Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Saffron terror

Arguments against the deletion of this Article

The word Saffron terror has been carefully chosen by the journalist and not by the Congress as many people are suggesting here. Saffron is a colour, it is neither an ideology nor any religion, it was only a colour to begin with which later on happened to have a religious or ideological significance. Hence, the term Saffron terror is very neutral and can be applied to Buddhists as well not just Hindus. In fact, I consider this term to be very misleading, I would want it to be changed to Hindu terrorism or Hindutva terrorism, but keeping in mind the neutrality of this word, it shoudld remain as it is. The media also could have easily used Hindu terrorism just like the way Islamic terrorism is used, but they chose neutrality.

But the point here is nominating an article for deletion without any reason. This article can be made better through editing, adding pictures etc, but certainly not by deleting. If you want this article to be deleted, then I wish the article on Islamic terrorism be deleted as well. I might also claim this word to be an invention of Shivsena or the US army for political gains, becuase the point is the whole Wikipedia itself must be neutral, if Saffron terror is going down, then Islamic terrorism has to go.Thinkmaths (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not make it Hinduism Vs Islam , if you have problem with Islamic terrorism attend the page seperately. Shrikanthv (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Shrikanthv: This isn't Hinduism vs Islam, this is acceptance vs denial.Thinkmaths (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Claiming is not enough. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism was a term coined long before Shiv Sena even existed - to be exact 7th century when the whole wave of conquests and conversions started (also read crusades). FYI the article in Wikipedia on Islamic terrorism is a detailed article describing the entire history and all the countries it has described as active/inactive with proper contents, citations, without undue sensationalism. In contrast, the article on saffron terror looks like a hodge podge of a list just to create hype. If you want to give example, at least give a right one. The islamic terrorism term or wiki article is not a shiv sena invention despite what you think. On the other hand, Chidambaram and Sharad Pawar are widely credited for coining saffron terror term - not some journalists - and it came into being in early 2000s--Sdmarathe (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sdmarathe: Just because the Islamic terrorism page has thousands of words and hundreds of citations, doesn't mean that even that page is not a hodge podge. And your arguments have no weight because the earliest reference to term was made in the frontline magazine in 2002 after the Godhra riots and what you are saying here was an accusation put forth by Uddhav Thakre, Shivsen leader, on Sharad Pawar, NCP leader. And I do not think Islamic terrorism is a Shivsena invention, I was only mirroring your thinking.Thinkmaths (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

What is your point here thinkmaths? If you have anything to point out about NPOV or RS of articles in Islamic terrorism please let us know - please don't just make a comment for the sake of making comment. I have not brought up any arguments about Islamic terrorism except for the article. Do you mean to say hundreds of peer reviewed articles chronicling centuries of terror atrocities are wrong? If you want to start a new thread for AfD for that by all means do that. Islamic terrorism term has been around from 7th century, Saffron terror term is a 12 year old term that is not widely used by sources especially for the mention of riots. A few sources here and here does not warrant the labeling of Gujarat riots as saffron terrorism among others --Sdmarathe (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thinkmaths: please read WP:FOC and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You are being disruptive to say the least. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sdmarathe: The point here is there is nothing wrong with either the article on Saffron terror or the article on Islamic terrorism. If there is anything wrong, it is with people like you who are trying to censor any information regarding other kinds of religious terror, because you happen to belong to that religion. Article pages on Wikipedia must be made better through editing and addition of citations from valid sources and not by deleting the article itself.Thinkmaths (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: Oh, yes, I am the one who is being disruptive here, while people like sdmarathe is being disruptive towards the increasing sphere of knowledge in the open and free knowledge repositories.Thinkmaths (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thinkmaths: of course you haven't read the policy linked above. Pot? --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thinkmaths: - Everything is in the open for discussion here for WP:CON - so It would be quite helpful without the WP:PA and with constructive arguments.--Sdmarathe (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sdmarathe: Yes, and not by distorting the information!Thinkmaths (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC) @AmritasyaPutra: I do not need to read them, they are logical fallacies and I know them quite well. The point here is that Sdmarathe is using arguments made by politicians who are not reliable anyway to support the deletion of this article. And just to give him an example I also cited arguments made by Muslim politicians who deny the existence of Islamic terrorism. This is called a Parody.Thinkmaths (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The article itself uses words like 'alleged' and 'neologism' to explain the novelty of this word and its recent usage. The article in itself has enough content so that no single party or group of people are at an advantage by the information presented here for example, Congress leaders cannot use this article for their political gains, nor Bhartiya Janta Party leaders can use it as a tool to attack congress etc. The informational content here presents both sides of the argument and also enough content to humiliate both the parties alike.

