Talk:Criticism of Hinduism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


D4iNa4's edits[edit]

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)
Drivarum, why don't you try to find better, more reliable sources? El_C 08:36, 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.
  • For any thing historical, WP:HISTRS applies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Smatrah's edits =[edit]

I've reverted some edits by Smatrah, beacuse it seemed biased (removing info on caste-distinctions among Christians and Muslism), while hisa ddition on idol-worshio was unsourced WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, his deliberations on Bible and Abrahamic religions were OR and out of place here. — kashmīrī TALK 08:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)== What's the use of articles like this?

───────────────────────── Dear!

  • I have removed comparison with other religions which is not suitable to be discussed here should we write that idol worship is supported or rejected by Hinduism in the section of criticism of Christianity. If not then there’s is also no need to write comparison of other faiths.
  • I have added [which?] to the scripture so that others can tell that which scripture say that caste system is not hierarchical. It is our right to get explanation of such material or refute it
  • idol worship section does include a verse of Holy Bible. But first it includes a paragraph that is well referenced.

Hope you have understood. Smatrah (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I you only want to add criticisms, without responses to tnose criticisms, you're vioalting WP:NPOV.
  • You added a "where"-tag; that's for geography.
  • The reference for the idol-worship is from 1832; it was found by a Google search for ""their idols are silver and gold" hindu". This is just a random addition, without any consideration for context, history, or relevance.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Typically, the section on idol worship was a re-insertion of text which was first added in 2011. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

What's the use of articles like this?[edit]

Articles like this seem useless to me; they're an invitation to activily criticising religions, instead of presenting long-standing criticisms.
That being said, Quara, What are some of the worst ever criticisms of Hinduism?, may give a usefull hint: use authors like Rajiv Malhotra as a source, who respond against criticisms. They give clear hints of what those criticisms are. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I do think the caste system, although sanctioned by Hindu tradition, is not a necessary element of Hinduism (even as Hindu scriptures try to explain it in religious terms, as they do with pretty much everything). Historically, it is also much younger. In my view, while there are quite a few things Hinduism is validly criticised for, the article merits a complete rewrite. — kashmīrī TALK 08:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe criticism should not be presented topically, but historically/'ethnically'. That is, for example: Islamic, Sikh, British, modernists. What were their criticisms, and why were these criticisms raised? What offended them, what goal did they want to ac omplish by raising them? Some links:
That's just some results from a Google-search; they already make clear that listing criticisms only is deceptive. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The varna system (which is what westerners typically mean by "caste system") is definitely part of Hinduism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Some argue that the varna system is pre-Hinduistic – at least Puruṣa-sūkta may precede Hinduism by a millennium or so. Also, varna was always descriptive, much like social class in Europe; it was jati that was injunctive (mostly in later period, onwards from 13th century or so). But again, as much as the jati tradition was sanctioned by religion, it did not form an essential part of the doctrine (or whatever we can call a doctrine) nor was limited to the Hindus.
It's a tricky subject with plenty of OR going even on the part of academics, and I don't feel very comfortable drawing a simplistic formula "caste ∊ Hinduism". — kashmīrī TALK 16:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Wherever it may have come from (which I don't want to get into), once it has been put into a religious text and people accept it as part of religion, it is part of religion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The last part is doubtful. It is well possible to be a pious Hindu without sharing a belief in the varnas. Heck, I venture to say that the majority of pious Hindus do not know what a varna is. Anyhow, I won't be able to source it, whereas there is plenty of English-language books that call all the various traditions of the Subcontinent "Hindu". So, I will lose on WP anyway. — kashmīrī TALK 21:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)