Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu Taliban (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete. See detailed rationale at the bottom of the discussion. —Darkwind (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Taliban

edit
AfDs for this article:
Hindu Taliban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NEO & WP:POVFORK "Some refer to hindutva supporters as a “Hindu Taliban.”" India: A Global Studies Handbook p126. The article fails on neo as the sources used only mention it in passing, none go into in-depth coverage to explain what the neo is actually about. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the first AFD was flawed, those voting AGF on the sources, however most of the sources were in fact about Hindutava and those that do mention "Hindu Taliban" mention it only in passing, per WP:NEO "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term" Darkness Shines (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, man. The Dawn and France24 sources seem to mention the term not merely in passing. Not sure if Rediff is RS, though (not saying it isn't, just that I'm personally not sure). I'm still leaning toward keep but I see that others indicated delete. It would help if we could get answers from a larger pool of editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The dawn sorce has two mentions of the term, other than the article title. "Gujarat continues to be in the grip of Hindu Taliban" is one line, and that is it. The second mention is "Compared to the Hindu Taliban, the Muslim Taliban may be less active. But they are very much there." I would not call that in-depth coverage, would you? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect you to change your stance but will try anyhow, if you already acknowledge that the sources are weak (which BTW is downplaying the real deficiency of in-depth coverage), why vote for a keep? I mean what can trump the violations like non-existence of in-depth coverage in WP:RSes, WP:NEO among other issues? Not to mention what a Propaganda-spilling inferno it has been. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pointless WP:POINTY nomination by a user who has a clear of WP:COI. The results in the previous AfDs were clear. And the term has a heck lot of coverage online in a breadth of sources. If the nominator can't be bothered to see them, it's not the problem of others. Mar4d (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:COI and then be so kind as to redact your absurd allegation. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments should be made on policy, not on users. If you only object against a certain user starting this discussion, but you cannot counter his actual arguments, your "vote" is not valid. --RJFF (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why delete.... just as it reflects the extremism. There‘re lot of articles of the same nature for which no one raises any question. The nominator may not like this article that doesn‘t mean have to delete it.  MehrajMir (Talk) 12:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments fall in line with those that are to be actively avoided. See WP:LIKE and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Uncletomwood's comment below against Faizan applies to you too. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re Faizan, yes there are Hindu extremists, which is why we have the Hindutava article. At all the other keep votes, where are your sources which discuss this neo indepth? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Faizan,assuming you are muslim,your point of saying keep is because hindu extremism is there,a Bloody brilliant reason to say KEEP.Wikipedia is not for propagation..I hope you know that.Uncletomwood (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Taliban a student movement, a protegee of the CIA/ ISI that took Afghanistan back to the middle ages. Isn't it the new Godwin's law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh Khandke (talk • contribs) 13:29, April 10, 2013 (UTC) diff
But isn't it a term used by Hindu Extremists? Faizan(talk) 13:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is just a term for the Hindutva movement. Did you not see the source I added with the nomination? "Some refer to hindutva supporters as a “Hindu Taliban.”" India: A Global Studies Handbook p126. This term is just a NEO for that. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the same is the case for Islamic extremists, they are also referred by some. Faizan(talk) 14:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What? Do you mean the Taliban? They called themselves that. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Faizan Al-Badri, have you lost it? You really think "Hindu extremists" assuming they are remotely as violent and as pernicious as the real 9/11 terrorists, call themselves Hindu Taliban? Given that these so-called Hindu extremists are the number one rival of Islamic fundamentalists in India, why on earth would they call themselves the Taliban? Is there no limit to this absurdity? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Taliban weren't the ones behind 9/11. Not sure what point you're trying to make here. This article is over the use of the term in relation to Hindu fundamentalists and we have plenty of sources and coverage showing that this is a widely used term. 07:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: per Nom, per the lack of WP:SIGCOV. It's just a pejorative slang used for supposedly intolerant right-wing Hindus. These are living people we are talking about. WP:NEO. More if an article about a very popular and well-noted topic as "Civilization Jihad" can be speedy deleted under WP:G10 and can be framed as figment of imagination, I believe this is also an attack page a fictitious construct. FYI, even the draft about Civilization Jihad is MFDed. This issue and those who are voting "Keep" need to be taken to a noticeboard or at least monitored very thoroughly.
    "Hindu taliban" doesn't make sense, they don't exist, even the suggestion is preposterous. [1], [2], [3].

