Jump to content

Talk:Religion in India

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rajendraumale673 (talk | contribs) at 04:13, 3 October 2023 (→Buddhism And Hinduism: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeReligion in India was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 9, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
July 16, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Page views for this article over the last 30 days

Detailed traffic statistics

Lead

@Symmachus Auxiliarus @Neplota I have removed the disputed content. Please propose a draft for the lead here and get consensus before adding it in the article. Venkat TL (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat TL, what is your rationale for removing long-standing content, that (so far as I can tell) actually summarizes the article content? You said that is was "promotional material", but much as I try to wrap my mind around that rationale, it doesn't fit WP:PROMO or any other definition of "promotional material" on Wikipedia. In fact, so far as I can tell, it's not only in line with policy, but definitely should be there, per WP:SUMMARY and our MOS. I'm also not sure why you linked and cited a non-existent page (WP:LEADFIXATION). You're a long-standing editor, so I hope you have a good explanation for why you think it's "promotional" to simply mention the Muslim components of Indian religious culture in the lead. I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but there doesn't appear to be any policy-based reason for your removal that I could think of. It also appears to me that Neplota has been edit warring across multiple articles, and they have most definitely been using misleading edit summaries on occasion, including on this article. You should not be enabling this behavior. I await your reasonable explanation for this, or for you to reverse your edit. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Symmachus Auxiliarus See Wikipedia:Lead fixation. It is shameless promotion of ISKCON and other cults. And has rightly been removed by other editor. Please propose a reasonable summary of the article's main sections and approach the lead expansion in step by step manner. Any addition to the lead should only be done after consensus on the talk page. This is to avoid any further edit war. Venkat TL (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Venkat TL: Firstly: this wasn't an edit war, because this was my first reversal of the content removal. My only other reversal of Neplota was days before, where I undid their removal of reliably sourced material in another section. Their rationale was "trim unsourced", which was prima facie an intentionally misleading edit summary, and our policy dictates that we reverse such things on sight. With this particular edit, their rationale was ""trimmed unnecessary info from the lead, detail already in the relevant history section". So they weren't even removing it based on the rationale you were using. They just didn't like it being there. Secondly: there is NO mention of ISKCON, nor is any of the material sourced to them. It's talking strictly about historical Muslim aristocracy, Muslim loanwords in the lexicons of Indian languages, and Muslim conventions and social customs being passed to the Hindu majority. That's all. Thirdly: This wasn't an addition to the lead. I didn't add it. It's been there. Neplota removed long-standing content. I'm sorry, but none of what you said here is remotely accurate, and it's difficult to assume good faith on your part at this point. I'm especially concerned about you saying that it was promoting ISKCON, when nothing like that appears anywhere in the prose, footnotes, or references. Please revert yourself. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, GorillaWarfare, or just any administrator passing by: I'd appreciate you taking a look at this, because this is a bit bizarre to me. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If you'd prefer not to handle this, I can ping a random admin, or take this to a noticeboard. I'm assuming NPOV would be the correct venue, no? But there are behavioural and POV issues with Neplota, and I'm honestly not sure what to make of Vikat TL's "explanation". Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Symmachus Auxiliarus I suggest starting with proposing a balanced summary for the section Religion_in_India#History. And then moving on to the next section. Finally these section summaries can be summarized to create a reasonable and accurate 'article summary' aka MOS:LEAD. I will assume good faith, may be you are not aware of what ISKCON means. I am not restoring the second para that is basically promotional in nature. Venkat TL (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with ISKCON. 'Hare Krishnas' are all over the United States as well, usually handing out copies of the Bhagavad Gita. But there's nothing in the prose or footnotes mentioning them, so I'm still not sure what you're referring to. The issue that you're citing, so far as I can see, doesn't even exist. I should also point out, as a disclaimer, that ISKCON (for better or worse) is still considered 'orthodox' Hinduism by mainstream scholars. Regardless, as I said, the section has nothing to do with ISKCON, or any "cults" whatsoever, unless you consider Islam a cult. And there's no need to be didactic with me. I've been an editor for over a decade, and I've regularly edited in difficult topic areas, with virtually no issues. I'd like to think that most regard me as a neutral editor, albeit one who is rigorous with our policies. I have no 'dog in this fight' either, as I belong to none of these religions, don't live in India, and could care less... Aside from making sure that material in contentious topic areas conforms to policies, and POV and FRINGE material stays out. So you citing a user-made essay about "lead fixation" is borderline insulting. I'm also not going to suggest an edit proposal, as I think all of the material therein already meets our policy guidelines, and the reason you gave for your removal doesn't seem remotely valid (as I've already said). I'll be honest, I'm a bit baffled by your actions and your explanations, as they don't make much sense, and the reason you gave for the removal seems spurious, as it doesn't even remotely touch upon anything you claimed was there. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Symmachus Auxiliarus if you know what ISKCON means why did you claim that the text I removed had "no mention of ISKCON". You know you can be fact checked in a jiffy using the Special:Diff/1103136225. I am repeating my concern again, The para I removed was in general, promotional in nature and I gave example of the cults as a specific problem. I see a condescending and insulting tone in your replies, so I will wait for others to opine. Venkat TL (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, I missed that. Apologies. Still, that's just one individual sentence? Why not just remove that (if that's legitimately your concern), rather than the entire paragraph, which almost solely focuses on Muslim contributions to Indian culture? Heck, you could have even just removed the one word. It's also not "promoting" anything, but providing factual information. ISKCON is not considered a "cult" by the majority of mainstream scholars, as I've said. What you're asserting in that instance is POV, and removing something on the basis of a mere "cult" when mainstream consensus is that it's not is against policy, but I really don't care if you remove the individual sentence. However, it literally only mentions ISKCON as spreading Hinduism, which is true. Removing that by saying "it is promoting a cult" is ridiculous. Despite the one-word mention of ISKCON, which I'll admit to missing in the diff, I'm still dubious as to the reasons for your removal of the rest of the information, especially given your recent block log (which I only saw after posting my prior comment). I still encourage you to revert the material in its entirety, as I still don't see a policy-based reason for it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you have now escalated from condescension to outright Character assassination and ad hominem. What has my block log got to do with this discussion? Venkat TL (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's similar material? And your position is not tenable, so far as I can see? Thus, not an ad hominem. However, at this point, I'm dropping this. Mostly because I can't assume good faith on your part, it's getting a bit personal, and we're apparently talking past each other. Plus, as I said, I was just trying to reverse what I thought was a spurious edit by another editor. I was shocked to see a seasoned editor supporting it. I'd rather an administrator, or the community at large, handle this. As I said, I don't see any reasonable rationale for you to support removing the material. Any of it, really. But especially the many other sentences that don't remotely touch upon your concerns, which aren't even tenable under our policies. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Jesus Christ, you edited your comment to add in "character assassination"? *facepalm* Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll up to check and tell me who is doing personal attacks in this thread while admin shopping at the same time. Venkat TL (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made no personal attacks, I've only intimated that there might be underlying POV problems in this area given your recent history with RNPOV. Also, not admin shopping. I pinged two admins that are well-known by the community for their work in difficult topic areas, with one of them being particularly active in this topic area. They're both pretty much beyond reproach for issues they're not involved in, and are known for their fairness. I also added the caveat that if they'd prefer not to deal with it, I can randomly ping an admin, or take it to the appropriate noticeboard (but the latter seemed a bit much to me). I was specifically asking for a third set of eyes, and not any official intervention. Read my comments on this. That is pretty much the opposite of "admin shopping", which is not even a policy or guideline (perhaps you meant "forum shopping"?) I specifically said I was okay with whatever. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've now just added two DS notices to my page (which is fine for the one, as I haven't received one in the past year), and then warned me with a (level 2) warning to assume good faith, after I've told you I'm no longer assuming good faith. I don't think I've ever received a warning before, so an L2 warning is inappropriate. Other editors can read between the lines on this one. Don't template the regulars, and don't try to intimidate people. If you want to take me to a notice board, and don't mind the inevitable boomerang, that's fine. But I get the message. You're upset. And this is after I said I was backing out of this conversation, no less. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Alerts. Let me know which of the two (or both) do you feel is not applicable for this article. Venkat TL (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already said that. I obviously meant the I-P one. The general DS is fine too, though I'm fairly sure I already received a DS notice, and thus it's sort of null. You've thus far accused me of 'character assassination', ad hominem attacks, and gave me an escalated template warning after I clearly said I can't in good conscience assume good faith. I've not made a single personal attack against you. At all. Certainly not in any way directly. But you have with me. Notice I'm not making a huge deal out of it. I've already said I'm bowing out. I'll continue to respond if you address me, but I'd rather you not. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am 100% sure I-P (WP:ARBIPA) is applicable to this article as well as the content of the article being discussed in this thread. @Doug Weller can clarify and correct me if it is not. Venkat TL (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know what I meant (IPA, not IP). And yes, it is appropriate. I wasn't disputing that it was valid. I actually said I didn't mind receiving the notice, but that the rapid-fire notices and warnings right after I said I was backing away from this dispute were a bit questionable. See above. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know that you dont consider them inapproprite. The trigger for the alert, as I understand, is participation in the topic area. How much time gap do they need to have in between? Venkat TL (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One year. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Symmachus Auxiliarus No such time gap mentioned anywhere. The 1 year, is about repeating the "same" template. I checked and you had not received either. Venkat TL (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL:. I don't understand your point here. I see your edit summary for this revision [1] is grossly misleading. User:Neplota wasn't the one who added the content that you deleted saying that user is a blocked sock puppet. The content was there before they deleted and they removed some of the sourced contents, which @Symmachus Auxiliarus: restored. But now you've done similar "trimming" (perhaps worse than Neplota's "trimming") and preemptively insist others not to restore without consensus. Please tell me where was the consensus to delete that content in the first place? I'm confused. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm restoring it for now. Please discuss with everyone before deleting it. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder that WP:AC/DS is applicable on this page. @Rasnaboy you dont need consensus to delete blatantly promotional material and other undesireable content sourced from shady sources that are explicitly marked as "dubious" and "failed verification". I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Summary style, WP:LEAD and Wikipedia:Lead fixation before responding to my comment. The lead is the summary of the content that is already in the article. Lead is not a place to push POV and propaganda material to promote one religion over other or to push fringe theories. I am removing this content, If you want the same content to be included you need to get consensus for this. See WP:ONUS. If you restore it without consensus, this will be reported for edit warring. Venkat TL (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL: Wondering why you added a warning template on my talk page when I just asked you to discuss before deleting the contents that you are apparently aversive to (maybe a strategic way of passing the buck/onus? Not sure.) As @Symmachus Auxiliarus: infers, I see no issues with the text in question. They're only stating the facts with sources. The "failed verification/dubious" was for Mughal/Delhi Sultanate claim, not for the ISKCON claim. If you are truly concerned with "failed verification" stuff as you stated, then you should have removed only that sentence and not the entire para, much less the preceding one. Not sure why you perceive it as an ISKCON promotion. As one might see, it's not a promotion even in the remotest sense. Also I request you not to be too quick in adding warning templates unnecessarily, which is applicable to you as well if added first. Knowing we all are here to build an encyclopedia, I would advise you to give some heed to WP:HIGHMAINT. As @BusterD: and @Kusma: rightly pointed out at the ANB a few months ago, we should work toward that by thinking less of winning others and more of helping. I'm not reverting it but leave it to other editors. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rasnaboy the notice is appropriate. Please read and follow WP:ONUS if you wish to restore the disputed content. I find it strange that you keep pinging random users to this thread to canvass them. You had been noticed before already to not do mass pings. Also, you have pinged Symmachus Auxiliarus twice in both your comments even though he said he does not want to continue pursuing this thread. Venkat TL (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I'll handle that. Hope you read my reply to that notice. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rasnaboy, Yes I have read your reply. How is BUSTERD and KUSMA, who you have pinged, related to this discussion? Apparently you seem to think that by pinging admins into this content dispute is an appropriate way to settle this content issue. Have you read WP:INVOLVED, please do. Venkat TL (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted promotional and other problematic content that is not the summary of the article as a lead is supposed to be. Follow WP:ONUS, see talk page discussion thread. Venkat TL (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What promotional content? Atleast read what you are deleting before you delete it. And check WP:STATUSQUO, the earlier version should be reinstated. Your reversion is incorrect. You are trying to delete a longstanding para from the lead that seems largely appropriate. Instead of trying to remove the entire para, list out what is incorrect and we can sort through it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The line that you dropped was not the only promotional content. The promotional and other problematic content that is not the summary of the article as a lead is supposed to be, has been removed. If you disagree with the removal, please follow the consensus procedure and start discussion to restore any particular line you think is not problematic. WP:ONUS quotes "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included.. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Venkat TL (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demand for Hindu Rashtra, law and politics section

This section is grossly non-neutral in this article.

  1. The 3 refs for the Hindu nation demand are news articles on the events happened on the respective dates, not an overall study of "demand for Hindu Rashtra".
  2. Next 2 lines misrepresent surveys as a conclusive opinion of total [Hindu] population.
  3. Refs for pleas in SC to remove secularism and socialism, including Swami's plea, do not support the placement of the content in this section. They don't even mention that the pleas are related to Hinduism or Hindu Rashtra

This article is rather a broad topic on the entirety of religion in India and the content, as it stands, does not fit. I don't have resources to research on this topic. Editors who're aware of it, please do the needful! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islam is not a Religion

   The correct word is Islamic. Islam is a country, but is not the word for a religion. I would like this to be fixed. Hellohaha12345678 (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism And Hinduism

the oldest religion of India is Buddhism and Hinduism came about 1200 years after Buddhism. Rajendraumale673 (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Religion_in_India&oldid=1178356035"