Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:32, 10 April 2014

The Saffron Swastika

The Saffron Swastika (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)

Fails WP:NBOOK Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Satisfies criterion 1. Important book on Hindutva, referred and discussed by many books. , , , , . --Redtigerxyz 05:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It does not satisfy 1 at all. None of those links given any coverage. And none are about the book, just passing mentions. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean, none are about the book? Those clearly show the name of the book. They show for example that prominent scholars and politicians like LK Advani have cited the book. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

A single mention does not give the coverage needed to pass WP:GNG, and none of the sources given actually discuss this particular book. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Before voting, could the author improve the article to demonstrate the notability of this book? Just describing the book isn't going to cut it. What is its impact? What is its influence? Bali88 (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit: Delete - So far I haven't seen anything that adds up to notability. If authors can prove that, I will change my vote. :-) Bali88 (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Merge and redriect to the author as unreferenced. Neither the article nor the links above contain anything that looks like in depth coverage to me. Name dropping and passing mentions are not in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep There are hundreds of articles in the Book stub cat, many of them more obscure than this one; so why is this one being singled out? If the article is too short or missing sources, you could first have asked for them. You didn't even notify the deletion sorting lists about this nomination for deletion. The nominator has said the same about an entire group of books by the same author, it is apparently a campaign against the author because of the author's views. I am beginning to lose my assumption of good faith in these nominations. There is no precedent "very very notable" in the Misplaced Pages:Notability (books) proposed guideline or anywhere else (and by analogy, we should have almost no articles on television episodes or music albums if that were the case). There are probably over ten thousand articles about books in WP. The guidelines do not say that only the most exceeding universally known go in. They just say notable. But I will continue to assume your good faith in making this nomination. Not liking what a book says is not really a good reason for voting for its deletion; in fact it is a very bad reason. Book pages are absolutely relevant to Misplaced Pages. I think a lot of people are voting because they don't like the idea of the book. The problem is not that his works are not notable, the problem is that the author is very controversial. It is a very controversial author, so that even 20 years after the publication, some people still advocate to shun him and censor his writings (I'm not referring to the nominator for deletion).

It is not only the book article which should be expanded and also enlarged with sources, it it the author article itself which has serious NPOV problems, according to this link:

Elsts books on Hindu revivalism, of which this one is one of the most prominent, are often discussed by professors, scholars, critics. Elst also participated/published his Hindu revivalism research in conferences like the World Archaeology Congress, International Ramayana Conference and the South Asia Conference, and journals and book chapters in scholarly books (for example by professors Arvind Sharma, Edwin Bryant & Laurie Patton,Herman Siemens & Vasti Roodt,Hans Geybels & Walter Van Herck, Angela Marcantonio & Girish Nath Jha, and more)and bestellers (Daniel Pipes book), and in an official publication by the Bar Council of India Trust. He is widely seen as the main or one of the main propenents "sympathetic" to the "Hindu side", for example by critical scholars like Meera Nanda or also by many Hindu authors. His books have been reviewed and discussed by Harvard professors, other professors, leading scholars and journalists (Sanjay Subramaniam, Meera Nanda....). What more can one ask? Some of his books have been translated into other languages. Elst says, "I have crossed swords with Mira Kamdar, Christophe Jaffrelot, Meera Nanda, Amber Habib, MF Husain as well as his critics, DN Jha, Harbans Mukhia, Wiliam Dalrymple, Edward Said, Ramachandra Guha, Ashish Nandy, Edward Luce, Vikas Swarup, Martha Nussbaum etc. The record shows that I have not limited myself to the gullible and the already-converted."

The book Saffron Swastika includes parts of his Ph.D. thesis. It has also been reviewed by professor R.N. Rao and Koenraad Elst himself has reviewed books on this topic in academic journals (for example the book by D.N. Jha).

