Talk:Anti-Hindu sentiment/Archive 1

Edit request on 20 August 2012
49.203.179.229 (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC) anti-hinduism in media

BBC is a anti hinduism channel by viewing its program from starting of indepentence of india to until today. It shows the programs as a flavour for islam and christianity because of its relationship and earnings from arab counties and a false view on hinduism, such as kashmir crisis, attacks by ethics groups in india and MUMBAI ATTACKS as against india and hinduism and publishing false documenty program.

Not done: no request. Wha? A boat  that can float!   (watch me float!)  08:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Demolition of Hindu temples in Malaysia
. The sentence, "......such as the recent demolition of Hindu temples in Malaysia with the citation Temple row - a dab of sensibility please was removed, but since it cites a reference, can we restore it into the article?—Khabboos (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I observed that the cited link is dead, but can we use this link instead and restore the sentence?—Khabboos (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. (t) Josve05a  (c) 00:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverts by AcidSnow
The Rfc (which can be seen here: Talk:Persecution_of_Hindus) and consensus that the Nowshera mob attack should not be mentioned in the Persecution of Hindus article because the word persecution is not mentioned in the references cited, does not apply to the Anti-Hinduism article. From what I understand, mob attacks and arson can be mentioned in the Anti-Hinduism article, even if the word persecution is not mentioned in the references cited (and I have cited references, so that is not OR).—Khabboos (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments
I mentioned incidents of arson and mob attacks citing proper references in the Anti-Hinduism article, but it was reverted by AcidSnow, which can be seen here:. Please comment about whether we should keep it in the article or not on the discussion/Talk Page, in the Request for comments section (so that we can avoid an edit war here). Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Links to prior discussion of these incidents.
 * The mob attack in Nowshera was discussed at Talk:Persecution of Hindus.
 * The arson at the Art of Living Centre in Islamabad was backed by references that speculated that the arson might have had religious motives (they did suggest other possible motives too). This was discussed at Talk:Persecution of Hindus.
 * --Toddy1 (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The editors who answered at Talk:Persecution_of_Hindus wanted the Nowshera mob attack to be removed from the article from the Persecution_of_Hindus article, because the word persecution was not mentioned in the references cited (but actually one reference did cite persecution[6]). However, in this Anti-Hinduism article, arson and mob attacks can be mentioned even if the word, "persecution" is not mentioned in the references cited.—Khabboos (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You cannot be serious. All the reasons discussed apply just as much to this article and all the other ones that cover more-or-less the same topic that you want to mention this incident on.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikiproject India assessment
This page seems to have been last assessed by WP India in 2008 here. It is faulty because the edit summary stub-class whereas the rating given was B. I presume it was a mistake. I am changing the class to "C" because the page seems to have developed considerably since then. But I am doubtful if it meets the NPOV and OR requirements for a "B" rating. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Biased and confusing article
This article mixes occurences of anti-Hindu violence with prejudices against Hindus, the article is therefore confused. False quotations of François-Xavier were used as well (cited sources proved it was from a secondary source, not from François-Xavier, the misguiding was blatant). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judicobus (talk • contribs) 02:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Anti-Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090813050526/http://newstodaynet.com:80/guest/3110gu1.htm to http://newstodaynet.com/guest/3110gu1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927222207/http://www.usinpac.com/news_details.asp?News_ID=66 to http://www.usinpac.com/news_details.asp?News_ID=66
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061206120548/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2000/ASIANOW/south/08/01/india.kashmir.massacre/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/south/08/01/india.kashmir.massacre/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Anti-Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7027/htoday.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715175738/http://www.afa.net/Petitions/issuedetail.asp?id=257 to http://www.afa.net/Petitions/issuedetail.asp?id=257
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mlists.net/sindh-intl/mail/mail_abuseofhistory.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090526140357/http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/11-curriculum-of-hatred--03 to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/11-curriculum-of-hatred--03
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203220945/http://www.hinduismtoday.com:80/archives/2000/2/2000-2-07.shtml to http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2000/2/2000-2-07.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

