Talk:Anti-Hindu sentiment: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 286: Line 286:
::So, it seems that the anti-hindu bias in Pakistan exists as a figment of mind in some Indians, and the same is being forced here.—[[User:TripWire|'''<big><em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkMagenta">Trip</em></big><big><em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkSlateGray">Wire</em></big>''']]<sup>[[User talk:TripWire|________ʞlɐʇ]]</sup> 11:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
::So, it seems that the anti-hindu bias in Pakistan exists as a figment of mind in some Indians, and the same is being forced here.—[[User:TripWire|'''<big><em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkMagenta">Trip</em></big><big><em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkSlateGray">Wire</em></big>''']]<sup>[[User talk:TripWire|________ʞlɐʇ]]</sup> 11:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
:::Don't use deceptive edit summaries such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hindu_sentiment&diff=832033282&oldid=831345476 you did here], I have clearly replied to your comments above and you don't have to misrepresent my activities. Your personal research based on an opinion piece that has heavily focused on researching Anti-Hindu sentiment, and provided its indication is not going to help you. So far no one has agreed with your edits, so stop edit warring. [[User:Raymond3023|Raymond3023]] ([[User talk:Raymond3023|talk]]) 12:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
:::Don't use deceptive edit summaries such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hindu_sentiment&diff=832033282&oldid=831345476 you did here], I have clearly replied to your comments above and you don't have to misrepresent my activities. Your personal research based on an opinion piece that has heavily focused on researching Anti-Hindu sentiment, and provided its indication is not going to help you. So far no one has agreed with your edits, so stop edit warring. [[User:Raymond3023|Raymond3023]] ([[User talk:Raymond3023|talk]]) 12:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} TripWire, you're digging a hole for yourself here. If you want to include the view that there ''isn't'' anti-Hindu sentiment, you need to provide multiple reliable sources that ''directly'' support that statement. Saying "Hindus were given a holiday for Holi, so obviously there's no anti-Hindu bias" is classical [[WP:OR|original research]]. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 13:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:01, 23 March 2018

Anti-Hindu propaganda launched by Fundamentalist sects of Christianity

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Anti-Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

I have reverted a section blanking by Vanamonde93. Please cite your reason(s) for it before you start an edit war. Crawford88 (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crawford88: The content was not reliably sourced, as I explained in my edit summary. I removed it per WP:NOR. If you wish to reinstate it, find a reliable source supporting it. Vanamonde (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the source says, "Pressure from Hinduphobic academicians has forced the administration of University of California, Irvine to backtrack unprofessionally after announcing the setting up of chairs for the study of Indic civilizational studies.". Now, I believe Hinduphobia and anti-Hinduism are synonyms aka, no WP:NOR. Crawford88 (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication that the source is anything but an opinion piece: and there is no indication that the publication itself is reliable in any case. Vanamonde (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Swarajya is WP:NEWSORG and therefore WP:RS in multiple wiki articles. The policy says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author.". Crawford88 (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous news organizations that we do not consider to be reliable. Given the fact that Swarajya advertizes its ideology on its homepage, its use is questionable in this situation. Furthermore, you are violating the very guideline that you cite: Op-Eds are reliable for statements attributed to that editor, and you have not attributed it inline. Furthermore, the first source that you have reinstated is patently an involved primary source, which is completely unreliable. See WP:BURDEN; you need to demonstrate that the source in question is reliable. Vanamonde (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, would it help reach a consensus if the statement mentioned the author? Also, WP:BURDEN is not applicable when there is already an inline citation. See "Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia". It is your responsibility to explain why you think the citation is not good enough. Well DCF is of-course a primary source, but that isn't the only source here. Crawford88 (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would help, but it would be insufficient. An opinion piece is effectively a primary source, because it does not receive editorial oversight. You have still not demonstrated why this rather obscure news organization may be considered reliable at all in this situation, given it's ideological stance. And I have provided the explanation, multiple times, but here we go again: the section as a whole is making the claim that Hinduphobia exists among academics. To support this rather remarkable claim, we have one primary source from the DCF, and an opinion piece from a avowedly right-wing, obscure, news portal. This is simply not good enough. Vanamonde (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The denigration of Hindu deities as Demons