This article is rated C-grade, and has the potential to become A-grade, if more citations are given and more information is added to it. Adding pictures to this article will help a lot, but the only thing that will not help this article is by deleting it.Thinkmaths (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no A-Grade for non-military articles, and 2/3 more projects that are irrelevant to Saffron terror. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: Oh, OK! What I meant, that this article has the potential to become better and must not be deleted.Thinkmaths (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thinkmaths: - There is no distorting that this AfD is about a 12 year old term coined for political gains or for acts that do not even have consensus to be called terrorism. You brought up the second article - that is about a 1300 year old known phenomenon supported by abundant information. IF majority of contents in the "list" in the first article are not factually correct or without consensus to be called terrorism, and if the list comprises of 90% of the article - it looks like a sensationalism to me. As far as the second article, I really have no strong opinions and you are free to declare it what you like --Sdmarathe (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thinkmaths: your I do not need to read Wikipedia policy, they are logical fallacies and I know them quite well. is amazing bullshit! If you have nothing constructive to discuss here please step back and stop trolling. --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: Well, then you keep out of this discussion. The way you are behaving is raising eyebrows about your mentality.Thinkmaths (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sdmarathe: The fact that you called Islamic terrorism a 1300 year old phenomena "coincidentally" coincides with the rough age of Islam itself, shows your inherent bigotry. The whole article on Islamic terrorism is inconsistent with your 1300 year old phenomena claim. Qu'ran is 1300 years or more old but Islamic terrorism is only 50 years old, it started out with the Wahabi interpretation of the Qu'ran roughly 150 years ago, but it still took more that 100 years to inspire the Islamic terrorism we know today. There is nothing but bigotry for the other religion while sentimental pride for the other. In any case, your sentimental pride isn't a good argument in support of deletion of this article.Thinkmaths (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thinkmaths: There is no bigotry. It is widely known about the religious persecution and opposing crusades persecution that we know from history (if you deny that I do not have an answer for you). That information and the age of 1300 is taken straight out of that article's discussion - the era of Arab conquests and religious persecution. I did not "invent" it nor I have any issues about it. I do have issues about conquests of India where Hindus were persecuted by Islamic and later by Christian invaders - starting 16th century. That is also documented very well. I also think we should stick to the point and argue but not WP:PA --Sdmarathe (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sdmarathe: The article's discussion page doesn't count for they are spewing with sentimental pride and bigotry anyway. The era of Arab conquest was just a conquest and wasn't terrorism, because such conquests have happened in India too, so should Ashoka be called a terrorist for its brutal conquest of Kalinga? Then is not hindu terrorism a 1000 years old phenomena too? No, he is called a conquerer. He would have been called a terrorist and a war criminal had it happened now because of the present international stance on conquest and war.Thinkmaths (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thinkmaths: There is a big difference between those 2 conquests. Arab conquest was done in the name of religion where conquered population was given a choice to either convert or face death. The Hindu conquests, did not happen for religious reasons, rather for political or power reasons where the goal was not to proselytize. Ashoka did not convert anyone to Hinduism - forcibly or otherwise. The only two religious conquests I am aware of are Islamic and Christian conquests. And again - this is also based on article - and I am seeing that both views are represented well in that article's talk section. If you have issues with it, I think you should raise it in that article's talk section --Sdmarathe (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sdmarathe: It doesn't matter. Conquests happen in the name of the King or the military commander who led it. A conquest