Talk:Hindu terrorism

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Supporters' contention that "Hindutva terrorism" is the common name was refuted, and supporters failed to produce any other sufficiently compelling policy-based arguments to compensate for this. Additionally, opposers observed that Hinduism and Hindutva are different things and the titles therefore suggest different scopes. Other policy considerations mentioned included criteria like recognizability and precision, but those were a wash; policy only mandates that a title be sufficiently recognizable and precise, and no evidence was presented that either title wouldn't be. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Hindu terrorism → Hindutva terrorismHindutva terrorism – All of the cited sources only blame Hindutva groups for the incidents. None of them target Hindu religion. Using the term "Hindu" will require a fair number of scholarly sources but they are not available. Anatoliatheo (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• 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. That means the distinction between Hindu and Hindutva is very important and any rejection of this fact would be gross error. >>> Extorc.talk 10:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  All highly reliable sources that use primarily Hindu terrorism.

  There are 200+ results for Hindu terrorism, 60 for Hindutva terrorism, 70 for Saffron terrorism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  None of those sources support "Hindu terrorism". Which search engine are you actually using? Shankargb (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  They're book sources? Do you think I am citing the preview? PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  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.talk 06:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. The distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva is very big. And that is exactly which this move should not talk place. If moved, it would conflate hindu extremism and radicalism of all sorts with hindutva, which is a very specific ideology. EarthDude (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Totally in agreement with the nom. NavjotSR (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not a Wikipedia:COMMONNAME - should be aligned with Christian terrorism Jewish terrorism Islamic terrorism etc.. Cinaroot (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

You say that Hindu terrorism should be aligned with Islamic terrorism, then open Talk:Islamic terrorism#Requested move 4 May 2025 less than an hour later advocating to use Islamist instead of Islamic. How does that make any sense? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

Hinduism is a religion and so is Islam. "Hinduism" is not equivalent to "Islamism". Shankargb (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Totally illogical argument. The equivalent of Islamism is Hindutva, and the equivalent of Hindu is Muslim. Just because two words end with -ism/-ist doesn't make them equivalent or similar. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

I'm not going to argue with you. Its counterproductive. You well aware of Wikipedia:Article titles and there are several factors we consider ( not just precision ). Cinaroot (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

But it is not a WP:COMMONNAME. "Islamic" is not the equivalent of "Hindu", it is "Muslim" that is. Shankargb (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Shankargb please do not argue with everyone and force your view point. Please read WP:Bludgeon Cinaroot (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, not the WP:COMMONNAME and all similar articles are like this, e.g. we have Jewish terrorism. The nom is blatantly incorrect, several sources don't mention Hindutva at all. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

  I did above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support - WP:COMMONNAME is being misrepresented above by the oppose votes. Reliable sources use either "Saffron terrorism" or "Hindutva terrorism". Shankargb (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  See my source example above. Most reliable sources say Hindu google scholar there are 200+ results for Hindu terrorism, 60 for Hindutva terrorism, 70 for Saffron terrorism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to cite a few reliable sources that support "Hindu terrorism". Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  I already did that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  Not true. The usage of Hindu terrorism in reliable sources far outweighs the usage of the term Hindutva terrorism. Ive made a table of usage of both terms by reliable and scholarly sources in the bottom most comment, and it shows how much Hindu terrorism abides by WP:COMMONNAME and how much Hindutva terrorism doesn't EarthDude (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Just like we don't have "Sikh terrorism" but Khalistan movement. I can be convinced otherwise only if scholarly sources have been shown that Hinduism was the motive behind those terrorist attacks. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  You have cherrypicked a single dubious example. What about Christian terrorism or Islamic terrorism? EarthDude (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support - Other than the ones cited above, here are some more reliable sources that support the proposed title:

Ramachandran, Sudha (2017-07-07). "Hindutva Terrorism in India". The Diplomat – Asia-Pacific Current Affairs Magazine.

Ehtisham, Hasan (2020-05-29). "World Must React to Hindutva Terrorism". Modern Diplomacy.

"Confronting the Reality of Hindutva Terrorism". Economic and Political Weekly. 2008-11-22.