Vanamonde, I observed that you are an admin and would not like to edit war with you. Please let me know what is wrong with the references I used for the denigration of Hindu deities as Demons.-Dona-Hue (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dona-Hue I told you once: the issue is that it does not meet our guideline for reliable sources. Vanamonde (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde, A wikipedia editor I know offline told me that we can use websites as "notes". Is it so?-Dona-Hue (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dona-Hue: You can use websites only if they meet the guideline above. Most websites would not qualify as reliable sources. For a topic such as this one, scholarly sources are preferred; this means journal articles or books. Vanamonde (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have observed that many websites have been used in many wikipedia articles, so please let me know about what kind of websites are acceptable here.— Dona-Hue (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dona-Hue: I cannot provide you with a list. I have told you several times now that you can only use something which meets the guideline for reliable sources. Read that guideline, and find sources which meet it, please. Vanamonde (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dona-Hue:, you have added this text to the article:

Anti-Hindu attacks often accuse Hindus of being "blasphemous", "devil worshippers", "heathens" to name a few for the practice of idolatry and polytheism (except among those Hindus belonging to monistic or henotheistic traditions). Certain missionaries and evangelical organisations have been known to denigrate Hindu deities and theology as "evil" or "demonic"; Muslims also denigrate Hindu deities as Jinns (Demons).[1][2]

References

  1. ^ "The world of the Jinn (part 1 of 2)". The religion of Islam. Retrieved 2017-05-21.
  2. ^ Doniger, Wendy; et al. "Hinduism". Encyclopædia Britannica. The Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved May 31, 2017. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)

  • Please explain where you find the denigration of "blasphemous", "devil worshippers", "heathens" etc. in the sources.
  • Please explain what kind of a source is the first citation? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, Vanamonde removed those sentences and I restored it with what I think are better sources. Please let me know if the references I have used are Reliable sources.- Dona-Hue (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you restore those sentences with the references I have used or find better Reliable sources?- Dona-Hue (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dona-Hue: I have already said that "islamreligion.com" is not a reliable source. Wendy Doniger would generally be considered reliable; but you need to demonstrate that the source in question supports the content in question. And that responsibility is solely on you, since you are the one adding the content. Please read WP:BURDEN. Vanamonde (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, can we use just the Encyclopedia Britannica as a reference for those sentences?-Dona-Hue (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, can we restore all those sentences? They were there before you removed them and I am merely trying to restore them.-Dona-Hue (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your first step must be to answer the two questions I have asked above. Vanamonde has already answered the second question for you, with the answer "not a reliable source". Please answer the first question. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I can read in the body of the article on Hinduism by the Encyclopedia Britannica, "Their denigration of selected features of Hindu practice—most notably image worship, suttee, and child marriage (the first two were also criticized by Muslims)—was shared by certain Hindus. Beginning in the 19th century and continuing into the 21st, a movement that might be called neo-Vedanta has emphasized the monism of certain Upanishads, decried “popular” Hindu “degenerations” such as the worship of idols, acted as an agent of social reform, and championed dialogue between other religious communities." There are a couple of more sentences after that, which I want you to read and suggest if we can incorporate here. I request you to help instead of rejecting that source completely. Thanks!—Dona-Hue (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to restore the sentences that Vanamonde removed, but I guess that since the source I have used, does not contain the words, "denigration of "blasphemous", "devil worshippers", "heathens" etc.," we can avoid using them in this wikipedia article. I am using, "we" to show that I am trying to collaborate with you. Thanks!—Dona-Hue (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Yes, you need to stick to what the source says. We cannot say anything substantive about Muslims from this source, because Doniger is only saying they criticized some aspects of Hinduism, and criticism is not "anti-Hinduism". What you can say is that Christian missionaries denigrated certain aspects of Hinduism, such as sati, idol worship, and child marriage. Of course whether even this denigration is "anti-Hindu" is up for debate. Kautilya, what do you think? Vanamonde (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, denigration of "certain features" of Hinduism doesn't amount to denigration of Hinduism itself. And, Doniger is saying that these features were even denigrated by sections of Hindus themselves. So Dona-Hue is on a weak wicket here.
Dona-Hue, you need to your research here if you want to be able to write about this. Trying googling for "Christian missionaries views on Hinduism" or something like that to find out what their views are in the first place. Some of it may be good and some of it may be bad. But you shouldn't go with a preconceived view of what the reality is, but honestly try to find out what the reality is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is the criticism of 'sati' and 'child marriage' denigration? — Tyler Durden (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism in and of itself is not denigration. If Doniger calls it denigration, it could be given some weight: but as K says, it was only with respect to an aspect of Hinduism: and other sects of Hinduism were also similarly critical, as she notes. As I said above, I would hesitate to call this an example of anti-Hindu sentiment. Vanamonde (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde the Encyclopedia Britannica article mentioned above does say, "(the first two were also criticized by Muslims)", the first 2 being idol worship and sati!—Dona-Hue (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel these are anti-Hindu sentiments (esp. the denigration of idol worship)!—Dona-Hue (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat what I said, denigration of "certain features" of Hinduism doesn't amount to denigration of Hinduism itself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we mention the denigration of idol worship by Muslims and Christians using the Encyclopedia Britannica article mentioned above as a reference and add other words or sentences when we find Reliable sources for them!-Dona-Hue (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dona-Hue, there is a difference between "criticize" and "denigrate". Doniger only says Christian missionaries engaged in denigration; so even if "denigration" amounted to "anti-Hindu sentiment" (which we are not agreed on) you could still only apply that to the Christian missionaries. Vanamonde (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dona, please find some other sources that talk of denigration of Hinduism itself in the context of idol worship. We can certainly add 'denigration of idol worship' after that. Don't worry. — Tyler Durden (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyler, I am hard pressed for time and so, I want you people to accept that Encyclopedia Britannica article mentioned above as a reference now and add other words or sentences when we find Reliable sources for them!

