Talk:Religion in India/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Proposed merge with Study of religious compositions of India
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.
A single study does not warrant a devoted article, rather any new content should be incorporated into Religion in India, if in line with WP:DUE and other policies. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't know if the study is notable, but it seems to be more related to caste-issues than to religion sec. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I have nominated the article for deletion since the "study" being described is neither notable as a subject, nor particularly useful even as source for this or any other article. It's basically an opinion column published in a community newspaper, which has been expanded into an article on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. As nominator, I initially was in support a complete redirect rather than merging any content (at least yet), but as the title is a bit unlikely to be a search term, I am not opposed to outright deletion, without redirecting. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
hiiiiiiiiiiiii — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.63.8.242 (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Sex ratio
The sex ratio given does not make sense unless the baseline is given. As stated the value of '939' is not clear. 939 what? Either it should be given as a true ratio 0.939 or the reference (females per 1000 males). Dbsseven (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Number of religions
The (current) third sentence states "The Indian subcontinent is the birthplace of four of the world's major religions" and then proceeds to list five. Should this be changed to five or should one be removed? 194.75.231.3 (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Someone had vandalized the article by adding Islam, that has now been deleted - Arjayay (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Parasuram (Ramnami) was not a Balmiki
The subsection Bhakti movement claims that "Parasuram Ramnami" was a Chura. I assume this relates to the Ramnami Samaj. If my assumption is true, then it needs to be corrected that his name was not "Parasuram Ramnami", it was simply Parasuram or Parashu Ram Bhardwaj and he was a Chamar not a Chura. TryKid (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
4 images in the lead and no pie chart in the lead
Why?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Baha'i numbers
Regarding this revert of my addition, with edit summary, "3 consecutive Indian Censuses state a smaller number and Baha'is have never complained about alleged wrong reporting of Indian census."
True, I haven't found Baha'is complaining about the census, but I've also found many independent demographers counting Baha'is at 1.8 to 2.2 million. None of them have any commentary on the difference with the census, and they certainly saw the census data if they did any work at all. The lack of commentary from independent estimates says more than the lack of commentary from Baha'is. The most useful explanation I've found is from the article I linked from Firstpost, which doesn't address Baha'is specifically but says that the census counts the cultural identity of Hindus, not their personal beliefs. The article mentions many reasons behind this, which I suggest you read.
Placing the two extremes in the article (2.2 million and 4,500) without any further explanation is leading the reader to a conclusion that doesn't seem grounded in fact. Also, 5,050 Indian Baha'is gathered in person in 2008, which should be far fewer than total adherents. Another indication that something is wrong with the census number. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- If the Baha'is are under-reported continuously from past 30 years (3 consecutive Indian censuses) then have they reported this issue to the concerned bodies or with the media? Baha'is are quoting big numbers from ARDA or WCD which is not correct for many countries including India. You can check this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baháʼí_statistics#Figures_from_various_countries , check the difference between ARDA and actual census figures. Do you want to say that those countries also have some bias towards some religion? Your sentence claims that "possibly due to the census' bias towards counting Hindus based on cultural background instead of religious practice." That is not possible for 2 million Baha'is!! And Indian Baha'is don't seem to have problem with the census and the so-called "bias"! That sentence is not required.Serv181920 (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that ARDA, WCD, and the Baha'i-given numbers are probably too large, but the census is ridiculously low. You haven't addressed my actual points: ARDA and WCD are independent demographers who certainly saw the census data and chose to ignore it, the census is known to assign Hindu as a cultural identity regardless of belief, in-person conferences in 2008 gathered more Baha'is than the census number in 2011, and placing the two extremes next to each other without comment is leading the reader to assume that Baha'is are overstating their numbers by 500 times. I have searched for some sort of narrative or commentary from reliable sources to explain the difference, and the Firstpost article seems to be the best. There are more from IPS news and East Asia Forum, all basically saying the same thing. The census is not considered a reliable count of religious belief in India. It is used for political purposes, and the identification of religion is tied to financial benefit programs. There seems to be no available commentary on the number discrepancy for Baha'is because nobody takes the census seriously. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- ARDA takes its figures from WCD and we don't know from where WCD gets those numbers? The Baha'i-given numbers (over two million) are definitely high and being criticized by many on different platforms. WCD is not an academic source, it clearly states that it is serving as "an informational undergirding for Christian missionary work". The inaccuracy of WCD (inflation of numbers) is mentioned on WCD's wikipedia page, here : https://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Christian_Encyclopedia . It says "The database also contains some numerical inaccuracies such as the inflated 70,000 figure given for Ahmadis in the year 1900, which directly opposes the 1901 Census of India figure of 12,000". Let us change the sentence to something like, "It is difficult to establish the exact number of Baha'is in India. The Baha'is claim over 2 million while three consecutive censuses of India reveals there numbers between 5000 & 11000."Serv181920 (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- I remember reading that WCD doesn't actually run their own surveys (which would be impossible, if you think about it), they just take the best data available, and when a number is pinned down, they use estimate growth rates for each passing year. If the initial estimate is wrong or the growth rate is wrong, they end up way off. That's how you get some whacky numbers that are much more or less than what Baha'i membership has. The big data surveys don't include Baha'i as an option because the margin of error would be too large based on sample sizes. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think to maintain Wikipedia policies we need to stick to WP:RS. Regardless of which ones are most accurate, we can only dispute sources if we have other sources that do so. Serv181920 is arguing that the WCD's religious mission means it is not WP:RS. I'm not sure if that disqualifies it, but in any case ARDA is certainly WP:RS so I have added their most recent estimate. Could add Warburg (2006) and Garlington (1997) as sources giving intermediate estimates. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Another thought... we may wish to just have one sentence saying different sources give different estimates on the number of Baha'is without giving numbers, put several refs, and then focus on the Lotus Temple instead, the aspect of the Indian Baha'i community that has drawn the most attention. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think to maintain Wikipedia policies we need to stick to WP:RS. Regardless of which ones are most accurate, we can only dispute sources if we have other sources that do so. Serv181920 is arguing that the WCD's religious mission means it is not WP:RS. I'm not sure if that disqualifies it, but in any case ARDA is certainly WP:RS so I have added their most recent estimate. Could add Warburg (2006) and Garlington (1997) as sources giving intermediate estimates. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- I remember reading that WCD doesn't actually run their own surveys (which would be impossible, if you think about it), they just take the best data available, and when a number is pinned down, they use estimate growth rates for each passing year. If the initial estimate is wrong or the growth rate is wrong, they end up way off. That's how you get some whacky numbers that are much more or less than what Baha'i membership has. The big data surveys don't include Baha'i as an option because the margin of error would be too large based on sample sizes. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- ARDA takes its figures from WCD and we don't know from where WCD gets those numbers? The Baha'i-given numbers (over two million) are definitely high and being criticized by many on different platforms. WCD is not an academic source, it clearly states that it is serving as "an informational undergirding for Christian missionary work". The inaccuracy of WCD (inflation of numbers) is mentioned on WCD's wikipedia page, here : https://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Christian_Encyclopedia . It says "The database also contains some numerical inaccuracies such as the inflated 70,000 figure given for Ahmadis in the year 1900, which directly opposes the 1901 Census of India figure of 12,000". Let us change the sentence to something like, "It is difficult to establish the exact number of Baha'is in India. The Baha'is claim over 2 million while three consecutive censuses of India reveals there numbers between 5000 & 11000."Serv181920 (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that ARDA, WCD, and the Baha'i-given numbers are probably too large, but the census is ridiculously low. You haven't addressed my actual points: ARDA and WCD are independent demographers who certainly saw the census data and chose to ignore it, the census is known to assign Hindu as a cultural identity regardless of belief, in-person conferences in 2008 gathered more Baha'is than the census number in 2011, and placing the two extremes next to each other without comment is leading the reader to assume that Baha'is are overstating their numbers by 500 times. I have searched for some sort of narrative or commentary from reliable sources to explain the difference, and the Firstpost article seems to be the best. There are more from IPS news and East Asia Forum, all basically saying the same thing. The census is not considered a reliable count of religious belief in India. It is used for political purposes, and the identification of religion is tied to financial benefit programs. There seems to be no available commentary on the number discrepancy for Baha'is because nobody takes the census seriously. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Serv181920 about the problematic nature of WRD data. Please note that there is another discussion about the same problem (focused on the overestimation of Christians) currently going on here. The problem is further worsened by the fact that WRD data are the base of Pew Research Center data, which have been widely disseminated throughout Wikipedia articles.--37.163.48.169 (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Jain temple image
This temple is actually in Nepal.Malaiya (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
About secularism
I feel the lead focuses too much on the Preamble having the word "secular", and does not mention at all that the body of the Constitution does not define India as having a state religion. India's institutions and political structure and the actual articles of its Constitution are what make it a secular country, not its Preamble. India will continue to be secular even if the word itself is removed from the Preamble. Thus, imo, the line about the Preamble and the Supreme Court challenge can go elsewhere in the article, along with a detailed explanation of the nature of secularism in India. In the lead we can have a line saying that the Republic is secular. W. Tell DCCXLVI t | c 17:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Done TrangaBellam (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 22 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Singhsimranjit071294.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
India
today 41.190.14.62 (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Can someone fix the pie chart to the right at the top?
