The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)[reply]
Not done. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Get better sources that support your claim. Soni (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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.[4]103.216.233.47 (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.[1][2] "Rahul's assumptions are preposterous. The Congress party is promoting Hindu-Muslim divide," as per BJP spokesperson Tarun Vijay.[3] "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.[4]"
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.[5] 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".[6]". 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)[reply]
Since this is a contentious topic, we need strong WP:RS references in the lead too, and any accusations should have credible sources. Also, any claims, opinions, and content without WP: RS references should be avoided. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the, "2008 western India bombings" sub-section of the, "2007-2008" section, please change, "NIA, National Investigation Agency, has found no evidence against Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and it has recommended the court to drop all charges against her.[59][60] following which Bombay High Court granted bail to Pragya Thakur on 22 April 2017." to, "NIA, National Investigation Agency, has found no evidence against Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and it has recommended the court to drop all charges against her,[59][60] following which the Bombay High Court granted bail to Pragya Thakur on 22 April 2017." Please also remove the </ref> tag in the sub-section just above that. In the first sub-section of the, "2007-2008" section, the last sentence has two full stops, please correct that also. 2406:7400:90:5E60:2FAD:64ED:1D27:CE84 (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no clear link of saffron terror with Samjhauta Express incident
Even NIA has linked Islamic terrorist groups LeT, HM etc
if claims of several political leaders, authors or media house are considered as reliable source wikipedia then it's really concerning WikiEdits2003 (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your mean. The link is quite plain. That there has no successful prosecution is simply a reflection of the deeply incompetent local justice system, but it doesn't negate the link. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personal opinions don't matter here on Wikipedia
provide some reliable source so we can add here on the page
Also the incident was linked with Islamic terrorist organisation LeT
it seems like the information is bias too and those organisations which were linked to terrorism haven't been designated terrorist organisations just like LeT, Al Qaeda etc like Islamic terrorist organisations WikiEdits2003 (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a relatively new article entitled Hindutva iconoclasm, but given that icons aren't a prominent feature of Islam, this seems a topic of uncertain coherence. The contents seem more to cover Hindu terrorism, and doesn't discuss Iconoclasm, so I suggest merging the content to here without including the concept of iconoclasm. Klbrain (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Support - Just like I had said last time, I will say again. The sources describe politics by Hindutva groups as motivation. As Audrey Truschke describes, "Hindutva and Hinduism are distinct. Hindutva is a narrow political ideology whereas Hinduism is a broad-based religious tradition. Many Hindus oppose Hindutva ideology, both in India and in the US-based diaspora, and it is offensive to conflate the two." Founder of Hindutva Vinayak Damodar Savarkar also said Hinduism isn't same as Hindutva.[1] That means the distinction between Hindu and Hindutva is very important and any rejection of this fact would be gross error. >>> Extorc.talk10:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the sources speak of Hindu terrorism or don't mention Hindutva at all. It's always offensive to conflate members of a religion with their worst, like conflating Christianity with terrorist Christians or Muslims with Muslim terrorists, but describing a phenomenon is not that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single reliable source used the term "Hindu terrorism". From next time, you should be using a source to back up your assertions. Shankargb (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Your sources are not really supporting any of your claims. You must show what are those reliable sources that are using the term "Hindu terrorism". >>> Extorc.talk06:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hinduism is the religion. Hindu is someone practicing Hinduism. It is similar to Christian for eg.
Word Hinduism is similar to Islamism - which is what im advocating for in the other move ie to use Islamist. Also Islamism is also used for Political Islam which is comparable to Hinduism, but Hindutva is not a common name. Word hinduic or hinduist doesn't exist. So we dont have a better name for this article - thats why im opposing. Cinaroot (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
im aware of that. i said the word is similar. not its meaning. simply put most people don't know what Hindutva is. Its not common. But islamic, islamist are heavily used in media. Anyway - im curious what is your reasoning for supporting Hindutva and opposing my proposed change for use of islamist Cinaroot (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
im aware of that. i said the word is similar. not its meaning.: So we are now using words by their vibes and not their meanings on Wikipedia?
im curious what is your reasoning for supporting Hindutva and opposing my proposed change for use of islamist: Show me where in the entire discussion I supported "Hindutva" but opposed "Islamist". I have only pointed out obvious logical fallacies and inconsistencies coming from you. In fact, you really just boomeranged yourself. Flip the words in the question and ask it to yourself. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})17:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CX Zoom We are not going with “vibes” —but accessibility and clarity for the average reader do matter in naming conventions. a typical reader without specialist or regional knowledge should be able understand or infer the meaning of a term.
