously not, editors just said "Saffron terror wasnt precise", and ignored that Hindu terror wasnt precise either (which has been acknowledged by those supporting Hindu terror as a title, as well as the closer in the last statement). Some people silently ignore that a title, Hindutva Terror, exists that is better than both of these.Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 10:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
(sigh, you've drawn me in again) The reason "Hindutva Terror" and "Hindutva terrorism" have found disfavor is because the word "Hindutva" is not easily
RECOGNIZABLE (a policy) to readers. Better for the general reader when we title the article Hindu terrorism (not "Hindu Terror"), a more recognizable phrase. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 11:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
And again, even in this reply, you have ignored the fact that
WP:PRECISE (a policy) doesnt allow Hindu Terror/Terrorism as the title, and havent offered any arguments to contest that either. Thats my point here, Hindu terror fails on multiple grounds, but editors keep glossing over them. Hindutva terror only has one weak argument to be made against it on recognisability grounds.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 13:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Like the way you say "one weak argument" to belittle Wikipedia policy. When we look at the choices, option 4, is the longest, but not really precise nor favored as a title for this article. Of the other four options, all are about the same precision, and so all would be allowed, moreso under
WP:CONCISE. Not for anything, Capn, but you seem to be making things up as you go, still embarrassed by the strong policies you can't fight, PRECISION, RECOGNIZABILITY, and possibly NATURALNESS and CONCISION to boot. Fare thee well, and do feel free to get in the last word!P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 15:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
You are rebuking arguments that havent been made. I never said the policy was weak; I said the argument for citing the policy was weak, since several leading newspapers outside India have started using the term "Hindutva" in their reports ( such as
The Wall Street Journal and
Al Jazeera). Option 4 isnt supported by me, either, no idea why its quoted.
No, not all are similarly precise. Hindutva Terrorism and Saffron Terrorisms have reliable definitions from academic sources, that state what these terms are used to refer to. Hindu terror does not. If we cant even define what the title of the page means using reliable sources, the title is hopelessly imprecise. Thats why I have been saying
WP:PRECISION does not allow Hindu Terror/Terrorism.
Not sure why you brought up Naturalness and Consision, if you can elaborate on it it would be great. I have provided logical arguments for both supporting my title and opposing the ones I feel inappropriate. Others have only given votes and vaguely mentioned policies without explaining why those policies apply. That doesnt make me embarrassed at all. And I have no issues with you replying to me, as long as you discuss with thought out arguments; Its not important to have the last word, its important to have a constructive discussion.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 17:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 2 Per
WP:CONSISTENCY with
Islamic terrorism,
Christian terrorism, etc. I don't see why this page should have an exception to the rule, either they all get moved at once or not at all. I'm sure most followers of Islam or Christianity would agree that it doesn't line up with their belief system, either.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 05:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I can think of one (big) reason: look at the definitions of the phenomenon provided on the three articles.
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 08:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Please explain. All are carried out by extremist factions who are militant about their faith.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 10:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
One is by Islamic extremists, one is by Cristian extremists, one is by Hindu nationalist extremists.
At this point this is bordering WP:IDHT, you have been told this multiple times; Religious Nationalism is not the same as Religion. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CapnJackSp (
talk •
contribs) 15:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Hindutva Terror, option 3 as this is the only article title apart from saffron terror which is actually accurate. Multiple votes in this RFC cite "Consistency" , "Precision" , "Common name" when these arguments have been debunked already in the move request and move review that followed. I will restate this here, since many on this rfc were not part of the discussion earlier and seem not to have read it fully.
WP:CONSISTENT is being applied claiming alignment with Islamic terror and Christian terror. The CONSISTENT argument actually supports Hindutva Terror, since the article is not about Religious terrorism, rather, about Religious Nationalist terrorism (See
Jewish religious terrorism and
the failed RM there for how articles like this are titled)
WP:PRECISE is being applied by a lot of editors to support, with one caveat - Editors keep avoiding the fact the the title, "Hindu terror", is hopelessly imprecise, to the extent that even till now, with over a month since the move request for it began, no one has come up with a reliably sourced definition for it. How can a title be precise when you cant even reliably say what it is? Editors have been dodging this question throughout the last two discussions.
WP:COMMONNAME states , When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.. If we look at the usage of terms, Saffron Terror is more common than Hindu terror (see
this analysis); it is clearly not the "single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used" (sic) name. Therefore, Hindu Terror is not the
WP:COMMONNAME, and that policy cant be used to support Hindu Terror.
I also strongly oppose Option 2 - In the last Move request, where it was discussed to death, the title of Hindu Terror was found to be inaccurate and unsatisfactory. It also has a bunch of issues conflicting with our naming policies, which render it unusable.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 08:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Actually, your COMMONNAME arg does have some substance. Problems arise though, when different ngrams are compared. Your comparison,
Hindu Terror vs. Saffron Terror, changes significantly when compared with
Hindu terrorism vs. Saffron Terror. And while "Saffron Terror", the old title, does see much usage with ngrams, I found that adding "ism" to the end
makes it drop off completely. I don't think ngrams help here, so we should stick to
WP:RECOGNIZABLE and
WP:PRECISE, which in this case outweigh COMMONNAME by a large margin. Hindu terrorism (not "Hindu Terror") appears to be much favored, all things considered. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 11:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I dont think you understand the COMMONNAME policy correctly. You have to show that one title is the Obvious common name, for that policy to apply to any title in the discussion. Here, the policy does not apply at all. We are not measuring WP:SOMEWHATMORECOMMONNAME, either the policy applies or it doesnt. You cant reject Hindutva terror saying it isnt "supported" by COMMONNAME.
WP:PRECISE is exactly why Hindu Terror cant be the title, it fails the policy by a mile due it it being a factually wrong description of the contents of this page and a term that is so imprecise it doesnt even have a reliably sourced definition.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 14:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Would be great to get a reply with policy based arguments instead of allusion to supposed embarrassment.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 17:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 2. The phenomenon of Hinduism-motivated terrorism is well documented and this article needs to allow adding such content – Hindu terrorist acts not strictly linked with Hindutva ideology. Of all the proposed titles, only Hindu terrorism captures it well. —
kashmīrīTALK 10:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 2: There's not really a great scope for confusion here. As with all forms of religious terrorism, this one does what it says on the tin. A minority of extremists employ violent tactics in an attempt to force their views on others. It's simple and concise, and any average reader will know exactly what it is about, without confusion over specialist terms like "Hindutva" or the niche color metaphor of "saffron". As noted, this is the same setup as with Islamic terrorism -or Christian terrorism - concepts readers will be familiar with and understand as parallel.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 10:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 2: (
Summoned by bot) I wholeheartedly endorse the arguments of SMcCandlish, Paine Ellsworth and Iskandar323. 'Hindu terrorism' may not be clearly the COMMONNAME to a non-expert English-speaking readership, but the alternatives aren't either and the alternatives fail to be inherently
WP:RECOGNIZABLE. I am reminded of the arguments against the term 'Islamic terrorism', which many regard as an oxymoron or as imprecise and/or offensive to Islam - but is used by us partly as it is the most easily understandable term. I don't think consistency is necessarily a virtue, but in this instance similar considerations apply to other forms of terrorism inspired and justified by religious conviction/identification. Hindu Terror is inherently ambiguous, but no one is proposing that truncated form.
Pincrete (
talk) 11:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 3 "Hindutva terrorism" speaks of the ideological motives. "Hindu terrorism" does not do that because no one gets inspired by Hinduism but Hindutva ideology to commit violent act as clearly described by reliable sources.
Dympies (
talk) 14:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Hindutva is a term that adds little meaning, but a huge dose of unrecognizability. As a term usually translated as
"Hindu-ness", using "Hindutva terrorism" just gives you "Hindu-ness terrorism" and a foreign term in an en.wiki page title.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 14:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
This argument is wrong, and you seemed to have accepted this when you suddenly stopped replying in the thread where this was discussed between you and me. Trying to equate Hindu with Hindutva either shows a complete lack of knowledge of the two terms or an attempt at being intentionally misleading.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 15:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
That the same discussion as we had at ''Islamic terrorism'' vs ''Islamist terrorism'', with the consensus for the former. Here, ''Hindu'' serves to distinguish the broad type of terrorism from terrorism motivated by other religions, rather than trying to precisely capture the motivation behind individual acts. —
kashmīrīTALK 18:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Apples to oranges comparison. You are comparing Islamic vs Radical Islamic, in which case Islamic is used. We are comparing Hindu vs Nationalist Hindu, in which case Nationalist Hindu (Hindutva) is the motivation. See
Jewish religious terrorism and the RM there for consistency based arguments.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 05:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
We are comparing? Who are the we in this sentence? Are you talking about your
meatcabal? You must be, looking at the very same people who !voted for Option 3, vote-stack along the same lines on every ARBIPA discussion of WP.
@
CapnJackSp: No, we're not talking ''nationalist'' Hindu. This article's subject is religious terrorism, not nationalistic terrorism. Is it so hard for you to understand the difference? —
kashmīrīTALK 10:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The above statement is completely false. Till the last month, the article was clearly about Saffron Terror, which is a term used interchangeably with Hindutva Terror. Even now, the article is about Hindutva Terrorism only, with the sole exception of changes to lead where "Hindu Terror" has been equated with Hindutva terror. This change has been done by certain editors even though the close of the last Move Review, when the title was moved, has concluded that the new title is wrong. All this in no way makes "Hindu Terror" the title, it only reinforces that the title is wrong. Till now, there is no supposed incidents of Hindu terror on this page, just Hindutva Terror.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 11:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 3 Current title makes zero sense. The article is about politically motivated violence that needs to be described as such. There is no need to need to cause confusion.