Some quotes:

"A very ambitious 2-volume book, of which the only shortcoming is that it could have been even more complete. It dissects processes of slander and its application to the media’s hostile treatment of the organized Hindu movement. It is the only publication in the world (except for its sequel, Return of the Swastika) to analyze and refute the now-common allegation that Guru Golwalkar in his book We (1939) proves to be some sort of Nazi. "

"In that year, I also brought out the two-volume The Saffron Swastika. On the Notion of ""Hindu Fascism", the only book in the world to analyse this much-used line of discourse (except for my sequel from 2006, Return of the Swastika), both by foreign India-watchers and by the Indian secularists"

Bouchet, an expert on Savitri Devi, reviewed the book with a focus on Savitri. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)— Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do you have the knowledge/interest in this topic to improve the article up to wikipedia standards? Many articles are kept after being improved during AFD nominations. The issue with this particular book is not the controversial nature (trust me, there are *plenty* of controversial books on here). The issue is that the article simply describes the book. There is no information describing the notability of this item. Has it sold a lot of copies? Did it spur controversy when it was published? Why should we care about this book? What was its influence on society? This is the type of information that needs to be included in the article. If you can provide this information, please do so! :-) Bali88 (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:NBOOK gives clear criteria for support the notability of books. Having searched for appropriate, reliable sources I have not found enough to get this book across the line. There is no evidence that the content of the book is an issue. If there are sources that I have missed then by all means add them to the article rather than pointing the finger at editors who are participating in a good faith discussion. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Nothing noteworthy. Seems like a series of promotion for several books by the same author.Iniciativass (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't have enough time to expand six articles in just less than one week, while I have to fear that Darkness Shines will revert my edits again as he did before with my talk page comments, but I have added some more sources below

• The book contains also parts from his Ph.D. thesis from the Catholic University of Leuven.
• The book has been reviewed by professor Ramesh Rao who praised it as an important book and a tour de force.
• Christian Bouchet, an expert on Savitri Devi, criticized Elst's book The Saffron Swastika for having placed far too much trust in Savitri Devi's autobiography, and for claiming that Savitri Devi was bisexual.
• The author describes the book in the following words:

"A very ambitious 2-volume book, of which the only shortcoming is that it could have been even more complete. It dissects processes of slander and its application to the media’s hostile treatment of the organized Hindu movement. It is the only publication in the world (except for its sequel, Return of the Swastika) to analyze and refute the now-common allegation that Guru Golwalkar in his book We (1939) proves to be some sort of Nazi. "

"In that year, I also brought out the two-volume The Saffron Swastika. On the Notion of ""Hindu Fascism", the only book in the world to analyse this much-used line of discourse (except for my sequel from 2006, Return of the Swastika), both by foreign India-watchers and by the Indian secularists"

• The book is cited as an example on the discourse on Hindu revivalism in the World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia by Cyprian Blamires and ‎Paul Jackson and in Racism: A Selected Bibliography by Albert J. Wheeler, in Tom Brass book "Latin American Peasants", in history professor Arnold P. Kaminsky book India Today: An Encyclopedia of Life in the Republic, and other books. Edwin Bryant notes that it is one of Elsts notable works.
• Outlook India reported that the very prominent politician L.K. Advani has a "heavily marked" copy of the book from which Advani quoted freely the passages that discussed him.
• JY Camus called the work Elsts "magnum opus". It is also cited by Ian McDonald , CE Polisi and others. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Review
2. "The eternal return of Nazi nonsense: Savitri Devi's last writings". Savitri Devi Mukherji: Le National-Socialisme et la Tradition Indienne, with contributions by Vittorio de Cecco, Claudio Mutti and Christian Bouchet, published in the series Cahiers de la Radicalité by Avatar-éditions, Paris/Dublin 2004.
3. The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History edited by Edwin Francis Bryant, Laurie L. Patton Among twenty published titles, most attention has been drawn by his Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate; Gandhi and Godse (a close discussion of the apology of Mahatma Gandhi's assassin Nathuram Godse); The Saffron Swastika: The Notion of “Hindu Fascism”;.....
4. Outlook Apr 8-14, 2008
5. Camus, J. Y. (2007). The European extreme right and religious extremism. Středoevropské politické studie (CEPSR), (4), 263-279.
6. Hindu nationalism, cultural spaces, and bodily practices in India
7. Universal rights and cultural relativism: Hinduism and Islam deconstructed