April 2017
I have reverted a section blanking by Vanamonde93. Please cite your reason(s) for it before you start an edit war. Crawford88 (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The content was not reliably sourced, as I explained in my edit summary. I removed it per WP:NOR. If you wish to reinstate it, find a reliable source supporting it. Vanamonde (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is what the source says, "Pressure from Hinduphobic academicians has forced the administration of University of California, Irvine to backtrack unprofessionally after announcing the setting up of chairs for the study of Indic civilizational studies.". Now, I believe Hinduphobia and anti-Hinduism are synonyms aka, no WP:NOR. Crawford88 (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no indication that the source is anything but an opinion piece: and there is no indication that the publication itself is reliable in any case. Vanamonde (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Swarajya is WP:NEWSORG and therefore WP:RS in multiple wiki articles. The policy says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author.". Crawford88 (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There are numerous news organizations that we do not consider to be reliable. Given the fact that Swarajya advertizes its ideology on its homepage, its use is questionable in this situation. Furthermore, you are violating the very guideline that you cite: Op-Eds are reliable for statements attributed to that editor, and you have not attributed it inline. Furthermore, the first source that you have reinstated is patently an involved primary source, which is completely unreliable. See WP:BURDEN; you need to demonstrate that the source in question is reliable. Vanamonde (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, would it help reach a consensus if the statement mentioned the author? Also, WP:BURDEN is not applicable when there is already an inline citation. See "Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia". It is your responsibility to explain why you think the citation is not good enough. Well DCF is of-course a primary source, but that isn't the only source here. Crawford88 (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would help, but it would be insufficient. An opinion piece is effectively a primary source, because it does not receive editorial oversight. You have still not demonstrated why this rather obscure news organization may be considered reliable at all in this situation, given it's ideological stance. And I have provided the explanation, multiple times, but here we go again: the section as a whole is making the claim that Hinduphobia exists among academics. To support this rather remarkable claim, we have one primary source from the DCF, and an opinion piece from a avowedly right-wing, obscure, news portal. This is simply not good enough. Vanamonde (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 13 June 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: ❌ Dr Strauss   talk  20:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Hinduism → Hinduphobia – The word 'Hinduphobia' is academically more sound and accurate. Moreover, it encompasses everything the article stands for. Coconut1002 (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. —Guanaco 06:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, incidents from 'Persecution of Hindus' should also be incorporated into 'Hinduphobia', while the original article must remain separate as a fuller list.--Coconut1002 (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Merely stating your opinion is not sufficient. You should also explain why this article should also contain incidents of 'Persecution of Hindus', when we have a separate article for the latter, that too after the title is changed. Does Islamophobia have content about incidents of Persecution of Muslims? —  Tyler Durden  (talk)  12:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the previous RFC- if it results in a merge will address this. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hinduphobia means fear of Hindus, which is not the case in this article. This article deals with insults and denigration of Hinduism. I also observed that there is a tag at the top titled, "Page issues" which says that this article's name will be changed to "Hinduphobia" which I oppose for the reason afore mentioned!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisting while the merge/content swap issue is ongoing. —Guanaco 06:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anti-Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7027/htoday.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040428/j%26k.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.thestatesman.net/news/41450-pak-sc-seeks-report-on-denial-of-access-to-hindu-temple.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817081717/http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/mar2006-daily/24-03-2006/main/main5.htm to http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/mar2006-daily/24-03-2006/main/main5.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.sdpi.org/whats_new/reporton/State%20of%20Curr%26TextBooks.pdf
 * Added tag to http://dev-bd.bdnews24.com/details.php?id=241410&cid=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310144803/http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/959/959.F2d.461.91-5407.html to http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/959/959.F2d.461.91-5407.html
 * Added tag to http://www.gatago.com/talk/politics/mideast/12428067.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Move/partial merge proposal/RFC

 * 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.

We have a page at Anti-Hinduism, and a page at Persecution of Hindus. These are theoretically distinct topics, in that this page is about Anti-Hindu sentiment, and the other is about physical persecution. This argument has also been made, and has received support, at the most recent deletion discussion for this page.

However, the two pages currently share a fair amount of material. For example, this page contains material about the jizya, or religion-specific tax, applied to by Muslim rulers; which, logically, is a matter of actual persecution, not simply of anti-Hindu sentiment. Conversely, that page contains matters such as Pakistan's curriculum, which is not directly an instance of persecution, and belongs here.

Therefore, I propose that 1) this page be retitled "anti-Hindu sentiment" to make the scope of the page clear; 2) all content from this page that is about an instance of direct persecution be moved/merged to Persecution of Hindus; and 3) that all content at Persecution of Hindus that is not about an instance of direct persecution be moved/merged from there to here. Vanamonde (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, as proposer. Vanamonde (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger, but moving matter from there to here if it is not "direct persecution" should be fine! I also don't mind re-titling this article, "Anti-Hindu sentiments".-Dona-Hue (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dona-Hue: then what is it you are opposing? If you think content relevant here should be brought here, but content irrelevant here should not be moved out, that's quite a silly position to take. Vanamonde (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @Vanamonde, I simply don't want anything to be removed, if it is properly sourced.-Dona-Hue (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:VNOTSUFF. —  Tyler Durden  (talk)  17:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that things are being manipulated here with rule citations for everything. However, if only acts of persecution are moved to the Persecution of Hindus article and nothing else is removed from this article, I will change my vote to Support!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is what the proposal says. Read it again please (And refrain from making allegations against editors without evidence.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , Dona is apparently supporting points 1) and 3) of the proposal, but opposing point 2). You can understand why! :-) —  Tyler Durden  (talk)  07:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support as per proposer. The present title is making it hard to distinguish between persecution and anti-Hindu sentiments. ---  Tyler Durden  (talk)  15:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Good ideas. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sentiments need not be materialize into civil discomfort. Crawford88 (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support 2 and 3. This page need not be renamed, as anti-Hinduism has been referred in many books and popcult. Crawford88 (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

*Oppose. Why not start a proposal to merge Islamophobia with Persecution of Muslims and Antisemitism with Persecution of Jews? Vanamonde93 knows that articles should be concise. If both the articles are merged as a single article, some parts will left out. He is trying to remove some parts by this merge proposal. He should be topic banned from all articles related to Hinduism. Marvellous Spider-Man  08:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * MSM: What nonsense. I'm not proposing a complete merger, merely collecting material into the appropriate articles; which just goes to show that you haven't read the proposal, and are commenting here based on personal animosity. Vanamonde (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I made a mistake by not reading the full proposal due to your past edits. Marvellous Spider-Man  09:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Tyler Durden, Marvellous Spider-Man, some people have been throwing their weight around here. Where, how or whom should we approach for help with respect to that?&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , for help/advice, you can go to WP:TH. You may also try WP:DRN for dispute resolutions, and WP:ANI for reporting any serious issue(s) or regarding the behaviour of any editor(s), if you have any genuine queries, of which I'm afraid you have none! Best regards,  Tyler Durden  (talk)  13:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support proposal. Limiting the overlap between the two articles would help. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I think the proposal limiting the overlap between the two articles is the right way to go. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom.  d.g. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  11:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Per nom excellent logical division.Pincrete (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support No reason not to. Stikkyy t/c 04:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above 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.