REDISCOVERBHARAT (
talk) 15:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 2 per well-argued points made by SMcCandlish, P.I. Ellsworth, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, JML1148, kashmīrī, Iskandar323 and Pincrete. —
Roman Spinner(talk •
contribs) 00:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 3 Sources seem too clear over ideological motives. They are religious, not political. Any other option except "Saffron terror" makes no sense. Those talking about
WP:CONSISTENT are selectively using it. We don't have
Sikh terrorism but
Khalistan movement.
ArvindPalaskar (
talk) 09:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Sorry, what? "Any other option except 'Saffron terror' makes no sense"? Um...you
!voted for "Option 3", which is not "Saffron terror", is it. What's up? Am I missing something? P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 09:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I supported Option 3, then I went to talk about "any other option" and found only "Saffron terror" to be sensible but I am not ready to support it over Option 3. Thanks
ArvindPalaskar (
talk) 11:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you very much for that! I see now that what you wrote does make perfect sense, so... my bad. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 11:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 3 Hindutva terrorism" speaks of the ideological motives and Hindu Terrorism is not the Commonname.
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk) 23:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose 1 & 5. I am as yet undecided on what the best option is; there are issues of precision and popularity that render each of the remaining options sub-optimal; but these two are clearly the worst. There are precision and jargon issues with "saffron terror": scholars have used it to refer to terrorism committed by Buddhists, and it isn't necessarily clear to anyone without an understanding of the connotations of "saffron". Arguably it's even more jargon than "Hindutva terrorism", as the latter has at least a clear etymological connection with Hinduism. And "Hindu extremism" is just a more general phenomenon, with a different body of sources. Vanamonde (
Talk) 23:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 3 The sources describe politics by Hindutva groups as motivation. As
Audrey Truschke describes, "Hindutva and
Hinduism are distinct. Hindutva is a narrow political ideology whereas Hinduism is a broad-based religious tradition. Many Hindus oppose Hindutva ideology, both in India and in the US-based diaspora, and it is offensive to conflate the two." Founder of Hindutva
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar also said Hinduism isn't same as Hindutva.
[8] That means the distinction between Hindu and Hindutva is very important and any rejection of this fact would be gross error. >>>
Extorc.
talk 18:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 3 as the best available choice. It has been already clarified that the information is specific to Hindutva does "Hindu" or "Hinduism" also becomes irrelevant. As above mentioned, there is also no
Sikh terrorism but
Khalistan movement, that's why option 2 and 5 are misleading.
Accesscrawl (
talk) 12:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:WAX-style examples are irrelevant - maybe it should be
Sikh terrorism, since there are more than enough sources terming it as such, and it would be consistent and not exceptional versus other religious terrorisms that way, but that's a discussion for that page.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 12:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:WAX is a policy on deletion, where it is indeed applicable. However, when weighing "consistency" arguments, we do need to look into other articles like
Khalistan Movement,
Jewish religious terrorism,
Buddhist extremism. These do not fit the "consistent titling" some have claimed. While singular examples may be brushed away, not all of them can.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 15:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, hence while I said
WP:WAX-style. But to the flawed analogies, yes, Sikh terrorism redirects to Khalistan Movement, since 2009, but only because no one has tried to create a Sikh terrorism page since with proper sources. Buddhist terrorism likewise does not exist simply because nobody has yet ever attempted to create it. The
Jewish religious terrorism page meanwhile currently exists in its form because modern, specifically Israel-related forms of political violence and terrorism currently exist at
Zionist political violence, and some editors in the recent move discussion (a modest affair) thought these should remain distinct. The jury is still out on that. The topic is also complicated by the fact that "Jewishness" is an ethnicity with a strongly racial component to its identity politics, to the extent that the term "
secular Jew", in the sense of person who believes themselves to be racially Jewish but irreligious, exists as a category- hence the opinion can be mooted that when Jewish violence is discussed and it is thought to be religious in nature, its religiosity needs to be specified because 'Jewish', in of itself, can entail the irreligious. That is not really the case with Hindu identity, which is not such a heavily racialized ethnic identity as Jewishness, but a religious and cultural ethnicity that encompasses a continent and is distinctly multi-racial in its composition. Hence
secular Hindu is not a term with wide currency.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 19:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The complications you list are also applicable here. The ideology at hand is Hindutva (nationalism), not religious extremism like in the pages that are quoted for consistency (like Islamic terror and Christian Terror). In any case, the existence of the pages quoted, and the deviation of this page's ideology from articles like
Islamic terrorism and
Christian terrorism ensure that the
WP:CONSISTENT argument just doesnt work. The claim that all of them should be titled "Religious Terror" stems from a flawed understanding that religion is the only driving force for terror.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 04:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 2 per the
WP:SKYISBLUE and
WP:SPADE, owing to the fact that moving to Hindutva terrorism from the current title will narrow down the scope of the article. The following comparison further settles the religious vs political debate:
What this table shows is exactly proving that Hindu terror is the incorrect title for this page. The fact that
Zionist Terrorism is clearly separated from
Jewish Terrorism shows that similarly, Hindutva terrorism' should be separated from Hindu terrorism and it should not be confused together as some editors have done. The rest is just a comparison of redirects, not article titles; it holds zero value in the page move discussions where only titles matter the most.
ArvindPalaskar (
talk) 13:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The topic can be subdivided later if there is enough material, but that's not clear for now.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 14:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 3 as the most viable option. Second choice would be Option 1. The rest are misleading because they inaccurately represent the subject.
Capitals00 (
talk) 02:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 3 Like I had said on MR too that the new page title had no consensus, and now option 3 seems most justifiable as it points to the ideological motives better than other options.
desmay (
talk) 02:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I've started an AfD.—
Alalch E. 02:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Terror vs. Terrorism
While it may seem to some that there is confusion between the terms "Terror" and "Terrorism", I don't think that's the case. When ngrams are studied, the term "Terror" is often much more prominent than "Terrorism". In fact if "Terror" is changed to "Terrorism", the name often falls off the ngrams graph completely. I found that happens when "Saffron Terror" is changed to "Saffron terrorism", and when "Hindutva Terror" is changed to "Hindutva terrorism". So possible confusion aside, an ngrams analysis often prefers "______ Terror" (or "______ terror") over "______ terrorism". To me, that pretty much throws COMMONNAME out the window as a supporting policy for any potential title of this article. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 12:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Apart from being NEWSSTYLE, in my experience 'terror' is often used by news sources before a motive has been established. Anything that frightens people and causes panic can reasonably be described as 'terror', whereas 'terrorism' presupposes a political motive of some kind.
Pincrete (
talk) 07:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
This point about political motives is pretty key, because some discussion participants here appear to mistakenly believe there is some sort of distinction between religious terrorism, per se, and religious nationalist terrorism, whereas, in reality, (geo-)political goals lie at the heart of all terrorism. 'Religious terrorism' is just a concise form of 'religiously motivated political violence'.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 09:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Iskandar323: You are 100% incorrect. The vast majority of terrorism in many countries is domestic terrorism (criminal terrorism)
[9][10], which is not linked to any geopolitical goals. —
kashmīrīTALK 09:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)reply
It is either (race/social/environmental) politics or geopolitics. The first source you quote states: "Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals..."Iskandar323 (
talk) 10:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Where do you have any geopolitics in it? In, say, environmental activists damaging 5G towers or blocking oil rigs or fishing vessels? —
kashmīrīTALK 10:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Going around in circles re: WP:CONSISTENT?
Since
WP:CONSISTENT is being argued again for "Hindu terrorism", here’s what the close of the earlier RM, which has been neither upheld nor withdrawn in theory (but remains de facto upheld), Several supporters of "Hindu terrorism" argued that it would be WP:CONSISTENT with other article titles on religious terrorism. However, later in the discussion it was demonstrated that such articles are not actually consistently titled, and that some of the pro-CONSISTENT evidence in fact referred to redirects. Thus, WP:CONSISTENT does not ultimately support either title. (boldfaced by me).
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 08:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The lack of total consistency there is partly due to the articles covering a range of topics, including attitude of religion X to violence - current campaign of violence by members of religion X and "specific (often past) campaign of violence by members of religion X". Only the middle kind is comparable, and that is broadly consistent when a COMMONNAME is not established. Absence of total consistency is not the same as total absence of consistency.
Pincrete (
talk) 07:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
We dont name as "<religion> terror", we name as "<ideology> terrorism". If the ideology is religion, then it is named as "<religion> terrorism", but that is not the case here. In this case the ideology is Hindu Nationalism (Hindutva) , resulting in "Hindutva Terrorism".
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 05:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Hindu nationalism is not identical to
Hindutva - hence those are separate pages. As to the part before that, no, we don't name articles <religious> terrorism, because we label them <religious adjective> terrorism, as in the case of Islamic terrorism and Christian terrorism.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 19:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The organisations accused on this page, RSS and Abhinav Bharat, were both based on Hindutva. And even on our Hindu Nationalist page, Today, Hindutva ... is a dominant form of Hindu nationalist politics in India. However, if you insist on Hindu Nationalist Terror as the title I am open to considering it.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 04:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Also unsure, but this and your comment in the survey section made me think - You seem to be heavily emphasising on "Religious" in your answers. I hope you are not under the impression that religion is the only reason for terrorism. We dont title "<religious adjective> terrorism", we title "<ideology adjective> terrorism". (Im not too concerned with the somewhat insignificant difference between "<ideology> terrorism" and "<ideology adjective> terrorism", so I have used your preferred style).
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 04:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
CapnJackSp Incorrect. We name "<religion> terrorism", as you can see in other similar articles. This is because such acts are often motivated by simple, stupid religious hatred and not by any ideology. Those Hindu mobs burning churches in MeghalayaManipur or Nagaland have most likely never heard of Hindutva, much like Christians attacking Muslims in the west are not necessarily adherents to fundamentalist ideologies.