Comment Darkness Shines is an experienced editor and their reverts have been appropriate. Please assume good faith. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also an editor who has been blocked lots of times for not being "appropriate". This is not a personal attack, just an observation following your comment.--Calypsomusic (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment on new sources 1. The Ramesh N. Rao review is self-published. It looks like it has been reprinted from elsewhere, but I can't find any indication of where. 2. "The eternal return" was written by the author of the book. 3. "Indo-Arayan" is just a single mention in the preface. 4. No idea what "Outlook" refers to, google doesn't appear to know either. 5. One mention in a footnote and listed in the bibliography. 6. Single mention. 7.  ???. Calypsomusic, the idea is to find sources that discuss the book, not just mention it. None of these would be useful in constructing an article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see what my block log has to do with this AFD? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Your block log was presented to show how you were deemed inappropriate in various instances by various admins only after the editor Flat Out called your edits appropriate. Your block log was not presented until then. You should first question Flat Out on why your high edit counts make your reverting on article justifiable and then your second question should have been to Calypsomusic. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep per the edits and good work done by User:Calypsomusic. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to have looked a little closer at this "good work", one SPS, I have removed that, another SPS which violated BLP so I have removed that, various stuff cited to THE INDO-ARYAN CONTROVERSY Evidence and inference in Indian history None of which was in the source, so removed per BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Blogs/tweets of notable people are reliable sources of references for their views as long as the view is clearly noted as being their own and not of blogspot.com or twitter.com. Quoting WP:SPS; " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." In such case, views of Ramesh Nagaraj Rao, expressed in his blog are perfectly okay to have in the article. Similarly, Elst's own blog is also good enough to source his own quotes. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless they are being used to cite statements by other living people. which the ones I removed were doing. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"The book has been reviewed by professor Ramesh Nagaraj Rao who praised it as an important book and a "tour de force"." How is this citing statement by other living people? Stop edit warring by removing this statement from article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Darkness Shines has removed most of the sources I added to the article, including reviews by university professors. He is claiming that various stuff is cited to professor Edwin Bryant, it is actually just one sentence, and it is from one of professor Bryants books: "Among twenty published titles, most attention has been drawn by his Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate; Gandhi and Godse (a close discussion of the apology of Mahatma Gandhi's assassin Nathuram Godse); The Saffron Swastika: The Notion of “Hindu Fascism”;....." --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish, that was cited to THE INDO-ARYAN CONTROVERSY Evidence and inference in Indian history, and none of it was in that source. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Calypsomusic has done an excellent job in ferreting out every potential reference. At best, there is a single cite that discusses the book in enough depth to be useful in building an article (and at the moment, I can't prove that review isn't self-published). There's just not enough out there to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 04:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep This one is important book, it includes different stories about Indian affairs that occurred in 20th century, it is actually a popular book even for this period. Fundarise (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

• Delete because WP:NBOOK gives clear instructions on notability which this book fails to meet them. Bisswajit 08:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete against WP:BKCRIT ,also seems heavily dependent on qoutation by one news against wiki:NEWS.

Note: the above unsigned delete comment was added by user Shrikanthv.

• Delete as the reason mentioned by user Shrikanthv. Indiuser (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per Fundarise and Calypsomusic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Fundarise has not given a single policy based rational to keep, how on earth can you say keep per that? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete We don't even need to move on to the notability guidelines for books; this doesn't even pass WP:GNG, as it's essentially an article grasping for straws with a small amount of OR to feign notability. A string of articles by books written by the same author have been created recently, all of them on non-notable books. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

* Question: what do you mean by "recently"? (Because I saw the same puzzling comment on another AfD discussion.) This article has been around since 12 November 2005‎. Shreevatsa (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep : With these many results, this book itself seems to be notable than most of other books. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what results prove any notability at all? I have seen none presented here. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Book has been referred by number of writers, scholars, like Maria A. David, Gerald James Larson. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates
• Relisted AfD debates