Copying a reference from the Anti-Indian sentiment article
I want to copy this matter from the above named article- "One of the most influential historians of India during the British Empire, James Mill was criticised for prejudice against Hindus. Horace Hayman Wilson wrote that the tendency of Mill's work was "evil". Mill claimed that both Indians and Chinese people are cowardly, unfeeling and mendacious. Both Mill and Grant attacked Orientalist scholarship that was too respectful of Indian culture: "It was unfortunate that a mind so pure, so warm in the pursuit of truth so devoted to oriental learning, as that of Sir William Jones, should have adopted the hypothesis of a high state of civilization in the principal countries of Asia." "

I have been warned so many times for my edits and so, I thought I will ask here first!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent reverts
Schools in India don't teach that India was ruled by the Marathas who were Hindus before the British East India Company conquered the Indian subcontinent and Crawford88 also feels the same, [see this edit]. A reference was also provided for the same! Are some of the editors just harassing the new comers?&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Explanation for the reverts were provided in the edit summaries. Nonetheless, for the record; the source does not explicitly say that this fact was related to prejudice against Hindus. Therefore, the addition is original research, which is not acceptable. Vanamonde (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The BJP claims that the Congress party purposely avoided mentioning that India was ruled by the Marathas who were Hindus before the British East India Company conquered the Indian subcontinent in History textbooks in India and in Maharashtra, after coming to power, they have gone to the extent of mentioning the Maratha Empire and erasing the Mughal history in the Maharashtra state board curriculum. I want to incorporate this information (that most of the Indian subcontinent was ruled by the Marathas before the British East India Company conquered it) in this article, so please tell me how to go about it.&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I observed that Wikipedians have congratulated you for bringing the article on the BJP to good article status, so I think you are the best person who can help here!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In order for us to include a certain incident in this article, a reliable secondary source must make the link between the absence of Marathas in the textbooks, and prejudice against Hinduism. The BJP is not a reliable source; nor is the Congress. As such any accusations by them deserve very little weight. Vanamonde (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Introduction
The name of this article has changed to Anti-Hindu sentiments, but the Lead is still about "Anti-Hinduism" - can we change that without removing the word, "religious intolerance"?&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, but please make just that change, else we will likely have another dispute on our hands. Vanamonde (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anti-Hindu sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929110314/http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1993/9/1993-9-12.shtml to http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1993/9/1993-9-12.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061219054300/http://www.ailf.org/ipc/barredzoneprint.asp to http://www.ailf.org/ipc/barredzoneprint.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070429013645/http://in.rediff.com/cms/print.jsp?docpath=%2Fnews%2F2005%2Faug%2F13guest1.htm to http://in.rediff.com/cms/print.jsp?docpath=%2Fnews%2F2005%2Faug%2F13guest1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704022731/http://www.financialexpress.com/latest_full_story.php?content_id=128069 to http://www.financialexpress.com/latest_full_story.php?content_id=128069

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Sourced Content
Wonder why this sourced content is being removed?— Trip Wire ________ʞlɐʇ 08:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's funny that Raymond3023 reverts sourced content while suggesting WP:BRD, but himself fails to actually participate in the discussion which was opened to discuss the same issue. Especially when he was already invited to to see the talk. — <em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkMagenta">Trip <em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkSlateGray">Wire ________ʞlɐʇ 12:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * He hasn't edited since he reverted you, maybe he is writing a reply, but let me reduce his workload by telling you the very obvious that the content was removed because it is being added by a paid editor's sock. Cherrypicking a single denial for something that is widely confirmed by enough reliable sources, and the denial that ends up with WP:SOAP, is WP:UNDUE. See WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, you need multiple reliable sources to prove back the contrary. Capitals00 (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really. Raymond3023 should have replied here instead of reverting and quoting BRD when the talk-section had already been opened. There's no reason expect edit-warring if one reverts an edit which is clearly asking him to see the talk and discuss the issue per BRD. Coming over to your point, I am sorry, what exactly it is? You dont want to sourced content because (1) it was (allegedly) made by a sock? (if you think its a sock, file and SPI) or (2) Only one source is given as a ref? Last time I checked, there's no policy which states that content sourced with a single ref cant be added? Just quoting a single sentence from the same article which has only one ref: False allegations have been made that Hindus are attacking Christians in India when the perpetrators were not even Hindus, just to defame Hindus.  How many else do you want?— <em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkMagenta">Trip <em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkSlateGray">Wire ________ʞlɐʇ 12:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No comment on the content as yet. But: if TripWire reinstated some content, they are explicitly taking responsibility for it. Therefore, removing it once again because it was added by a sock is inappropriate. Justify the removal based on the content; and if the content is bad enough, request sanctions on TripWire. Simply repeating "added by a sock" is inappropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No one removed problematic content after TripWire's revert as sock. But because of the problems with content itself. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the intervention. The text being removed has been sourced from a RS. Infact, the website being quoted is known for its critical coverage of Pakistani minorities, and most of its coverage has been very critical of Pakistan. Moreover, the same website has been frequently used on other articles especially while citing anti-Pak content. So, in the interest of providing a WP:NPOV to the article as a whole and to the section the sentence is being added to, in particular, the removed text should be reinserted. This will also satisfy WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT and balance out the article as a whole. Vanamonde93, I donot know of any sock or the actual history that this article or the IP might have as i have been inactive during the previous year. I am no one to judge. The article was on my watch since long, saw an un-warranted revert of sourced content, so opened a section to discuss the same, even though the other two editors focused more on edit-warring.— <em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkMagenta">Trip <em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkSlateGray">Wire ________ʞlɐʇ 22:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT doesn't means you can include fringe or apologetic or isolated WP:SOAP. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I buy Raymond's claim that this is a fringe position, but in any case, if it isn't fringe, that should be easy enough to demonstrate; just find another source (or sources) which support the same general point. Vanamonde (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a fringe position. The statement was attributed to a political scientist with OUP-published books. But I would prefer if the source is a scholarly work with some detailed discussion, rather than a random quote in a newspaper. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, some scholarly work is desired for such assertion. First sentence claims there is no bias and second sentence provides authors justification for resentment. There is a disconnect. The hostility and bias between the two countries is there even in a match of cricket. This claim that hostility is absent should get backing from multiple secondary source to be considered mainstream. --G (talk) 06:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't about countries, though. It's about anti-Hindu sentiment, and though some people do not like to admit it, that isn't the same as anti-Indian sentiment. Anything against either cricket team is nationalist sentiment, not religious. Vanamonde (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is significant overlap between anti-India and anti-Hindu when it comes to Pakistan. There have been instance where Pakistan cricket player commented Indian player to leave Hinduism and convert to Islam, he did not ask to change nationality. You can ignore cricket comment. The point I made was: anti-Hindu sentiment is present and backed by sources (1, 2). The stand that "anti-India or anti-Hindu bias" (as used by Rais) is absent is fringe. --G (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, that isn't at issue. THe dominant narrative, obviously, is that anti-Hindu sentiment exists in Pakistan. There is some support for the view that it doesn't exist. Per WP:DUE, we need to give that view some weight in the article, unless it is a fringe view. The question here is whether it is or not. Presenting more sources saying that there is persecution isn't getting us anywhere. Vanamonde (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We need multiple scholarly sources to say it is not fringe, because major sources concur that anti-Hindu bias exists in Pakistan. I threw in two sources, the article has more. --G (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The entire section on Pakistan in the article is devoted to show that anti-hindu sentiment exist in Pakistan, I wonder why in the interest of WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE an alternative view shouldn't be added to the section? Leaving out this sourced content by a renouned scholar goes against the spirit of WP. It's like giving a verdict that anti-hindu sentiment does exist in Pakistan. Just to support my point, below are few sources saying that anti-hindu sentiments are not a common practice in Pakistan. (As brought up by, this need not to be confused with anti-India sentiments):

Sindh govt announces holiday for Hindu staff for Holi

Holi celebrations continue across Sindh

In a first, Sindh declares public holiday on Holi

Sindh govt announces holiday for Hindu employees on Holi

Holi, a public holiday in Pakistan’s Sindh province

All this is happening when Pakistan elected its first Dalit women as a Senator in its Senate (a first even when compared to India):

First-ever Hindu Dalit woman Senator sworn in Pakistan

Pakistan elects its first Dalit woman Senator

Above in view, if people are still isn't ready to balace out the article, then it's mere POV pushing.— <em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkMagenta">Trip <em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkSlateGray">Wire ________ʞlɐʇ 10:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * These news clips are all referring to one instance of Holi in Sindh province of Pakistan. These do not talk of absence of anti-Hindu bias. Because the bias is so very strong a little corrective action became news worthy. Have you seen news like Id celebration continues across Bengal stand out and get special coverage one year? It is celebrated every year across entire India and Muslims are given holiday across India, that reflects absence of anti-Muslim bias in India. You are incorrect about Dalit legislator also, India had many before. In fact that piece also acutely underlines the strong anti-Hindu bias in Pakistan, that is what makes it news worthy. --G (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Holi, Dewali etc are celebrated in routine in Pakistan, they aren't newsworthy because that's routine, what's newsworthy here is that the event is celebrated inside the Sindh Govt building/assembly. Second, Pakistan is a Muslim country unlike India which is a secular state, hence a Dalit becoming a Senator is a news, which does not automatically means there's a strong anti-hindu bias in Pakistan. I hope you understand the diff b/w a secular state electing religious politicians Vs a Muslim country electing a non-Mulism leader? Also, this piece from Huffington Post amply burst the bubble of strong anti-hindu bias in Pakistan:
 * A Pakistani Hindu visiting India was asked "What is it like being a Hindu in Pakistan? (The people asking the question expecting that the visitor will narrate the so called anti-hindu bias apparently existing in Pakistan), but surprisingly his reply :


 * So, it seems that the anti-hindu bias in Pakistan exists as a figment of mind in some Indians, and the same is being forced here.— <em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkMagenta">Trip <em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkSlateGray">Wire ________ʞlɐʇ 11:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't use deceptive edit summaries such as you did here, I have clearly replied to your comments above and you don't have to misrepresent my activities. Your personal research based on an opinion piece that has heavily focused on researching Anti-Hindu sentiment, and provided its indication is not going to help you. So far no one has agreed with your edits, so stop edit warring. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * TripWire, you're digging a hole for yourself here. If you want to include the view that there isn't anti-Hindu sentiment, you need to provide multiple reliable sources that directly support that statement. Saying "Hindus were given a holiday for Holi, so obviously there's no anti-Hindu bias" is classical original research. Vanamonde (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it. Will do so when Im on PC, mob isnt helping. @Raymond, your level of participation here speaks alot, no need to explain.— <em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkMagenta">Trip <em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkSlateGray">Wire ________ʞlɐʇ 13:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Although I avoid editing this topic area, I do think it should be noted that "Hindus" are not any religious group, but many religious groups and that "Hindu" is a pan-terminology in the same respect as Native Amercianaism. The rest of what tripwire has written seems acceptable to me, though I agree that sources are needed. I'll see what I can provide for these.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