Terms like Islamic, Islamist, Judaism, Christianist, or Buddhist have clear and commonly understood meanings or parallels. In contrast, Hindutva—while technically accurate as the ideological counterpart to Islamism—is not a widely recognized or intuitive term for many readers, especially outside South Asia.
My point is not that Hinduism = Islamism in meaning (they’re clearly not), but rather that when naming articles, we should aim for clarity and consistency with established linguistic patterns
Islamist terrorism is a more precise term than Islamic terrorism, just as Hindutva terrorism would be more precise—if only the term were more widely known and used. In this context, Islamist terrorism is a proposed improvement in terminology to reflect ideology rather than religion, and Hindu terrorism remains a placeholder due to lack of better-known alternatives. Cinaroot (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hindutva terrorism would be more precise—if only the term were more widely known and used. That's not how any of this works. Wikipedia's job is to educate people who are seeking information. If something is more precise as you say, it should be the title despite being little known. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})18:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and you haven't presented a compelling case on either of the 4 other major points. Your arguments so far have focused on maintaining similarity with other religion-oriented terrorism articles, something that you yourself have shown interest in dismantling, then using -ism/-ist words because those words are spelled "similarly", and that Hindutva is more precise but possibly less known. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})19:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a WP:COMMONNAME. If it was named "Jew terrorism" then only you could have made sense. "Jew" is the equivalent of "Hindu", not "Jewish". That's how you make no sense. Shankargb (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No? You wouldn't say this is a Jew person. You would say this is a Jewish person. You would say this is a Hindu person, not a ... Hindu-ish, person. And for the same grammatical reason it is "Hindu" terrorism. Not all Hindu terrorism is Hindutva which is a specific, different ideology. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We say "He is a Jew", just like we say "He is a Hindu". Can you show any instances of "Hindu terrorism" by providing reliable sources? Shankargb (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - WP:COMMONNAME is being misrepresented above by the oppose votes. Reliable sources use either "Saffron terrorism" or "Hindutva terrorism".[5][6]Shankargb (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my source example above. Most reliable sources say Hindu [7][8][9] google scholar there are 200+ results for Hindu terrorism, 60 for Hindutva terrorism, 70 for Saffron terrorism. [10]PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are falsifying the sources. Your 1st and 2nd source does not use the term "Hindu terrorism". The third one speaks about Islamic terrorism. Where is "Hindu terrorism" mentioned on the page? Your Google scholar results are quoting the members from the RSS and Shiv Sena, who misleadingly equate "Hindutva" with "Hindu". Shankargb (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It uses the term in the book. Because it's a book source. I'm not citing the preview. And that isn't anywhere close to most of the sources. The only sources you've brought up aren't as reliable, they're news headlines, which we shouldn't even be using for a topic like this anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Captain. There are numerous reliable sources that explicitly include the terms either "Hindu terrorism," or "Hindu terror," and "Hindu terrorist."
Your understanding of WP:RS is highly defective. You are supporting to retain "Hindu terrorism" and several editors have asked for the sources that use this term, that's why any of your sources that don't use this term would be discarded.