@Vanamonde, the Encyclopedia Britannica article mentioned above does say, "(the first two were also criticized by Muslims)", the first 2 being idol worship and sati/suttee!—Dona-Hue (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the dictionary meanings of criticize and denigrate. Criticism of Hinduism is in no way 'anti-Hinduism'. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyler, We want to add it to the "Stereotypes" section.—Dona-Hue (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dona-Hue: Who is "we"? Vanamonde (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By "we" I mean the consenting editors!—Dona-Hue (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see nobody except you who want to add that content with that source. — Tyler Durden (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found this online, "Christian evangelists who denigrate Hindu gods and abuse Hindu rituals as barbaric" here: Who's afraid of dialogue? Can we use that?—Dona-Hue (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's the last sentence of the first paragraph from this link: Missions and the Pentecostalization of Indian Christianity! —Dona-Hue (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can use them. But please check if the content you're trying to add is already covered in the article, don't add repetitive POVs. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I promise to check before adding any reference-Dona-Hue (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a Reliable source: http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.indian/2008-09/msg00349.html ?-Dona-Hue (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about this: "WENDY DONIGER, HINDUISM STUDIES AND DHIMMITUDE" by Dr. Madan L. Goel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, The University of West Florida, @ www.uwf.edu/lgoel ?-Dona-Hue (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyler Durden, thanks for improving the references I cited.