If you're trying to limit this article to Hindutva, then you seem to deny the existence of Hindu religious hatred and terror other than by one carried out by Sangh Parivar. Which is basically a political bias on your end. —
kashmīrīTALK 08:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
No, we dont name as <"Religion Terror">. Look at articles like
Khalistan Movement,
Buddhist extremism,
Jewish religious terrorism, all of which are in direct contradiction to your format, focusing on Ideology and not necessarily using Terror/Terrorism. The only articles you have to support your theory of CONSISTENCY are
Islamic terrorism and
Christian terrorism, so by all means this is a show of us not following any specific template, with "ideology" being the identifying characteristic when we do label something as Terrorism. Your argument of limiting titles to religious terror only is based on a flawed basis that all terrorism emanates from religion.
I do not think there has been any implication by me as to lack of violence by Hindus, and I object to your characterisation of my opinion as such. However, such information already exists on several pages on Wikipedia - If compiled, it would be a separate article as the current contents clearly do not fall under Hindu Terrorism. This RFC is a discussion of the best title for the current article, not a debate over whether we should rename it and rewrite from scratch.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 11:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
PS: Though as a separate point, which church was burnt down in Meghalaya? I cant seem to find any RS about it, I hope you dont rely on Twitter for news. I did read about one in Manipur if thats what you are referring to, though that violence was not really religious.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 11:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
For those who may not be up to date with NE India, there has been recent violence between people of the Meitei and Naga, Kuki communities in Manipur and some parts of Nagaland and Meghalaya, over a proposed change in status of the Meitei to be recognised as a Scheduled Tribe. You can read more
here.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 16:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Why on earth are you posting this here?! This is prototypical
WP:FORUM crap.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 17:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
As there was a claim that the violence was about "Hindu mobs burning churches in MeghalayaManipur or Nagaland" (sic), I added this here for context.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 18:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus: why has the article not reverted to the original status quo?
This is a blatant abuse of wiki policy to force the disputed result of the original RM, which in the RM review has not been upheld. This is exactly what I meant when I said that a discussion without returning to the original status quo is nothing but a backdoor retaining of the new title. That’s precisely what has happened here. @
Amakuru: pinging you since you are the one who moved the article to the current title.
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 06:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Clarifying that I’m not saying that
Amakuru has abused wiki policy, but that that the current title was pasted on the article last through their hands. The decision to not return to the original status quo was theirs (and of the original RM’s reviewer).
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 06:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The thing is though, the original discussion found a consensus to move, and the move review did not overturn that decision. So there was no particular reason why the original title should be restored. Instead, the MRV directed participants to continue the discussion and work towards a fresh conclusion. That was attempted, but no fresh conclusion was reached, it was no consensus. That means the status quo at the time of the move closure, which was the title of "Hindu terrorism", remained in place. My move back to that title was simply restoring that status quo. Had the original MRV finding been to overturn to no consensus, then I would have acted differently, so this isn't really anything to do with my decision making. For what it's worth, as someone who has not particular opinion on this, I endorse the closure here, the whole issue seems intractable at this point and everyone stepping away is to be advised. Cheers —
Amakuru (
talk) 14:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Amakuru, the current move request wasnt a move request from Hindu Terror to some other title - It was a Move request to find out which title was the correct one. As such, even Hindu Terror is a 'No Consensus' title per the close. Per policy, we are required to revert to the last stable title, which would be Saffron Terror. I think we will have to wait till the close of the current MRV, but just wanted to point this out.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 04:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
If I may add that while editor Amakuru did not mention this, the most recent RM resulted in a lot of support rationales for two of the five choices, and little or no support for the other three. One of those other three was the old status quo title, which was supported by only one editor, yourself. That means that while there was no consensus for any of the five choices, there was an obvious, strong consensus to not move the article back to its earlier status quo title. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 09:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Note - This is a personal opinion of the editor which has been contested several times.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 04:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Note that rather than being a personal opinion, it is a fact that resulted from the most recent RM. To ignore the fact that there was an overwhelming consensus against "Saffron Terror" does not in any way detract from its veracity. To contest this fact merely means to contest the truth. Only "stars" can get away with stuff like that, according to the actions of an ex-president of the US. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 04:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Note that this is a misrepresentation based on ignoring prior discussions :)
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 10:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
No, Sparrow, my description is a faithful representation based on ignoring prior discussions. Wikipedia places precedence on current consensus, not on old news. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 20:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
By current consensus, your preferred title has no consensus and as such should be rolled back to the stable version. Your entire argument rests on stale discussions.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 17:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Not so, and you can't have it both ways, Sparrow. Not so, because I don't have a "preferred title" at the moment. And the current title gained consensus in the first RM and has not lost that consensus, which is why the article is still currently titled "Hindu terrorism".
You just cannot have it both ways! Above you accuse me of "a misrepresentation based on ignoring prior discussions", and here you say, "Your entire argument rests on stale discussions." How exactly can I make an argument that rests on "stale" discussions, and be "ignoring" prior discussions??? You just dig the hole deeper and deeper. Shameful bit of reasoning there, what? P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 18:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
It lost consensus in the last move request.
There is no consensus to remain at the current title
I think you are confused about what I said, so Ill clarify for the reader - You ignore the discussions we had as if they never happened, to repeat the same arguments. All the while, you take up the old RM as a shield while also saying we shouldnt use "old news".
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 03:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I think you are confused about what I said, so Ill clarify for the reader
Thank you so much, Jack, now allow me to do the same. Hindu terrorism as the current title did not "lose consensus" in the last move request. On Wikipedia, when a title gains consensus it keeps consensus until one of two things happens: 1) there is a consensus against the title in a future discussion, 2) there is consensus for another title in a future discussion. Neither has happened. So "Hindu terrorism" is still the only title that has gained (and kept) its consensus support. Editors and readers do not have to take my word for it. A good and understanding read (or re-read if necessary) of
WP:CONSENSUS and some of its links will confirm everything I've said. You wanted policies and guidelines? There are your Ps and Gs. "Hindu terrorism", the current title, gained consensus in the first RM and did not lose the title in the first MRV. Then in the second RM that title went up against four other possible names and did not lose its standing, it remained the title. I mean, it's no
Cassius Clay, but as the title for this article, Hindu terrorism keeps and is still wearing the belt!P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 07:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Its again the same argument rehashed again.
It didnt gain consensus - The Mover review invalidated the original close (it fell forward, but it fell nonetheless), and said the title could not be Hindu Terror. The current close affirms that.
Just more out-of-process hand-waving. Everything I wrote is well within the Ps and Gs. STATUSQUO is not being ignored, because the current title is now the status quo as established in the first RM and MRV. The second RM upheld it as the status quo, so it remains the title of this article until editors can garner consensus for another name in a future discussion. Happy Days!P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 07:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Again, what made it the Status Quo? It has been challenged since before it was the title. Second RM declared it to not have consensus for the title. As such, it reverts to the stable title, after which you can take up the discussion you wish.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 07:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
And again (and again and again until it hammers in) editors came to consensus for the current title and against the old title in the first RM. That decision was implicitly upheld by the first MRV. So after that first MRV, when the title of this article did not change and remained at "Hindu terrorism", its status as the consensual title was carried into the second move request. None of the other four titles gained consensus over the current title, so it still remains the title. And no matter how many times it is "challenged", it will stay the title until there is consensus against it or until another title gains (or regains) consensus over it. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 07:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Its the blunt end of a hammer being bludgeoned, its not going to hammer in. You are still repeating the consensus that fell in the MRV, and then was declared "no consensus".
Status Quo is Saffron Terror, policy based title is Hindutva terrorism, yet you keep fighting for Hindu terrorism since some editors stubbornly use
WP:ILIKEIT.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 07:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Don't fight for any particular title, unlike you who fights so ardently for a title that has not yet gained consensus, Hindutva terrorism, and now you split your ILIKEIT to support a title that lost consensus, Saffron terror. Instead I fight for Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, which are crystal clear in this case. The current title is still the title because it still enjoys consensus, it is still the status quo. So it will remain until it is unseated by a better title, whatever that title may be. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 08:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
PS If there is a title that I favor, it would presently be "Hindu nationalist terrorism", which is thus far better than all other titles put together, imho.
P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 08:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
S Marshall: What say you? MDT's close does not stand, but it falls forward instead of falling back: all the article titles suggested so far are unsatisfactory doesn't sound like "MDT's close stands as long as a bunch of people insist on keeping with one of the unsatisfactory article titles" to me, but the MR close is too ambiguous to do much with it. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 10:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
As I said in the MR, I think that we have yet to reach consensus about what the title should be. I think that Hindu terrorism has a lot more support than Saffron terror. But I do not think that this article should be called Hindu terrorism and I hope that a better title can be found. I suggest trying some alternatives -- personally I like AlalchE's suggestion of calling it "Hindu nationalist terrorism".—
S MarshallT/
C 16:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The problem is, while your closure said neither is satisfactory, you implicitly endorsed the result by refusing to call it "no consensus" after the move was executed. Thus the burden is on those who opposed to find support for an alternative while the side that supported the present title can just sit back and repeat their position. It's a frustrating closure because it's functionally "endorse, but feel free to try another RM" but says that it's not endorsed (sortakinda). It tries to find a third way, but fails to actually do so. Do with that what you will. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 20:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Edits
@
Portwoman please cite the sections you are using to remove "alleged". The citations do have cases where the news only states "close to" or the like.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 17:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Im not using sections, but refering to references which state otherwise.