Other (incl. Baha'i, Zoroastrianism, Judaism (0.15%) needs a close parens after Judaism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.205.222.37 (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Sathya Sai Baba
I don't think Sathya Sai Baba should be present in this article, at least without some solid qualification. It is true that his cult uses varied religious imagery, but that is a far cry from actually understanding the many and significant ways in which the major Indian Religions can not very well be reconciled.
Besides, the way the entry is worded is very ambiguous. It forgets to mention the strong suspicions that surround the person of Sathya Sai Baba, (as seen on his own article) and suggests that he is somehow recognized and accepted by all the major religions mentioned in the article. That is arguable at best. Islam, at the very least, is known for having little interest in mixing with other religions. If they made an exception for Sathya Sai Baba then this is major news and would create quite a comotion. I believe that they did not, however, and Sai Baba and his followers are just proclaiming what they want to believe in regardless of fact or permission.
I would personally prefer Sai Baba to be removed entirely from the article, but a simple rewording would probably suffice.
Best,
Luis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis Dantas (talk • contribs) 06:31, 4 February 2004 (UTC)
- I re-worded it but I think it is better to mention also some other Indian new religious movement to keep it balanced. By the way, the original Sai Baba did have both Muslim and Hindu followers and the Muslims allowed mixing in the case of Shirdi Sai Baba. Amazingly the statement of Sathya Sai Baba and his followers is not entirely untrue. Sathya Sai Baba does have some Muslim followers but they are few and mostly Shia Muslims or followers from small Muslim sects. Andries 19:21, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Tribal religions
Shouldn't there be some mention of India's tribal religions here? I would add the details myself, but I was here LOOKING for those details ;D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.32.7 (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2004 (UTC)
- Good idea but I hardly know anything about India tribal religion. Andries 19:02, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Just thought I'd comment: unfortunately or fortunately, whatever, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam have all vied for the membership of tribals. Islamic conquerors of long ago converted them, Christian missionaries of today are very active all over the country trying to convert them, and Hindus run around telling them that their beliefs are really just a subset of Hinduism. There is a tribal commission in India today in charge of trying to maintain their autonomy from foreign (i.e. non-tribal) religions. Maybe later I'll try to work on it --LordSuryaofShropshire 22:58, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
I added the section Tribal religions in India and many more religions which were missing. some help will be appreciated to explain more about those religions. I am sure there are many more religions in India which we are missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by India1989 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba
Its always interesting to note that Sri Sathya Sai Baba becomes a point of discussion wherever the name appears!!!
Probably, Luis, may not be aware of the grassroot service work undertaken by the followers/devotees/fans of Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba which is not normally reported in the mainstream media as the volunteers would not like to be 'limelighted'. Luis, you should certainly make a visit to Puttaparthy and you will soon understand from where the "suspicion" surrounding SSSB arises from. Also, your query on Muslims' belief in SSSB too will be answered partially. Also, have patience and keep watching/observing closely SSSB and the developments at Puttaparthy in the next six years. Your query will be completely answered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.11.48.242 (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2005 (UTC)
Please check the following link which is a recent story that is published in one of the leading newspapers of India on April 25, 2005.
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=126199
There was always people around the world who condemns and criticises those who shared their Love and Affection with others. In a world where Jesus Christ was crucified what else can one expect? The people who throw dirt on others do so because the ego in them rebels against the slow and steady growth of Love in them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.11.48.242 (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Check this too...its an article that came on another leading daily in India on May 22, 2005.