I wrote, Muslims denigrate non-Muslims for their ethnicity and religions, Hinduism and the Sikh faith being targets.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Malaysia's troubled Muslim-Hindu ties
  2. ^ Cage of Freedom: Fetish, space and displacement
  3. ^ Indian Muslims Lose Hope in National Secular Party

based on what the first reference said. Can you formulate a sentence where all 3 sources can be used. I am sure you can. Thanks again for all the help!—Dona-Hue (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dona, please see this section first. Is anything you are trying to add, new, and not already covered in the article? --- Tyler Durden (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please provide full citations, and check if they are reliable sources or not. I am afraid your editing is getting tiresome. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tyler Durden, none of those references have been used before in this wikipedia article and more importantly, the NY Times reference is about "Owaisi", an Indian Muslim.
Kautilya3, I believe that they are Reliable sources. I have seen that books.google.com, online Newspapers and so on are considered Reliable sources (which is what I had used)! Are you just trying to harass me?—Dona-Hue (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. The piece in The Hindu was reader's comment. It wasn't news. Since the writer seems to be a notable man, I have reinstated it with WP:In-text attribution. Please see WP:NPOV: do not state opinions as facts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With the statement(s) of one Indian Muslim, Akbaruddin Owaisi, writing that Muslims denigrate non-Muslims for their ethnicity and religions, Hinduism and the Sikh faith being targets. is way too absurd. In Wikipedia language, WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. I fail to figure out why it is so hard for you to see this. — Tyler Durden (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tyler Durden, quoting that NY Times reference, "Akbaruddin Owaisi, a party leader and fiery orator known for his vitriolic speeches, has been charged several times with hate speech over remarks denigrating Hindu gods and inciting violence. He was arrested last year on charges of inciting communal enmity, sedition and criminal conspiracy for speeches he made in Andhra Pradesh" is what we can read. Can you formulate an acceptable sentence for that reference (or else someone may revert what I add)? Please help as I am still a Rookie/novice here. Thanks!-Dona-Hue (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are another couple of references I want to be incorporated into this article (about a Muslim who has fled India because the Government wanted to arrest him for his hate speeches): Zakir Naik tried to distort Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's message: Art Of Living foundation, Zakir Naik quoted Vedas out of context, tried to insult Hinduism: Art of Living, Zakir Naik glad controversy united Umno and PAS and All you need to know about Zakir Naik-Dona-Hue (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Owaisi and Zakir Naik can probably be "quoted" together with just one sentence!-Dona-Hue (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please propose the text you want to add with full citations in a quotebox (like you did above), and we can discuss it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can probably have, "Muslims denigrate and insult Hinduism and other idol-worshipping religions" and use the references about Owaisi and Zakir Naik and maybe even use some references from another wikipedia article titled, "Aurangzeb", as he (and many other muslim rulers) were insulting Hinduism!-Dona-Hue (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way you are going to cite two Muslims and make claims about all Muslims. I think I will stop debating with you now. It is clear that you have absolutely no understanding of Wikipedia policies, and don't care to learn either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most Muslims denigrate Idol worship, preach that Hindu deities are Jinns (Demons), destroy temples if they can, kill or convert pagans to Islam (if they can), kidnap pagan females and add them to their "harem" and rape them (if they can) and so on, as all that is mentioned in the Quran. If you feel that I have absolutely no understanding of Wikipedia policies, why don't you suggest how we can quote Owaisi and Zakir Naik in this wikipedia article. Please help (I know that you are experienced). Thanks!-Dona-Hue (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most Muslims denigrate Idol worship, preach that Hindu deities are Jinns (Demons), destroy temples if they can, kill or convert pagans to Islam (if they can), kidnap pagan females and add them to their "harem" and rape them (if they can) and so on, as all that is mentioned in the Quran. (emphasis mine) - This is WP:OR, and Dona, you are being nowhere near maintaining a WP:NPOV. I suggest you to take your time, read the policies that are being cited by other editors, and return to editing especially only after you make sure you achieve a neutral point of view. Please. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just quoting from the Quran, it is not my personal point of view. Now can you use the 3 references I mentioned above and the online newspaper reports about Zakir Naik's speeches, links to which I have provided above and formulate an acceptable sentence? Thanks!-Dona-Hue (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dona, I'm replying out of courtesy, but I politely want to tell you that you're wasting everyone's time.
  • Firstly, you didn't quote anything from Quran. I doubt if you have actually read it. That "many Muslims" comment is purely your prejudice.
  • Secondly, none of the sources you provided assert that the Islamic preacher Zakir Naik denigrated Hinduism or Hindu Gods. Allegations or accusations by opponents do not fit this article. You can go write about them in his biography articles, if they're not already covered there.
  • Thirdly, I don't think denigration by one Muslim MLA from Hyderabad is worth mentioning here in this broader article. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia article on Anti-Hinduism, it'd be WP:UNDUE.
  • Lastly, I humbly request you to get over this silly obsession of adding anything against Muslims. This is my sincere advice. More than this, I cannot help you for anything. Please don't​ ask me. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that I have taken so much of your time - I hope you have realised I am new here. Now, Kautilya 3 has incorporated PN Benjamin's quotation here, so can we incorporate Owaisi's quotation also here? There are many Muslims who have insulted or denigrated Hindus and Hinduism but I am not sure if the sources can be considered reliable and have not mentioned them here, but if you search online, I am sure you can find a lot of such instances! You can probably add them to this article (if I do it, somebody may revert it)!