I cannot find similarly reliable sources for the current title. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Captain. There are numerous reliable sources that explicitly include the terms either "Hindu terrorism," or "Hindu terror," and "Hindu terrorist."

Hindu Terrorism Based on Religious Nationalism - Crescent International

From Hindu Militias to Hindu Terrorism? Resisting and Emulating the Islamists in India - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Hindu Terror: A More Serious Threat - Institute Of Peace & Conflict Studies

India’s Hindu terror : can it be tamed? - Nanyang Technological University (Routray, Bibhu Prasad)

- The Pioneer

Invisibilizing Hindu terrorism through the “War on Terror” - tif.ssrc.org

Hindu Terrorism on Prowl in India - Ummid

Good Faith, Bad Faith - The Caravan

US embassy cables: Mumbai conspiracy allegations 'outrageous' – US ambassador - The Gaurdian StarkReport (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

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.

• This source from Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought, a pro-Islamic institute, is unreliable.
• This source only mentions "Hindu terrorism" once on heading and that with a question mark. That is insufficient.
• This makes no mention of "Hindu terrorism".
• This also does not mention "Hindu terrorism"
• This also does not mention "Hindu terrorism". It only quotes a politician named Digvijay Singh. How can that qualify as a reliable source?
• This is not a reliable source. The author of the article is using a pseudonym and it hasn't been cited anywhere.
• This is yet another pro-Islamic unreliable source.
• This only quotes politician Narendra Modi. How can that qualify as a reliable source?
• This source does not mention "Hindu terrorism", it also only quotes a politician. How can that qualify as a reliable source?

Shankargb (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@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)

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 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

Strong Support - The above posts completely misrepresent WP:COMMONNAME without doing any analysis at all.
Indeed, the name fails two basic criteria, WP:RECOGNISABILITY and WP:PRECISION. The article should be moved to either Hindutva Terrorism, or Saffron Terrorism, which are the widely academically accepted terms. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Not true. Hindutva terrorism and saffron terrorism are far more niche than the mainstream usage of Hindu terrorism EarthDude (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support - Most sources call it "Hindutva terrorism". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC) See below on 6 June.
• 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)

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.❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 13:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I did that. Do you just not see the links? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

You have only misrepresented two sources and failed to provide a quote for one source. Why should I take notice of that? ❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 04:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

More sources

"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)

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)

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)

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)

• Support as an accurate name per Captain AmericanBurger1775. Those opposing the move haven't made any similar response to rationalize their opposition. ❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 13:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per reliable sources and WP:Common name. And also because the last move, to 'Hindu terrorism' in the first place, was out of order and against policy, as was noted by many (including me) at the time. UnpetitproleX (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  Per WP:COMMONNAME, Hindu terrorism is a more known term than Hindutva terrorism. For example, when looked at Google Trends, Hindu terrorism, consistently and across all metrics, is more used than Hindutva terrorism. In JSTOR, Hindu terrorism has 21 results and Hindutva terrorism 14. In Brill Publishers, Hindu terrorism has 10 results and Hindutva terrorism has none. The story goes on and on across multiple different journals and sites and metrics. Hindu terrorism is the WP:COMMONNAME, not Hindutva terrorism. EarthDude (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• Support per nom, also WP:COMMONNAME in every news media. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Support M1rrorCr0ss 11:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Sock strike

Strong Support - Per WP:RECOGNISABILITY and WP:PRECISION. Rackaballa (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - There are decent arguments here going both ways. I get stuck on the fact that not all Hindu terrorism (terror committed for Hinduism) is Hindutva terrorism (terror committed for Hindutva ideology), moving the article to "Hindutva" is actually equating Hinduism to Hindutva which are two separate things (albeit one is a subgroup of another). This move may preclude part of the article's topic which doesn't appear to be the goal here. Garsh (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support and it's rather vague when AT is based on unduly references. Let's talk about common name instead of having a forceful discussion on non-policy based arguments. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  In my own arguement, I have stated why Hindu terrorism is the WP:COMMONNAME, and not Hindutva terrorism, as seen across platforms for journals and books, such as JSTOR, Taylor and Francis, Google Scholar, etc. Moving the article would greatly violate the common name policy alongside WP:CONSISTENT, considering other articles, such as Islamic terrorism or Jewish terrorism. If this article is indeed changed, we'd need to have to begin multiple discussions and calls for consensus to move Islamic terrorism to Islamist terrorism, Jewish terrorism to Zionist terrorism, etc. EarthDude (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support change to "Hindutva terrorism" per WP:COMMONNAME and reliable sources, as discussed above. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Moving the article to Hindutva terrorism would violate WP:CONSISTENT and WP:COMMONNAME. Other forms of religious terrorism have names similar to the article's current name, such as Islamic terrorism, Christian terrorism, and Jewish terrorism.
  
