Talk:Criticism of Hinduism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in April 2012.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hinduism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

The main section this page argues that the caste system was not hereditary.[edit]

The true essence of caste system was not by ones birth or by one's parents inheritance but it was by ones acts or by profession/heredity.

Instead of giving a criticism of Hinduism, the main section argues that the caste system was not hereditary. To support this claim, it cites a book without giving the page number which can be verified.

i.e. A Shudra can become a Brahmin (Example: Valmiki Rushi who wrote Ramayana)

Giving an example of a conversion from a Shudra to a Brahmin does not mean it was a norm. --Gauravsood0289 (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

This page is facing an edit war. Please post your contentions here before reverting the page again. This would help us reach a consensus much faster.

Wikipedia's three-revert rule (3RR) says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts within a period of 24 hours. Anyone violating this risks being blocked or even being banned. See more about the same here: Wikipedia:Edit warring. --Gaurav 19:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravsood0289 (talkcontribs)

Regarding the latest edits, the lead sentence needs to comply with WP:MOS, unsourced info must carefully be removed, and this, as I've noted on Akshatra's talk page, is not a WP:RS. --NeilN talk to me 19:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User: NeilN since when did the caste system became by profession nor by birth. This line does not give the link of the source. Moreover you also removed the the criticism of Idol Worship (which was sourced)by Brahmo Samaj. Akshatra (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Akshatra: The caste sentence does have a source ("Caste System in India: A Historical Perspective", Ekta Singh, 2005, p. 25). The idol worship section can go back in. --NeilN talk to me 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The lead sentence and some other sentences too was changed by Bladesmulti in this [edit] . So I had to revert that back. He fabricated his own. @User: NeilN @User:Gauravsood0289Akshatra (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Akshatra: No, you did not "have" to revert that back. I've made a note of your broken promise at WP:3RRNB. --NeilN talk to me 20:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines says that one should "Avoid stating opinions as facts". For example, it says that an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." So, we could say that "According to some scholars the true essence of caste system was not by ones birth or by one's parents inheritance but it was by ones acts or by profession/heredity" --Gaurav 20:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravsood0289 (talkcontribs)

I think "Untouchability" would be a more appropriate title for the subsection currently titled "Varna System". --Gaurav 20:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravsood0289 (talkcontribs)

Bladesmulti Why did you revert the page without posting your contentions here?--Gaurav 04:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Issues with the current version of the page:

(1) The following statements make a Faulty generalization: "The true essence of caste system was not by ones birth or by one's parents inheritance but it was by ones acts or by profession/heredity.[9] i.e. A Shudra can become a Brahmin (Example: Valmiki Rushi who wrote Ramayana), or Kshtriya can be come Brahmin (Example: Vishwamitra Rushi, by whose grand son's name Bharata, India was named as Bharata centuries ago), or Kshtriya can be come Shudra or Vaishya or reversal."

(2) Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines says that one should "Avoid stating opinions as facts". The statements should be of the form: Person A criticized Hinduism for this, Person B criticized it for that and so on. The criticisms may or may not be legitimate. To contend a criticism we cannot say that Person B's criticism was unjustified. We can only say that "person C said that Person B's criticism was unjustified".

We can look at the page Criticism of Christianity. This would give us a better of what can and cannot go into the current page.--Gaurav 04:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravsood0289 (talkcontribs)