I feel that once Vanamonde succeeds in changing this article's title to "Anti-Hindu sentiments" we can add a lot more material here.-Dona-Hue (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move/partial merge proposal/RFC

There is a clear consensus to support the proposal, which editors said will limit the overlap between the two articles. Here is the proposal:

1) this page be retitled "anti-Hindu sentiment" to make the scope of the page clear; 2) all content from this page that is about an instance of direct persecution be moved/merged to Persecution of Hindus; and 3) that all content at Persecution of Hindus that is not about an instance of direct persecution be moved/merged from there to here.

Cunard (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We have a page at Anti-Hinduism, and a page at Persecution of Hindus. These are theoretically distinct topics, in that this page is about Anti-Hindu sentiment, and the other is about physical persecution. This argument has also been made, and has received support, at the most recent deletion discussion for this page.

However, the two pages currently share a fair amount of material. For example, this page contains material about the jizya, or religion-specific tax, applied to by Muslim rulers; which, logically, is a matter of actual persecution, not simply of anti-Hindu sentiment. Conversely, that page contains matters such as Pakistan's curriculum, which is not directly an instance of persecution, and belongs here.

Therefore, I propose that 1) this page be retitled "anti-Hindu sentiment" to make the scope of the page clear; 2) all content from this page that is about an instance of direct persecution be moved/merged to Persecution of Hindus; and 3) that all content at Persecution of Hindus that is not about an instance of direct persecution be moved/merged from there to here. Vanamonde (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, as proposer. Vanamonde (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger, but moving matter from there to here if it is not "direct persecution" should be fine! I also don't mind re-titling this article, "Anti-Hindu sentiments".-Dona-Hue (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dona-Hue: then what is it you are opposing? If you think content relevant here should be brought here, but content irrelevant here should not be moved out, that's quite a silly position to take. Vanamonde (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde, I simply don't want anything to be removed, if it is properly sourced.-Dona-Hue (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:VNOTSUFF. — Tyler Durden (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that things are being manipulated here with rule citations for everything. However, if only acts of persecution are moved to the Persecution of Hindus article and nothing else is removed from this article, I will change my vote to Support!—Dona-Hue (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is what the proposal says. Read it again please (And refrain from making allegations against editors without evidence.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, Dona is apparently supporting points 1) and 3) of the proposal, but opposing point 2). You can understand why! :-) — Tyler Durden (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per proposer. The present title is making it hard to distinguish between persecution and anti-Hindu sentiments. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good ideas. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sentiments need not be materialize into civil discomfort. Crawford88 (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2 and 3. This page need not be renamed, as anti-Hinduism has been referred in many books and popcult. Crawford88 (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose. Why not start a proposal to merge Islamophobia with Persecution of Muslims and Antisemitism with Persecution of Jews? Vanamonde93 knows that articles should be concise. If both the articles are merged as a single article, some parts will left out. He is trying to remove some parts by this merge proposal. He should be topic banned from all articles related to Hinduism. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • MSM: What nonsense. I'm not proposing a complete merger, merely collecting material into the appropriate articles; which just goes to show that you haven't read the proposal, and are commenting here based on personal animosity. Vanamonde (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I made a mistake by not reading the full proposal due to your past edits. Marvellous Spider-Man 09:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tyler Durden, Marvellous Spider-Man, some people have been throwing their weight around here. Where, how or whom should we approach for help with respect to that?—Dona-Hue (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dona-Hue, for help/advice, you can go to WP:TH. You may also try WP:DRN for dispute resolutions, and WP:ANI for reporting any serious issue(s) or regarding the behaviour of any editor(s), if you have any genuine queries, of which I'm afraid you have none! Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 13 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:  Not done DrStrauss talk 20:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Anti-Hinduism → Hinduphobia – The word 'Hinduphobia' is academically more sound and accurate. Moreover, it encompasses everything the article stands for. Coconut1002 (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. —Guanaco 06:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, incidents from 'Persecution of Hindus' should also be incorporated into 'Hinduphobia', while the original article must remain separate as a fuller list.--Coconut1002 (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coconut1002: Merely stating your opinion is not sufficient. You should also explain why this article should also contain incidents of 'Persecution of Hindus', when we have a separate article for the latter, that too after the title is changed. Does Islamophobia have content about incidents of Persecution of Muslims? — Tyler Durden (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the previous RFC- if it results in a merge will address this. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hinduphobia means fear of Hindus, which is not the case in this article. This article deals with insults and denigration of Hinduism. I also observed that there is a tag at the top titled, "Page issues" which says that this article's name will be changed to "Hinduphobia" which I oppose for the reason afore mentioned!—Dona-Hue (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting while the merge/content swap issue is ongoing. —Guanaco 06:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anti-Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying a reference from the Anti-Indian sentiment article

