Talk:Hindu–Islamic relations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
WikiProject Islam (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Hinduism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unsourced text[edit]

@User:Sharif uddin Per WP:V and WP:OR policies, I am deleting unsourced material.

Wikipedia verifiability policy: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
Wikipedia original research policy: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

This article has had WP:V and WP:OR tags challenging the content for a long time. If you wish to restore material, you must provide inline citations. Reverting and edit warring without adding cites for unsourced material is not constructive. If you believe otherwise, please explain. Latifa Raafat (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Latifa Raafat, I think lead is very much neutral though there are not much sources. But there are linked pages all scriptures mentioned. Sometimes sources are not needed for facts when we link proper pages in writing because that linked pages itself have sources. For example you can read lead section of Barack Obama, you will not find single source mentioned in long lead. There are many such pages. --Human3015 talk • 03:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@User:Human3015 The lead should follow WP:LEAD guidelines. On the main article, other wikipedia articles cannot be this article's source, per WP:RS. We can work on the lead after the main article complies with wikipedia's core content policies, and addresses the numerous old tags and the comments of @Abecedare: above. Latifa Raafat (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Latifa Raafat, well your recent edits are good, we can add more to "difference between Hinduism and Islam" also we can create one new section about "Similarities between Hinduism and Islam".--Human3015 talk • 04:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Latifa rafaat, your recent edits are better than before, so now i have no objection but remember, the writing style should be neutral and friendly. I also agree with human3015, a section named similarities should be started, and to be written with friendly consensus, i think the new section will be appriciated by all other editors of the article. Sharif uddin (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I removed sourced content because it is not WP:RS. Sorry, Latifa Raafat (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Latifa Raafat, why you removed sourced matter regarding similarities between Islam and Hinduism.?? We can get better source. You can add tag of "better source needed" instead of removing it.--Human3015 talk • 14:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Only WP:RS is acceptable. Blogs and such sources are unacceptable for WP:V. I removed the reference because it is also not WP:RS (and it was about Buddhism). Sorry, you need to do better. The Tawaf reference was okay this time, so I did not remove it. Latifa Raafat (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@User:Human3015 I wait for your explanation on why you think is WP:RS, and where it mentions "7 circumambulation in Hinduism"? On a different point, you added a reference named "Bowker" to the Mecca circumambulation sentence, but it is not defined. Please fix it. Latifa Raafat (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Latifa Raafat I will give you better source, thanks for adding tags. It also well known fact that hindus performs 7 rounds around fire during marriage. I will give source for that too. Thank you. --Human3015 talk • 17:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I will give you time to add a reliable source stating, "7 circumambulations inside a Hindu temple is typical/usual". Please don't mix Islamic Tawaf during Hajj pilgrimage with Hindu wedding rituals around fire. Latifa Raafat (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Your version was saying hindus performs only one round around temple butread this "Times of India" article where they talk about they do multiple rounds again and again. So it is obviously not one round. And marriage is also religious ceremony, Hindus follow religious traditions during Marriage where they consider fire as Agni god.(actually every religion follows religious tradition in marriages). And How your given sources are reliable and our given are always unreliable?? And I don't have any personal POV regarding any issue, I'm Atheist. --Human3015 talk • 19:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is not a forum, read WP:TPG. You should provide a source that states "Hindus do seven circumambulations in a temple". A blog or PN Oak essay or newspaper opinion article that mentions multiple rounds during wedding etc is not acceptable source, because it does not mean "seven rounds inside a Hindu temple". To derive "seven" from an unreliable source stating "multiple" is WP:OR. I have removed the blogs and other unreliable sources. Don't add them back, unless you are prepared to explain on this talk page why the blog is reliable, or on dispute resolution boards of wikipedia. Latifa Raafat (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