Portwoman (
talk) 17:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, I am asking you to cite the portions of those references that mention what you are trying to implement.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 17:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Portwoman do NOT change the lead till you acheive consensus for your edit. You have not only not achieved consensus, you have also not made any efforts to provide any sourcing for it.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 18:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Neither does this mean that you have achieved consensus.
so, please wait and let other editors conclude wit their respective opinions.
Portwoman (
talk) 18:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Actually the onus is on the editor who originally added these words, to prove that they follow the sources listed. —
kashmīrīTALK 19:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The current sentence closely follows a version that has been in place since atleast the last five years -
[11] - Possibly much older. At this point, it is very much the longstanding status quo and would require consensus to change.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 20:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is a live encyclopaedia. It's really ok to remove wrong information even after 20 years. —
kashmīrīTALK 22:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Obviously. But that wasnt the point, was it? The onus lies on someone trying to change longstanding info. My response was to you saying the onus was on someone else; That is not so. If someone is changing longstanding info and gets reverted,
WP:BRD,
WP:ONUS apply.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 05:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)reply
That said, terrorism is not a phenomenon unique to organisational members.
Lone wolf terrorism is a well-attested phenomenon also in India (shall I mention
Nathuram Godse?) —
kashmīrīTALK 22:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The phrase "alleged members" was added in 2014
[12] when the article was titled Saffron terror. The lead in that edit read:
It was added by @
Kautilya3: (pinging so he can weigh in on the discussion).
Schazjmd(talk) 22:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Recently, I stumbled upon a webpage discussing Hindu terrorism, and I was surprised to see the name of RSS (Rashtriya Swyamsevak Sangh) mentioned there. It should be noted that RSS is a nationalist organization, not a terrorist organization. I kindly ask for the prompt removal of its name from that page.
Kunal582002 (
talk) 12:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Despite RSS group being a nationalist organisation within, the attack investigations and the supreme court hearings bought up perpetrators linked with the group. And there's nowhere mentioned RSS is a terrorist organisation. It's only declared that some RSS leaders involved in the terrorist incidents as stated above. So I don't think any changes are required, as it seems to be an ideological diversion here.
Constantiyespole (
talk) 11:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The subject of this article is
controversial and content may be in
dispute. When updating the article,
be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a
neutral point of view. Include
citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay
calm and
civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and
do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached,
other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in
Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on
terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
On 30 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be
moved. The result of
the discussion was no consensus.
Move review close
I will quote it here:
In this move review, the community considers whether ModernDayTrilobite's very articulate and well-explained close really reflects what the community said. Arguably it doesn't, and many editors -- too many good faith editors to disregard -- feel that this close reduces to MDT's opinion in a hat box. I have to say that the close can't stand as written. I think that's a pity, because it is a very clear close that comes with a commendably detailed explanation of its basis in policy. It was a non-admin close, and yet I wish that more admin closes looked like that.
The article we're considering was previously called "Saffron terror", which is a problematic title for several reasons that are well-explained in the move discussion that MDT closed. It has been moved to "Hindu terror", which is also problematic for other reasons that are also well-explained.
The community hasn't coalesced around one of the options here, and I think that's because none of the choices is really satisfactory. The actual subject of the article is terrorism committed by Hindu nationalist groups in India in the 21st century. The challenge here is to find a pithy title that encapsulates this in a neutral, non-partisan way that isn't totally opaque to people who aren't Indian. We need new ideas about this.
I seriously considered overturning to relist, and I'm not going to do that, because it sends us back to the old choice between the two unsatisfactory titles. We've already had that conversation and we know it doesn't go anywhere helpful. Therefore we know we need to go back to the article talk page and come up with some better names.
From this discussion we already know some of the characteristics a satisfactory article title would have. We know that it has to encapsulate that these are Hindu nationalists -- "Hindu terrorism", read naively, implies forced conversion of Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains; whereas these terrorists' motives are political rather than religious. It's also unsatisfactory to ascribe terrorist acts to a spice or a colour.
If the article talk page discussion stalls or becomes stagnant, then I would suggest beginning a Request for Comment to ask previously uninvolved users to help workshop satisfactory titles. I'm not going to revert the move in the meantime, because that's unproductive when the community doesn't love Saffron Terror as a title either.
I haven't given you a word in bold, and this is intentional. This outcome is neither "endorse", nor "overturn", nor "relist". I haven't selected any of the options from the menu at
Wikipedia:Move reviews#Closing reviews because none of them resolve the problem in this case. Instead I'm providing a
narrative verdict. MDT's close does not stand, but it falls forward instead of falling back: all the article titles suggested so far are unsatisfactory, so please, go back to the talk page and come up with other possible titles for this article.— —
S Marshall's close of the
"Hindu terorrism" move review23:48, 29 April 2023
I have moved the page to a neutral descriptive title which should be less contentious than both "saffron terror" and "Hindu terrorism" while editors discuss potentially better titles. One such title could be "Hindutva terrorism". In my opinion "Hindu nationalist terrorism" is about equally good as "Hindutva terrorism".—
Alalch E. 01:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
That's not acceptable and I've reverted that move. Either propose a new title in an RM, or we retain the title as closed above. Names are not chosen by editors arbitrarily. —
Amakuru (
talk) 14:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
If I understand S Marshall's close, effectively we need an option that's neither "Hindu terrorism" nor "Saffron terror". There's one obvious candidate, since it came up in the original RM:
Hindutva terrorism. Any objections? (Bearing in mind any objection should have an alternative, since we have something of a mandate not to use the present title). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
No objection from me, and, in fact, I have suggested it multiple times. "Saffron terror" and "Hindutva terrorism" are synonymous. --
Kautilya3 (
talk) 16:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose. As I said multiple times, (1) Hindu terrorism encompasses much more than acts of terror resulting from Hindutva ideology, even if currently somewhat underserved by the current version of the article, (2) Hindutva terrorism fails
WP:COMMONNAME, and (3) Hindutva is a technical term that's not understandable outside of the group of Indian experts and Hindi speakers. —
kashmīrīTALK 16:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
What is your alternative? Hindu terrorism is, per the statement above, not going to be the title (and the scope of this discussion is just about naming, not broadening the subject o the article). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The current discussion insufficiently caters for the fact that we already have
Hindutva article, and thus this article should have a somewhat different, possibly broader scope. Hindu terrorism is a broader term than Hindutva whereas Hindutva terrorism is narrower. I object narrowing the scope of this article. —
kashmīrīTALK 22:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
It's ok, but Hindu nationalist terrorism (the title Alach E boldly moved it to) is qualitatively better. Hindutva and Hindu nationalism are essentially synonymous but the latter is far more natural and recognisable for any reader not intimately acquainted with Indian politics.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 16:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
If the move request is to be rerun with a search for a new title, then it should probably revert to the original longterm title of Saffron terror in the meantime, or else remain with the Hindu terrorism title that was chosen in the RM above. We can't just pick new names without the RM process, especially when there's such obvious disagreement on the nature of this title. In the end, if there is no agreement at all and no consensus for anything, then the original status quo is where it reverts. —
Amakuru (
talk) 17:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I must clarify: we should return to the original status quo while the search for a new title is underway, and must stick to it until such a time when consensus emerges. Otherwise the move to ‘Hindu terrorism’ is a fait accompli.
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 21:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
@
UnpetitproleX: At this point, with an RM started, it is better to stick to the current title to avoid confusion. You should just !vote in the RM below and assume that there is no status quo bias toward any title. Clean slate, so to speak.
RegentsPark (
comment) 22:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I disagree, a clean slate is returning to the original situation and then discussing a new title for move, otherwise the previous move stands upheld.
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 23:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I think it would be helpful if @
S Marshall: clarified their move request. While the close summary was comprehensive and clarified the underlying issues well, it would be helpful to get a firm statement on whether the article should remain at this title or revert to the original
Saffron terrorism. Otherwise the discussion on where the article should be titled at now could easily become a distraction.
RegentsPark (
comment) 18:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
In the closing statement, I wrote: I'm not going to revert the move in the meantime, because that's unproductive when the community doesn't love Saffron Terror as a title either.—
S MarshallT/
C 18:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I know it won't help to come up with a better name, but let me point out that Hindu terrorism is, ex definitio, a type of terrorism related to Hindu religious tenets; and not to any sort of nationalism (not least because there doesn't exist a "Hindu nation"). Succinctly: it's terrorism done in the name of Hindu religion, not of some nation. For this reason, while S Marshall's comment is otherwise very much to the point, it's difficult to agree with his proposal that We know that it has to encapsulate that these are Hindu nationalists -- "Hindu terrorism", read naively, implies forced conversion of Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains; whereas these terrorists' motives are political rather than religious.
Conversely, Hindu terrorism undoubtedly includes such phenomena as
forced conversions or terrorist attacks against religious minorities (
church arson, attacks against Muslim leaders or places of worship). These acts have little to do with the concept of "Hindu nation" and instead stem from, as far as I know, typical
religious fundamentalism. This article is the place for all of it. —
kashmīrīTALK 19:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Forced conversions (at gunpoint) by the Hindus are well documented (e.g.,
[1]. Whereas forced conversion is often included in the broader label of
religious terrorism (e.g.,
[2] which includes many examples from all over the world). I hope you don't argue that systematic use of force (including killings) by a non-state actor against civilians is not terrorism. —
kashmīrīTALK 22:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The article you link doesn’t label the act as “Hindu [or any] terrorism.” As for whether or not systematic use of force (including killings) by non-state actor(s) against civilians is “[religion] terrorism” or not: my personal opinions do not matter. There’s a reason why the preferred term to refer to armed insurgents in Kashmir is ‘
militants’ even when they
behead Hindu villagers for refusing to convert, single-out Hindu (and
sometimes also Sikh) civilians to gun down. Because we have something called
WP:TERRORIST.
