Talk:Anti-Hinduism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 14 October 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Anti-Hindu propaganda launched by Fundamentalist sects of Christianity
Anti-Hindu propaganda launched by Fundamentalist sects of Christianity

Why is the Christian pamhlet "Divali: festival of light, circle of darkness" anti-Hindu? It only illustrates that some Christians consider their religion superior and their emphasis on the Great Commission. Andries 20:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

By the same token, why is the Der Ewige Jude pamphlet anti-semitic?It only "illustrates that Nazis considered their race superior". Besides, the source is academic and lists it as anti-Hindu propaganda so that's what it is depicted on wikipedia per the fair use clause.Hkelkar 20:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Most committed adherents of all religions consider their religions superior than other religions. If this were not the case then people would change their religion. This is not the case of people with a certain race. Andries 20:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOR. Besides, Hindus are an ethnicity as well as a religion, and anti-Hindu sentiments involve attacks on both.Hkelkar 20:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
When, where, and by whom was this pamphlet labelled anti-Hindu? Andries 21:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
By the Infinity Foundation.Hkelkar 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Bear in mind that Indian Christians (who are far more devout Christians than these Southern Baptist Bible Thumpers) of every moderate denomination celebrate Diwali together with Hindus. I myself an Jewish and celebrate Diwali with Shaivites, Krishnites, Vaishnavites, Ganeshites, Jesuits, Pentacostals, Roman Catholics, Syrian Christians etc. etc.Hkelkar 20:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


This article should be moved to "Anti-Hindu prejudice." "Anti-Hindu" is just an adjective. Also, the I couldn't find any free license on the website the image of the leaflet was taken from. BhaiSaab talk 21:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at the fair use clause in copyright.Hkelkar 21:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't find the copyright page. BhaiSaab talk 21:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair Use clause is on wikipedia only.Hkelkar 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ok. You previously used GFDL. Fair use is better. BhaiSaab talk 21:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Look at the Afd nom.Consensus was to keep as is. however, if you can get an admin to agree then I will not oppose redirecting to anti-Hindu prejudices.Hkelkar 21:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I propose anti-Hinduism. Andries 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately the latter term is rarely used. For various historical reasons "anti-Hindu" is more widely used.Hkelkar 21:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I checked it with google and you are completely correct in this. Nevertheless the title anti-Hindu contradicts Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(adjectives) It seems that in this case there is good reason not to follow this guideline. Andries 21:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Well that's your interpretation. We need consensus here, and also third party mediation. I am not necessarily opposed to moving the article to "anti-Hindu prejudices".Hkelkar 21:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to interpret "It is recommended that adjectives be redirected to nouns" any other way? BhaiSaab talk 21:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep article at same title.Bakaman Bakatalk 21:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked a question at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) regarding the name [1] Andries 22:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] edit warring

I explained the reasons for my edit, but User:Bakasuprman reverted my edit without comment. Please discuss issues rather than edit warring. — goethean ॐ 22:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because the actual thing was cited in the source.
“ Our US Congressman, who is a member of the India Caucus and will be part of the Congressional delegation visiting India in early January, spent considerable time with me today specifically on the Ramayana portrayal by Professor Susan Wadley. The Congressman said that he was appalled at the inflammatory approach in the Ramayana material, and was especially concerned that it was done under Federal grant money as that could give it the aura of governmental stamp of approval ”

Source #19Bakaman Bakatalk 22:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected the text to reflect what is claimed in your selectively-quoted source. — goethean ॐ 22:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Its not even my source. I have no idea who quoted it. The only reason I came to this article at this point in time was because it was on my watchlist. Its only edit warring once a person reverts twice.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. You reverted wrongly, and without an edit summary, after I had explained the reasons for my edit in detail. — goethean ॐ 02:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genocide?

I know little of the issues of Hindus in Southeast Asia, but I doubt that something with as specific a definition as genocide would describe their experience. Specifically I've never encountered mention of anti-Hindu massacres as examples of genocide. Indeed, even Wikipedias list of things described as genocide, which is far broader one I'd write to do what is my rather simple understanding of 'the murder of a people.' Perhaps a less specific term like massacre, persuecution or ethnic cleansing might be appropriate? Wilhelm Ritter 00:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Plz see 1971 Bangladesh atrocities. Hkelkar 01:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I changed it to more specific examples with the less specific description "persecution".Hkelkar 01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book

A better source is needed. Hindu Unity is a "hate site" and is not appropriate or reliable here. Hkelkar 03:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ref tag placement

I don't know if this has been bought up earlier, but throughout the whole article the ref tags are placed in the wrong spot. Ref tags generally FOLLOW punctuation. For more information, visit Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where_to_place_ref_tags. Blueag9 07:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Remove synthesis from the article. While certain things may seem to fit the definition of Anti-Hinduism, nothing should be brought up unless the source itself says it is an example of anti-Hinduism. The Anti-Iranian sentiments article had this problem recently, and I can see that this article has the same problem in some ways. I figure I'd leave a suggestion. The problem appears common to "Anti-______" articles, probably because of the emotional factor involved in the article development, but this can be easily remedied by removing OR. The Behnam 19:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Iranians arent a religion. See Anti-Judaism and etc.Bakaman 21:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, that wasn't the point (though do note Hkelkar from above, "Besides, Hindus are an ethnicity as well as a religion, and anti-Hindu sentiments involve attacks on both."). The point is that there shouldn't be any synthesis; i.e. don't take examples that aren't explicitly described as "anti-Hindu" in their sources as examples of anti-Hinduism. This kind of OR shouldn't go on in any article, regardless of it is about religion or ethnicity, or anything else. The Behnam 22:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Dude, Hkelkar (talk • contribs) was banned a long time ago, I'm under no obligation to listen to him.Bakaman 06:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Dude, the part about Hkelkar was an aside; didn't you see the parentheses? Please address the main statement. The Behnam 06:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Behnam, what do you mean by "unless the source itself says it is an example of anti-Hinduism"? Can you explain a bit to make it clear how they will say that it is anti-hinduism? I hope you don't want the exact same sentence of your choice to be available in those sources. I will later add better examples to show how hinduism is feared more for its good things than for its bad things, especially by the christian missionaries and media related to them. Even wikipedia is not spared, you check how the article on meditation starts with dictionary meaning and then meditation in Christianity. When they can't help, they use word "budhdhism" for all things that originated from Upnishads/Vedanta/Yoga!!Skant 00:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm just saying that the sources themselves have to cite 'whatever' as an example of anti-Hinduism, rather than us judging something to be anti-Hindu and so including it. Just a problem that was going on the anti-Iranian sentiments article that I think may apply here for some parts, and calls for simple verification. The Behnam 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of Anti-Hinduism and better examples of it

This article is in general quite poor. One problem is the lack of citation of sources, and using controversial websites when citations are used. The major problem, however, is the extremely un-rigorous definition of anti-Hinduism and the assumption that all criticisms of certain practices in South Asia are necessarily a result of anti-Hindu bias.

A good example of the general confusion of this page is the analysis of Babur's comments. While I agree that they are bigoted and unenlightened, nowhere in the cited reference do I see anti-Hindu bias, where anti-Hindu is defined (as done by this article) as biased against the Hindu *religion*. There is no discussion of theological matters nor indeed of idolatry or casteism, the bugbears of Muslim criticisms of Hinduism. Can the author indicate why this isnt simply straightforward (and objectionable) xenophobia? Given that 'Hindustan' was ruled by Muslims when Babur invaded (the various Delhi Sultanates from 1206 who he defeated in 1526), we can't simply identify the region with Hindus or indeed Hinduism. Please note: I am *not* justifying Babur's comments (indeed I reject them), but simply questioning their specifically anti-Hindu bias, where anti-Hindu means prejudice on grounds of religion. Do we have evidence that Babur thought the converted Muslims were above all of these putative failings of Hindustan? And I think we can assume that there were at least some converts to Islam after more than 300 years of Muslim rule, without getting into the controversial territory of whether conversion was by sword or choice (or by self-interest).

Furthermore, calling neo-Buddhist movements anti-Hindu is in my view unwarranted. I would suggest reading Ambedkar's work more closely though I accept he was extremely controversial. But can we really say that his denial of a hotel room or water or temple entry, etc were simply irrelevant to his criticism or not actually part of the practices of Hinduism and instead infer that he was anti-Hindu? We must be careful to distinguish criticism that derives from a genuine belief that the caste system is morally wrong because of the differential moral worth it imputes to different castes, and those sorts of mocking gestures towards such Hindu beliefs as the sacredness of the cow or those inane monotheists who prattle on about idolatry. Furthermore, we must be careful to distinguish arguments against (all) religion for being contrary to reason from those that mock one particular religion on the basis of prejudice. I hope the author can appreciate that I am *not* saying that anti-Hindu prejudice doesn't exist (the Mormon missionaries I met in Hyderabad proved to me that it does), merely that we need to be clear about what that is and we simply can't assume that everyone who dislikes a particular feature of the religion (or indeed of all religions) is particularly prejudiced against Hinduism.

The origin of some of these problems is easy to spot: the denial in this article that the caste system has anything to do with Hinduism as a religion. I would like to see some evidence of that interpretation. I was taught (by Hindus) that there are many texts explaining and indeed justifying the caste system. Now of course that doesn't mean that Hindus must necessarily support caste today - indeed many I know explicitly reject it. But it must be admitted that in the past the system gained acceptability from its justification in the Shastras, Manusmriti, etc. Does the author deny that some classical Hindu sources justified the division of mankind into (ranked) castes on religious grounds? In particular, does the author deny the existence of the belief of reincarnation according to merits in the past life? What about the differential treatment of crimes, where killing a Sudra went almost unpunished while killing a Brahmin resulted in the death penalty? I don't want to get into a dispute about these contentious matters, but think that the concept of anti-Hinduism becomes far too obscure if we don't clarify these issues.

It is of course true that forms of caste are practiced by other communities in South Asia, but that obvious sociological fact is completely consistent with the view that Hinduism justifies caste in a religious way that other communities don't. Ambedkar's specific criticism was that the belief in differential moral worth by birth was morally repugnant and made more so by the justification of it in Hindu texts. We may have 'moved on' from those days, but this article's evasiveness on these important points muddles rather than clarifies how anti-Hinduism should be defined. I hope that the author would accept that my view - that human beings have equal moral worth - is not motivated by anti-Hinduism. But it is also *contrary* to the classical texts of Hinduism, experience of the consequences of which turned Ambedkar into such a polemical critic of Hinduism. That I agree with Ambedkar on the equal moral worth of humans is of course also to say that I agree with the Indian Constitution.

[edit] sikhs

Why isn't there a section of anti-hindu feelings in the sikh community.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.63.42.187 (talk • contribs).

You're free to write a referenced and neutral description on said prejudices. Do note that in reality, there is little difference between Punjabi's of any religion (hindu, jain, sikh or moslem).Bakaman 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/t/Talk%7EAnti-Hinduism_e7a5.html"