My version, which you reverted, was not saying "only one round". It was saying "usually once,[1] sometimes thrice clockwise.[2]" I welcome your version if it is supported by WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but not WP:QUESTIONABLE. Latifa Raafat (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The website of ISCKON I provided is reliable, they have cited from "hindu scriptures" regarding number of rounds.(Latifa Raafat, do leave edit summaries even if you edit talk pages, summary is also lacking to your some of edits to this article). --Human3015 talk • 20:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that website meets the following guideline from WP:RS page (abridged),
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Beware of sources which sound reliable but don't have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. - WP:QUESTIONABLE
Anyone can write a blog of personal opinions claiming verse of this or that Hindu or Islamic scripture says or means this or that. That could be right or wrong, but blogs and random websites are certainly questionable. I am also concerned that Hare Krishna (ISCKON) is not mainstream Hinduism, though one of its many sects; does that raise WP:FRINGE concerns? In any case, blogs and random websites with unknown editorial oversight are not acceptable. Why don't you cite something from a book published by a reputable publisher, or from a peer reviewed magazine or a journal, or other WP:RS. If that 21 or whatever is true, you should be able to find mainstream reliable sources such as books, etc. Latifa Raafat (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
You have quoted many things regarding Islam from "Quran" which is holy book of Muslims, you didn't confirmed that these things are really written in Quran but you relied on online versions of Quran(which can be false) or commentary on Quran by others(which can be false). Same way ISCKON website quoted from "Skand Purana" which is one of holy book of Hindus, I can give you some other sites quoting from Skand purana regarding "rounds around temple". ISKCON is one of reliable hindu organisation. George Harrison of all time famous band The Beatles was follower of ISCKON. So you can't say that claim of ISCKON(which they quoted from holy book) is not reliable.--Human3015 talk • 22:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
No I didn't directly "quote many things regarding Islam from Quran", I have provided secondary reliable sources for everything I have added. I have no concern with ISKCON, and believe their sources should be considered. I have concern about the website and whether it has editorial oversight to qualify as WP:RS. It feels like a blog with someone's personal opinion. I am asking you for a second source and a better source. Latifa Raafat (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
You are keep on talking about "reliable" source. You will not see The New York Times or Washington Post discussing about how many rounds does a hindu performs around a temple. All we can find is religious websites, and there are several religious website who are quoting from Skanda Purana about "1-21" claim. Though BBC has several articles regarding Hindu philosophy still no one gives importance to "number of rounds", they just mention about "rounds". I think we should not give so much importance to this issue, no has objection over "hindus performs rounds", question is only about "number of rounds" and we have given big range of "1-21".--Human3015 talk • 22:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Latifa Raafat:, here we are discussing on very minor issue of "number of rounds" but main issue should be your other major edits. I find your edits inclined towards "defaming" Islam and glorifying "Hinduism" and it lacks NPOV. You are trying to prove that how Islam is "outdated" while Hinduism is "liberal" and "forward". --Human3015 talk • 23:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Our content dispute started because you inserted "7 rounds" with this edit. I am fine with "hindus circumambulate in temples one or more times", because two book sources I added and one source you added to this article state so. I am not fine with websites that do not meet editorial oversight expected by wikipedia, as explained above. Religious websites that meet wiki's editorial oversight requirement are fine. Religious websites that do not meet wiki's editorial oversight requirement are not acceptable. Note, wikipedia's non-negotiable policy is to "insist on reliable cites in the article" (WP:V, WP:RS).
Please respect talk page guidelines and wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. This article has had WP:V and WP:OR tags challenging the content, some since 2010, some since 2014. I welcome your comments on a specific source or a specific summary, but please avoid statements such as "you are trying to prove..." on this talk page. I intend to add more NPOV content on differences, similarities, etc. with WP:RS cites, in the coming weeks. You are welcome to do so as well. Latifa Raafat (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Latifa Raafat:, you can't keep on WP:ACCUSE anyone when you are out of points. Your edits are clearly against particular religion. In reality both religions have some drawbacks but you are mainly focused on one religion. While mentioning drawbacks of Hindu religion you repeatedly used wording like "It was/is bad but now it is changed", but while criticizing Islam you used wording like "It was/is bad" without using further "but". You used "but" after writing anything good about Islam, like, "It is/was good but nowdays...". You kindly read WP:NPOV. --Human3015 talk • 03:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't find any "It was/is bad but now it is changed" either for Hinduism or for Islam that I added. Care to elaborate with specifics? Which section, which paragraph, with a diff that I added it? What is your proposed correction with WP:RS cites? Latifa Raafat (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Lack of Neutrality.[edit]

"Apostasy, that is abandonment of Islam by a Muslim and conversion to another religion or atheism, is a religious crime in Islam punishable with death."

"Jizya was a reminder of subordination of a non-Muslim under Muslims, and created a financial and political incentive to convert to Islam."

"Scholars such as Sarakhsi interpreted Islamic scriptures to suggest that the proper reason to wage war, jihad, on unbelievers, was the disbelief in Islam by non-Muslims."

The sources may be correct however mentioning only one opinion is against WP:NPOV. --HakimPhilo (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)