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 22:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah, and surprisingly surprisingly all murders in Kashmir are always attributed to "militants", because common crime does not exist there, right? Schoolteachers are murdered by students all over India,
[3][4][5] yet only in Kashmir, teacher murders are immediately attributed by Indian media to "Pakistan-controlled militants" and not to, for instance, abused former students. By the way, the NYT source clearly indicated that the killing of 25 wedding guests were a common robbery - of the type that
has unfortunately happened elsewhere in India, and it takes quite a lot of bad faith (or a nasty politician like L. K. Advani) to present common crime as "Pakistan-inspired sectarian violence".
So - yes,
WP:TERRORISM stands precisely because some people have no idea how things work in reality and are tempted to blindly stick news reports into what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. —
kashmīrīTALK 10:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Kashmiri: No, the NYT articlr does not attribute the crime to a common robbery. Neither does any
WP:RS say that the targeted killing of the Hindu and Sikh teachers, who were singled out by militants for their religion, was an incident of teachers murdered by “abused students.” The killers weren’t even students of the school. I wonder how much
WP:OR like this you have pushed all over wikipedia.
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 06:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The NYT article is extremely careful in attributing blame: the killings, attributed to Pakistan-backed Muslim insurgent groups (not: "carried out by"); gunmen who have been identified by Indian officials as Muslim guerrillas (not: who were guerillas); etc.
You must be naive to believe that only by coincidence these "terrorist attacks" happen
during Clinton's visit to India or when the Hindu nationalistic BJP government is about to announce its Kashmir strategy on Kashmir. You must have also never heard of
the Ikhwanis who have carried out some of the most ruthless attacks in J&K, attributed later to the militants.
[6][7]
I'm not trying to defend anyone; I'm just standing against parroting official propaganda by someone who has clearly no slightest idea of how things actually work in J&K. —
kashmīrīTALK 08:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah no, ignoring
WP:RS and doing
WP:OR is all this is. You claimed that the massacre was a common robbery, the NYT article states that [survivors] said the killers struck after the villagers refused demands from the gunmen that they become Muslims and prove their conversion by eating beef. This is forbidden among Hindus, who regard cows as sacred. The survivors said that the killers forced other villagers to watch as they singled out their victims, killing many of them by cutting their throats. As for having “clearly no slightest idea of how things work in J&K,” I can only laugh. It is indeed not merely a coincidence that these massacres happen when the Indian government announces plans of resettlement of Kashmir’s displaced Hindu minority back in Kashmir.[1] In any case, this is not a forum about terrorism in Kashmir. I can only hope that responsible editors will prevent this article becoming a steaming pile of
original research.
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 19:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Kashmiri, the arguments you raised here are either weak or wrong. Ill go through them one by one.
You said Hindutva terrorism fails WP:COMMONNAME. Ummmm.... how does a title "fail"
WP:COMMONAME?. The policy doesnt actually contain anything about disqualifying a title. Indeed,
if we look at the usage of terms, Hindu terror is less used than Saffron terror so Hindu Terror is by no means the WP:COMMONNAME.
Hindu terrorism encompasses much more than acts of terror resulting from Hindutva ideology, even if currently somewhat underserved by the current version of the article .... by which you mean that the current article isnt about Hindu Terror, but you want to make it about Hindu Terror? Thats not a valid reason to change the title.
Hindutva is a technical term that's not understandable outside of the group of Indian experts and Hindi speakers . Not exactly correct, but even if taken at face value, with the rising use of the word "Hindutva" in RS outside the subcontinent it is relatively minor compared to the issues with your proposed title of Hindu Terror. As such, this can be satisfied with appropriate redirects.
Overall, this is just poking holes in other article titles while not actually justifying the proposed title. You need to support your title, not just oppose others.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 08:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Moving the goalpost?: I didn't write that "Saffron terror" fails COMMONNAME but that Hindutva terrorism fails it.
Certainly, the article merits further work, especially to avoid content duplication with
Hindutva and expanding to broadly construed Hindu terror. Reversal to "Saffron terror" would make it more difficult as some may see the new content as being out of scope.
Not getting it. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my point?
Lastly: You need to support your title, not just oppose others. Why? —
kashmīrīTALK 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Point by point:
Im telling you to read the policy, you will realise that the policy doesnt "fail" any title. And that your title, Hindu terror, does not satisfy the policy. The policy is WP:COMMONAME, not WP:SLIGHTLYMORECOMMONNAME.
Thats absurd. Removing Hindutva Terror since it overlaps with Hindutva?
Im saying its lack of recognition is a weak argument,and not very significant even if we accept it due to other multiple supporting factors for the title, more than the rest.
Because thats what you do in an RM. We are here to find the most appropriate title, and just pointing out flaws in other titles, while not addressing the massive number of flaws in the proposed title is not constructive.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 14:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. There is no consensus to remain at the current title, nor to switch to a different title. It would appear that the options with any significant support are options 2 and 3, with only minor amounts of support for option 1. (
non-admin closure) EggRoll97(
talk) 20:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Hindu terrorism → ? – What should the title of this page be? Four distinct alternatives have been presented thus far, but none have consensus. Given the copious discussion here, I don't see how further workshopping will be helpful. Vanamonde (
Talk) 19:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Options:
Saffron terror (old title).
Hindu terrorism (present title, lacking clear consensus).
Hindutva terrorism
Hindu nationalist terrorism
Hindu extremism
Survey
Option 2, keep current name, oppose move. The current name is not broken. I agree with Kashmiri in previous discussion: (1) "Hindu terrorism" encompasses much more than acts of terror resulting from Hindutva ideology, even if currently somewhat underserved by the current version of the article, (2) "Hindutva terrorism" fails WP:COMMONNAME, and (3) Hindutva is a technical term that's not understandable outside of the group of Indian experts and Hindi speakers. Arguments (1) and (2) also apply to "Hindu nationalist terrorism", while "saffron terror" is just a silly euphemism, also not the common name, and also not understood except by a small subset of readers. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 22:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Argument one and two are wrong, and argument 3 isnt enough to justify the naming of an article with a name that is completely inaccurate. See the comment
here. As for your comment on common name, do note that going by actual evidence, Hindu terror is clearly not the common name. See the comment
here. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CapnJackSp (
talk •
contribs) 09:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 1, the status quo ante per arguments already provided on the first RM, and strongly oppose the current backdoor retaining of 'Hindu terrorism'—there was no consensus for the first move, so why is it the current title?
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 23:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
For instance, in the discussion above, an
editor has presented
this article as an example of “Hindu terrorism,” despite the fact that the article itself doesn’t call the incident an example of Hindu terrorism at all. This goes on to demonstrate the kind of
WP:OR and misrepresentation of sources that the move enables. Any act of extremism by any Hindu Tom, Dick or
Hari will be added to the article regardless of whether
reliable sources describe those acts as ‘terrorism’ or not. What is this if not an
original claim of these acts being terrorism made in
wikivoice?
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 23:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 2. Don't agree that this title, Hindu terrorism, did not gain consensus. The present title achieved consensus in the previous move request through the inclusion of community consensus. According to the objective closer, supporters of the move expressed policy-backed arguments,
WP:RECOGNIZABLE and
WP:PRECISE in particular. Opposition to the page move did not provide policy-based args that effectively countered WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:PRECISE. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 00:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Thats just plain false. Its not that people didnt raise objections, its just that editors ignored the objections
over and
over and
over and
over, and refused to answer.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 14:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
No one said people didn't raise objections. What was said is that the substance of those objections did not match the policy arguments made by supporters. Still don't. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 16:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Are you trying to seriously say that a term without a reliable definition is the basis of a claim for WP:PRECISE? How is Hindu Terror Precise? It is obviously not, editors just said "Saffron terror wasnt precise", and ignored that Hindu terror wasnt precise either (which has been acknowledged by those supporting Hindu terror as a title, as well as the closer in the last statement). Some people silently ignore that a title, Hindutva Terror, exists that is better than both of these.Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 10:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
(sigh, you've drawn me in again) The reason "Hindutva Terror" and "Hindutva terrorism" have found disfavor is because the word "Hindutva" is not easily
RECOGNIZABLE (a policy) to readers. Better for the general reader when we title the article Hindu terrorism (not "Hindu Terror"), a more recognizable phrase. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 11:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
And again, even in this reply, you have ignored the fact that
WP:PRECISE (a policy) doesnt allow Hindu Terror/Terrorism as the title, and havent offered any arguments to contest that either. Thats my point here, Hindu terror fails on multiple grounds, but editors keep glossing over them. Hindutva terror only has one weak argument to be made against it on recognisability grounds.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 13:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Like the way you say "one weak argument" to belittle Wikipedia policy. When we look at the choices, option 4, is the longest, but not really precise nor favored as a title for this article. Of the other four options, all are about the same precision, and so all would be allowed, moreso under
WP:CONCISE. Not for anything, Capn, but you seem to be making things up as you go, still embarrassed by the strong policies you can't fight, PRECISION, RECOGNIZABILITY, and possibly NATURALNESS and CONCISION to boot. Fare thee well, and do feel free to get in the last word!P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 15:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
You are rebuking arguments that havent been made. I never said the policy was weak; I said the argument for citing the policy was weak, since several leading newspapers outside India have started using the term "Hindutva" in their reports ( such as
The Wall Street Journal and
Al Jazeera). Option 4 isnt supported by me, either, no idea why its quoted.
No, not all are similarly precise. Hindutva Terrorism and Saffron Terrorisms have reliable definitions from academic sources, that state what these terms are used to refer to. Hindu terror does not. If we cant even define what the title of the page means using reliable sources, the title is hopelessly imprecise. Thats why I have been saying
WP:PRECISION does not allow Hindu Terror/Terrorism.