False allegations
This article is locked for editing, so someone please correct the grammar of the sentence which reads, "False allegations have been made that Hindus and Sangh Parivar[9] in a are attacking Christians in a systemic manner in India when the perpetrators were not even Hindus.[10]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.66.132.119 (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is fully protected right now. But when it lifts, this whole sentence should be deleted because it is sourced to Swarajya, which is not a mainstream news source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is Swarajya not RS? Crawford88 (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , If Swarajya is not mainstream, are we then extending the same courtesy to Wire, Tehelka, The Print and Scroll? I am fine with either way but we need to keep this consistent. IMO, all of these sort of fall into the same basket. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see what parallel you are drawing. The Wire has a Wiki page, and some other new media publications are also mentioned there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well so does AltNews.in, Breitbart News and InfoWars but that does not mean anything. If I actually look at the media bias fact check (an independent organization) for Wire and Swarajya. Now both of them do show that their factual reporting is indeed high but they do have their set of biases unlike say Times of India or Indian Express . Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, the fact check site says factual reporting is "high". So I stand corrected. However, Vanamonde points out that the source is an op-ed, which has to be attributed as per WP:NEWSORG, and we have to agree that it is a notable viewpoint that warrants inclusion.
 * I also got goose pimples when I read the sentence in the article because of WP:Weasel, "false allegations have been made, and the generality "in a systematic manner in India". If the source actually said such things, it would have needed to provide solid evidence. (Compare that for example, to the P.N. Benjamin statement which, I believe, I added some time ago.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Crawford, my impression from reading articles on Swarajya is that it mainly caters to the Hindu Right readership. If you disagree, you are welcome to find reliable sources and create a page on it. We will want to see how much non-Hindu participation there is in it, either on its staff or its readership or both. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it has editorial oversight. Reliability is not judged by how many non-Hindus are there in staff or reader. --Gian (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The magazine as a whole may have editorial oversight; that does not mean every article does. It's highly unlikely that a piece written by an editor, in a section titled "our views", is receiving editorial oversight. Vanamonde (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Gian, please read the whole discussion and make sure you understand what is being talked about. The question was whether Swarajya is a mainstream news source. For it to be so, it needs to have a broad cross section of the population on its staff as well as its readership. Otherwise, it is a clubby publication and it should not be used. The news reporting may be factual, especially if Swarajya puts out information from news agencies and mainstream newspapers. But if that is all it does, there is no need to use Swarajya at all. We could rather use a mainstream newspaper. But Swarajya is being used here for views, and those would be clubby views, and will not be acceptable for Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the question is/was of reliability of Swarajya, I commented on it after reading the discussion. Is there a study saying The Wire is more mainstream than Swarajya or vice versa? --Gian (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we have two distinct issues here which need to be addressed separately. First one is about the information which has added to this page and sourced to Swarajya. The question here should this is be included in this page. Here, I agree with, that this should be removed. My agreement with them is not based on the fact that Swarajya is not WP:RS but that this has presented more as an opinion and we should be careful with sources which are known to have a bias. This bring us to the second and more overarching issue (and this might not be the right forum for this discussion and might require a larger participation of all the stakeholders). The second issue, should be take all non-mainstream sources like The Wire, Swarajya, Firstpost, Tehelka, The Print, Scroll, Cobrapost, Caravan Magazine with a grain of salt when it comes to political and social reporting in India. We can use them for normal reporting but there is a high possibility that even when there are news reports (not marked as my views or opinions) in these sources they might be biases to support a particular view over the other. And this goes back to  point that some of them (the first three or four) can be considered WP:RS since they have editorial oversight and have high factual accuracy but in cases when we are certain that they are not trying to push a certain narrative. Thoughts? Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me state my position once again, for the nth time: if it is sectarian, it is not mainstream. If it is not mainstream, we don't regard it as a reliable source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am confused on the fact as to on what basis are you terming any source (Swarajya or the The Wire) as sectarian? I will reiterate my position. As far the data content sourced to Swarajya on this page, this must be removed. But that does not make it or another source sectarian. Biased yes but we need more than that to not use it (in other cases) per WP:BIASED. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * From my understanding the relevant policy is wp:newsorg for Swarajya not wp:scholarship. The talk around mainstream does not hold water. The Wire is highly biased source. The question of how many non-Hindu staff are there in Swarajya is stupid. --Gian (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that a better source be found instead of removing the sentence itself as some editors will keep objecting to other sources being unreliable also and then sentences will be removed left, right and centre (I have seen some thing like that happen earlier, but did not have the time to save those sentences in those articles back then)- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yavanika2 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC) I saw articles by defence.pk, daily.yo and even the Times of India online which we can use here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yavanika2 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll remove that line if there is consensus that the source is not RS. --regentspark (comment) 21:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As I explained above, the article in question was written by an editor (and so is unlikely to have had further oversight), published in the "our view" section, which, a priori, sounds like the opinion section. Vanamonde (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu sentiment within India
So, how about anti-Hindu sentiment within India? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  18:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this can be used as a source for that: https://satyavijayi.com/from-kathua-to-kanchi-how-the-secular-police-prosecution-media-nexus-twists-the-arms-of-the-courts/

Cases of "Rape without touching" FROM COMMON HINDU CITIZENS TO HINDU GURUS AND SWAMIS

