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 consensus is to delete. Claims of inappropriate !votes by Hindus is disregarded as there is no evidence of canvassing. Vandalism/sock abuse in the article istelf is no reason to abandon good faith when dealing with the participants to this discussion. Arkyan 17:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu terrorism[edit]

Hindu terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –

Firstly, I dispute the definition of Hindu Terrorism provided - just because terrorist attacks are carried out by members of a religion, it doesn't automatically infer the terrorism is religiously motivated, it could have other motivations, such as nationalism. Secondly, reliable sources indicate the Nepal group isn't considered to be terrorist - see this news report. Lastly, the Hindutva movement group isn't considered to be terrorist, although it has been classified as a hate group. PhilKnight (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books shows 39 citations for "Hindu terrorism".[1] Surely this is a notable topic? The other major religions have a main article for discussing religious terrorism (Islamic terrorism, Christian terrorism). I dispute that a single source saying "X isn't terrorist" means that a group isn't terrorist (consider a single source that states "Al-Qaeda isn't terrorist"). Josh Keen (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the google book results, they include uses such as "the actions of the LTTE in Sri Lanka are not referred to as Hindu terrorism", from Counter-Terrorism Policing: Community, Cohesion and Security - Page 117 by Sharon Pickering, Jude McCulloch, David Wright-Neville - Social Science - 2008. Also, just because there are articles for Christian or Islamic terrorism, it doesn't imply that we should create articles that don't comply with our content policies. Finally, you haven't provided sources to demonstrate the groups mentioned in the article are considered to be terrorists. PhilKnight (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Google book results also include many valid uses of the term. I have provided a reliable source that indicate one of the groups (the one with trained suicide bombers) is considered "the Hindu Al-Qaeda", with the many terrorist connotations of that term. Plus reliable sources stating their religious goals (establish a Hindu state etc.), plus details of religiously motivated attacks (bombing of Christian orphanage). What more do you want? Josh Keen (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to write an encyclopedic article about the Nepal Defence Army, then go ahead, but this article is original research. PhilKnight (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, here are some excerpts from the google books:
"why the actions of the LTTE in Sri Lanka are not referred to as "Hindu terrorism"...[2]"
"...should Islamic terrorism materialise it would be met by Hindu terrorism (ie it doesn't exist yet), ...[3]"
Furthermore, one sensationalist third world tabloid calling somebody "Al-Qaeda" doesn't automatically make them a reliable source for "Hindu Terrorism". Many overly liberal and PC Israeli newspapers refer to orthodox Jewish groups as Chabad as "Jewish Taliban" or "Jewish al-Qaeda", which is insufficient reason to include them as such. Finally,terrorism by Hindus is not always religious in character. There is the issue of who exactly is a Hindu. It may be defined as religion or an ethnicity. A "Hindu state" need not be based on religious Hindu laws, but secular with a Hindu demographic. Ergo, some of the organizations listed may, at best, be classified as ethno-extremists or something, rather than religious terrorism.
Chiefofall (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your POV is obvious - I just undid your delete claiming "nationalism" - which bit of the following did you have trouble seeing the religious motivation in?
Sorry, but followers of Hinduism are no better or worse than followers of Judaism, Islam, or Christianity. I fail to see why this should be some kind of special case. Josh Keen (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, but they haven't been explicitly accused of terrorism, except by you, of course, whose POV is not so obvious until one does a simple google search.Chiefofall (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't say whether or not I personally consider them terrorist, since that is irrelevant to the discussion. However, two US think-tanks have classified the RSS as a religiously motivated terrorist organisation: the Terrorism Research Centre and the RAND Corporation.[4] Congress Chief Minister of Kerala A.K. Antony on July 14th 2002 in a statement branded R.S.S (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) as a terrorist organization.[5] Also some other groups that may be in this article:
Two non-notable think tanks (probably dispensationalist fronts, definitely so for the RAND corporation[6]) is not enough I'm afraid, and fall under WP:UNDUE. Do any governments declare them terrorist?Chiefofall (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is already established since there are Wikipedia articles on both groups, and notability is a prerequisite for existence of said articles. Josh Keen (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But none of them show any pattern of terrorism.Chiefofall (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are basically arguing that the Terrorism Research Centre and the RAND Corporation are wrong. However, they are notable and can be included in this article. Your personal views aren't. Josh Keen (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the holy terrorist, the primary audience is the deity, and depending upon his particular religious conception, it is even conceivable that he does not need or want to have the public witness his deed. The Thugs are our most interesting and instructive case in this respect. They intend their victims to experience terror and to express it visibly for the pleasure of Kali, the Hindu goddess of terror and destruction.".[Fear and Trembling: Terrorism in Three Religious Traditions, David C. Rapoport, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 3 (Sep., 1984), pp. 658-677, Published by: American Political Science Association]
  • "Bengali revolutionary terrorism was simply a takeoff on the European variety. The only indigenous element in it was the dangerous infusion of Hindu religious fanaticism" Foreign Influences on Bengali Revolutionary Terrorism 1902-1908, Peter Heehs, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Jul., 1994), pp. 533-556
  • " In Bengal, activities were often conducted through secret societies that sometimes practiced terrorism" "the RSS was influenced in its organization by Bengali terrorist societies" Ideology, Organization and Electoral Strategy of Hindu Nationalism: What’s Religion Got to Do with It?