Not sure why you brought up Naturalness and Consision, if you can elaborate on it it would be great. I have provided logical arguments for both supporting my title and opposing the ones I feel inappropriate. Others have only given votes and vaguely mentioned policies without explaining why those policies apply. That doesnt make me embarrassed at all. And I have no issues with you replying to me, as long as you discuss with thought out arguments; Its not important to have the last word, its important to have a constructive discussion.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 17:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 2 Per
WP:CONSISTENCY with
Islamic terrorism,
Christian terrorism, etc. I don't see why this page should have an exception to the rule, either they all get moved at once or not at all. I'm sure most followers of Islam or Christianity would agree that it doesn't line up with their belief system, either.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 05:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I can think of one (big) reason: look at the definitions of the phenomenon provided on the three articles.
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 08:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Please explain. All are carried out by extremist factions who are militant about their faith.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 10:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
One is by Islamic extremists, one is by Cristian extremists, one is by Hindu nationalist extremists.
At this point this is bordering WP:IDHT, you have been told this multiple times; Religious Nationalism is not the same as Religion. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CapnJackSp (
talk •
contribs) 15:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Hindutva Terror, option 3 as this is the only article title apart from saffron terror which is actually accurate. Multiple votes in this RFC cite "Consistency" , "Precision" , "Common name" when these arguments have been debunked already in the move request and move review that followed. I will restate this here, since many on this rfc were not part of the discussion earlier and seem not to have read it fully.
WP:CONSISTENT is being applied claiming alignment with Islamic terror and Christian terror. The CONSISTENT argument actually supports Hindutva Terror, since the article is not about Religious terrorism, rather, about Religious Nationalist terrorism (See
Jewish religious terrorism and
the failed RM there for how articles like this are titled)
WP:PRECISE is being applied by a lot of editors to support, with one caveat - Editors keep avoiding the fact the the title, "Hindu terror", is hopelessly imprecise, to the extent that even till now, with over a month since the move request for it began, no one has come up with a reliably sourced definition for it. How can a title be precise when you cant even reliably say what it is? Editors have been dodging this question throughout the last two discussions.
WP:COMMONNAME states , When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.. If we look at the usage of terms, Saffron Terror is more common than Hindu terror (see
this analysis); it is clearly not the "single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used" (sic) name. Therefore, Hindu Terror is not the
WP:COMMONNAME, and that policy cant be used to support Hindu Terror.
I also strongly oppose Option 2 - In the last Move request, where it was discussed to death, the title of Hindu Terror was found to be inaccurate and unsatisfactory. It also has a bunch of issues conflicting with our naming policies, which render it unusable.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 08:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Actually, your COMMONNAME arg does have some substance. Problems arise though, when different ngrams are compared. Your comparison,
Hindu Terror vs. Saffron Terror, changes significantly when compared with
Hindu terrorism vs. Saffron Terror. And while "Saffron Terror", the old title, does see much usage with ngrams, I found that adding "ism" to the end
makes it drop off completely. I don't think ngrams help here, so we should stick to
WP:RECOGNIZABLE and
WP:PRECISE, which in this case outweigh COMMONNAME by a large margin. Hindu terrorism (not "Hindu Terror") appears to be much favored, all things considered. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 11:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I dont think you understand the COMMONNAME policy correctly. You have to show that one title is the Obvious common name, for that policy to apply to any title in the discussion. Here, the policy does not apply at all. We are not measuring WP:SOMEWHATMORECOMMONNAME, either the policy applies or it doesnt. You cant reject Hindutva terror saying it isnt "supported" by COMMONNAME.
WP:PRECISE is exactly why Hindu Terror cant be the title, it fails the policy by a mile due it it being a factually wrong description of the contents of this page and a term that is so imprecise it doesnt even have a reliably sourced definition.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 14:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Would be great to get a reply with policy based arguments instead of allusion to supposed embarrassment.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 17:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 2. The phenomenon of Hinduism-motivated terrorism is well documented and this article needs to allow adding such content – Hindu terrorist acts not strictly linked with Hindutva ideology. Of all the proposed titles, only Hindu terrorism captures it well. —
kashmīrīTALK 10:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 2: There's not really a great scope for confusion here. As with all forms of religious terrorism, this one does what it says on the tin. A minority of extremists employ violent tactics in an attempt to force their views on others. It's simple and concise, and any average reader will know exactly what it is about, without confusion over specialist terms like "Hindutva" or the niche color metaphor of "saffron". As noted, this is the same setup as with Islamic terrorism -or Christian terrorism - concepts readers will be familiar with and understand as parallel.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 10:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 2: (
Summoned by bot) I wholeheartedly endorse the arguments of SMcCandlish, Paine Ellsworth and Iskandar323. 'Hindu terrorism' may not be clearly the COMMONNAME to a non-expert English-speaking readership, but the alternatives aren't either and the alternatives fail to be inherently
WP:RECOGNIZABLE. I am reminded of the arguments against the term 'Islamic terrorism', which many regard as an oxymoron or as imprecise and/or offensive to Islam - but is used by us partly as it is the most easily understandable term. I don't think consistency is necessarily a virtue, but in this instance similar considerations apply to other forms of terrorism inspired and justified by religious conviction/identification. Hindu Terror is inherently ambiguous, but no one is proposing that truncated form.
Pincrete (
talk) 11:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 3 "Hindutva terrorism" speaks of the ideological motives. "Hindu terrorism" does not do that because no one gets inspired by Hinduism but Hindutva ideology to commit violent act as clearly described by reliable sources.
Dympies (
talk) 14:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Hindutva is a term that adds little meaning, but a huge dose of unrecognizability. As a term usually translated as
"Hindu-ness", using "Hindutva terrorism" just gives you "Hindu-ness terrorism" and a foreign term in an en.wiki page title.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 14:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
This argument is wrong, and you seemed to have accepted this when you suddenly stopped replying in the thread where this was discussed between you and me. Trying to equate Hindu with Hindutva either shows a complete lack of knowledge of the two terms or an attempt at being intentionally misleading.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 15:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
That the same discussion as we had at ''Islamic terrorism'' vs ''Islamist terrorism'', with the consensus for the former. Here, ''Hindu'' serves to distinguish the broad type of terrorism from terrorism motivated by other religions, rather than trying to precisely capture the motivation behind individual acts. —
kashmīrīTALK 18:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Apples to oranges comparison. You are comparing Islamic vs Radical Islamic, in which case Islamic is used. We are comparing Hindu vs Nationalist Hindu, in which case Nationalist Hindu (Hindutva) is the motivation. See
Jewish religious terrorism and the RM there for consistency based arguments.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 05:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
We are comparing? Who are the we in this sentence? Are you talking about your
meatcabal? You must be, looking at the very same people who !voted for Option 3, vote-stack along the same lines on every ARBIPA discussion of WP.
@
CapnJackSp: No, we're not talking ''nationalist'' Hindu. This article's subject is religious terrorism, not nationalistic terrorism. Is it so hard for you to understand the difference? —
kashmīrīTALK 10:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The above statement is completely false. Till the last month, the article was clearly about Saffron Terror, which is a term used interchangeably with Hindutva Terror. Even now, the article is about Hindutva Terrorism only, with the sole exception of changes to lead where "Hindu Terror" has been equated with Hindutva terror. This change has been done by certain editors even though the close of the last Move Review, when the title was moved, has concluded that the new title is wrong. All this in no way makes "Hindu Terror" the title, it only reinforces that the title is wrong. Till now, there is no supposed incidents of Hindu terror on this page, just Hindutva Terror.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 11:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 3 Current title makes zero sense. The article is about politically motivated violence that needs to be described as such. There is no need to need to cause confusion.
REDISCOVERBHARAT (
talk) 15:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 2 per well-argued points made by SMcCandlish, P.I. Ellsworth, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, JML1148, kashmīrī, Iskandar323 and Pincrete. —
Roman Spinner(talk •
contribs) 00:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 3 Sources seem too clear over ideological motives. They are religious, not political. Any other option except "Saffron terror" makes no sense. Those talking about
WP:CONSISTENT are selectively using it. We don't have
Sikh terrorism but
Khalistan movement.
ArvindPalaskar (
talk) 09:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Sorry, what? "Any other option except 'Saffron terror' makes no sense"? Um...you
!voted for "Option 3", which is not "Saffron terror", is it. What's up? Am I missing something? P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 09:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I supported Option 3, then I went to talk about "any other option" and found only "Saffron terror" to be sensible but I am not ready to support it over Option 3. Thanks
ArvindPalaskar (
talk) 11:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you very much for that! I see now that what you wrote does make perfect sense, so... my bad. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 11:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 3 Hindutva terrorism" speaks of the ideological motives and Hindu Terrorism is not the Commonname.
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk) 23:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose 1 & 5. I am as yet undecided on what the best option is; there are issues of precision and popularity that render each of the remaining options sub-optimal; but these two are clearly the worst. There are precision and jargon issues with "saffron terror": scholars have used it to refer to terrorism committed by Buddhists, and it isn't necessarily clear to anyone without an understanding of the connotations of "saffron". Arguably it's even more jargon than "Hindutva terrorism", as the latter has at least a clear etymological connection with Hinduism. And "Hindu extremism" is just a more general phenomenon, with a different body of sources. Vanamonde (
Talk) 23:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 3 The sources describe politics by Hindutva groups as motivation. As
Audrey Truschke describes, "Hindutva and
Hinduism are distinct. Hindutva is a narrow political ideology whereas Hinduism is a broad-based religious tradition. Many Hindus oppose Hindutva ideology, both in India and in the US-based diaspora, and it is offensive to conflate the two." Founder of Hindutva
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar also said Hinduism isn't same as Hindutva.