The truth every Indian should know and share. The article is locked for editing, so please add it when it is unlocked  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.203.57.24 (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hinduphobia
It seems to me that the source is an opinion piece and can hardly be used as a reference for an alternative term for Anti-Hindu sentiment. I should think that alternative names require strong sources and this, imo, is not reliable let alone a strong source. --regentspark (comment) 16:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the source is an inappropriate one. I'm not so sure about the term, though; a google scholar search brings up some results: . Admittedly, very few of these are mainstream scholarly publications, and very few of them have a significant number of citations. Per WP:DUE, I don't think this deserves mention in the lead, and the source definitely needs to be replaced. Vanamonde (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I had reverted the first addition of that term by . This source is by no means a WP:RS, plus we need widespread evidence that the specific term is in use (by experts) or has been adopted in daily parlance. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the term is an odd one. Phobia implies the fear of something so Hinduphobia would mean the fear of Hindus or Hinduism. While some people may be living with the fear of Hindus taking over the old order or some such thing, I assume that the vast majority of anti-Hindu sentiment is just a dislike for "the other". If there is indeed some usage of the term, perhaps it would better fit in the body (in Anti-Hindu_sentiment, which should probably be retitled to Anti-Hindu_sentiment anyway). --regentspark (comment) 18:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it's odd: if I had to guess, I'd say it's an attempt to equate this phenomenon with Islamophobia and/or Homophobia (which both have a component of hate to them, but also have a basis in fear, too) whereas the material we're dealing with here is largely hate/ignorance/generic bigotry (which is what you're saying, if I read it correctly). Vanamonde (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The term "phobia" appears to be the standard suffix to use when discussing dislike, mistrust and / or negative sentiments towards any one group of people. The articles on Wikipedia relating to Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobis clarify this - "Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT)" - "Biphobia is aversion toward bisexuality and toward bisexual people as a social group or as individuals." - "Transphobia is a range of negative attitudes, feelings or actions toward transgender or transsexual people, or toward transsexuality." To deny this term to Hindu people who are suffering discrimination, mistrust or other negative attitudes towards them itself constitutes a form of Hinduphobia which an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia should not support. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the term "anti-Hindu sentiment" returns significantly less results than the alternative term "Hinduphobia" which demonstrates that the latter term is in more widespread use than the former. I would also like to point out and that the term ""anti-Hindu sentiment" is its self not referenced in the lead paragraph. Also, the term "Hinduphobia" does appear in several dictionaries and is defined as "Fear, loathing, hatred, deep disrespect of Hinduism, its symbols, practices, beliefs and/or practioners". Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To deny this term to Hindu people who are suffering discrimination, mistrust or other negative attitudes towards them itself constitutes a form of Hinduphobia which an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia should not support. I'm afraid that's not an argument you can use. Also, could you please provide some sources? OED, for example, doesn't have a definition for the word. Nor does Britannica or webster's. We have to be careful that we're not inventing terms or over emphasizing marginal terms so proper sourcing is a must.--regentspark (comment) 22:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears that there is consensus against inclusion of the term, at least in the lead., I'm removing it for now. The discussion here can continue in the meantime. --regentspark (comment) 16:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm for using this term in the lede. Hinduphobia and anti-Hindu sentiment are used interchangeability. Phobia literally means "irrational fear", which exactly is what many of the instances described in this article represent. Rioter 1 (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not enough Rioter 1. You need to provide reliable sources that hinduphobia is a common enough term to be used as a description of anti-Hindu sentiment for it to be included in the lead. --regentspark (comment) 16:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Media terms people with anti-Hindu sentiments as mentally unstable instead of Anti-India or Anti-Hindu
I want to add that the media terms people with anti-Hindu sentiments  as mentally unstable instead of Anti-India or Anti-Hindu citing these: 1, 2, 3. Is it worth mentioning in this article?-Karumari (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This is another biased article by the media (menstruating women are trying to enter Sabarimala to offend Hindus - many are not even Hindus)!-Karumari (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOR. We cannot use this sources to discuss "anti-Hindu sentiment" because they make no mention of the topic. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't see why they should have those words - it is the sentiment only we should look for in the citations. You have contributed to this article and also brought the article on the Bharatiya Janata Party to good article status, apart from contributing to other articles and even becoming an administrator. Can you please use the four references above in this article and form sentences? Thanks!-Karumari (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to do that, and I have already explained why: it violates our policy on no original research. Reliable sources have to describe something as "anti-Hindu sentiment" for us to include it here. The words don't have to be exactly the same, but they do have to be equivalent; throwing a shoe at an Indian war memorial isn't close enough. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , This says, "Man vandalises Hanuman murti and then offers namaz, says Allah asked him to do so". Don't you think it deserves a mention in this article?-Karumari (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. As I've explained to you before, OpIndia is not a reliable source. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , Is this a more reliable source?&mdash;Karumari (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is also on YouTube (You Tube has been used as a reference on wikipedia)!-Karumari (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As that source is essentially just reproducing the OpIndia article, no, it isn't. And the youtube link doesn't work for me. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sabarimala
, You just removed this. However, I think Sabarimala needs a mention here.&mdash; Karumari (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to find a reliable source which describes these efforts as examples of anti-Hindu sentiment. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It mentions the attempted entry into the Sabarimala temple followed by the sentence, "she was arrested by the Pathanamthitta police on November 27 for allegedly posting content on Facebook that hurt the sentiments of Ayyappa devotees. She was in jail for 18 days for hurting sentiments and is out on bail. ".-Karumari (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's about offending, not exhibiting prejudice against, and it's about one specific set of devotees, not Hindus in general. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is about offending Ayyappa devotees who are Hindus. I hope you can add it in a way that is acceptable here!-Karumari (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The cited reference clearly mentions, "that hurt the sentiments of Ayyappa devotees".&mdash;Karumari (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The ban clearly offends the sentiments of all women (Hindu or not). Please take it from me, this is a dispute about traditions, not any instance of any "anti-X sentiment". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The cited reference clearly mentions, "that hurt the sentiments of Ayyappa devotees". Talking of traditions, why should women be disallowed entry into mosques or from conducting the mass on Sundays in the church?-Karumari (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Or are you sugggesting that "Ayyappa devotees" are not Hindus? Ayyappa is a Hindu deity, and Ayyappa devotees are Hindus, set theory 101. Rioter 1 (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SYNTHESIS. "Set theory" is SYNTHESIS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it? SYNTH talks about mixing two sources and inferering a third proposition. 04:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rioter 1 (talk • contribs)