    How is Tunku Varadarajan now a taliban expert? This is a promotional attack page put up to smear an entire community. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: guys, the constant back and forth debates from both sides along with instances of uncivil behavior seems - at least to me - likely to lead to another "no consensus" result. I think it would be better if each editor simply states their vote without responding or engaging with others. Though at this point, unfortunately, this discussion has gotten so out of hand that "no consensus" already seems very likely. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Polling is not a substitute for discussion, mind it. Your argument here like everywhere else, seems to fall in line with "Just does not belong and don't refute others".
Wikipedia works by building consensus. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration, not straw votes. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's very clear here by the nature of the back and forth arguing, and the discussion boiling down into usage of the F-word, that this isn't consensus building. It's an argument that seems headed toward another lack of consensus. Please consider what I say instead of simply trying to formulate a response to it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you let the admin decide? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the original point I was making, sir. And that's a bit difficult when you appear to be engaging in mildly aggressive behavior with a number of editors who simply express different views than yours. Again, please consider this general advice I gave to everyone here, including myself. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh...Hindus are extremists? You mean as a group of people? You might want to qualify and/or entirely change that statement, it looks really, really prejudiced and offensive as it is. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the poor way that vote was put across there are of course Hindu extremists, it is commonly referred to as the hindutva movement. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to reconsider that. Mar4d (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Hindu Taliban" is just a pejorative slang used for supposedly intolerant right-wing Hindus. You might want to reconsider your poxy attempts to mask the lack of notability. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mar4d, with all due respect, I stand by my original judgement that this is an obscure term that does not add any value to Wikipedia. --RaviC (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia usually should not have articles on neologisms and the like (WP:NOTNEO), unless they are of high notability, which could not be shown in this case. (Some uses of the term here and there do not make high notability.) Especially, POV forks must be deleted at any rate, which is the case here. We already have articles on Hindutva and Hindu nationalism which are the established terms for this phenomenon, so a separate article on "Hindu Talibans" (a clearly derogative=POV term referring to the supporters of Hindutva) must be a POV fork. --RJFF (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep - Mar4d has shown evidence that the term does indeed exist. Hindu nationalism and the Hindu Taliban are different terms. Reliable sources attest to the fact that the term exists and organisations such as this exist. Acknowledging the previous nominations, the article should be kept given that there are no reasons to delete it. Further, Tunku Varadarajan a clinical professor at the Stern School of Business, also a lecturer in Law at Trinity College, Oxford University and a graduate from there, his opinion as an academic is tantamount in confirming the existence of such a movement. As an academic his work is scholarly and therefore relevant. As a teacher and an observer of the world around him, it would seem strange for his work to be disregarded and the article deleted. Therefore a strong keep is what is needed. Numpty9991 (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC) -block evading sock puppet of Dalai Lama Ding Dong Beta Jones Mercury (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, does Wikipedia need articles about obscure neologism. Anyhow the terror activities by Hindu extremist groups are already there in Saffron terror. That way, a new phrase Internet Hindus is also in use these days. Do we create an article about that also? --Vigyani (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources showing usage of the term "Hindu Taliban"

edit

....But we are worried about In-depth coverage -

  • The mainstream Hindu right is a second incarnation of National Socialism or a Hindu Taliban, and shows no signs of being a threat to representative democracy as a form of government.. The Upside-Down Tree: India's Changing Culture, p. 161
  • ...The project was conceived in the shadow of the exiling M.F. Husain on a ridiculously spurious 'charge' hatched by the Hindu fascists, and the beginnings of the resurgence of the Taliban goons in Afghanistan; the volume comes out in the shadow of the assault by the Hindu Taliban on young women drinking in a pub in Mangalore... Electric Feather, p. XI
  • Some refer to hindutva supporters as a “Hindu Taliban.” Others point out that a small number of extremists have “highjacked” Hinduism... India: A Global Studies Handbook
  • ... order to display the glories of India's Hindu past and downplay the role of Muslims, and minority groups of Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs often regarded the BIP as biased against them, the BIP did not turn out to be a Hindu Taliban. Legality and Legitimacy in Global Affairs - Page 280
  • The most fanatical representatives of these taboo- driven attitudes today are India's arch-conservatives — the Hindu Taliban. First it was Hitler, now it is the Taliban. A logical mind would say the Brahmins of India are the Hindu Taliban. NGOs, activists & foreign funds: anti-nation industry - Page 202

