Archives

No archives yet.
This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Delhi Police allegations

Bharatiya29 Your recent edit shows you are simple violating WP:NPOV. This and this one, both shows your are using and adding your own opinion and version here. His father clearly said, "We did not join the AAP. Till 2012, I was in the BSP (Bahujan Samaj Party), after that my health deteriorated and I left politics. When Lok sabha election was about to take place, these people (AAP) came and we did it (wore the cap) for fun. This time, I even garlanded the BJP candidate. I’m not connected to politics".The Hindu Original video of his father and brother.The Quint His brother clearly said, they wear it because the is an act of respect to them by the party not any membership. There is no membership given. Now tell me in your reply through edit summary, you pointed this "I avoided it for being WP:UNDUE because then mentioning his father's association with the BSP" which is his past association but fail to mention the present association "This time, I even garlanded the BJP candidate.". This allegations are baseless and need not to be mentioned as the subject matter is about violence and there is no evidence if AAP or BJP is behind this. Dey subrata (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring Kautilya3, El C, MarnetteD, Staszek Lem, Vanamonde93 to this matter, what do you people think of it. Dey subrata (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. The Delhi Police is hardly a reliable source. The allegation should be removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this section itself should not be added until the scope of this article is clearly defined. As long as this section is present, any counter-claim disputing its association with "Hindu fundamentalism" has to be mentioned to present the whole picture. Now if you want to add a counter-counter-claim by the family members, feel free to do so. Anyway, just presenting the one side of the story is inappropriate. Bharatiya29 12:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Delhi police are not a reliable source, and membership in any party is not mutually exclusive with any ideology. Portraying the shooter's (supposed) membership in the AAP as somehow contradicting the rest of the paragraph is both original research and an NPOV violation. I've removed the text in question. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not worse than the existence of that recently added WP:NOTNEWS section on this page, given the lack of conclusion by the sources themselves that this had anything to do with "saffron terror". I just removed the OR done since February 3.  ML 911 05:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saffron terror is violence motivated by Hindu nationalism, and the lead to clearly says so, WP:NOTNEWS is not valid here as the incidents are motivated by Hindu nationalism. Dey subrata (talk) 05:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You agree that sources lacked mention of "Saffron terror" which is certainly enough to disqualify this incident. We cannot add everything that was motivated by 'Hindu nationalism'. Reliable sources contradict each other right now even if Hindu nationalism was involved and that's why you will have to wait but keep this problematic section removed for now. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If a reliable source calls it "Saffron terror" it can belong, if not, it doesnt. Simple as that. Agree with D4iNa4 above.Pectoretalk 22:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty disingenuous argument, because in the move request you were claiming that "Saffron Terror" is the more common name for Hindutva terrorism, and opposing the move for that reason. By that logic, anything described as Hindu nationalist terror also belongs here. On the other hand, if it doesn't, then it's a distinct topic, and your argument above has no logical basis. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, that comment is addressed to D4iNa4, not Pectore. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hindutva terror

Should we change the name of this page as "Hindutva terror" as it is more widely accepted term and fits more instead of saffron.

The hindutva terrorism is more widely accepted and incidents are reported in these terms only. It will be good if we change it. Edward Zigma (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the move. Crawford88 (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is the term "Saffron terror" itself. Hence I oppose any sort of move. Instead the article should be cleaned up to resolve the made-up confusion about its scope. Bharatiya29 06:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its not saffron terror its only hindutva radical terror who thinks that Islam should nt be in India. Akshat1233 (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

plz rectify .. there no saffron terror.. it's a political conspiration Dr krishna1 (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the article