is a conquest. If the commander is a religious one, the conquest is a religious one, if the commander is a political one, the conquest is a political one. You cannot getaway by calling a conquest terrorism for on case and just conquest in another case. If the conquest was terrorism in one case then Ashoka's conquest was terrorism too. Conversion is a political tactic, a form of intimidation which has a more of a political basis rather than religious one. All conquests happened for political reasons. Whether the conqueror is Ashoka or Saladin, it doesn't matter, they were conquerors and by your defifnition terrorists.Thinkmaths (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid not. Conversion is/was religious - however you spin it - whether it added political significance or not. But again, that is not my point to make. it is straight out of the article. If you have issues there, please feel free to start a discussion there.. --Sdmarathe (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thinkmaths your analysis can be described as a pseudohistorical revisionist synthesis. Sdmarathe's analysis is certainly supported by enough scholars. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sdmarathe: You are the one who is spinning the definition of conquest and terrorism. Muslims converted people, Ashoka killed people, Ghenghis Khan destroyed villages and towns. Different cultures, different ways of gaining territories, hence, different ways of conquest so by your definition different kinds of terrorists, just like Islamic and Saffron in modern times.Thinkmaths (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ashoka was a Buddhist. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: Right, and framing Islamic terrorism as a 1300 years old phenomena wasn't "pseudohistorical revisionist synthesis".Thinkmaths (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is not, read Islamic_terrorism#History. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thinkmaths: Gaining territory was not the reason behind Islamic conquest per the sources. It was a spread of religion or at least that was how it was referred to by scholars. It was conversion or death - no two ways about it. The key here is religion. If you have issues with that assertion, please take it up there. I did not revise it - merely referred it. --Sdmarathe (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Also after Kalinga, Ashoka was grievous and repented his act and took upon path of non violence even against animals (Buddhism). I do not see any penance mentioned anywhere from other names you mentioned. --Sdmarathe (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sdmarathe: Nonsense, gaining territory and spreading the Ideological State Apparatus of an empire is implicit in any conquest no matter what. The Ideological State Apparatus in the case of the Muslim conquerors had Islamic origins thats all. Saladin, the Muslim conqueror did not kill the captured kings of his territory because he believed that 'a king must not kill another king', beat that! He was considered benevolent and generous with the people of the kingdom he captured. Akbar, the Mughal Emperor and also a Muslim conqueror preached the doctrine of Sulh-i-Kul a rudimentary form of secularism.Thinkmaths (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This argument is getting a little ridiculous. SD and AP have both claimed that violence targeted at member of one religion by those of another do not constitute terrorism; by that criterion, none of the acts of Islam mentioned above constitute terrorism. Thinkmath is absolutely correct; Islamic terrorism (as distinct from Jihad, or rather, as a particular kind of Jihad) is a relatively recent phenomenon. But, that is all rather irrelevant. The point is very simply that multiple reliable sources have discussed the term, and not merely used it; those sources have been provided, and they are currently simply being ignored. The term "Saffron terror" (or Hindutva terror, or even Hindu terror, for that matter) is certainly NOT a construction of the Congress party; it is used in innumerable other places. A google scholar search for any of those turns up plenty of hits, another fact that is being conveniently ignored. Our basic GNG are very straightforward; significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. They certainly do not have to be neutral sources, and they don't even have to be scholarly. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I thank you for your support to this cause. I am fighting a similar war on the Hindi Wikipedia about the same article.Thinkmaths (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