  • Terror in the mind of God has a chapter on Hindu terrorism (p.92, "Sikh and Hindu justifications for violence)
  • Shiv Sena - "Shiv Sena chief, Bal Thackeray, steppted up his anti-Muslim diatribe, urging his followers to take up a holy war or dharm yuddh" "Thackeray's admiration for Adolph Hitler is also widely cited in interviews" "Shiv Sena's media clout reflects the confluence of the party's organizational acumen and its terrorist tactics." "The home of Haroon Rashid of the newspaper, Blitz, was attacked and all his possessions were burned... The effect of this incident and of Shiv Sena's terrorist tactics more generally have been an understandable self-censoring by the media." The Rebirth of Shiv Sena: The Symbiosis of Discursive and Organizational Power, Mary Fainsod Katzenstein, Uday Singh Mehta and Usha Thakkar, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 56, No. 2 (May, 1997), pp. 371-390, Published by: Association for Asian Studies
  • "The United Liberation Front of Assam is a Hindu terrorist group that targets Muslims rather than the other way round." [7]
Josh Keen (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your sources are either op/eds (unreliable), dispensationalist propaganda sites, or flat out misrepresented (if the anti-India secessionist ULFA ie The United Liberation Front of Assam is a "Hindu terrorist" outfit then scientologists are Vulcan monks from Mars). Plus, using the word "terrorist" as an epithet doesn't count, even if it IS used by some whiny Indian polemicists. The sources have to show clear patterns of terrorist acts performed by "The filthy pagan Hindoos", which they don't.Chiefofall (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three of the sources are academic journals, another is a book published by the University of California Press. The Times of India is the most widely distributed English language newspaper in India. The Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies is a research center operated by the Department of Defense. These are good, reliable sources. Josh Keen (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. not impressed. The Times of India, despite it's flowery sounding name, is basically the National Enquirer of India. A cheap tabloid that got caught stealing nonsense out of wikipedia itself a while back (see User:Blnguyen/Times of India).As for the other sources, they may mention the term "Hindu terrorist", but only as a political epithet. Hindu terrorism would be a clear pattern of subversive activity (like suicide bombings, ramming planes into buildings) carried out by Hindus in order to establish a Hindu state governed by Hindu religious laws (which fell out of use some 250 years ago). No such pattern is indicated. Political epithets, even if they are used by pseudoacademics, fall under WP:NEO as inappropriate for wikipedia.Chiefofall (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, these are standard academic sources. I realise that what they say goes against your POV, sorry, that's just the way it is. To quote WP:RS: "Many Wikipedia articles rely upon source material created by scientists, scholars, and researchers. This is usually considered the most reliable type of source" Josh Keen (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not. Standard academic sources only count if they are detailed and descriptive. If some whine Indian Communists publish "whine whine Hindu terrorist Hindu terrorist don't look at the Muslims" then it may be reliable, but is not notable.Chiefofall (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are not "whine Indian Communists" : University of California Press is an academic publisher, The American Political Science Review is a peer reviewed academic journal, Modern Asian Studies and The Journal of Asian Studies are both peer reviewed journals published by the University of Cambridge, the Terrorism Research Centre and Rand Corporation are military and private research outfits respectively. Josh Keen (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that they are "academic". Their academicity does not automagically make them notable unless they discuss the purported phenomenon of "Hindu Terrorism" in a scholarly way, which they clearly do not.Chiefofall (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is your personal opinion, and you are entitled to it. If you could provide some appropriate peer reviewed expert sources that also share your opinion, that would be even better. Oh, and Notability and reliable source are two separate concepts. Josh Keen (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the think tank also lists the Osho cult (which IS a terrorist group actually 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack) and the Jamaat-e-Islami as terrorist groups, while a perusal at the wikipedia articles show that they (the Jamaat) definitely count as extremist, but not necessarily "terrorist" in on themselves (except as a political epithet). Clearly, thair standards of defining a "terrorist" are weak. Too weak for wikipedia.Chiefofall (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TERRORIST says that we don't have to show that "X is a terrorist", just be able to say that "reliable source X published something saying X is a terrorist." Josh Keen (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encyclopedic topic. Also follows other naming conventions such as Christian terrorism. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the Hindustan Times isn't a reliable source for information on terrorists based in that part of the world? Apparently, "Hindustan Times (HT) is a leading newspaper in India, published since 1924". I see no indication that it wouldn't be considered reliable. And the only reference to "tabloid" is referring to the print format, not the other meaning of the word. Josh Keen (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because India is a country whose press has precisely zero journalistic integrity. In India, there are no real libel laws and so a crank journalist can pretty much write any nonsense that he can without any fear of consequence, unlike in western countries where journalists are held to a higher standard. Thus, Indian media has no independent fact checking system, no accountability, and no real factual accuracy or factual absolutism. Everything written in Indian media is politically motivated nonsense (here are several articles in a "prominent Indian newspaper" that Jews did 9/11, for instance [8].Chiefofall (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We nonetheless accept Indian sources. The claim that they are totally unreliable needs to be discussed elsewhere. That you can find a few biased articles doesn't prove all the articles in all their newspapers incorrect. You can find some biased articles in the press of every country. DGG (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what exists. (Will take me a couple hours to get to site with access.) --Firefly322 (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to put quote marks around the search terms. The correct results are "Sikh terrorism" 280 results, "Jewish terrorism" 661 results. Jewish terrorism does have a main article - Kahanism. Sikh terrorism doesn't - as you point out, it seems notable, so maybe you would like to start one? Josh Keen (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kahanism isn't religious terrorism. It's Revisionist Zionism, which is a different thing altogether. Most Hindutva extremism is a manifestation of ignorant skunks expressing frustration at atrocities committed against Hindus by Islamists in Pakistan (see 1971 Bangladesh atrocities) and by the Christians in fijiand Northeastern India Christian_terrorism#Groups_in_India. Violent, certainly. However, I fail to see any pattern of surreptiousness that indicates a terrorist act. The violence is typically conducted openly and in large organized mobs, rather than decentralized "terrorist" cells like Muslims and Christians do. Mostly, the accusation is either an epithet (in which case it fails WP:NEO or a canard used by pat Robertson and his ilk (in which case, it fails Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_and_fringe_sources.Chiefofall (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the main article for Jewish Terrorism is Kahanism, then I suggest the main article for Hindu Terrorism should be called Nepal Defence Army. If you move the existing article, I'll withdraw the deletion nom. PhilKnight (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article: Kahanism is religous in nature, and different from Zionism which can be secular or not... "Kahanism is a term used in Israeli political parlance to refer, specifically, to the ideology of Rabbi Meir Kahane, and, more generally, to other right-wing Religious Zionist movements or groups that share a belief in the fundamental tenets of that ideology, chief among them being the idea that the State of Israel should be governed theocratically"
Josh Keen (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of all the organizations mentioned, the NDA may qualify as a terrorist outfit, perhaps even a Hindu terrorist outfit (given that they claim that they want to establish a Hindu theocracy in Nepal). In which case, an article on NDA is fine. However, their inclusion in religious terrorism is inappropriate per WP:UNDUE, given that they are maybe 5-6 people in a population of some 900 million Hindus, and can easily fall under the 10% or so of morons that constitute a fraction of any sizable population group.Chiefofall (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, Al Qaeda shouldn't be included in religious terrorism or Islamic terrorism, since they have maybe a few hundred members, in a population of 1 billion Muslims. Hardly a convincing argument, is it? Josh Keen (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument here.Chiefofall (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more complete if people didn't keep deleting bits that they personally disagree with.[11] Josh Keen (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See what I mean [12]. Even experts writing in peer reviewed acadmemic journals aren't good enough for this article! I had no idea that Hindu terrorism was so controversial. Josh Keen (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, the Thuggees were assassins, not terrorists. The term "terrorism" did not even exist back then (since it was first applied) to radical Bolsheviks, who came about much much later). A thuggee would pretty much kill anyone you paid him to kill. They were mercenaries, not driven by any clear cut paradigm.Chiefofall (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is your personal opinion that the Thuggees were not terrorist, however, the text you keep reverting comes from an expert writing in a peer-reviewed academic journal, who states that in his opinion the Thuggees were religiously inspired Hindu terrorists. And your reason for deletion - "original reason" - is ridiculous; this is a direct quote from an expert source, how can it be original research?