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/007200505221568.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.153.37.97 (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Two other media reports that came in the end of May 2005.
http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEA20050530025143&Page=A&Title=Southern+News+-+Andhra+Pradesh&Topic=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.153.37.97 (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1391312,00410010.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.218.146 (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2005 (UTC)
A report that came in the second week of June 2005
http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEK20050613014508 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.153.37.97 (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2005 (UTC)
Number of Sikhs
the number of sikhs given here (35 million) does not match the numbers in the sikhism article at Sikhism#Sikhs around the world (23 million). Both figures cannot be correct. Tomer TALK 22:20, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Lead
@Symmachus Auxiliarus @Neplota I have removed the disputed content. Please propose a draft for the lead here and get consensus before adding it in the article. Venkat TL (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Venkat TL, what is your rationale for removing long-standing content, that (so far as I can tell) actually summarizes the article content? You said that is was "promotional material", but much as I try to wrap my mind around that rationale, it doesn't fit WP:PROMO or any other definition of "promotional material" on Wikipedia. In fact, so far as I can tell, it's not only in line with policy, but definitely should be there, per WP:SUMMARY and our MOS. I'm also not sure why you linked and cited a non-existent page (WP:LEADFIXATION). You're a long-standing editor, so I hope you have a good explanation for why you think it's "promotional" to simply mention the Muslim components of Indian religious culture in the lead. I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but there doesn't appear to be any policy-based reason for your removal that I could think of. It also appears to me that Neplota has been edit warring across multiple articles, and they have most definitely been using misleading edit summaries on occasion, including on this article. You should not be enabling this behavior. I await your reasonable explanation for this, or for you to reverse your edit. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Symmachus Auxiliarus See Wikipedia:Lead fixation. It is shameless promotion of ISKCON and other cults. And has rightly been removed by other editor. Please propose a reasonable summary of the article's main sections and approach the lead expansion in step by step manner. Any addition to the lead should only be done after consensus on the talk page. This is to avoid any further edit war. Venkat TL (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Venkat TL: Firstly: this wasn't an edit war, because this was my first reversal of the content removal. My only other reversal of Neplota was days before, where I undid their removal of reliably sourced material in another section. Their rationale was "trim unsourced", which was prima facie an intentionally misleading edit summary, and our policy dictates that we reverse such things on sight. With this particular edit, their rationale was ""trimmed unnecessary info from the lead, detail already in the relevant history section". So they weren't even removing it based on the rationale you were using. They just didn't like it being there. Secondly: there is NO mention of ISKCON, nor is any of the material sourced to them. It's talking strictly about historical Muslim aristocracy, Muslim loanwords in the lexicons of Indian languages, and Muslim conventions and social customs being passed to the Hindu majority. That's all. Thirdly: This wasn't an addition to the lead. I didn't add it. It's been there. Neplota removed long-standing content. I'm sorry, but none of what you said here is remotely accurate, and it's difficult to assume good faith on your part at this point. I'm especially concerned about you saying that it was promoting ISKCON, when nothing like that appears anywhere in the prose, footnotes, or references. Please revert yourself. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Symmachus Auxiliarus See Wikipedia:Lead fixation. It is shameless promotion of ISKCON and other cults. And has rightly been removed by other editor. Please propose a reasonable summary of the article's main sections and approach the lead expansion in step by step manner. Any addition to the lead should only be done after consensus on the talk page. This is to avoid any further edit war. Venkat TL (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Venkat TL, what is your rationale for removing long-standing content, that (so far as I can tell) actually summarizes the article content? You said that is was "promotional material", but much as I try to wrap my mind around that rationale, it doesn't fit WP:PROMO or any other definition of "promotional material" on Wikipedia. In fact, so far as I can tell, it's not only in line with policy, but definitely should be there, per WP:SUMMARY and our MOS. I'm also not sure why you linked and cited a non-existent page (WP:LEADFIXATION). You're a long-standing editor, so I hope you have a good explanation for why you think it's "promotional" to simply mention the Muslim components of Indian religious culture in the lead. I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but there doesn't appear to be any policy-based reason for your removal that I could think of. It also appears to me that Neplota has been edit warring across multiple articles, and they have most definitely been using misleading edit summaries on occasion, including on this article. You should not be enabling this behavior. I await your reasonable explanation for this, or for you to reverse your edit. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Doug Weller, GorillaWarfare, or just any administrator passing by: I'd appreciate you taking a look at this, because this is a bit bizarre to me. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: If you'd prefer not to handle this, I can ping a random admin, or take this to a noticeboard. I'm assuming NPOV would be the correct venue, no? But there are behavioural and POV issues with Neplota, and I'm honestly not sure what to make of Vikat TL's "explanation". Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Symmachus Auxiliarus I suggest starting with proposing a balanced summary for the section Religion_in_India#History. And then moving on to the next section. Finally these section summaries can be summarized to create a reasonable and accurate 'article summary' aka MOS:LEAD. I will assume good faith, may be you are not aware of what ISKCON means. I am not restoring the second para that is basically promotional in nature. Venkat TL (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with ISKCON. 'Hare Krishnas' are all over the United States as well, usually handing out copies of the Bhagavad Gita. But there's nothing in the prose or footnotes mentioning them, so I'm still not sure what you're referring to. The issue that you're citing, so far as I can see, doesn't even exist. I should also point out, as a disclaimer, that ISKCON (for better or worse) is still considered 'orthodox' Hinduism by mainstream scholars. Regardless, as I said, the section has nothing to do with ISKCON, or any "cults" whatsoever, unless you consider Islam a cult. And there's no need to be didactic with me. I've been an editor for over a decade, and I've regularly edited in difficult topic areas, with virtually no issues. I'd like to think that most regard me as a neutral editor, albeit one who is rigorous with our policies. I have no 'dog in this fight' either, as I belong to none of these religions, don't live in India, and could care less... Aside from making sure that material in contentious topic areas conforms to policies, and POV and FRINGE material stays out. So you citing a user-made essay about "lead fixation" is borderline insulting. I'm also not going to suggest an edit proposal, as I think all of the material therein already meets our policy guidelines, and the reason you gave for your removal doesn't seem remotely valid (as I've already said). I'll be honest, I'm a bit baffled by your actions and your explanations, as they don't make much sense, and the reason you gave for the removal seems spurious, as it doesn't even remotely touch upon anything you claimed was there. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Symmachus Auxiliarus if you know what ISKCON means why did you claim that the text I removed had "
no mention of ISKCON
". You know you can be fact checked in a jiffy using the Special:Diff/1103136225. I am repeating my concern again, The para I removed was in general, promotional in nature and I gave example of the cults as a specific problem. I see a condescending and insulting tone in your replies, so I will wait for others to opine. Venkat TL (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)- Somehow, I missed that. Apologies. Still, that's just one individual sentence? Why not just remove that (if that's legitimately your concern), rather than the entire paragraph, which almost solely focuses on Muslim contributions to Indian culture? Heck, you could have even just removed the one word. It's also not "promoting" anything, but providing factual information. ISKCON is not considered a "cult" by the majority of mainstream scholars, as I've said. What you're asserting in that instance is POV, and removing something on the basis of a mere "cult" when mainstream consensus is that it's not is against policy, but I really don't care if you remove the individual sentence. However, it literally only mentions ISKCON as spreading Hinduism, which is true. Removing that by saying "it is promoting a cult" is ridiculous. Despite the one-word mention of ISKCON, which I'll admit to missing in the diff, I'm still dubious as to the reasons for your removal of the rest of the information, especially given your recent block log (which I only saw after posting my prior comment). I still encourage you to revert the material in its entirety, as I still don't see a policy-based reason for it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- So you have now escalated from condescension to outright Character assassination and ad hominem. What has my block log got to do with this discussion? Venkat TL (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Because it's similar material? And your position is not tenable, so far as I can see? Thus, not an ad hominem. However, at this point, I'm dropping this. Mostly because I can't assume good faith on your part, it's getting a bit personal, and we're apparently talking past each other. Plus, as I said, I was just trying to reverse what I thought was a spurious edit by another editor. I was shocked to see a seasoned editor supporting it. I'd rather an administrator, or the community at large, handle this. As I said, I don't see any reasonable rationale for you to support removing the material. Any of it, really. But especially the many other sentences that don't remotely touch upon your concerns, which aren't even tenable under our policies. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Jesus Christ, you edited your comment to add in "character assassination"? *facepalm* Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Scroll up to check and tell me who is doing personal attacks in this thread while admin shopping at the same time. Venkat TL (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've made no personal attacks, I've only intimated that there might be underlying POV problems in this area given your recent history with RNPOV. Also, not admin shopping. I pinged two admins that are well-known by the community for their work in difficult topic areas, with one of them being particularly active in this topic area. They're both pretty much beyond reproach for issues they're not involved in, and are known for their fairness. I also added the caveat that if they'd prefer not to deal with it, I can randomly ping an admin, or take it to the appropriate noticeboard (but the latter seemed a bit much to me). I was specifically asking for a third set of eyes, and not any official intervention. Read my comments on this. That is pretty much the opposite of "admin shopping", which is not even a policy or guideline (perhaps you meant "forum shopping"?) I specifically said I was okay with whatever. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Scroll up to check and tell me who is doing personal attacks in this thread while admin shopping at the same time. Venkat TL (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- So you have now escalated from condescension to outright Character assassination and ad hominem. What has my block log got to do with this discussion? Venkat TL (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Somehow, I missed that. Apologies. Still, that's just one individual sentence? Why not just remove that (if that's legitimately your concern), rather than the entire paragraph, which almost solely focuses on Muslim contributions to Indian culture? Heck, you could have even just removed the one word. It's also not "promoting" anything, but providing factual information. ISKCON is not considered a "cult" by the majority of mainstream scholars, as I've said. What you're asserting in that instance is POV, and removing something on the basis of a mere "cult" when mainstream consensus is that it's not is against policy, but I really don't care if you remove the individual sentence. However, it literally only mentions ISKCON as spreading Hinduism, which is true. Removing that by saying "it is promoting a cult" is ridiculous. Despite the one-word mention of ISKCON, which I'll admit to missing in the diff, I'm still dubious as to the reasons for your removal of the rest of the information, especially given your recent block log (which I only saw after posting my prior comment). I still encourage you to revert the material in its entirety, as I still don't see a policy-based reason for it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Symmachus Auxiliarus if you know what ISKCON means why did you claim that the text I removed had "
- I'm familiar with ISKCON. 'Hare Krishnas' are all over the United States as well, usually handing out copies of the Bhagavad Gita. But there's nothing in the prose or footnotes mentioning them, so I'm still not sure what you're referring to. The issue that you're citing, so far as I can see, doesn't even exist. I should also point out, as a disclaimer, that ISKCON (for better or worse) is still considered 'orthodox' Hinduism by mainstream scholars. Regardless, as I said, the section has nothing to do with ISKCON, or any "cults" whatsoever, unless you consider Islam a cult. And there's no need to be didactic with me. I've been an editor for over a decade, and I've regularly edited in difficult topic areas, with virtually no issues. I'd like to think that most regard me as a neutral editor, albeit one who is rigorous with our policies. I have no 'dog in this fight' either, as I belong to none of these religions, don't live in India, and could care less... Aside from making sure that material in contentious topic areas conforms to policies, and POV and FRINGE material stays out. So you citing a user-made essay about "lead fixation" is borderline insulting. I'm also not going to suggest an edit proposal, as I think all of the material therein already meets our policy guidelines, and the reason you gave for your removal doesn't seem remotely valid (as I've already said). I'll be honest, I'm a bit baffled by your actions and your explanations, as they don't make much sense, and the reason you gave for the removal seems spurious, as it doesn't even remotely touch upon anything you claimed was there. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Symmachus Auxiliarus I suggest starting with proposing a balanced summary for the section Religion_in_India#History. And then moving on to the next section. Finally these section summaries can be summarized to create a reasonable and accurate 'article summary' aka MOS:LEAD. I will assume good faith, may be you are not aware of what ISKCON means. I am not restoring the second para that is basically promotional in nature. Venkat TL (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- You've now just added two DS notices to my page (which is fine for the one, as I haven't received one in the past year), and then warned me with a (level 2) warning to assume good faith, after I've told you I'm no longer assuming good faith. I don't think I've ever received a warning before, so an L2 warning is inappropriate. Other editors can read between the lines on this one. Don't template the regulars, and don't try to intimidate people. If you want to take me to a notice board, and don't mind the inevitable boomerang, that's fine. But I get the message. You're upset. And this is after I said I was backing out of this conversation, no less. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Alerts. Let me know which of the two (or both) do you feel is not applicable for this article. Venkat TL (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- I already said that. I obviously meant the I-P one. The general DS is fine too, though I'm fairly sure I already received a DS notice, and thus it's sort of null. You've thus far accused me of 'character assassination', ad hominem attacks, and gave me an escalated template warning after I clearly said I can't in good conscience assume good faith. I've not made a single personal attack against you. At all. Certainly not in any way directly. But you have with me. Notice I'm not making a huge deal out of it. I've already said I'm bowing out. I'll continue to respond if you address me, but I'd rather you not. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- I am 100% sure I-P (WP:ARBIPA) is applicable to this article as well as the content of the article being discussed in this thread. @Doug Weller can clarify and correct me if it is not. Venkat TL (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- You know what I meant (IPA, not IP). And yes, it is appropriate. I wasn't disputing that it was valid. I actually said I didn't mind receiving the notice, but that the rapid-fire notices and warnings right after I said I was backing away from this dispute were a bit questionable. See above. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Good to know that you dont consider them inapproprite. The trigger for the alert, as I understand, is participation in the topic area. How much time gap do they need to have in between? Venkat TL (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- One year. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Symmachus Auxiliarus No such time gap mentioned anywhere. The 1 year, is about repeating the "same" template. I checked and you had not received either. Venkat TL (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- One year. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Good to know that you dont consider them inapproprite. The trigger for the alert, as I understand, is participation in the topic area. How much time gap do they need to have in between? Venkat TL (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- You know what I meant (IPA, not IP). And yes, it is appropriate. I wasn't disputing that it was valid. I actually said I didn't mind receiving the notice, but that the rapid-fire notices and warnings right after I said I was backing away from this dispute were a bit questionable. See above. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- I am 100% sure I-P (WP:ARBIPA) is applicable to this article as well as the content of the article being discussed in this thread. @Doug Weller can clarify and correct me if it is not. Venkat TL (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- I already said that. I obviously meant the I-P one. The general DS is fine too, though I'm fairly sure I already received a DS notice, and thus it's sort of null. You've thus far accused me of 'character assassination', ad hominem attacks, and gave me an escalated template warning after I clearly said I can't in good conscience assume good faith. I've not made a single personal attack against you. At all. Certainly not in any way directly. But you have with me. Notice I'm not making a huge deal out of it. I've already said I'm bowing out. I'll continue to respond if you address me, but I'd rather you not. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Alerts. Let me know which of the two (or both) do you feel is not applicable for this article. Venkat TL (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Venkat TL:. I don't understand your point here. I see your edit summary for this revision [1] is grossly misleading. User:Neplota wasn't the one who added the content that you deleted saying that user is a blocked sock puppet. The content was there before they deleted and they removed some of the sourced contents, which @Symmachus Auxiliarus: restored. But now you've done similar "trimming" (perhaps worse than Neplota's "trimming") and preemptively insist others not to restore without consensus. Please tell me where was the consensus to delete that content in the first place? I'm confused. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm restoring it for now. Please discuss with everyone before deleting it. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Reminder that WP:AC/DS is applicable on this page. @Rasnaboy you dont need consensus to delete blatantly promotional material and other undesireable content sourced from shady sources that are explicitly marked as "dubious" and "failed verification". I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Summary style, WP:LEAD and Wikipedia:Lead fixation before responding to my comment. The lead is the summary of the content that is already in the article. Lead is not a place to push POV and propaganda material to promote one religion over other or to push fringe theories. I am removing this content, If you want the same content to be included you need to get consensus for this. See WP:ONUS. If you restore it without consensus, this will be reported for edit warring. Venkat TL (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Venkat TL: Wondering why you added a warning template on my talk page when I just asked you to discuss before deleting the contents that you are apparently aversive to (maybe a strategic way of passing the buck/onus? Not sure.) As @Symmachus Auxiliarus: infers, I see no issues with the text in question. They're only stating the facts with sources. The "failed verification/dubious" was for Mughal/Delhi Sultanate claim, not for the ISKCON claim. If you are truly concerned with "failed verification" stuff as you stated, then you should have removed only that sentence and not the entire para, much less the preceding one. Not sure why you perceive it as an ISKCON promotion. As one might see, it's not a promotion even in the remotest sense. Also I request you not to be too quick in adding warning templates unnecessarily, which is applicable to you as well if added first. Knowing we all are here to build an encyclopedia, I would advise you to give some heed to WP:HIGHMAINT. As @BusterD: and @Kusma: rightly pointed out at the ANB a few months ago, we should work toward that by thinking less of winning others and more of helping. I'm not reverting it but leave it to other editors. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Rasnaboy the notice is appropriate. Please read and follow WP:ONUS if you wish to restore the disputed content. I find it strange that you keep pinging random users to this thread to canvass them. You had been noticed before already to not do mass pings. Also, you have pinged Symmachus Auxiliarus twice in both your comments even though he said he does not want to continue pursuing this thread. Venkat TL (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- That's fine. I'll handle that. Hope you read my reply to that notice. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Rasnaboy, Yes I have read your reply. How is BUSTERD and KUSMA, who you have pinged, related to this discussion? Apparently you seem to think that by pinging admins into this content dispute is an appropriate way to settle this content issue. Have you read WP:INVOLVED, please do. Venkat TL (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- I have reverted promotional and other problematic content that is not the summary of the article as a lead is supposed to be. Follow WP:ONUS, see talk page discussion thread. Venkat TL (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- What promotional content? Atleast read what you are deleting before you delete it. And check WP:STATUSQUO, the earlier version should be reinstated. Your reversion is incorrect. You are trying to delete a longstanding para from the lead that seems largely appropriate. Instead of trying to remove the entire para, list out what is incorrect and we can sort through it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- The line that you dropped was not the only promotional content. The promotional and other problematic content that is not the summary of the article as a lead is supposed to be, has been removed. If you disagree with the removal, please follow the consensus procedure and start discussion to restore any particular line you think is not problematic. WP:ONUS quotes "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included.. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Venkat TL (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- What promotional content? Atleast read what you are deleting before you delete it. And check WP:STATUSQUO, the earlier version should be reinstated. Your reversion is incorrect. You are trying to delete a longstanding para from the lead that seems largely appropriate. Instead of trying to remove the entire para, list out what is incorrect and we can sort through it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- That's fine. I'll handle that. Hope you read my reply to that notice. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Rasnaboy the notice is appropriate. Please read and follow WP:ONUS if you wish to restore the disputed content. I find it strange that you keep pinging random users to this thread to canvass them. You had been noticed before already to not do mass pings. Also, you have pinged Symmachus Auxiliarus twice in both your comments even though he said he does not want to continue pursuing this thread. Venkat TL (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Venkat TL: Wondering why you added a warning template on my talk page when I just asked you to discuss before deleting the contents that you are apparently aversive to (maybe a strategic way of passing the buck/onus? Not sure.) As @Symmachus Auxiliarus: infers, I see no issues with the text in question. They're only stating the facts with sources. The "failed verification/dubious" was for Mughal/Delhi Sultanate claim, not for the ISKCON claim. If you are truly concerned with "failed verification" stuff as you stated, then you should have removed only that sentence and not the entire para, much less the preceding one. Not sure why you perceive it as an ISKCON promotion. As one might see, it's not a promotion even in the remotest sense. Also I request you not to be too quick in adding warning templates unnecessarily, which is applicable to you as well if added first. Knowing we all are here to build an encyclopedia, I would advise you to give some heed to WP:HIGHMAINT. As @BusterD: and @Kusma: rightly pointed out at the ANB a few months ago, we should work toward that by thinking less of winning others and more of helping. I'm not reverting it but leave it to other editors. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Reminder that WP:AC/DS is applicable on this page. @Rasnaboy you dont need consensus to delete blatantly promotional material and other undesireable content sourced from shady sources that are explicitly marked as "dubious" and "failed verification". I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Summary style, WP:LEAD and Wikipedia:Lead fixation before responding to my comment. The lead is the summary of the content that is already in the article. Lead is not a place to push POV and propaganda material to promote one religion over other or to push fringe theories. I am removing this content, If you want the same content to be included you need to get consensus for this. See WP:ONUS. If you restore it without consensus, this will be reported for edit warring. Venkat TL (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm restoring it for now. Please discuss with everyone before deleting it. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Demand for Hindu Rashtra, law and politics section
This section is grossly non-neutral in this article.
- The 3 refs for the Hindu nation demand are news articles on the events happened on the respective dates, not an overall study of "demand for Hindu Rashtra".
- Next 2 lines misrepresent surveys as a conclusive opinion of total [Hindu] population.
- Refs for pleas in SC to remove secularism and socialism, including Swami's plea, do not support the placement of the content in this section. They don't even mention that the pleas are related to Hinduism or Hindu Rashtra
This article is rather a broad topic on the entirety of religion in India and the content, as it stands, does not fit. I don't have resources to research on this topic. Editors who're aware of it, please do the needful! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Went through it, agree with your observations. Have removed the section.If someone wants to reintroduce it, kindly do so with better sources Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)