I want to copy this matter from the above named article-

"One of the most influential historians of India during the British Empire, James Mill was criticised for prejudice against Hindus.[1] Horace Hayman Wilson wrote that the tendency of Mill's work was "evil".[2] Mill claimed that both Indians and Chinese people are cowardly, unfeeling and mendacious. Both Mill and Grant attacked Orientalist scholarship that was too respectful of Indian culture: "It was unfortunate that a mind so pure, so warm in the pursuit of truth so devoted to oriental learning, as that of Sir William Jones, should have adopted the hypothesis of a high state of civilization in the principal countries of Asia."[3]"

References

  1. ^ (Trautmann 1997, p. 117)
  2. ^ H.H. Wilson 1858 in James Mill 1858, The history of British India, Preface of the editor
  3. ^ Mill, James - 1858, 2:109, The history of British India.

I have been warned so many times for my edits and so, I thought I will ask here first!—Dona-Hue (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts

Schools in India don't teach that India was ruled by the Marathas who were Hindus before the British East India Company conquered the Indian subcontinent and Crawford88 also feels the same, [see this edit]. A reference was also provided for the same! Are some of the editors just harassing the new comers?—Dona-Hue (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for the reverts were provided in the edit summaries. Nonetheless, for the record; the source does not explicitly say that this fact was related to prejudice against Hindus. Therefore, the addition is original research, which is not acceptable. Vanamonde (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The BJP claims that the Congress party purposely avoided mentioning that India was ruled by the Marathas who were Hindus before the British East India Company conquered the Indian subcontinent in History textbooks in India and in Maharashtra, after coming to power, they have gone to the extent of mentioning the Maratha Empire and erasing the Mughal history in the Maharashtra state board curriculum. I want to incorporate this information (that most of the Indian subcontinent was ruled by the Marathas before the British East India Company conquered it) in this article, so please tell me how to go about it.—Dona-Hue (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I observed that Wikipedians have congratulated you for bringing the article on the BJP to good article status, so I think you are the best person who can help here!—Dona-Hue (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In order for us to include a certain incident in this article, a reliable secondary source must make the link between the absence of Marathas in the textbooks, and prejudice against Hinduism. The BJP is not a reliable source; nor is the Congress. As such any accusations by them deserve very little weight. Vanamonde (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