[8] That means the distinction between Hindu and Hindutva is very important and any rejection of this fact would be gross error. >>>
Extorc.
talk 18:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 3 as the best available choice. It has been already clarified that the information is specific to Hindutva does "Hindu" or "Hinduism" also becomes irrelevant. As above mentioned, there is also no
Sikh terrorism but
Khalistan movement, that's why option 2 and 5 are misleading.
Accesscrawl (
talk) 12:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:WAX-style examples are irrelevant - maybe it should be
Sikh terrorism, since there are more than enough sources terming it as such, and it would be consistent and not exceptional versus other religious terrorisms that way, but that's a discussion for that page.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 12:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:WAX is a policy on deletion, where it is indeed applicable. However, when weighing "consistency" arguments, we do need to look into other articles like
Khalistan Movement,
Jewish religious terrorism,
Buddhist extremism. These do not fit the "consistent titling" some have claimed. While singular examples may be brushed away, not all of them can.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 15:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, hence while I said
WP:WAX-style. But to the flawed analogies, yes, Sikh terrorism redirects to Khalistan Movement, since 2009, but only because no one has tried to create a Sikh terrorism page since with proper sources. Buddhist terrorism likewise does not exist simply because nobody has yet ever attempted to create it. The
Jewish religious terrorism page meanwhile currently exists in its form because modern, specifically Israel-related forms of political violence and terrorism currently exist at
Zionist political violence, and some editors in the recent move discussion (a modest affair) thought these should remain distinct. The jury is still out on that. The topic is also complicated by the fact that "Jewishness" is an ethnicity with a strongly racial component to its identity politics, to the extent that the term "
secular Jew", in the sense of person who believes themselves to be racially Jewish but irreligious, exists as a category- hence the opinion can be mooted that when Jewish violence is discussed and it is thought to be religious in nature, its religiosity needs to be specified because 'Jewish', in of itself, can entail the irreligious. That is not really the case with Hindu identity, which is not such a heavily racialized ethnic identity as Jewishness, but a religious and cultural ethnicity that encompasses a continent and is distinctly multi-racial in its composition. Hence
secular Hindu is not a term with wide currency.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 19:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The complications you list are also applicable here. The ideology at hand is Hindutva (nationalism), not religious extremism like in the pages that are quoted for consistency (like Islamic terror and Christian Terror). In any case, the existence of the pages quoted, and the deviation of this page's ideology from articles like
Islamic terrorism and
Christian terrorism ensure that the
WP:CONSISTENT argument just doesnt work. The claim that all of them should be titled "Religious Terror" stems from a flawed understanding that religion is the only driving force for terror.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 04:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 2 per the
WP:SKYISBLUE and
WP:SPADE, owing to the fact that moving to Hindutva terrorism from the current title will narrow down the scope of the article. The following comparison further settles the religious vs political debate:
What this table shows is exactly proving that Hindu terror is the incorrect title for this page. The fact that
Zionist Terrorism is clearly separated from
Jewish Terrorism shows that similarly, Hindutva terrorism' should be separated from Hindu terrorism and it should not be confused together as some editors have done. The rest is just a comparison of redirects, not article titles; it holds zero value in the page move discussions where only titles matter the most.
ArvindPalaskar (
talk) 13:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The topic can be subdivided later if there is enough material, but that's not clear for now.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 14:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 3 as the most viable option. Second choice would be Option 1. The rest are misleading because they inaccurately represent the subject.
Capitals00 (
talk) 02:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 3 Like I had said on MR too that the new page title had no consensus, and now option 3 seems most justifiable as it points to the ideological motives better than other options.
desmay (
talk) 02:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I've started an AfD.—
Alalch E. 02:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Terror vs. Terrorism
While it may seem to some that there is confusion between the terms "Terror" and "Terrorism", I don't think that's the case. When ngrams are studied, the term "Terror" is often much more prominent than "Terrorism". In fact if "Terror" is changed to "Terrorism", the name often falls off the ngrams graph completely. I found that happens when "Saffron Terror" is changed to "Saffron terrorism", and when "Hindutva Terror" is changed to "Hindutva terrorism". So possible confusion aside, an ngrams analysis often prefers "______ Terror" (or "______ terror") over "______ terrorism". To me, that pretty much throws COMMONNAME out the window as a supporting policy for any potential title of this article. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 12:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Apart from being NEWSSTYLE, in my experience 'terror' is often used by news sources before a motive has been established. Anything that frightens people and causes panic can reasonably be described as 'terror', whereas 'terrorism' presupposes a political motive of some kind.
Pincrete (
talk) 07:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
This point about political motives is pretty key, because some discussion participants here appear to mistakenly believe there is some sort of distinction between religious terrorism, per se, and religious nationalist terrorism, whereas, in reality, (geo-)political goals lie at the heart of all terrorism. 'Religious terrorism' is just a concise form of 'religiously motivated political violence'.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 09:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Iskandar323: You are 100% incorrect. The vast majority of terrorism in many countries is domestic terrorism (criminal terrorism)
[9][10], which is not linked to any geopolitical goals. —
kashmīrīTALK 09:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)reply
It is either (race/social/environmental) politics or geopolitics. The first source you quote states: "Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals..."Iskandar323 (
talk) 10:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Where do you have any geopolitics in it? In, say, environmental activists damaging 5G towers or blocking oil rigs or fishing vessels? —
kashmīrīTALK 10:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Going around in circles re: WP:CONSISTENT?
Since
WP:CONSISTENT is being argued again for "Hindu terrorism", here’s what the close of the earlier RM, which has been neither upheld nor withdrawn in theory (but remains de facto upheld), Several supporters of "Hindu terrorism" argued that it would be WP:CONSISTENT with other article titles on religious terrorism. However, later in the discussion it was demonstrated that such articles are not actually consistently titled, and that some of the pro-CONSISTENT evidence in fact referred to redirects. Thus, WP:CONSISTENT does not ultimately support either title. (boldfaced by me).
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 08:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The lack of total consistency there is partly due to the articles covering a range of topics, including attitude of religion X to violence - current campaign of violence by members of religion X and "specific (often past) campaign of violence by members of religion X". Only the middle kind is comparable, and that is broadly consistent when a COMMONNAME is not established. Absence of total consistency is not the same as total absence of consistency.
Pincrete (
talk) 07:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
We dont name as "<religion> terror", we name as "<ideology> terrorism". If the ideology is religion, then it is named as "<religion> terrorism", but that is not the case here. In this case the ideology is Hindu Nationalism (Hindutva) , resulting in "Hindutva Terrorism".
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 05:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Hindu nationalism is not identical to
Hindutva - hence those are separate pages. As to the part before that, no, we don't name articles <religious> terrorism, because we label them <religious adjective> terrorism, as in the case of Islamic terrorism and Christian terrorism.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 19:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The organisations accused on this page, RSS and Abhinav Bharat, were both based on Hindutva. And even on our Hindu Nationalist page, Today, Hindutva ... is a dominant form of Hindu nationalist politics in India. However, if you insist on Hindu Nationalist Terror as the title I am open to considering it.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 04:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Also unsure, but this and your comment in the survey section made me think - You seem to be heavily emphasising on "Religious" in your answers. I hope you are not under the impression that religion is the only reason for terrorism. We dont title "<religious adjective> terrorism", we title "<ideology adjective> terrorism". (Im not too concerned with the somewhat insignificant difference between "<ideology> terrorism" and "<ideology adjective> terrorism", so I have used your preferred style).
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 04:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
CapnJackSp Incorrect. We name "<religion> terrorism", as you can see in other similar articles. This is because such acts are often motivated by simple, stupid religious hatred and not by any ideology. Those Hindu mobs burning churches in MeghalayaManipur or Nagaland have most likely never heard of Hindutva, much like Christians attacking Muslims in the west are not necessarily adherents to fundamentalist ideologies.
If you're trying to limit this article to Hindutva, then you seem to deny the existence of Hindu religious hatred and terror other than by one carried out by Sangh Parivar. Which is basically a political bias on your end. —
kashmīrīTALK 08:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
No, we dont name as <"Religion Terror">. Look at articles like
Khalistan Movement,
Buddhist extremism,
Jewish religious terrorism, all of which are in direct contradiction to your format, focusing on Ideology and not necessarily using Terror/Terrorism. The only articles you have to support your theory of CONSISTENCY are
Islamic terrorism and
Christian terrorism, so by all means this is a show of us not following any specific template, with "ideology" being the identifying characteristic when we do label something as Terrorism. Your argument of limiting titles to religious terror only is based on a flawed basis that all terrorism emanates from religion.
I do not think there has been any implication by me as to lack of violence by Hindus, and I object to your characterisation of my opinion as such. However, such information already exists on several pages on Wikipedia - If compiled, it would be a separate article as the current contents clearly do not fall under Hindu Terrorism. This RFC is a discussion of the best title for the current article, not a debate over whether we should rename it and rewrite from scratch.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 11:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
PS: Though as a separate point, which church was burnt down in Meghalaya? I cant seem to find any RS about it, I hope you dont rely on Twitter for news. I did read about one in Manipur if thats what you are referring to, though that violence was not really religious.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 11:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
For those who may not be up to date with NE India, there has been recent violence between people of the Meitei and Naga, Kuki communities in Manipur and some parts of Nagaland and Meghalaya, over a proposed change in status of the Meitei to be recognised as a Scheduled Tribe. You can read more
here.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 16:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Why on earth are you posting this here?! This is prototypical
WP:FORUM crap.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 17:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
As there was a claim that the violence was about "Hindu mobs burning churches in MeghalayaManipur or Nagaland" (sic), I added this here for context.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 18:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus: why has the article not reverted to the original status quo?
