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

The result was no consensus. This was a poor debate; many participants from either side did not bother to give a policy-based reason for their recommendation. Sandstein 20:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saffron Terror

[edit]

Similar articles with title Hindu extremism and Hindu terrorism were previously deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu extremism and Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_39#Hindu_terrorism for more information. This new article is probably created by the same user who has been trying to push POV sentiments on WP. Also references point to only articles written by columnist. Fail WP:RS. -- GPPande talk! 18:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —GPPande talk! 18:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy Delete as attack page. Any allegation as serious as a Hindu majority terrorising minorities must be balanced and in context. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC) * Speedy Delete as attack page --Numyht (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per previous deletion discussions (I wouldn't agree with the classification as an 'attack page' though). --Soman (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hindu Extremism or Hindu Terrorism upon the reinstatement of whichever article. Silver seren^C 21:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "country of Gujarat" and "Hindu fascism" and "State-driven program is to continue the segregation of the Muslim population within Gujarat and to keep the Hindu Right alive."? Gujarat is one of the state of India. The page is an outright attack page; in a terrible condition. It is becoming more and more of WP:OR. --GPPande talk! 22:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um...reference? That's straight from the Frontline news reference...with rewording so i'm not plagiarizing. And what about all the other news articles? No matter if you dislike the subject, it's clearly notable. And i'm neutral here...I just saw this and noticed there were a bunch of google hits. Silver seren^C 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides...you're extremely biased against this, being a Hindu and all. You sure you're looking at this neutrally?Silver seren^C 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sorry, it's a state, not a country. I'm an idiot, I fixed it. Silver seren^C 22:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not a Hindu, and I'm sticking to my speedy delete. An attack page is one that does nothing but disparage or threaten a person or entity. All you have done is changed the focus of your attacks from Hindus in general to the Indian government. That's still an attack page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How? O_o It's totally notable. I got a whole bunch of news hits on google. How else should I make the article neutral? Silver seren^C 22:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And isn't this article non-neutral then if you're going to say that? Silver seren^C 22:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't the issue, it's your poorly-sourced attacks against the Indian government. If you want to make the article, I suggest getting rid of sentences such as "The state, while denying the claims, appears to sponsor a group that acts as a death squad in order to preserve the 'Hindu Right'," and replacing it with properly-cited sentences clearly stating who made what allegations, and balancing it with anything said in defence of the Indian government (which there will be). I had a quick look at the Christian terrorism article and that appears to be properly citing its allegations. A list of hits you got on Google, no matter how reputable the news sources, isn't enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i'm sorry then. It appear I have a problem with neutrality. Could you help? Silver seren^C 22:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There - neutral. You can't say that's biased now. Silver seren^C 23:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep After the efforts made in the past to portray all Hindus as terrorists, I have a lot of concerns this article could easily turn into a WP:COATRACK later (supposedly about one thing, but used to make attacks against someone else). However, what an article might be used for in the future isn't grounds for deletion. Only provision I would add is that someone needs to watch this article very closely. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only about future but also in present form the article is extremely speculative and written with POV. Sentences like a columnist of The Economic Times suggested that the fact that mostly Muslims were targeted should be investigated. and appear to be attempts to make India's Muslim population oppressed and segregated. are examples. Surely it is and will be used as an attack page in future. Also, Sushma Swaraj is top leader of Bhartiya Janata Party - a right wing Hindu political party. Her statements were politically motivated towards Indian National Congress - India's center wing party. Also they were made in background of 2008 Ahmedabad bombings which were carried by terrorist organization Indian Mujahideen. I do not see any relevance of it on this article. Note:- I would not wish to make comments on the personal attacks made on me above and I am keeping this discussion only to the article. --GPPande talk! 09:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...dude...seriously? Silver seren^C 16:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider insinuating someone is biased because of their religion as a personal attack (and, if not, it certainly came across as one). You should consider yourself lucky an admin hasn't acted on this, because some of them aren't very lenient on statements such as that. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize profusely if my words were taken to be harmful, for I certainly didn't mean them in that manner. I merely meant that a vote by an editor that has a certain affinity with an article (be it good or bad) can certainly not be said to have a neutral viewpoint on the subject. Certainly it can be seen that any article that shows a religion in a bad light (even neutrally so) will be taken unfavorably by those of that religion. I have seen many a religious article on AFD that brought down swarms of opposition just on the basis of the subject matter. To truly vote on an article for deletion in a neutral and non-biased way, voting contributers must be as unaffiliated as possible to the article. It is the only way to reach an accurate concensus. Silver seren^C 19:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Chris Neville-Smith --Numyht (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ as POV pushing & crystal gazing; nn-neologism as well. --Gurubrahma (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing it to Delete after mulling over this for over a day - nn-neologism - the external links in the article use it as a figure of speech and do not have much to do with the content in the article. --Gurubrahma (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I may not agree to POV pushing (perhaps crystal gazing to some small extent, but the sources are from past events), I suppose I would have to agree with neologism, considering that the events are only a month or two old. I won't be changing my vote, but it's not like I doubt the vote will sway from an administrator's vote. I do, however, believe this article will be useful in the future (probably by the time summer rolls around), so i'm going to be keeping it in my sandbox and work on it until the time comes that it would be right to re-submit it. There's no problem with that, right? Silver seren^C 03:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If Hindu extremism is ever recreated, then redirect this page to the extremism page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious, but what is the distinction between Hindu extremism and Islamic Extremism or Sikh extremism? Silver seren^C 19:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the articles Christian Terrorism, Islamic Terrorism and Sikh extremism well sourced - interestingly, in all these articles, we have at least one example of the accused or convicted people tracing their actions to their desire to avenge an insult to their religion or bring about a kingdom of their religion. If an article on Hindu extremism is to persist on WP, it should similarly be well sourced. --Gurubrahma (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|^(talk) 10:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Hindu extremism and keep. That article should be expanded beyond the term "saffron terror." The previous deletes were on the basis that "Hindu extremism" was a hateful neologism sourced only in blogs and nonreliable sources. A Google News search [1] shows many reliable and independent sources with substantial discussion of the subject. Newspapers See [2] , [3] . [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8], [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] and others. The present title, although mentioned in some of the sources, clearly is not the best or least point of view. It sounds like a movie title or the name of a TV wrestler. Edison (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to creation of a rewritten and better sourced version at Hindu extremism. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this just mean redirect? Silver seren^C 14:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. The sources in this article use the term, but doesn't explain where the term comes from. --Jmundo (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jmundo, Gurubrahma, and Mike Rosoft. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:N. Rename to ~~Hindu extremism~~ Hindu terrorism leaving redirect. The "neologism" argument is weird, unless that means "avoid topics that have only recently been in the news". [16] Juzhong (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify, you can delete everything that I didn't just add. Juzhong (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! We need to "avoid topics that have only recently been in the news" and reported widely by media for mass publicity. No official government report yet published on this matter and so is completely speculative. Also, this discussion is about deleting/keeping article "Saffron Terror". For Hindu terrorism/extremism please open a deletion review. Redirecting to previously deleted articles will be violations of both discussions. --GP Pande 08:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any policy demands government reports on a topic before it can have an article. There are reliable sources discussing the topic of "Saffron Terror" which is a synonym for "Hindu terrorism". I don't believe the rationales for deleting Hindu terrorism and Hindu extremism apply to this article (any more) so a deletion review should not be necessary, although I will try it if this is deleted. Juzhong (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and rename, per above. And improve, where there are POV or RS issues. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, Hindu Terrorism doesn't exist - Correctus (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither does Santa Claus. Juzhong (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting a bit bold here - but SS, I really think you need to read WP:AGF before putting up such a comment. Respect others. Present counter arguments that are valid within laid WP policies. Comment on content and do not comment on contributors. Your comment is really a violation of WP:NPA. More, you have done this second time in this AfD. --GP Pande 15:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sorry. I do assume good faith, but a comment that something doesn't exist without any support seems quite off-center...especially when this topic isn't about Hindu Extremism. I've removed what I said. Silver seren^C 15:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I say that "this editor's comment appears biased", does that work? Silver seren^C 15:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still Comment on content and do not comment on contributors. Discuss about the content of article titled Saffron Terror and nothing else. Please! --GP Pande 15:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, this still comes down to a vote (unless an administrator takes a different side), considering we are trying to reach a consensus. A vote without any logical basis behind it (along with a, seemingly, random comment) shouldn't be considered a part of that consensus. I believe we have already laid down all of the content and both sides to this within this AFD and now it is up to other editors to agree or disagree with each side. Silver seren^C 15:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading: 'Hindu terrorism' debate grips India BBC News Juzhong (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused. The discussion here is for title "Saffron terror" and not Hindu terrorism/extremism. --GP Pande 10:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It was in the aftermath of the 29 September bomb blast in the predominantly Muslim town