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.
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.
@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? --NeilNtalk 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. --NeilNtalk 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)
I made this edit because caste system among Muslims is about muslims of numerous regions around the world, thus labelling that article as limited to "Indian Muslims" is underestimation. Since there is no separate article for the caste system of Sikhs, it shouldn't be mentioned, but since their communities have a caste system as well as others like Zoroastrians, Jains, I mentioned "among others", instead. I changed a section title to "Widows", because provided source has not used the word "discrimination" anywhere or anything similar. Is that enough for a explanation? Capitals00 (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing.
I don't see caste system among Muslims "all around the world." It is predominantly in the Indian subcontinent. So I think the labeling as "Indian Muslims" is fine.
The absence of an article on Caste System among Sikhs is not relevant. All that matters is whether it is verified by reliable sources.
Adding "others" to subsume other religions is ok. But we should note that Hinduism is the only religion that has sanctified the caste systems. Other religions have not promoted it, to the best of my knowledge.
As for widows, the correct term would be "mistreatment of widows" for which there are plenty of reliable sources . - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
It seems that main problem is with the section of widows itself, source seems to be talking about the situation of some widows by focusing on a couple of real life cases, but what it has to do with Hinduism? There is a whole book about it, where it is clear that Hinduism allows remarriage of widows, since Vedic Period. Yes this non-scholarly of NY Times has also misrepresented the British law of remarriage, which was established only after Vidyasagar, who claimed that nothing in Hinduism oppose remarriage of widows (per my first link). There is a taboo in Hindu society, but not illegal, and that's same with bisexuality, something not forbidden by Hinduism itself. I would support removing the whole section and detail on Women in Hinduism instead. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with here. I said "numerous regions around the world", not whole world. But we can figure that out later. Capitals00 (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@D4iNa4, Sorry I didn't see your response earlier. Think of it this way. Somebody has challenged you to write a proper section on the topic by putting a one-liner there. You can take up the challenge or leave the one-liner there.
Whether "Hinduism" prohibited widow remarriage or not, I don't know. But the fact is that the Hindu society had prohibited at the advent of the modern period. How this came to be is for us to find out. The question of what to include in "Hinduism" is always difficult one. I see people claiming that Ayurveda is part of Hinduism, Arthashastra is part of Hinduism, Indian mathematics is part of Hinduism, but on the flip side, caste system, slavery, maltreatment of widows etc. are not part of Hinduism. We can't have it both ways. Either "Hinduism" is broad and includes everything about the Hindu society, or it is narrow and limited to what the texts say. For myself, I rely on reliable sources and there are plenty among the link I gave. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Taboo on remarriage that is found among only a few people doesn't prove that there is sanctioned mistreatment in religion. Women in Hinduism#Widowhood and remarriage describes it, and expanding the section would mean that we would repeat those sections into this article. There is no authentic taboo, there are no punishments in India or Nepal if a widow remarries, in fact they are allowed by the law. That's why I don't see reason in having a section which offers no criticism to religion but contradicts WP:ADVOCACY. Capitals00 (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Please, explain why you said these well referenced texts are "useless" ? Drivarum (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I would also like an answer to that. And I would like Kautilya3 to explain themselves better. El_C 08:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
El_C, Superstitions linked only a news event, it didn't mentioned "Hinduism" or how Hinduism is criticized for these events.
Varna added was largely an opinion piece, it was more like "Varna system is Hindu origin, and I don't like Varna, thus its criticism of Hinduism", article or sources are not mentioning how Hinduism is targeted for it or that Hinduism is responsible. In fact the last source mentions "Caste in Indian Muslim Society", does it means "caste" "varna" becomes part of criticism of Islam too?
Widows: an article of NY Times, that doesn't mention "Hinduism", rather the article title is "Once Widowed in India".
None of this constitutes as criticism. If anything is mentionable on entire wikipedia, it is about the widows, and it is already covered in Women in Hinduism, with much better sources that actually details about the women. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I will look for more sources and I will add more to the article with proper sources. Drivarum (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Criticisms should be made by reliable or notable sources, not Wikipedia editors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Can we include criticism from notable persons or organizations if there are reliable sources? Drivarum (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The person or organisation criticising is a WP:PRIMARY source.
A scholar covering the criticism would be a WP:SECONDARY source.
Ideally the sources should be SECONDARY. If you have only PRIMARY sources, we would need to discuss them and see if they are appropriate. You would be hard put to find consensus here if the sources are proponents of other religions who are trying to throw mud at Hinduism. All such SECONDPARTY sources would be thrown out. Sources must be WP:THIRDPARTY to qualify.