Bladesmulti's version is better than Akshatra's version. The only obvious thing that can be fixed right now is getting rid of the "i.e.," fragment. And, again, can you please fix your signature? --NeilN talk to me 04:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Gauravsood0289, but we are not going to copy content from Criticism of Christianity to here. Because this is wholly different subject.
Go through the page history, this page somehow expanded by the copyright violators, none of their sources included any criticism but only unconstructive opinions. Those sections you are talking about were removed because they are unreferenced and unwanted. Till now, we have found no constructive criticism about Hinduism, only some doubts about the caste system which was varna and prevalent for centuries, but not rigid and nothing to do with religion because it was social issue. We don't know anyone who targeted Hinduism for that except some no namer missionaries, that cannot be backed by any sources or Ambedkar who has been added to External links. Because this whole edit oonflict is organized by a sole disruptive editor, Akshatra, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Siddheart a obvious sock puppet, there is no chance to even bother about these edits because they are resolved and the current version is here for almost 1 year. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Please don't make Ad hominem attacks. Please answer my contentions.
Following are some points in support of Akshatra's version: (1) Akshara's version does not say that idol worship is wrong. It only says that Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj criticized it which is true. (2) Are you saying that untouchability and caste system never existed.
I am not saying we should copy paste text from Criticism of Christianity page. I am just saying that the page is well written and honestly lists all the criticisms people have made of Christianity over time. We can at least learn about the style of writing from it. --Gaurav (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
There was no Ad hominem, 1. This link to source that was removed like 1 year ago from this page, about Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj being critical of Idol worship is misrepresented. It links to the book cover, but you can read yourself, especially p.117-120. It just says that Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj rejected belief in image and replaced it with the belief in book(scriptures). I don't see that they were critical anywhere! User who had added this misrepresentation had also added the quote of Bible that considers it as a sin. It was Original Research. 2) Untouchability or caste became part of legal procedures but that's after the british rule. There is no criticism about it. Only social responsibility, but for that we have Caste system in India . Bladesmulti (talk) 05:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
"Because this whole edit oonflict is organized by a sole disruptive editor, Akshatra" is an Ad hominem.
Can you cite a trustworthy source saying that the practice of untouchability stated during the British Rule.
Pages 117 and 118 of the book you mentioned are not part of the preview. I could not find the word Arya Samaj or Brahmo Samaj on pages 119 and 120. --Gaurav (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
You have still not answered my issues with your version of the article. --Gaurav (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Blades...copying your note "2) Untouchability or caste became part of legal procedures but that's after the british rule. " . I am sorry to say that you are wrong. Untouchability existed before the British rule and also there are literatures regarding such practices found in Manumsriti, Buddhist texts and Jain texts. Also reformers such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy were critical to practises such as Sati Pratha etc. Do you have a proof that Untouchability only became legalized after the british rule? Infact it was vice-versa that British rule also implemented various laws to end untouchability and Sati Pratha. These are found in the NCERT textbooks published by government of India for Children. Akhil.bharathan (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Akhil.bharathan Raja Ram Mohan roy never said that Sati practice was part of Hinduism, he actually said that it is sin according to Hinduism, "In a petition to the British East India Company in 1818 Ram Mohan Roy wrote that "All these instances are murders according to every shastra." per Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India.
There is nothing like caste in Hinduism because the word "caste" comes from "Casta" and there was no caste system before the British Rule. Varnas were not granted by birth, but from profession. When you don't read sources that are provided on this article and ask "do you have proof" like I am interacting you face to face, it simply decreases your credibility.
You can stop reverting to some FRINGE activist like David Haslam and stop removing the reliably sourced material just because you Don't like it and consider discussing here before you advocate fringe theorists. No one is going to recognize "untouchability" for this article, unless there is some notable criticism like "Hinduism is not good, because of castes", but since there is no such existence nor any criticism similar to it, I see no hope in arguing about it. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti You have reverted the article twice in the last 24 hours. If you revert it again, I will have to report you.--Gaurav (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Both suspected socks, its just interesting that a CU was never run on him, though he(siddheart) is a prolific sock master, but very soon CU will provide results. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I cannot comprehend your comment. Can you be more clear.--Gaurav (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
(1) The book "Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India" is a primary source because it presents the arguments of the author. It does not present a general consensus about the Sati practice. I can point to many books that argue the opposite.
(2) To support that caste system was not hereditary, you cite "Caste System in India: A Historical Perspective". I could not access the book. But, if the book is not a primary source and rather presents general consensus, you should be able to point me to a different book which supports the same.
(3) You keep making personal attacks like: "You can stop reverting to some FRINGE activist like David Haslam". See wikipedia's guidelines for personal attacks here: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I hope you will focus on the content rather than the character of the author in future. --Gaurav (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not personal attack because it was about content not about the editor. Anyone who don't compile with the NPOV standard or goes on claiming things only for agenda are fringe. I find it funny that you don't tell User:Akshatra about stop making personal attacks, though he clearly did on multiple editors, just see the edit summaries. But here you are misrepresenting policy for making false allegation about me. Now you can stop derailing.
Just read Caste system in India if you have to look into it, there are actually many to name or add but I am not bothering. "Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India" is no where used as source and the reason why I stated it, that has to do nothing with this article. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Section "Edit war" tagged infested by socks[edit]

May I know which of Wikipedia's guidelines allow you to tag a talk page section as "Infested by socks"; and what are the criteria for tagging. --Gaurav (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Gaurav, would you rather I just deleted the sockpuppets' posts as per WP:BLOCKBANDIFF? --NeilN talk to me 18:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN I think I have behaved in very civilized way: (1) I have not reverted or edited the article even once, even though you and Bladesmulti have done so more than once. (2) I have not abused anyone.
Instead of answering my objections, you just close the section calling it "Infected by sockpuppets". I don't think this is the right way of answering objections. --Gaurav (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Gaurav, I have no issue with your behavior. However the section above was triggered by edits by a sockpuppet and contained posts by multiple sockpuppets. We do not reward that behavior (WP:RBI). So do you want me to re-open the section above and remove all the socks' comments or do you want to start a clean section below outlining your concerns? --NeilN talk to me 19:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
You reverted my edit on the talk page. I had just made a comment. You cannot just delete my comment. I have a right to have an opinion. If you did not like it, you could have commented back. --Gaurav (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Read your talk page please. It was important the info be removed right away. --NeilN talk to me 19:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me. I apologize for the harsh comment. --Gaurav (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Please open the "Edit war" section now.--Gaurav (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)