@Vanamonde93: The name of this article has changed to Anti-Hindu sentiments, but the Lead is still about "Anti-Hinduism" - can we change that without removing the word, "religious intolerance"?—Dona-Hue (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, but please make just that change, else we will likely have another dispute on our hands. Vanamonde (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anti-Hindu sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Sourced Content

Wonder why this sourced content is being removed?—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 08:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that Raymond3023 reverts sourced content while suggesting WP:BRD, but himself fails to actually participate in the discussion which was opened to discuss the same issue. Especially when he was already invited to to see the talk. —TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 12:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't edited since he reverted you, maybe he is writing a reply, but let me reduce his workload by telling you the very obvious that the content was removed because it is being added by a paid editor's sock. Cherrypicking a single denial[1] for something that is widely confirmed by enough reliable sources, and the denial that ends up with WP:SOAP, is WP:UNDUE. See WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, you need multiple reliable sources to prove back the contrary. Capitals00 (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Raymond3023 should have replied here instead of reverting and quoting BRD when the talk-section had already been opened. There's no reason expect edit-warring if one reverts an edit which is clearly asking him to see the talk and discuss the issue per BRD. Coming over to your point, I am sorry, what exactly it is? You dont want to sourced content because (1) it was (allegedly) made by a sock? (if you think its a sock, file and SPI) or (2) Only one source is given as a ref? Last time I checked, there's no policy which states that content sourced with a single ref cant be added? Just quoting a single sentence from the same article which has only one ref: False allegations have been made that Hindus are attacking Christians in India when the perpetrators were not even Hindus, just to defame Hindus.[1] How many else do you want?—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 12:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the content as yet. But: @Capitals00: if TripWire reinstated some content, they are explicitly taking responsibility for it. Therefore, removing it once again because it was added by a sock is inappropriate. Justify the removal based on the content; and if the content is bad enough, request sanctions on TripWire. Simply repeating "added by a sock" is inappropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one removed problematic content after TripWire's revert as sock. But because of the problems with content itself. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the intervention. The text being removed has been sourced from a RS. Infact, the website being quoted is known for its critical coverage of Pakistani minorities, and most of its coverage has been very critical of Pakistan. Moreover, the same website has been frequently used on other articles especially while citing anti-Pak content. So, in the interest of providing a WP:NPOV to the article as a whole and to the section the sentence is being added to, in particular, the removed text should be reinserted. This will also satisfy WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT and balance out the article as a whole. Vanamonde93, I donot know of any sock or the actual history that this article or the IP might have as i have been inactive during the previous year. I am no one to judge. The article was on my watch since long, saw an un-warranted revert of sourced content, so opened a section to discuss the same, even though the other two editors focused more on edit-warring.—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 22:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

WP:WEIGHT doesn't means you can include fringe or apologetic or isolated WP:SOAP. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TripWire: I'm not sure I buy Raymond's claim that this is a fringe position, but in any case, if it isn't fringe, that should be easy enough to demonstrate; just find another source (or sources) which support the same general point. Vanamonde (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a fringe position. The statement was attributed to a political scientist with OUP-published books. But I would prefer if the source is a scholarly work with some detailed discussion, rather than a random quote in a newspaper. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some scholarly work is desired for such assertion. First sentence claims there is no bias and second sentence provides authors justification for resentment. There is a disconnect. The hostility and bias between the two countries is there even in a match of cricket. This claim that hostility is absent should get backing from multiple secondary source to be considered mainstream. --G (talk) 06:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about countries, though. It's about anti-Hindu sentiment, and though some people do not like to admit it, that isn't the same as anti-Indian sentiment. Anything against either cricket team is nationalist sentiment, not religious. Vanamonde (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is significant overlap between anti-India and anti-Hindu when it comes to Pakistan. There have been instance where Pakistan cricket player commented Indian player to leave Hinduism and convert to Islam, he did not ask to change nationality. You can ignore cricket comment. The point I made was: anti-Hindu sentiment is present and backed by sources (1, 2). The stand that "anti-India or anti-Hindu bias" (as used by Rais) is absent is fringe. --G (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that isn't at issue. THe dominant narrative, obviously, is that anti-Hindu sentiment exists in Pakistan. There is some support for the view that it doesn't exist. Per WP:DUE, we need to give that view some weight in the article, unless it is a fringe view. The question here is whether it is or not. Presenting more sources saying that there is persecution isn't getting us anywhere. Vanamonde (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We need multiple scholarly sources to say it is not fringe, because major sources concur that anti-Hindu bias exists in Pakistan. I threw in two sources, the article has more. --G (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section on Pakistan in the article is devoted to show that anti-hindu sentiment exist in Pakistan, I wonder why in the interest of WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE an alternative view shouldn't be added to the section? Leaving out this sourced content by a renouned scholar goes against the spirit of WP. It's like giving a verdict that anti-hindu sentiment does exist in Pakistan. Just to support my point, below are few sources saying that anti-hindu sentiments are not a common practice in Pakistan. (As brought up by @Vanamonde93:, this need not to be confused with anti-India sentiments):

