Talk:Hindu terrorism

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Note that this is a misrepresentation based on ignoring prior discussions :) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

You are ignoring WP:STATUSQUO by using a pretend "consensus". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 10:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• 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 Marshall T/C 16:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  • 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. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

Im not using sections, but refering to references which state otherwise. Portwoman (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

WP:ONUS. Its up to you to show why your proposed wording is correct. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually the onus is on the editor who originally added these words, to prove that they follow the sources listed. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The current sentence closely follows a version that has been in place since atleast the last five years - [1] - 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)

Wikipedia is a live encyclopaedia. It's really ok to remove wrong information even after 20 years. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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?) — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The phrase "alleged members" was added in 2014[2] when the article was titled Saffron terror. The lead in that edit read:

Saffron terror is a neologism used to describe acts of violence apparently motivated by Hindu nationalism. They are perpetrated by members, alleged members and former members of the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its affiliate organisations such as the Vishva Hindu Parishad, Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram and others.

It was added by @Kautilya3: (pinging so he can weigh in on the discussion). Schazjmd (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Mention 2002 Gujarat riots

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots Constantiyespole (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2024

This article, especially the, "Other incidents" section is full of false allegations. Someone must remove them. You can add, "Some State Governments are witch hunting Hindus and trying to implicate them in false terrorism cases." 2406:7400:90:92A7:1C81:5D6C:7364:B74C (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Please remove the false allegations from this article, especially from the, "Other incidents" section.-2406:7400:90:92A7:1C81:5D6C:7364:B74C (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2024

In the "Other incidents" section, please change, "The Indian Home Secretary R. K. Singh said that at least 10 people having close links with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its affiliated organisations were named accused in various acts of terror across India.[72] According to released documents by WikiLeaks, Congress(I) party's general secretary Rahul Gandhi remarked to US Ambassador Tim Roemer, at a luncheon hosted by Prime Minister of India at his residence in July 2009, that the RSS was a "bigger threat" to India than the Lashkar-e-Taiba.[73] At The Annual Conference of Director Generals of Police held in New Delhi on 16 September 2011, a special director of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) reportedly informed the state police chiefs that Hindutva activists have either been suspected or are under investigation in 16 incidents of bomb blasts in the country." to, "The Indian Home Secretary R. K. Singh said that at least 10 people having close links with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its affiliated organisations were falsely named accused in various acts of terror across India.[72] According to released documents by WikiLeaks, Congress(I) party's general secretary Rahul Gandhi alleged at a luncheon hosted by the Prime Minister of India at his residence in July 2009 for the US Ambassador Tim Roemer, that the RSS was a "bigger threat" to India than the Lashkar-e-Taiba.[73] At The Annual Conference of Director Generals of Police held in New Delhi on 16 September 2011, a special director of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) reportedly informed the state police chiefs that Hindutva activists have either been suspected or are under false investigations, in 16 incidents of bomb blasts in the country." 103.216.233.47 (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Arjayay, Xoocit, Magentic Manifestations, Soni, Rohitsetthachok, Toadboy123, RogerYg, please carry out the above request.-103.216.233.47 (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Get better sources that support your claim. Soni (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Soni: None of those allegations have been proved, so please just add the term, "allegations" as I have requested above (I have edited each sentence).-103.216.233.47 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You may add, "Trying to control the damage, the Congress acknowledged that Gandhi had indeed spoken to Roemer on the issue." 103.216.233.47 (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You can add, "Rahul's assumptions are preposterous. The Congress party is promoting Hindu-Muslim divide," as per BJP spokesperson Tarun Vijay.-103.216.233.47 (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 103.216.233.47 (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Please also add, "It is shocking that there is a race in the seniorCongress leadership to indirectly or directly support jehadi terror and to project Hindus as terrorists in this country, that too in gross violation of established diplomatic norms and procedures," senior RSS leader Ram Madhav responded. 103.216.233.47 (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

UnpetitproleX, CapnJackSp, please respond.-103.216.233.47 (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to make it easier for others to understand, that IP is asking to change what there is in the "Other incidents" section, to, "The Indian Home Secretary R. K. Singh said that at least 10 people having close links with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its affiliated organisations were falsely named accused in various acts of terror across India.[72] According to released documents by WikiLeaks, Congress(I) party's general secretary Rahul Gandhi alleged at a luncheon hosted by the Prime Minister of India at his residence in July 2009 for the US Ambassador Tim Roemer, that the RSS was a "bigger threat" to India than the Lashkar-e-Taiba.[73] At The Annual Conference of Director Generals of Police held in New Delhi on 16 September 2011, a special director of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) reportedly informed the state police chiefs that Hindutva activists have either been suspected or are under false investigations, in 16 incidents of bomb blasts in the country. Trying to control the damage, the Congress acknowledged that Gandhi had indeed spoken to Roemer on the issue. "Rahul's assumptions are preposterous. The Congress party is promoting Hindu-Muslim divide," as per BJP spokesperson Tarun Vijay. "It is shocking that there is a race in the senior Congress leadership to indirectly or directly support jehadi terror and to project Hindus as terrorists in this country, that too in gross violation of established diplomatic norms and procedures," senior RSS leader Ram Madhav responded."

Arjayay, Xoocit, Magentic Manifestations, UnpetitproleX, CapnJackSp, Rohitsetthachok, Toadboy123, RogerYg, Apart from the request above, in the Terminology section, under the, "Hindu terrorism" and "Hindutva terrorism" sub-section, please change the last sentence from, .....such as Pragya Thakur and Aseemanand, have been arrested and tried to, .... such as Pragya Thakur and Aseemanand, have been arrested and tried.^[7] Aseemananand has being acquitted of all charges. and according to Amit Shah, Pragya Thakur has also been cleared of all charges; Amit Shah also condemned the Congress party for coining the imaginary term, "Hindu terror".". Please also read through the entire article, it is completely anti-Hindu and is against the WP:NPOV rule! Please change it to become more neutral.-2406:7400:90:92A7:98E9:41A1:8E37:C924 (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

References