The recently concluded move request has made it clear that the general consensus is to keep the scope of this article limited to the neologism "Saffron Terror", and not the propaganda/concept/phenomenon (or whatever one may call it) of Hindu/Hinduism/Hindutva terrorism. In light of this, an effort needs to be made to include only those events in the "Incidents" section which have been clearly termed as "Saffron terror" by a significant section of neutral reliable sources. This will obviously result in the removal of a major chunk of this troublesome section. As of now, only the first section, i.e. "1999 killing of Graham Staines" has an explicit reference to a source linking it to the term, meaning that the other sections need to be removed if a similar source is not provided for them. Even then, the question of whether a single source is significant enough to warrant a section here crops up. However, that is a different debate for the future. Bharatiya29 20:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, absolutely not. The lack of consensus to change the title does not in any way imply consensus for a dictionary definition of the neologism. Indeed the argument made by many of those opposing the move was that the common name for the phenomenon was saffron terror; literally nobody besides you makes any argument for changing the scope of the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make an argument for changing the scope. I am rather making an argument for keeping the article restricted to its actual scope, which has always been limited to the term "Saffron terror". The move request was an attempt to change that and many of the arguments in support of it were based on widening the scope. (Including yours - Furthermore, the problem with the term "Saffron terror" was not that it was controversial, it's that it is something of a neologism.) The most recent AfD (2014 one) ended with no consensus and both Keep and Delete votes were based on the article's scope being the neologism.
  • Keep votes by NeilN, Dwaipayanc, Rhododendrites, and ScrapIronIV were based on Saffron terror's notability as a term or neologism.
  • Numerous delete votes, including that by Shrikanthv, AmritasyaPutra, and Vigyani were based on this topic failing WP:NEO, which is again a clear indication that the AfD was based on the article's scope being the neologism.
  • Even back then, there were some rename votes which were based on the idea of widening the scope, similar to the arguments presented in favour of the recently concluded move request. There was no consensus in favour of that.
Hence, it is clear that there have been attempts to change the scope without any consensus for it and the article is in need of a cleanup to revert that. The major part of the "Incidents" section is thus WP:UNDUE. If you believe that the scope should be changed, achieve a consensus in favour of it. Till then, the original scope must be be restored. Bharatiya29 16:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has never been consensus to restrict the article to the history of the term rather than the phenomenon. The AfD was five years ago, and was closed "no consensus" with no further analysis of its contents. Also, two of the loudest "delete" voices have since been indeffed for sockpuppetry, and very many of those arguing to keep discuss the notability of the phenomenon, not the term. More importantly, the AfD was to determine notability, and the rename discussion to select a name. There has been no specific discussion about scope, and in the absence of that, the default scope is anything that reliable sources refer to as saffron terror, or by synonymous terms. If you want to restrict the article, you will need to establish fresh consensus here. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with your assessment but continuing this discussion in its current form seems unfruitful. I shall start an RfC to determine the scope of this article. Looking forward to an insightful discussion. Bharatiya29 12:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing called saffron terror

People says about saffron terror but they dont know How islam Has destroyed akhand bharat and made it pakistan ,bangladesh and occupy half kashmir ,kashmiri pandits , that's why some Hindus have gone radical that Muslims shouldn't be in Bharat.thats how it all started. Akshat1233 (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Talk page is there to discuss improvements to the Saffron terror article. Please read the Talk Page Guidelines. Your rant about the Supreme Court, Pakistan, Kashmir, Pandits etc. does not belong here. Also keep in mind that hate speech will certainly get you banned from Wikipedia. — kashmīrī TALK 14:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saffron terror is a term used by the center left political parties to garner votes from non-hindu communities Writewing09 (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is right 

Shamit2005 (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So called saffron terror

This is a term coined by the Congress party Minister P Chidambaram and Digvijay Singh to defame Hindus in their own country, for political reasons and for garnering the votes of Muslims and Christians. It is suggested to Wikipedia to please remove this topic from the main Wikipedia page, since such a thing never existed nor is present now. Rharipanth (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does the term defame the Hindus more than the acts of saffron terror being committed? — kashmīrī TALK 08:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It only defames the people that identify with the terrorists. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Categories