  Also, the move appears to be a way to sanitize terrorism and portray it specifically to a fringe rather than broader religious extremism. Hindu religious extremism, outside of Hindutva which is a very specific far right ideology, does exist, and this move would invalidate that. Hindu terrorism is broader and far more accurate.
  
  The move would also violate WP:RECOGNISABILITY and WP:PRECISION. Other editors have already cited sources from within the article which use the term "Hindu terrorism" broadly, instead of specifically "Hindutva terrorism". Saffron terrorism is another term used in the article, yet again, it only refers to a small subset, not the broader extremist-led terrorism. On top of that, a simple look at Google Trends shows that Hindu terrorism is a more used term that Hindutva terrorism, consistently, and across every country and region and through every year toggleable. In JSTOR, Taylor and Francis (both for journals and especially for books), as well as Google Scholar, Hindu terrorism consistently and always shows more results than Hindutva terrorism. Brill Publishers doesn't even display any results for Hindutva terrorism yet shows multiple for Hindu terrorism. EarthDude (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Your wikilawyering looks absurd. It has been already proven that there are no reliable sources that have used the term "Hindu terrorism". Just mentioning publisher names won't work. You have to mention the sources where you read this term. There are reliable sources available for "Hindutva terrorism" though as already detailed above. Shankargb (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  "It has been already proven that there are no reliable sources that have used the term 'Hindu terrorism' " No it hasn't. KnowDeath (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  Wikilawyering? Seriously? So now, following Wikipedia policies and guidelines is bad now? That's ridiculous.
  
  As for the common name thing, sure Hindutva terrorism is definitely a term, but it comes absolutely no where close to the recognizability of a term such as Hindu terrorism, the latter being the actual common name, used by reliable scholarly and academic sources. EarthDude (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  That's simply not true. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  You can't reject facts. You have no basis for your claim. I have made a table of the usage of both terms, Hindu terrorism and Hindutva terrorism, as per reliably and scholarly sources, as a reply to the vote by Kautilya3. Reliable sources disagree with you EarthDude (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

"Hindu religious extremism, outside of Hindutva which is a very specific far right ideology, does exist, and this move would invalidate that. Hindu terrorism is broader and far more accurate" Agreed. This is precisely how I see it too. StarkReport (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support - The scholars that actually studied the topic called it "Hindutva terrorism". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  You've already voted KnowDeath (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, dear! I have scratched the old vote now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  The scholars who have actually studied the topic use both terms. Both terms are not synonymous. Hindu extremism is a broad issue, whereas Hindutva is a very specific far-right and fascistic ideology. Not all hindu extremism is ideologically aligned with Hindutva. Hindu terrorism is the WP:COMMONNAME, not Hindutva terrorism. I have compiled a table below for the use of both terms by reliable scholarly and academic sources, and every single time, Hindu terrorism is more used: EarthDude (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

More information Source, Hindu terrorism ...

Source	Hindu terrorism	Hindutva terrorism
Taylor and Francis (Books)	1,715	1,083
Taylor and Francis (Journals)	18	2
JSTOR	21	14
Oxford University Press	16	2
Google Scholar	199	68
Springer Nature	9	1
Wiley	5	None
De Gruyter	9	2

Close

EarthDude (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, I wanted to include Google Books Ngram Viewer in this table, but it did not even recognize the term "Hindutva terrorism" EarthDude (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and the above table. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: For what it's worth, Talk:Islamic terrorism#Requested move 4 May 2025, proposing the name Islamist terrorism, was closed as not moved. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Long overdue. D4iNa4 (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)