Talk:Persecution of Hindus

Ram Punyani

Ram Punyani was a Professor of Biomedical Engineering, IIT Mumbai. He's not a historian by any stretch of the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rioter 1 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Rioter 1, here is the passage you deleted from the article:

Scholar Ram Puniyani states that Aurangzeb was not fanatically anti-Hindu, that he continuously adapted his policies depending on circumstances. He banned the construction of new temples, but allowed the repair and maintenance of existing ones, and even made generous donations of jagirs to many temples to gain the goodwill of his Hindu subjects. There are several firmans (orders) in his name supporting temples and gurudwaras, including Mahakaleshwar temple of Ujjain, Balaji temple of Chitrakoot, Umananda Temple of Guwahati and the Shatrunjaya Jain temples, among others.

References

Please state what your objections are, to this passage. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I have reservations about the authority of this source. If you have any alternate citations from a reliable soruce, pls feel free to include those and remove this. Rioter 1 (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, I take strong objection for your allegation of sock puppeting, here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rioter 1 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that it was a different editor that did the first deletion. I didn't mean any sockpuppetry.

Coming back to the issue, if the source is not satisfactory, then you can easily add a {{better source needed}} tag. The deletion of the content is warranted only if the content itself seems dubious. But if you read the Aurangzeb page, similar things are said there as well. So I don't see any reason to doubt it. In the context of this article, which is about Hindu-Muslim relations rather than history, Puniyani is perfectly fine. It is a book published by SAGE, and Puniyani is enough of an academic scholar to cull information from various expert sources.

It is often said that "WP:HISTRS is an essay". That means, use it judiciously not blindly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Just dropping a review of the book over Critical Asian Studies:-

This book is a concise and useful guide to the spurious and misleading arguments that are being propagated by Hindu communalists in India and that are found in various guises in a great deal of literature on India. The book will be of benefit even to those who are familiar with the literature on Indian politics. It is a highly realistic evaluation of the current state of Indian politics and society, painful as the truth may be. The book is highly recommended for use in courses and seminars on religious nationalism, as well as specifically in courses on Indian and South Asian politics. Indeed, the book would be a good addition to any library.

∯WBG^converse 14:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I'm okay with the facts in those quotes about his sponsorship and donations to temples and gurudwaras, but his assertion that "Aurangzeb was not fanatically anti-Hindu..." is WP:UNDUE. You don't need a Ram Punyani to assert Aurangzeb's motives. If a wiki admin can deny mention of a source citing WP:HISTRS, it definitely is applicable here as well. Rioter 1 (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

There are loads of other sources that are used in an WP:UNDUE fashion as well. Will Durant being the prominent example, but also Fernand Braudel, and Vincent Arthur Smith. If you want to clean up, you need to clean up all of them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"If you want to clean up, you need to clean up all of them".. Why is that? I'm interested exclusivly in this article. Rioter 1 (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2019

In the "India" section please insert the following:

In September 2019, 17 Hindu students were suspended by the Christian-run "Church School, Beldih Triangle" in Jharkhand for chanting Jai Shri Ram in the schools, lading to the protests by the Hindu organisations.
222.164.212.168 (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for a couple reasons: 1) There's nothing in your request that this is persecution; and 2) This is a recent news item that doesn't really fit into the scope of the rest of the section. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

References

What's the neutrality issue?

At the top of the article you're told that the neutrality of this article is disputed. By whom? When? On what grounds? Don't the readers need to know more than just a pithy slanderous phrase?

Someone needs to go through the paragraphs of the article and point out which parts are biased and provide references to support the accusation. Otherwise take the neutrality flag out. I cannot find anything that is not factual. Most of it is milder than what the conquerors' own historians wrote. Sooku (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

On top of that, Wikipedia Admins are actively engaged in whitewashing these atrocities on natives in the middle ages. Vanamonde93 here and Winged Blades of Godric here, both of whom are Wikipedia Administrators have been actively reverting well sourced contemporary sources citing some weird one-off rule from WP:HISTRS to remove sections and sections of this article. Rioter 1 (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what well-sourced contemporary sources mean. You need to use WP:HSC compliant stuff in controversial domains. ∯WBG^converse 06:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• May-be, one fine day, I will get enough motivation to remove all WP:HSC non-compliant sourcing and remove the multiple instances of synthesis and outright fabrication. Examples may be located in my edits, days back. ∯WBG^converse 06:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

For starters, Firishta was a court historian of Mughal era. Both of you have removed mentions of his contemporary account Tarikh-i Firishta. The other one is a colonial compendium by Sir Elliot, H. M. His book, 'The history of India : as told by its own historians. The Muhammadan period' is just a collection of contemporary historians in the medieval period. Rioter 1 (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)