@Shankargb Respectfully, each of the sources cited employs the root term "Hindu terror" (whether "Hindu terrorism," "Hindu terror," or "Hindu terrorist"), all of which are semantically equivalent and directly substantiate the use of the title "Hindu terrorism." Dismissing them over minor heading variations or question‑marks only seems an attempt to obfuscate the issue. These citations clearly refer to "Hindu terror-" phenomena and therefore validate retaining the existing article title. StarkReport (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and other supporting stances. This article covers terrorism by nationalist Hindutva terrorist organizations and as others have pointed out, Hinduism and Hindutva aren't the same thing 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)18:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both Cinaroot and PARAKANYAA have raised valid points. I think if the article is renamed to "Hindutva terrorism," then for consistency purposes, it would be best to rename 'Islamic terrorism' article to "Islamist terrorism," as dozens of contributors have already recommended. StarkReport (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only because I cannot give support to a move without easily verifiable claims. PARAKANYAA's claim that "Hindu terrorism" returns more results than "Hindutva terrorism" is true, at least on Google's search engines, i.e. Google Search, Google Books, Google Scholar. Some editors above have asked repeatedly for sources / links, which PARAKANYAA did provide, and which do return more results for the existing title. If editors dispute this methodology that's fine, but some are accusing oppose votes of lying while in the same comment claiming the opposite of what is linked by the other side. Google Ngrams also return nothing for Hindutva terrorism or Saffron terrorism, BUT anyone who does a cursory search of either term will find results in news and scholarly articles.I personally don't think there's a big difference in nomenclature; one implies extremist acts done in the name of Hinduism, while the other implies extremist acts done in the name of Hinduism, but by extremists. I would change my vote to support if more people focused on policy rather than argue "but other articles do X so why doesn't this article do X?" or "Hinduism isn't Hindutva." Muslims also defend their religion as having nothing to do with extremism, but the article's still Islamic terrorism, not Islamist terrorism. What's the point of rehashing a decades-old internet forum argument on Wikipedia? Just focus on policy with easily verifiable evidence and points. Yue🌙03:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If "Hindu terrorism" is really so common, then why nobody is showing multiple reliable sources that actually use this term? Is it because the sources that have used this term are unreliable or partisan? Sorry but Wikipedia won't rely on those types of sources.❯❯❯Pravegag=9.813:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have only misrepresented two sources and failed to provide a quote for one source. Why should I take notice of that? ❯❯❯Pravegag=9.804:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't misrepresent anything. No one asked me for a quote for any specific source. If you don't know how books work that is on you. All other sources in this discussion have been unreliable news sources and no one has rebutted my point that in academic works (the only sources reliable for this topic per WP:NEWSORGINDIA) this is the far more common term as shown by hits/ngrams. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Saffron terrorism" is rarer but more common than Hindutva terrorism and would also be acceptable because it doesn't narrow the page scope. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How's NEWSORGINDIA relevant here? It's about undisclosed paid writing in articles about reviews, articles about celebrities, and profiles of people, companies and entities of borderline notability. It's not relevant to writings about political and religious violence. KnowDeath (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that "one implies extremist acts done in the name of Hinduism, while the other implies extremist acts done in the name of Hinduism, but by extremists" has zero basis. You will have to back it up with scholarly sources. Shankargb (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe Hinduism and Hindutva are equivalent terms? Hindu terrorism would logically mean "any terrorist act committed for Hinduism", while Hindutva is a specific ideology. Not all Hindu terrorism is Hindutva terrorism. Or do you believe all Hinduism is Hindutva? Because that is what this page will be indicating if we move it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as an accurate name per Captain AmericanBurger1775. Those opposing the move haven't made any similar response to rationalize their opposition. ❯❯❯Pravegag=9.813:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some of the sources provided above, claiming to support the nomenclature of "Hindu Terrorism" are complete misrepresentations. As an example, this was cited as "highly reliable sources that use primarily Hindu terrorism" (emphasis mine).The source discusses it.... once. In a seven hundred page book, where "Hindu" terror is discussed as an aside before turning to the main topic. Clearly, sources like these being used as proof for "academic consensus" is a clear misrepresentation.Counting the sources in our own article, out of 70 odd sources, including prominent NEWSORG and academic RS, the identifier of "Hindu terrorism" is used twice - and our list includes multiple sources denouncing the "Hindu Terror" nomenclature as a myth or a misrepresentation. This is clearly not the common name for the topic in RS, regardless of whatever tangential sources might have mentioned it as. The RS use either Saffron or Hindutva Terror, both of which would be appropriate in this context. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support : The term "Hindutva terrorism" is more accurate and precise, as the incidents discussed are linked to a specific political ideology, not the broader religion of Hinduism. Reliable sources and scholars clearly distinguish between Hinduism and Hindutva. Chronos.Zx (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Get better sources that support your claim. Soni (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Done Thank you for the suggestions! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)