Planning Creation of a New Page 2019
Hi there, just noticed that the page has become larger that just sentiment and includes actions etc. which fall beyond the original meaning. Planning on developing the hinduphobia page as a sort of encompassing term for persecution and sentiment, sort of like how the homophobia page is. Help would be appreciated. Hindian1947 (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The denigration of Hindu deities as Demons
Vanamonde, I observed that you are an admin and would not like to edit war with you. Please let me know what is wrong with the references I used for the denigration of Hindu deities as Demons.-Dona-Hue (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Dona-Hue I told you once: the issue is that it does not meet our guideline for reliable sources. Vanamonde (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde, A wikipedia editor I know offline told me that we can use websites as "notes". Is it so?-Dona-Hue (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Dona-Hue: You can use websites only if they meet the guideline above. Most websites would not qualify as reliable sources. For a topic such as this one, scholarly sources are preferred; this means journal articles or books. Vanamonde (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I have observed that many websites have been used in many wikipedia articles, so please let me know about what kind of websites are acceptable here.&mdash; Dona-Hue (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Dona-Hue: I cannot provide you with a list. I have told you several times now that you can only use something which meets the guideline for reliable sources. Read that guideline, and find sources which meet it, please. Vanamonde (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

, you have added this text to the article:


 * Please explain where you find the denigration of "blasphemous", "devil worshippers", "heathens" etc. in the sources.
 * Please explain what kind of a source is the first citation? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3, Vanamonde removed those sentences and I restored it with what I think are better sources. Please let me know if the references I have used are Reliable sources.- Dona-Hue (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you restore those sentences with the references I have used or find better Reliable sources?- Dona-Hue (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have already said that "islamreligion.com" is not a reliable source. Wendy Doniger would generally be considered reliable; but you need to demonstrate that the source in question supports the content in question. And that responsibility is solely on you, since you are the one adding the content. Please read WP:BURDEN. Vanamonde (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

So, can we use just the Encyclopedia Britannica as a reference for those sentences?-Dona-Hue (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * More importantly, can we restore all those sentences? They were there before you removed them and I am merely trying to restore them.-Dona-Hue (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first step must be to answer the two questions I have asked above. Vanamonde has already answered the second question for you, with the answer "not a reliable source". Please answer the first question. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is what I can read in the body of the article on Hinduism by the Encyclopedia Britannica, "Their denigration of selected features of Hindu practice—most notably image worship, suttee, and child marriage (the first two were also criticized by Muslims)—was shared by certain Hindus. Beginning in the 19th century and continuing into the 21st, a movement that might be called neo-Vedanta has emphasized the monism of certain Upanishads, decried “popular” Hindu “degenerations” such as the worship of idols, acted as an agent of social reform, and championed dialogue between other religious communities." There are a couple of more sentences after that, which I want you to read and suggest if we can incorporate here. I request you to help instead of rejecting that source completely. Thanks!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was trying to restore the sentences that Vanamonde removed, but I guess that since the source I have used, does not contain the words, "denigration of "blasphemous", "devil worshippers", "heathens" etc.," we can avoid using them in this wikipedia article. I am using, "we" to show that I am trying to collaborate with you. Thanks!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Yes, you need to stick to what the source says. We cannot say anything substantive about Muslims from this source, because Doniger is only saying they criticized some aspects of Hinduism, and criticism is not "anti-Hinduism". What you can say is that Christian missionaries denigrated certain aspects of Hinduism, such as sati, idol worship, and child marriage. Of course whether even this denigration is "anti-Hindu" is up for debate. Kautilya, what do you think? Vanamonde (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, denigration of "certain features" of Hinduism doesn't amount to denigration of Hinduism itself. And, Doniger is saying that these features were even denigrated by sections of Hindus themselves. So Dona-Hue is on a weak wicket here.
 * , you need to your research here if you want to be able to write about this. Trying googling for "Christian missionaries views on Hinduism" or something like that to find out what their views are in the first place. Some of it may be good and some of it may be bad. But you shouldn't go with a preconceived view of what the reality is, but honestly try to find out what the reality is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How is the criticism of 'sati' and 'child marriage' denigration? —  Tyler Durden  (talk)  17:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Criticism in and of itself is not denigration. If Doniger calls it denigration, it could be given some weight: but as K says, it was only with respect to an aspect of Hinduism: and other sects of Hinduism were also similarly critical, as she notes. As I said above, I would hesitate to call this an example of anti-Hindu sentiment. Vanamonde (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde the Encyclopedia Britannica article mentioned above does say, "(the first two were also criticized by Muslims)", the first 2 being idol worship and sati!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel these are anti-Hindu sentiments (esp. the denigration of idol worship)!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To repeat what I said, denigration of "certain features" of Hinduism doesn't amount to denigration of Hinduism itself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest we mention the denigration of idol worship by Muslims and Christians using the Encyclopedia Britannica article mentioned above as a reference and add other words or sentences when we find Reliable sources for them!-Dona-Hue (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Dona-Hue, there is a difference between "criticize" and "denigrate". Doniger only says Christian missionaries engaged in denigration; so even if "denigration" amounted to "anti-Hindu sentiment" (which we are not agreed on) you could still only apply that to the Christian missionaries. Vanamonde (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dona, please find some other sources that talk of denigration of Hinduism itself in the context of idol worship. We can certainly add 'denigration of idol worship' after that. Don't worry. —  Tyler Durden  (talk)  04:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @Tyler, I am hard pressed for time and so, I want you people to accept that Encyclopedia Britannica article mentioned above as a reference now and add other words or sentences when we find Reliable sources for them!