This is a blatant abuse of wiki policy to force the disputed result of the original RM, which in the RM review has not been upheld. This is exactly what I meant when I said that a discussion without returning to the original status quo is nothing but a backdoor retaining of the new title. That’s precisely what has happened here. @
Amakuru: pinging you since you are the one who moved the article to the current title.
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 06:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Clarifying that I’m not saying that
Amakuru has abused wiki policy, but that that the current title was pasted on the article last through their hands. The decision to not return to the original status quo was theirs (and of the original RM’s reviewer).
UnpetitproleX (
talk) 06:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The thing is though, the original discussion found a consensus to move, and the move review did not overturn that decision. So there was no particular reason why the original title should be restored. Instead, the MRV directed participants to continue the discussion and work towards a fresh conclusion. That was attempted, but no fresh conclusion was reached, it was no consensus. That means the status quo at the time of the move closure, which was the title of "Hindu terrorism", remained in place. My move back to that title was simply restoring that status quo. Had the original MRV finding been to overturn to no consensus, then I would have acted differently, so this isn't really anything to do with my decision making. For what it's worth, as someone who has not particular opinion on this, I endorse the closure here, the whole issue seems intractable at this point and everyone stepping away is to be advised. Cheers —
Amakuru (
talk) 14:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Amakuru, the current move request wasnt a move request from Hindu Terror to some other title - It was a Move request to find out which title was the correct one. As such, even Hindu Terror is a 'No Consensus' title per the close. Per policy, we are required to revert to the last stable title, which would be Saffron Terror. I think we will have to wait till the close of the current MRV, but just wanted to point this out.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 04:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
If I may add that while editor Amakuru did not mention this, the most recent RM resulted in a lot of support rationales for two of the five choices, and little or no support for the other three. One of those other three was the old status quo title, which was supported by only one editor, yourself. That means that while there was no consensus for any of the five choices, there was an obvious, strong consensus to not move the article back to its earlier status quo title. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 09:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Note - This is a personal opinion of the editor which has been contested several times.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 04:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Note that rather than being a personal opinion, it is a fact that resulted from the most recent RM. To ignore the fact that there was an overwhelming consensus against "Saffron Terror" does not in any way detract from its veracity. To contest this fact merely means to contest the truth. Only "stars" can get away with stuff like that, according to the actions of an ex-president of the US. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 04:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Note that this is a misrepresentation based on ignoring prior discussions :)
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 10:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
No, Sparrow, my description is a faithful representation based on ignoring prior discussions. Wikipedia places precedence on current consensus, not on old news. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 20:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
By current consensus, your preferred title has no consensus and as such should be rolled back to the stable version. Your entire argument rests on stale discussions.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 17:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Not so, and you can't have it both ways, Sparrow. Not so, because I don't have a "preferred title" at the moment. And the current title gained consensus in the first RM and has not lost that consensus, which is why the article is still currently titled "Hindu terrorism".
You just cannot have it both ways! Above you accuse me of "a misrepresentation based on ignoring prior discussions", and here you say, "Your entire argument rests on stale discussions." How exactly can I make an argument that rests on "stale" discussions, and be "ignoring" prior discussions??? You just dig the hole deeper and deeper. Shameful bit of reasoning there, what? P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 18:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
It lost consensus in the last move request.
There is no consensus to remain at the current title
I think you are confused about what I said, so Ill clarify for the reader - You ignore the discussions we had as if they never happened, to repeat the same arguments. All the while, you take up the old RM as a shield while also saying we shouldnt use "old news".
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 03:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I think you are confused about what I said, so Ill clarify for the reader
Thank you so much, Jack, now allow me to do the same. Hindu terrorism as the current title did not "lose consensus" in the last move request. On Wikipedia, when a title gains consensus it keeps consensus until one of two things happens: 1) there is a consensus against the title in a future discussion, 2) there is consensus for another title in a future discussion. Neither has happened. So "Hindu terrorism" is still the only title that has gained (and kept) its consensus support. Editors and readers do not have to take my word for it. A good and understanding read (or re-read if necessary) of
WP:CONSENSUS and some of its links will confirm everything I've said. You wanted policies and guidelines? There are your Ps and Gs. "Hindu terrorism", the current title, gained consensus in the first RM and did not lose the title in the first MRV. Then in the second RM that title went up against four other possible names and did not lose its standing, it remained the title. I mean, it's no
Cassius Clay, but as the title for this article, Hindu terrorism keeps and is still wearing the belt!P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 07:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Its again the same argument rehashed again.
It didnt gain consensus - The Mover review invalidated the original close (it fell forward, but it fell nonetheless), and said the title could not be Hindu Terror. The current close affirms that.
Just more out-of-process hand-waving. Everything I wrote is well within the Ps and Gs. STATUSQUO is not being ignored, because the current title is now the status quo as established in the first RM and MRV. The second RM upheld it as the status quo, so it remains the title of this article until editors can garner consensus for another name in a future discussion. Happy Days!P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 07:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Again, what made it the Status Quo? It has been challenged since before it was the title. Second RM declared it to not have consensus for the title. As such, it reverts to the stable title, after which you can take up the discussion you wish.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 07:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
And again (and again and again until it hammers in) editors came to consensus for the current title and against the old title in the first RM. That decision was implicitly upheld by the first MRV. So after that first MRV, when the title of this article did not change and remained at "Hindu terrorism", its status as the consensual title was carried into the second move request. None of the other four titles gained consensus over the current title, so it still remains the title. And no matter how many times it is "challenged", it will stay the title until there is consensus against it or until another title gains (or regains) consensus over it. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 07:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Its the blunt end of a hammer being bludgeoned, its not going to hammer in. You are still repeating the consensus that fell in the MRV, and then was declared "no consensus".
Status Quo is Saffron Terror, policy based title is Hindutva terrorism, yet you keep fighting for Hindu terrorism since some editors stubbornly use
WP:ILIKEIT.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 07:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Don't fight for any particular title, unlike you who fights so ardently for a title that has not yet gained consensus, Hindutva terrorism, and now you split your ILIKEIT to support a title that lost consensus, Saffron terror. Instead I fight for Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, which are crystal clear in this case. The current title is still the title because it still enjoys consensus, it is still the status quo. So it will remain until it is unseated by a better title, whatever that title may be. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 08:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
PS If there is a title that I favor, it would presently be "Hindu nationalist terrorism", which is thus far better than all other titles put together, imho.
P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 08:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
S Marshall: What say you? MDT's close does not stand, but it falls forward instead of falling back: all the article titles suggested so far are unsatisfactory doesn't sound like "MDT's close stands as long as a bunch of people insist on keeping with one of the unsatisfactory article titles" to me, but the MR close is too ambiguous to do much with it. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 10:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
As I said in the MR, I think that we have yet to reach consensus about what the title should be. I think that Hindu terrorism has a lot more support than Saffron terror. But I do not think that this article should be called Hindu terrorism and I hope that a better title can be found. I suggest trying some alternatives -- personally I like AlalchE's suggestion of calling it "Hindu nationalist terrorism".—
S MarshallT/
C 16:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The problem is, while your closure said neither is satisfactory, you implicitly endorsed the result by refusing to call it "no consensus" after the move was executed. Thus the burden is on those who opposed to find support for an alternative while the side that supported the present title can just sit back and repeat their position. It's a frustrating closure because it's functionally "endorse, but feel free to try another RM" but says that it's not endorsed (sortakinda). It tries to find a third way, but fails to actually do so. Do with that what you will. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 20:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Edits
@
Portwoman please cite the sections you are using to remove "alleged". The citations do have cases where the news only states "close to" or the like.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 17:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Im not using sections, but refering to references which state otherwise.
Portwoman (
talk) 17:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, I am asking you to cite the portions of those references that mention what you are trying to implement.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 17:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Portwoman do NOT change the lead till you acheive consensus for your edit. You have not only not achieved consensus, you have also not made any efforts to provide any sourcing for it.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 18:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Neither does this mean that you have achieved consensus.
so, please wait and let other editors conclude wit their respective opinions.
Portwoman (
talk) 18:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Actually the onus is on the editor who originally added these words, to prove that they follow the sources listed. —
kashmīrīTALK 19:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The current sentence closely follows a version that has been in place since atleast the last five years -
[11] - Possibly much older. At this point, it is very much the longstanding status quo and would require consensus to change.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 20:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is a live encyclopaedia. It's really ok to remove wrong information even after 20 years. —
kashmīrīTALK 22:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Obviously. But that wasnt the point, was it? The onus lies on someone trying to change longstanding info. My response was to you saying the onus was on someone else; That is not so. If someone is changing longstanding info and gets reverted,
WP:BRD,
WP:ONUS apply.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 05:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)reply
That said, terrorism is not a phenomenon unique to organisational members.
Lone wolf terrorism is a well-attested phenomenon also in India (shall I mention
Nathuram Godse?) —
kashmīrīTALK 22:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The phrase "alleged members" was added in 2014
[12] when the article was titled Saffron terror. The lead in that edit read:
It was added by @
Kautilya3: (pinging so he can weigh in on the discussion).
Schazjmd(talk) 22:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Recently, I stumbled upon a webpage discussing Hindu terrorism, and I was surprised to see the name of RSS (Rashtriya Swyamsevak Sangh) mentioned there. It should be noted that RSS is a nationalist organization, not a terrorist organization. I kindly ask for the prompt removal of its name from that page.
Kunal582002 (
talk) 12:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Despite RSS group being a nationalist organisation within, the attack investigations and the supreme court hearings bought up perpetrators linked with the group. And there's nowhere mentioned RSS is a terrorist organisation. It's only declared that some RSS leaders involved in the terrorist incidents as stated above. So I don't think any changes are required, as it seems to be an ideological diversion here.
Constantiyespole (
talk) 11:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply