Talk:Anti-Hindu sentiment

Reverts

El C, I edit Wikipedia occassionally. Please let me know what is wrong with the first paragraph you removed by this edit. The source used does say that.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2021

Please change X (no info) to "Several thousand supporters of Hefazat-e-Islam’s leader Mamunul Haque in Bangladesh attacked a Hindu village in March 2021, which resulted in the ransacking and looting of many houses and the vandalization of 70-80 houses."

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2024

In the India subsection, under the Asia section, please add this, "On 27th August, 2024, a temple was vandalised in Hyderabad. Prior to this, the US consul general visited Asaduddin Owaisi's house in Hyderabad." AlBaluchi1 (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You can add, "There was a massive protest after the vandalism and there is evidence that the men who vandalised the temple were Owaisi's men.".-AlBaluchi1 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Questionable sources and OR statements.

This article shows a problematic over-reliance on Indian sources, some of which seem to be WP:BIASED and/or WP:QUESTIONABLE, which I think fails WP:IS. So before I start removing some of them, pinging @Vanamonde93 just to be sure I'm not being overly cautious. StarkReport (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

A source should not be removed just because it is Indian, just as it should not be removed because it is not Indian. Original research should certainly be removed though. Also, the page is written ostensibly about the phenomenon of anti-Hindu sentiment, but it's accumulated material that is better suited to a list of incidents of anti-Hindu sentiment. I'm not entirely sure what to do with this, but a list of incidents of stone-pelting and prejudiced statements by politicians don't aid the readers' understanding of the phenomenon. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

"but a list of incidents of stone-pelting and prejudiced statements by politicians don't aid the readers' understanding of the phenomenon", I agree with that point. Also, I think my earlier statement may not have been as clear as I intended. I believe this article would greatly benefit from incorporating insights from Indian/Hindu scholars and academics, as their analysis of the anti-Hindu phenomenon would offer a more credible perspective, whereas those Indian news outlets may not be reliable for such sensitive and controversial issues. StarkReport (talk) 07:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Specific concerns, please. The worst way to improve an article (regrettably) is to make broadsweep comments. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam Specifically, I think it's more effective to rely on sources such as Jeffery D. Long, Vamsee Juluri, Chad Bauman and P. N. Benjamin like in the first two sections on anti-Hindu sentiment, rather than stringing together scattered incidents and issues as seen in later sections. Outlets such as Mint, TheCommuneMag, NewsBharati, ABP Live, DNA India, Firstpost, with catchy headlines, often present a sensationalist narrative, which may not offer the same neutral, scholarly analysis needed for such a sensitive topic.

I might be mistaken, so I’ll leave it for now. StarkReport (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I agree; Juluri is an unserious scholar though, and I don't know about Benjamin. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If you remove all the incidents, the article will have very little text remaining.-AlBaluchi1 (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Please alter the sentence instead of removing it

RegentsPark, I saw that you have removed what I added; one of the sources used, https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/all-about-tirupati-temple-laddus-cost-significance-and-latest-controversy-101726804083362-amp.html says, "The report has caused outrage for upsetting Hindu sentiments, as many consider consumption of beef and other meats as well to be against their religious beliefs." You can probably improve the sentence used but please do improve the sentence and add it back!-AlBaluchi1 (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@AlBaluchi1: The fact that Hindu sentiments were hurt doesn't make this anti-Hindu. If someone had deliberately done this to diss Hindus, that would be different. But, from what I can see in the linked citations, this appears to be a run of the mill corruption case. If you can find citations that explicitly state that this was an anti-Hindu act, then no worries. RegentsPark (comment) 16:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Did you read my quotation from the source used? It says, "upsetting Hindu sentiments" and this article is about Hindu sentiments, so a sentence about that isn't out of place. How do you propose we add that?-AlBaluchi1 (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Did you read my explanation above? Since there was no intention to upset Hindu sentiments, this is not an anti-Hindu thing. RegentsPark (comment) 21:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: This source: https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/apavithram-tirupati-temple-trust-head-vows-to-restore-trust-says-incident-has-tainted-sacredness-of-prasadam-446793-2024-09-20 and this source: https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/liquor-non-veg-supplied-pawan-kalyan-tears-into-jagan-mohan-reddy-claims-ysrcp-tainted-sacredness-of-tirupati-temple-446831-2024-09-20?utm_source=btweb_story_share say that some things were done on purpose. The first newspaper report acknowledges what happened and is talking of restoring trust.-AlBaluchi1 (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@AlBaluchi1 Neither source explicitly classifies this as a Hinduphobic occurrence. RegentsPark's point is valid because the upsetting of Hindu sentiments appears to be an unintended consequence, rather than a deliberate anti-Hindu act. The intention behind the act must involve targeting Hindus or their beliefs specifically. For instance, mocking Hindu rituals with the specific intent to disrespect Hindus would qualify, but only if the source identifies it as Hinduphobic. The above sources only discuss hurt sentiments, not any intent to directly offend Hindus. StarkReport (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Help!

Vanamonde93 and StarkReport The police had booked the victims for chanting a slogan, instead of the people who attacked them as per https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/bharat-mata-ki-jai-slogan-only-leads-to-harmony-not-discord-karnataka-hc/articleshow/113712269.cms, https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/bharat-matha-ki-jai-promotes-harmony-not-discord-karnataka-high-court-3208557 and https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/sloganeering-bharat-mata-ki-jai-will-only-lead-to-harmony-and-never-discord-karnataka-high-court/article68686962.ece - can it be included in this article?-AlBaluchi1 (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@AlBaluchi1, The sources highlight the Karnataka High Court's ruling that the chant 'Bharat Mata Ki Jai' promotes harmony, which is about suggesting a positive legal perspective on the slogan. However, the incident discussed isn't framed as being driven by anti-Hindu sentiment or Hinduphobia; rather, it revolves around a legal interpretation of the chant's impact. For content to be relevant to this article, there should be clear evidence or sources indicating a deliberate attempt to target or demean Hindu beliefs or practices. Since this isn't established in the provided sources, its not suitable for this article. StarkReport (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)