— Mar4d (08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)[reply]

A logical mind would say the Brahmins of India are the Hindu Taliban - wow? Brahmins are living people and all of them are compared t terrorists. If this is any example of in-depth coverage then I am not impressed. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shukla (2003) has very effectively chronicled the philosophy of the Hindu Taliban. They mimic the jehadis in their action and philosophy. These pseudo-religionists, the Hindu Taliban and the Muslim Jehadis, are birds of the same flock.. Religion, Power and Violence: Expression of Politics in Contemporary Times, p. 151

— Mar4d (08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)[reply]

How is it saying anything at all about Hindu Taliban other than a man's ill-equipped comparison between Taliban and Hinduism? Can be merged to Hindutva, per WP:NEO. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the Hindu Taliban be Indianised? ...One of the worst fallouts of the destruction of the Buddha statues in Bamyan, as far as India is concerned, is the re-emergence of Talibanism in this country. Not among Muslims who have by and large condemned the acts... (cont.), Russia and the Moslem World: Bulletin on Analytical and Reference Information: page 41

— Mar4d (08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)[reply]

It is a question. Not in-depth coverage. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hindu Taliban had consciously desired it Already disturbed for more than a decade, the sacrilegious acts provoked such a wave of angry protest and at a few places even communal clashes... Russia and the Moslem World: Bulletin on Analytical and Reference Information: p. 42

— Mar4d (08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)[reply]

Same case. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the Hindu Taliban don't give a tinker's damn to concepts like democracy and social harmony, to secularism and rainbow plurality mat... Hindutva: An Autopsy of Fascism As a Theoterrorist Cult and Other Essays, page 145 (by Professor I.K. Shukla)

— Mar4d (08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)[reply]

Same here. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • lamented the growth in India of "a sort of Hindu Taliban movement" and said that the anti-Christian violence had placed in clear peril the country's... India today international (1999), page 118

— Mar4d (08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)[reply]

Trivial. Can be merged to Hindutva. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gujarat continues to be in the grip of the Hindu Taliban. The sainiks destroyed the NDTV office at Ahmedabad a few days ago because the channel reported that M.F. Husain, a world-famous painter, was one of the personalities chosen by.... Kuldip Nayar

— Mar4d (08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)[reply]

Kuldip Nayar is a Taliban expert now? Can be merged to Hindutva or RSS. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • prefigure the nationwide shattering of mosques or the emergence of a Hindu Taliban. The strictures of the Constitution and the broader Indian allegiance to secularism.. India: A Portrait (Patrick French), 2011
  • ...communal, ultra-sectarian dispensation— a kind of Hindu Taliban, which will push India back towards the Middle Ages. This will be a social and political nightmare. Alternatively, the BJP, and with it, the NDA, will come tumbling down like a... Rashtriya sahara vol.10, page 41
  • ..This once-invincible national party will look more like a fringe Hindu Taliban as the year goes by...Business World - Volume 24, page 119
  • ...Compared to the Hindu Taliban, the Muslim Taliban may be less active in India, but they are very much there. They demonstrated against the Godrejs, a house of industrialists, a few days ago... Institute of Regional Studies, 2008, p. 28

— Mar4d (08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)[reply]

Subjective claim ..Speculation. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Govind Nihalani, a leading filmmaker, said: "I fear we are witnessing the emergence of a Hindu Taliban, a growing intolerance to freedom of expression... Spotlight on regional affairs - Volume 18 - Page 189

— Mar4d (08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)[reply]

filmmaker is a Taliban expert now? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ....The images of the Ayodhya movement reinforced the worst stereotypes of eastern fanaticism and fuelled fears of a Hindu Taliban.... India Today - Volume 27 - Page 24

— Mar4d (08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)[reply]

can be merged to Ayodhya dispute or Hindutva or whatever but it is not saying much about Taliban's association or similarity with Hinduism. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Below are the Links haphazardly sorted