Sindh govt announces holiday for Hindu staff for Holi

Holi celebrations continue across Sindh

In a first, Sindh declares public holiday on Holi

Sindh govt announces holiday for Hindu employees on Holi

Holi, a public holiday in Pakistan’s Sindh province

All this is happening when Pakistan elected its first Dalit women as a Senator in its Senate (a first even when compared to India):

First-ever Hindu Dalit woman Senator sworn in Pakistan

Pakistan elects its first Dalit woman Senator

Above in view, if people are still isn't ready to balace out the article, then it's mere POV pushing.—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 10:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These news clips are all referring to one instance of Holi in Sindh province of Pakistan. These do not talk of absence of anti-Hindu bias. Because the bias is so very strong a little corrective action became news worthy. Have you seen news like Id celebration continues across Bengal stand out and get special coverage one year? It is celebrated every year across entire India and Muslims are given holiday across India, that reflects absence of anti-Muslim bias in India. You are incorrect about Dalit legislator also, India had many before. In fact that piece also acutely underlines the strong anti-Hindu bias in Pakistan, that is what makes it news worthy. --G (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. Holi, Dewali etc are celebrated in routine in Pakistan, they aren't newsworthy because that's routine, what's newsworthy here is that the event is celebrated inside the Sindh Govt building/assembly. Second, Pakistan is a Muslim country unlike India which is a secular state, hence a Dalit becoming a Senator is a news, which does not automatically means there's a strong anti-hindu bias in Pakistan. I hope you understand the diff b/w a secular state electing religious politicians Vs a Muslim country electing a non-Mulism leader? Also, this piece from Huffington Post amply burst the bubble of strong anti-hindu bias in Pakistan:
  • A Pakistani Hindu visiting India was asked "What is it like being a Hindu in Pakistan? (The people asking the question expecting that the visitor will narrate the so called anti-hindu bias apparently existing in Pakistan), but surprisingly his reply [2]:

"It's not so bad in Pakistan," he said. "Hindus are not persecuted the way you may think....We Pakistani Hindus are better off than Indian Muslims, he insisted"

So, it seems that the anti-hindu bias in Pakistan exists as a figment of mind in some Indians, and the same is being forced here.—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 11:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use deceptive edit summaries such as you did here, I have clearly replied to your comments above and you don't have to misrepresent my activities. Your personal research based on an opinion piece that has heavily focused on researching Anti-Hindu sentiment, and provided its indication is not going to help you. So far no one has agreed with your edits, so stop edit warring. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) TripWire, you're digging a hole for yourself here. If you want to include the view that there isn't anti-Hindu sentiment, you need to provide multiple reliable sources that directly support that statement. Saying "Hindus were given a holiday for Holi, so obviously there's no anti-Hindu bias" is classical original research. Vanamonde (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Mazumdar, Jaideep (2017). "Catholic Church And Others Must Apologise For Nadia Nun Rape Accusations". Swarajya Magazine. Retrieved 2017-08-11.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Hindu_sentiment&oldid=832036844"