Talk:Jai Siya Ram

Sentence should be removed

I think this quote should be removed:

The slogan has also been used as a war cry by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), often for perpetration of communal atrocities against people of other faiths, or to indicate that one is a Hindu.

Why? Three reasons:

1. It's a almost a direct copy paste from the similar article, Jai Shri Ram, where it's supported by multiple sources. Note: direct here does not mean complete.
2. This is am extension of the first point in some ways. Only one source is used, no other reliable scholarly source makes this claim. This is an extraordinary claim.
3. Next, it's the reliability of the source itself. While the author and the publisher are both are reliable, I am not sure about the context. Some of them are accounts narrated to the author, take this for example, a woman narrates how a crowd came shouting 'Jai Siya Ram' and a muslim woman who does 'naagin' protected them from the crowd. Okay. The authors relies on such accounts, some of them seems to be from another source of similar nature. Even if the their claims were true, absence of other sources and the limited scope of the source itself, makes one think that undue importance is being given.

Also, where in the source does it say BJP and RSS used Jai Siya Ram while perpetrating "communal atrocities"? I plan to remove the sentence, if there is no objection. Thank you - BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

BhaskaraPattelar, thanks for pointing out, how about: The slogan has also been used as a war cry and a greeting by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). During riots in Jaipur in the 1990s, the phrase was used to indicate that one is a Hindu. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie, I don't think the source support the war cry part. No mention in the source of them using it as anything other than 'greetings' and 'farewell'. I propose this:The slogan has also been used as a greeting by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). During riots in Jaipur in the 1990s, the phrase was used to indicate that one is a Hindu. - 11:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Fine by me. SerChevalerie (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Why even the statement "During riots in Jaipur in the 1990s, the phrase was used to indicate that one is a Hindu" ? Isn't that depiction itself against the violation of WP:NPOV. Also, the cited source doesn't even accurately support the claim that method was used to identify Hindus - hence violation of WP:INACCURATE . Given the fact that there are many obvious methods to identify someone's religion in a riot-like situation, why such a claim in this article ? I am expecting some responses from other authors of this page as I can see the user User:Kautilya3 has a very biased stand on this argument. --RamRaghubn (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Please read the WP:NPOV policy and explain why you think it violates it. You cannot claim it by just raising a question. If it is "inaccurate", again, please explain why. (And, note that the policy WP:INACCURATE has nothing to do with what you are claiming. Don't link to policies without reading them.)

Also, please don't throw around random WP:aspersions. They are considered personal attacks, and given that this page is under WP:discretionary sanctions, you can be sanctioned without any further warning. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I am proposing the change / correction after having read the WP:INACCURATE policy so reiterarting to me to read the policy again without calling out why it's not a violation of WP:INACCURATE is a WP:NPA on me. Morever, leaving a warning on my User-talk page without explaining my doubts on WP:NPOV is indeed WP:NPA. Wikipedia is not a place where someone can dictate terms and decide what violates a rule what's not depending upon someone's choice. However, coming back to the cited source for that argument in the article - no where in the document it was mentioned that the 'Jai Siya ram' was used as a slogan to identify Hindus by the rioters. It is indeed an invalid citation. To quote from WP:INACCURATE policy - "since that editor may have been given misinformation themself, or otherwise misunderstood". Also, User:Kautilya3 threatening to sanction me and leaving a warning on my user-talk page for a discussion in the article-talk page is in violation of WP:CIVILITY behaviour. RamRaghubn (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:INACCURATE is a policy that deals with unsourced information. Since this content is sourced, it is of no relevance here.

And it is interesting that you believe you have raised "doubts" on WP:NPOV. You have deleted sourced content, with the edit summary "Removed reference to a controversial edit which is in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:INACCURATE". Can you explain how that constitues a "doubt"?

If you indeed have doubts, I suggest you raise them at WP:NPOVN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Merge

Jai Shri Ram is almost just a replacement for Jai Siya Ram - only difference been additional glorifying goddess Sita along with Ram. Further, content is pretty small right now and hence can be accommodated in Jai Shri Ram article. Once expanded more, maybe can be pushed back here. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that attest to the claim: "almost just a replacement"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

♪Karthik♫ If merging is being considered here, then vice versa, Jai Shri Ram should be merged into Jai Siya Ram! DTM (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid that is equally wrong. Historical revisionism. Whitewashing. Propaganda. Am I clear enough? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Closing, given the uncontested objection. Klbrain (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources

Vishaldubey5, your recent edit, while substantial, is full of primary sources. Please see WP:RSPRIMARY. You will have to replace these with secondary sources for it to remain here. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie Thanks for pointing it out. Three points - Firstly, I have removed some primary sources and added a source from a lecture on Ramayana by a lecturer from University of Melbourne. Secondly, the point where the Worship section states that devotional songs have been sung by singers with Jai Siya Ram, unfortunately has to depend on Primary sources, that is the albums that were published. Thirdly, the point where the section states that it has been used at religious places is supported by articles from Indian Express and another publishing house, so it would fall under reliable sources. Hence, now I suggest to remove the template message saying the section depends too much on primary sources. Thank you Vishaldubey5 (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Vishaldubey5, that's great, thanks for working on point 1. I had already noticed point 3. Regarding point 2, can you find some mentions of the lyrics being in those songs? Worst case scenario even a passing mention would do. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, point 1 is still a primary source, since it's a link to the lecture (which is behind a paywall, I believe?). SerChevalerie (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie Thanks for your points. I managed to find some references for the songs by mentioned singers. For point 1, the course that I have provided is a free course so it shouldn't be a problem. Thank you Vishaldubey5 (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the use of PRIMARY sources for the songs is well within policy: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." So I am not worried about it. But SECONDARY sources would always be welcome. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)