These sources on the term are in addition to the ones already present in the article. As can be seen, this is a proper term that is extensively used for Hindu fundamentalism, as can be seen in the breadth and large mix of sources above that are from all over the world. Those who appear to be claiming that the term is "obscure" seem to have no idea what they're talking about. Claims like "This is a promotional attack page put up to smear an entire community" are also dumb and unfounded. Just because something has presumably negative connotations or is offensive to the national sentiments of some is not an acceptable reason to get an article deleted. Who freaking cares!? Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED! If a term is widely used, there will be an article of it, regardless if someone does not like it. Mar4d (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are all trivial mentions. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. See WP:SIGCOV. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We don't need to create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers.
Bombarding an article with sources that only trivially cover the topic doesn't make the topic notable there is nothing that cannot be merged with Hindutva. This is typical neologism. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mar, read NEO again, all of those sources are single use only, "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." How many times must this be pointed out? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's comments

edit

Given the length of this discussion, the multiple rebuttals, and so on, I felt it necessary to outline my closing rationale here -- it's too long to shoehorn in up at the top with the result.

First, the article itself. I will take no position on the neutrality of the article itself (concerning the way it is written), but since one of the core arguments here is the notability of the term, I did take some care to evaluate the sources currently cited in the article:

  • India: A Global Studies Handbook: Not significant coverage; it just says "some [people] refer to [Hindutva] as a 'Hindu Taliban'."
  • The original NYTimes article: Also not significant coverage. It was an opinion piece, uses the the term just once, and only says "a sort of Hindu Taliban movement" (emphasis mine), using the term Taliban as an adjective substitute for "right-wing" or "extremist".
  • The Frontline piece: A column, not significant editorially-reviewed reporting.
  • Dawn.com: Can't really evaluate the reliability of this one, it doesn't say what part of the paper it's from, but the Dawn does appear to be a reliable Indian newspaper.
  • The several Rediff pieces cited: Not reliable, Rediff.com is an Indian Yahoo-style web portal.
  • France24: A reliable source, but only says "critics have called [Sri Ram Sena] a 'Hindu Taliban'". Does not address any possible significance of the term
  • India Today: It is an opinion piece merely quoting the original Times "Zeal in India" column.
  • Second NYTimes link: This is just a letter to the editor in respons to the "Zeal in India" column, and is disputing the use of term anyway.
  • Outlook India: bad link
  • Times of India: Another opinion column.

Taken together, none of this is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. In fact, almost none of these are secondary sources to the use of the term at all, and the ones that are (the handbook, France 24, India Today) are not significant coverage. Therefore, any argument that the term has received significant coverage lacks weight, Mar4d (t c)'s (likely well-meaning) attempt at BOMBARDment included.

Now, to the arguments made in the discussion. On the keep side, we have MezzoMezzo and Mar4d as the only users citing a valid policy-based reason to keep, which is the coverage in the sources. As I noted above, that reasoning has very little weight after a careful evaluation of said sources.

On the delete side, we have several arguments being made by various editors: that the term is a neologism, is not notable, the term is a POV-based attack or POV fork, that the article duplicates information in other articles such as Hindutva and Saffron terror, and that the term is an inappropriate pejorative.

Given the sources cited and the way the term is used in them, I readily agree that it appears to be a term that is not used in serious scholarly or political discourse in regards to the Hindu nationalist movement (i.e. a neologism), and that it does appear to be strongly pejorative in nature. Unlike the Taliban in Afghanistan and its related movements, the Hindu group in question does not use this term to describe themselves -- it is an attempt by certain individuals, those writing the cited opinion pieces among them, to draw comparisons between the fundamentalism of the Muslim Taliban groups and Hindu extremists and evoke an emotional reaction from their readers.

Taking all of the above into account, then, I see no reason under Wikipedia policy to justify keeping the article, and am closing this discussion as delete. I will be happy to provide (userfy) a copy of the references used for adding any relevant information to Hindutva or Saffron terror as appropriate, especially considering the merge discussion. However, due to the non-neutral nature of the term and the acrimony of this discussion, I don't feel a full userfication would be appropriate. —Darkwind (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindu_Taliban_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1139197020"