the only convenient truth is arguments are being distorted and non scholarly sources have been pushed forth to bolster a non-existent term of saffron terror out of thin air. The very fact that it's a convenient term coined in last 12 years gives credence to it. --Sdmarathe (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sdmarathe: Yes, and you are the one who is doing it, distorting facts and making Islamic terrorism a 1300 year old phenomena.Thinkmaths (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

He is just repeating what he found in the academic publications. You should read what others have written and stay on the topic. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: Right, as if I am repeating something from a Congress party's propaganda book.Thinkmaths (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti:@Sdmarathe: You're still dodging the question. I provided two sources on the AfD page. Are you claiming that those are unreliable? Blades, you've been editing the indic pages long enough to know that EPW is one of the best journals around, and frontline's reliability is certainly not in question. Why then do you persist with this? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear all, can we take a timeout please? Wikipedia is not a forum. There is no point debating anything here. We are not going to "settle" anything. So, let us relax, shall we? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Yes, you are right. At least I have gathered enough arguments against deleting this article through this and expose the intent behind deleting this article.Thinkmaths (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I never said that. You are slyly misrepresenting me to prop up a straw man. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: Who's the pot now?Thinkmaths (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You Kautilya? --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources

(Turning this into a new section)

All I can find in rs is that some politicians have called terrorist attacks by Hindu terrorists "saffron terrorism." That is just a definition and possibly deserves a mention in Wiktionary. But it does not justify detailed accounts of all the groups/attacks that have been called saffron terrorism. It presents a view that there is such a thing when no terrorist experts say there is. In terms of classification, these groups possibly differ depending on whether their objectives are religious, nationalist or left or right. Probably best to leave it in "Terrorism in India". Incidentally if the term is so very important, why is it not even mentioned in that article? TFD (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: The work of a terrorism expert is to understand reasons behind terrorism and think of ways and methods to counter and discourage terrorism and not name terrorism and coin new words for terrorism. The words like Saffron terror, Islamic terror, Global Jihad were chosen by the media circles as headlines to gather viewers for their coverage and somehow these names stuck, gain importance and further down the line is used by the terrorism experts as well. However, the indian police doesn't shy in using words like 'hindu terrorists' while talking about spread of 'hindu terror' outfits from Malegaon to Goa. So, if you are for changing the word to 'Hindu terror' then it should be fine with you because the police, the very first people who counter-terrorism is using this phrase. Terrorists group might have different objectives like ranging from religious to nationalist is true, Vishwa Hindu Parishad has religious objectives while RSS has religious-nationalists objectives but they are still inspired by Hinduism, but that is true for any terrorism. ISIS has religious objectives, LeT and Taliban has nationalist objectives, but their acts still come under Islamic terrorism because they are still inspired by Islam. And the term Saffron terror is mentioned in [See also] section of the article, that is more than enough.Thinkmaths (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The term Islamic terrorism is in fact used by academics, it is a type of religious terrorism, i.e., terrorism motivated by religious belief, and is typified by groups such as as Qaeda. The media - and politicians of course abuse the term. The Taliban do not for example come under the banner of religious terrorists - their goals are ethnic/nationalist and they are more similar to an insurgency that a terrorist group. I suspect that many of the groups called "saffron terrorists" might not be considered Hindu religious terrorists. TFD (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Then you shouldn't have any trouble with the term.Thinkmaths (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

TFD, Unfortunately, our friends here want to cloud the issue so that nobody can understand what is going on. You might want to look at the version of the page I left on 17 November [1], which might give you a clearer idea. The term was first used by two different journalists, one in 2002 and one in 2008, for slightly different phenomena, but both referring to violence motivated by religious and cultural nationalism. The color 'saffron' has been in use by these nationalist groups since the 1920's. As for other reliable sources using/describing the term, please check Google books searches and Google scholar.