"For the holy terrorist, the primary audience is the deity, and depending upon his particular religious conception, it is even conceivable that he does not need or want to have the public witness his deed. The Thugs are our most interesting and instructive case in this respect. They intend their victims to experience terror and to express it visibly for the pleasure of Kali, the Hindu goddess of terror and destruction.".[Fear and Trembling: Terrorism in Three Religious Traditions, David C. Rapoport, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 3 (Sep., 1984), pp. 658-677, Published by: American Political Science Association] Josh Keen (talk) 08:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm a little puzzled by your argument, since the two articles mentions have been upheld at AfD (or never brought to AfD at all). Your argument is for keep, not delete. DGG (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I did not understand what you are talking about. I do not have any agenda here and I have been accused of previous times as being a Christian terrorist, anti-Hindu propagandist etc etc. See Talk:Religious_violence_in_India/Archive_1#Anonymous_edit and Talk:Religious_violence_in_India/Archive_2#Fox_News. Please explain more which of my argument "puzzled" you and why? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, but I never referred to your agenda, just that you wanted to delete this , saying that two other analogous articles existed--& one were kept by very large majorities & the other never even brought to AfD.. The arguments for keeping them apply just as much to this. Or did you mean unlike Islamic terrorism .... In which case, just fix your typo.DGG (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, despite the fact that every bit of content was correctly cited from peer-reviewed academic journals... Josh Keen (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the content that was here was cited from University of Cambridge and others. Not Xinhua. Josh Keen (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So? You could say the same about Islam or Judaism. I fail to see the relevance. Josh Keen (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - there is no reason for this article as the element is not specific to a particular religion. The subject should be discussed on a more wider articles such as Hindu thus avoiding WP:CFORK. Wikidās-ॐ 09:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you missed the article before the content was deleted repeatedly by the now-banned sock puppet Chiefofall? There were real references to academic journals. Josh Keen (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu fanatics[edit]

Comment News paper reports usually use the term Hindu fanatics. I have hundreds and hundreds of articles on this topic. I found them using the search engine Lexis-Nexis, all are from very respectable and very reliable sources. Many describe what can be fairly and objectively be called Hindu terrorists. Such hindu extremists include the one who killed (i.e., shot) Mahatma Ghandi, those who organized a riot that tore down a muslim mosque Babri Mosque, and those who kill Christians to terrorize other missionaries from further conversion of lower cast Hindus. See my User_talk:Firefly322 talk page for quotes from such articles. So far such contributions have been completely removed by User:PhilKnight and User:Chiefofall. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and they will continue to be unless you provide sources that clearly describe them as terrorists. PhilKnight (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my User_talk:Firefly322 talk page. The news reports and hindu extremists and their relgiously motivated acts of murder and destruction speak quite objectively for themselves. Also it seems to be a poor response to a lot of hard work. If you can't be rational about this perhaps you should withdraw the AfD nomination. (Please also see my addition toTalk:Hindu_terrorism) --Firefly322 (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is relevant. No notable source accuses them of explicit acts of terrorism.Chiefofall (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are describing religiously motivated actions that cause fear to what Martin Buber would call the other. Would Chiefofall say that a pogrom is not terrorism? Would this user also say that Kristallnacht is not terrorism?--Firefly322 (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, neither Kishinev pogrom nor Kristallnacht are known as terrorist acts. They are what people in India would call Communalism (though the term is not widely used in Europe. Again, quite different things.Chiefofall (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kristallnacht was evil, but that doesn't automatically imply it was an act of terrorism. Evil and terrorism aren't synonymous. PhilKnight (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In light of reference to Noam Chomsky's scholarly lecture and conclusion (See current Hindu terrorism article), regarding Hindu terrorism, I believe the article looks much more promising. I will await some response from Knight and Cheif before adding back fundamentalist material. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 13:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption of this AfD[edit]

This AfD has been utterly corrupted. Links to Hindu terrorism have been consistently removed from religious terrorism, meaning that anyone interested in religious terrorism will be unable to find this article. Material completely relevant and appropriate to this article has been removed, making it "appear" that this article has no strong sources, when in fact the cited sources are scholarly academic journals. Material has been deleted (see [16]) with the claim that it is "Original research" - and yet a simple look will show that all of the material removed was correct cited and accurately represented the original sources. Almost all of the Deletes are from Hindus who actively and almost exclusively edit Hinduism related pages... obviously not an unbiased source (here's an idea - canvas Muslims on deleting Islamic terrorism, it would be at least 90% in favour, yeah that's fair...). Josh Keen (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha. "User:Chiefofall is a sock puppet of Hkelkar, and has been blocked indefinitely." [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Keen (talk • contribs) 08:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've given Josh a level 3 warning for not assuming good faith in regard to Hindu and Muslim editors. PhilKnight (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to continue assuming good faith when people are using sock puppet accounts to vandalise the article so that it "appears" that there are no reliable sources and the AfD will pass. I spend time finding rock solid citations in peer-reviewed academic journals, and yet there are a string of deletes for no other reason than conflict with personal POVs. Nobody has presented any reliable sources that refute the cited papers, the only objection is appeal to the personal point of view that "there can't be such a thing as a Hindu terrorist". Josh Keen (talk) 12:33, 29 May 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.
Category