of Malegaon in the western state of Maharashtra that the term "Hindu terrorism" or "saffron terrorism" came to be used widely. " Juzhong (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Now you agree the term is newsy. --GP Pande 15:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we actually going to say that Saffron Terror and Hindu Extremism (or terrorism) are synonymous? A lot fo editors appear to be bringing this up and it is an entirely different angle from what we were expecting. Should that be considered? Silver seren^C 15:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all these terms came out in media after 2006 Malegaon blasts. Different news sources use different terms. Making out article for each one of them is not good. The main bombing article already contains up-to-date information. --GP Pande 16:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the BBC quote about indicates they should be regarded as synonyms. Will Hindu terrorists obtain WMDs? isn't just about the Malegaon blasts. There are other Pakistani newspapers discussing what they call "Hindu terrorism" in other contexts. Juzhong (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In above example, the article and its very title mentioned above are nothing but pure "Speculations". Those are opinions expressed by certain segment of society and reported by newspapers. Surely WP, is not the right place to write about future speculations. --GP Pande 18:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, check the segment under which this URL from the nation.pk goes. It is "Opinions". Newspaper itself puts it. So it is just an opinion of a columnist. Not a proof by which the newspaper would stand by if we have to question them. --GP Pande 18:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS says "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text". So as long as the statements are reported as opinion they can be used. Juzhong (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! However it does not hold if the title of the article page itself comes from an opinion. --Gurubrahma (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to make a mascot look alive by stuffing things into it is not the reason behind that statement. I would not go into further explaining the WP policies here. The source clearly fails WP:RS and above argument an example of fallacy – Non sequitur to be specific. --GP Pande 19:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience "clearly" is what wikipedians say when they are too stupid to realize they are wrong. Juzhong (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, "stupid" is a low blow. Does anyone here have any statements backed by reliable sources? - If not, please take your personal disagreements to your respective talk pages. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping right in without reading the discussion is another unattractive trait among wikipedians. Juzhong (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please, don't. You are not helping at this point by making remarks like that. Try and keep this civil with direct facts and not arguing. If they say that opinion pieces don't count, then find other sources that do count and present those. Arguing the validity of an opinion will just go in circles. Silver seren^C 00:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to present facts and reasoning, but someone simply declares themself right and me wrong. Ok fine, fuck it, there is no point trying to talk you. You win, congratulations. Juzhong (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I am on your side, but that kind of language doesn't get anyone anywhere. Neutrality is what needs to be respected here and the creation of a calm discourse.Silver seren^C 00:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To get this entirely back on track, this article is from nearly two years and directly mentions Hindu terrorism (since we're going on a synonymous track here), and relates it to Sikh and Islamic terrorism. I believe the need for recreating a deletion review is necessary, so I am no longer going to argue the point of Saffron Terror. If no one else sets it up before me, i'll make a deletion review for Hindu terrorism/extremism this weekend when I have more time.Silver seren^C 00:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you change your vote to Delete for Saffron Terror now. I think we have reached a conclusion for this particular topic atleast. Lets not confuse the deciding admin more. --GP Pande 08:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to redirect, considering that I still believe the information is notable, but doesn't deserve its own article.Silver seren^C 22:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stub, and weak keep. Clearly, this article suffers from a persistent POV that goes beyond the language used in the article to the suppositions that underlie the choice of terms and links. In a lot of ways, the easiest thing to do would be to delete it and start over, and I actually would not have a problem with that. However, the term itself is commented on widely, but not defined with any precision that I can see. This makes it a poor choice for a stand alone article, as it will attract any number of articles that have as there common denominator a terrorist action by someone identified as Hindu. This fuzzy use of the term will invite the use of the types of coatracking references and links that we've seen. Responsible treatment of the subject is possible of course, but it essentially would be recreating Hindu extremism and if it weren't for the AfD I would favor moving it there. As it is, we all know that without vigilance, this article will again devolve into a coatrack. What I'd really like to see is for this to be userfied by someone who knows what they're doing, and can give this a reasonably encyclopediac treatment before returning it to mainspace. Any takers?. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the discussions we've gone through on here, I still believe the information is notable, but would much better go under Hindu Extremism as a sub-topic because of the vagueness of the term "Saffron Terror". I'm going to get a temporary review set up this weekend so I can see the problems with the old Hindu Extremism article, fix them, and then set up a deletion review to get it reinstated. That would probably be the best method for now. If more information and definitive references on "Saffron Terror" appear in the future, it can be split into its own article.Silver seren^C 18:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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