This is the difference between the version you presented above and the current version, so can you explain me what is the "cloud the issue" thing that was done, the major difference I see is the lead and it was/is? discussed on the talk page of the article. Also as mentioned in the deletion discussion An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy (Emphasis mine) -sarvajna (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sarvajna: I am not able to understand what point you are trying to make here. If you are trying to make a point that the citations mentioned here only use the term rather than explain it, then it does. Anyway these citations are made to explain the earliest usages of the term, that is why these citations are in the Usage section of the article. One needn't look for the earliest reference to this term which somehow also explains it. No newspaper article 'explains' the headlines, it is up to the reader to decide whether the title is appropriate for the content. Same is with the Frontline magazine. If an explanation has to be looked for, many citations in the article itself explains the term.Thinkmaths (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thinkmaths: I made the point about the Google search results that were mentioned in the previous comment, it was not about the frontline articles. Have not disputed the "earliest usages of the term" mentioned in the article. -sarvajna (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sarvajna: Then what is your point.Thinkmaths (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thinkmaths: I repeat "I made the point about the Google search results that were mentioned in the previous comment". Read the italics part of my comment again, you will understand what my point is. You can also read that statement Here. Let me know if you don't get it.-sarvajna (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sarvajna:Of course, the google search gives a lot of searches which uses the term and is not about the term, that is understood. That is why one has to look through the searches and find appropriate links to documents which discuss this term in detail.Thinkmaths (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thinkmaths: Correct. If someone thinks there are reliable materials available then they should produce it. -sarvajna (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sarvajna: True, very true.Thinkmaths (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sarvajna, As I mentioned on the article talk page, it is not the term "saffron terror" that interests me, but rather the phenomenon. The page is about both the term and the phenomenon. The term itself can be described in a short paragraph. It is the phenomenon that requires a full article. So, your italicized warnings don't strike me as anything to worry about. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The italicized words were not warning of any sort, they were just part of my arguments. Thanks .-sarvajna (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya3, there is no "phenomenon", just an association of unrelated things by various politicians and writers, with no agreement among them what belongs to the set. That's why there are no reliable sources to explain it. TFD (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:, so you are claiming that this [2] is not reliable source? Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya3 please note the link provided has been already dealt with in the main nomination page no need for repetitive posting, the "reliable source" source provided is a new print , does not meet WP:GNG itself and out of 350+ pages it is mentioning it only "ones" , which is trivial. for sure there are other words in 350+ page book with multiple citing, please start opening new articles on these words and stiching stories and list of events to make a article here and same has been said in the nomination page Shrikanthv (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya3, interesting that you would bring up Jonathan Matusitz' book, since this book came up on another terror-related article. He is a professor of communications, not terrorism, and has some rather unusual views on religion and terrorism. For example, he says, Muslims “procreate like mushrooms after the rain” and that “the problem is Islam.” “Coexistence with Islam is not possible." "My colleagues say Islam is a religion of peace. I say it's a religion of pieces -- piece of body here, piece of body there." You can see a video of him at a meeting on "radical islam", where he shares the stage with Pamela Geller.[3] She's banned from entering the UK because of her "anti-Islamist" activism.

Even if you accept the source, it says, "For a few years, Hindu terrorism has been nicknamed "saffron terror."" That would possibly justify a re-direct to Hindu terrorism. But then you would have to show that there is a single concept Hindu terrorism, rather than merely the way unrelated terrorists who happen to have Hindu religion or ethnicity have been grouped together by members of other religions.

TFD (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

TFD, Thanks for the information about Matusitz. I didn't know much about him. I just picked the first book that appeared decent among the Google books hits. I don't specialize in terrorism, but rather on Hindu nationalism (or "Hindutva"). Among the scholars on Hindu nationalism, there is clear consensus that there is a phenomenon of "Hindutva terrorism" (a bit more precise term than "Hindu terrorism"). A lot of this material is in research papers and it will probably take a while to make its way into books. However, Matusitz's account in the book does correspond closely to what the scholars say in the papers. There is clear evidence that there is Hindutva hand in the terrorist incidents that lists. I am currently working on writing a much improved page based on the research literature. I will let you know when I am ready and you can comment on it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Matusitz writes, "Hindu terrorism has been nicknamed "saffron terror." Suffron terror refers to terrorism spurred by Hindu extremist nationalism." (p. 149) That definition is too vague to build an article because we do not know what groups belong. Do we include racists who are non-practicing Hindus? Do we include religious extremists who are not nationalist at all? The point of the term is to conflate all these things and we would need a good source that explains the complexity. But that seems to be neglected in sources. It might be better to just report them in Terrorism in India, until we have a good source for categorizing it. TFD (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This is very interesting, person who claims to "specialize" on Hindu nationalism presents a source and later finds out that this is not a proper source. I hope you will provide sources for your statement "there is clear consensus that there is a phenomenon of "Hindutva terrorism" ". -sarvajna (talk) 10:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The source I mentioned (as I mentioned) was the first book on Google books, and it is a book on terrorism, not Hindu nationalism. You will see my sources when I finish writing the new version of the page. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have uploaded the first draft of a new article on Hindutva terror in my userspace. [4]. You can find there reliable sources as well as information about what is contained in them. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Feel your new article is much more direct and personnel than this this!! Shrikanthv (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

All the opponents of the page have been asking for "source". Now that I have provided sources, they should go and read them. The Wikipedia is only an entry point into the literature. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it is the other way, coming to sources and the article I will give you an opinion after I go through it. Appreciate your efforts though ( not sure whether I would appreciate the article or not :-) ).-sarvajna (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

References