@Vanamonde, the Encyclopedia Britannica article mentioned above does say, "(the first two were also criticized by Muslims)", the first 2 being idol worship and sati/suttee!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see the dictionary meanings of criticize and denigrate. Criticism of Hinduism is in no way 'anti-Hinduism'. ---  Tyler Durden  (talk)  05:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @Tyler, We want to add it to the "Stereotypes" section.&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dona-Hue: Who is "we"? Vanamonde (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * By "we" I mean the consenting editors!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I see nobody except you who want to add that content with that source. —  Tyler Durden  (talk)  09:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I found this online, "Christian evangelists who denigrate Hindu gods and abuse Hindu rituals as barbaric" here: Who's afraid of dialogue? Can we use that?&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Then there's the last sentence of the first paragraph from this link: Missions and the Pentecostalization of Indian Christianity! &mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can use them. But please check if the content you're trying to add is already covered in the article, don't add repetitive POVs. Regards,  Tyler Durden  (talk)  14:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I promise to check before adding any reference-Dona-Hue (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this a Reliable source: http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.indian/2008-09/msg00349.html ?-Dona-Hue (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What about this: "WENDY DONIGER, HINDUISM STUDIES AND DHIMMITUDE" by Dr. Madan L. Goel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, The University of West Florida, @ www.uwf.edu/lgoel ?-Dona-Hue (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@ Tyler Durden, thanks for improving the references I cited. based on what the first reference said. Can you formulate a sentence where all 3 sources can be used. I am sure you can. Thanks again for all the help!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Dona, please see this section first. Is anything you are trying to add, new, and not already covered in the article? ---  Tyler Durden  (talk)  16:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, please provide full citations, and check if they are reliable sources or not. I am afraid your editing is getting tiresome. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Tyler Durden, none of those references have been used before in this wikipedia article and more importantly, the NY Times reference is about "Owaisi", an Indian Muslim.
 * Kautilya3, I believe that they are Reliable sources. I have seen that books.google.com, online Newspapers and so on are considered Reliable sources (which is what I had used)! Are you just trying to harass me?&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. The piece in The Hindu was reader's comment. It wasn't news. Since the writer seems to be a notable man, I have reinstated it with WP:In-text attribution. Please see WP:NPOV: do not state opinions as facts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * With the statement(s) of one Indian Muslim, Akbaruddin Owaisi, writing that Muslims denigrate non-Muslims for their ethnicity and religions, Hinduism and the Sikh faith being targets. is way too absurd. In Wikipedia language, WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. I fail to figure out why it is so hard for you to see this. —  Tyler Durden  (talk)  18:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Tyler Durden, quoting that NY Times reference, "Akbaruddin Owaisi, a party leader and fiery orator known for his vitriolic speeches, has been charged several times with hate speech over remarks denigrating Hindu gods and inciting violence. He was arrested last year on charges of inciting communal enmity, sedition and criminal conspiracy for speeches he made in Andhra Pradesh" is what we can read. Can you formulate an acceptable sentence for that reference (or else someone may revert what I add)? Please help as I am still a Rookie/novice here. Thanks!-Dona-Hue (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * These are another couple of references I want to be incorporated into this article (about a Muslim who has fled India because the Government wanted to arrest him for his hate speeches): Zakir Naik tried to distort Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's message: Art Of Living foundation, Zakir Naik quoted Vedas out of context, tried to insult Hinduism: Art of Living, Zakir Naik glad controversy united Umno and PAS and All you need to know about Zakir Naik-Dona-Hue (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Owaisi and Zakir Naik can probably be "quoted" together with just one sentence!-Dona-Hue (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please propose the text you want to add with full citations in a quotebox (like you did above), and we can discuss it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We can probably have, "Muslims denigrate and insult Hinduism and other idol-worshipping religions" and use the references about Owaisi and Zakir Naik and maybe even use some references from another wikipedia article titled, "Aurangzeb", as he (and many other muslim rulers) were insulting Hinduism!-Dona-Hue (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no way you are going to cite two Muslims and make claims about all Muslims. I think I will stop debating with you now. It is clear that you have absolutely no understanding of Wikipedia policies, and don't care to learn either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Most Muslims denigrate Idol worship, preach that Hindu deities are Jinns (Demons), destroy temples if they can, kill or convert pagans to Islam (if they can), kidnap pagan females and add them to their "harem" and rape them (if they can) and so on, as all that is mentioned in the Quran. If you feel that I have absolutely no understanding of Wikipedia policies, why don't you suggest how we can quote Owaisi and Zakir Naik in this wikipedia article. Please help (I know that you are experienced). Thanks!-Dona-Hue (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Most Muslims denigrate Idol worship, preach that Hindu deities are Jinns (Demons), destroy temples if they can, kill or convert pagans to Islam (if they can), kidnap pagan females and add them to their "harem" and rape them (if they can) and so on, as all that is mentioned in the Quran. (emphasis mine) - This is WP:OR, and Dona, you are being nowhere near maintaining a WP:NPOV. I suggest you to take your time, read the policies that are being cited by other editors, and return to editing especially only after you make sure you achieve a neutral point of view. Please. ---  Tyler Durden  (talk)  04:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just quoting from the Quran, it is not my personal point of view. Now can you use the 3 references I mentioned above and the online newspaper reports about Zakir Naik's speeches, links to which I have provided above and formulate an acceptable sentence? Thanks!-Dona-Hue (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dona, I'm replying out of courtesy, but I politely want to tell you that you're wasting everyone's time.
 * Firstly, you didn't quote anything from Quran. I doubt if you have actually read it. That "many Muslims" comment is purely your prejudice.
 * Secondly, none of the sources you provided assert that the Islamic preacher Zakir Naik denigrated Hinduism or Hindu Gods. Allegations or accusations by opponents do not fit this article. You can go write about them in his biography articles, if they're not already covered there.
 * Thirdly, I don't think denigration by one Muslim MLA from Hyderabad is worth mentioning here in this broader article. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia article on Anti-Hinduism, it'd be WP:UNDUE.
 * Lastly, I humbly request you to get over this silly obsession of adding anything against Muslims. This is my sincere advice. More than this, I cannot help you for anything. Please don't​ ask me. Best regards,  Tyler Durden  (talk)  14:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that I have taken so much of your time - I hope you have realised I am new here. Now, Kautilya 3 has incorporated PN Benjamin's quotation here, so can we incorporate Owaisi's quotation also here? There are many Muslims who have insulted or denigrated Hindus and Hinduism but I am not sure if the sources can be considered reliable and have not mentioned them here, but if you search online, I am sure you can find a lot of such instances! You can probably add them to this article (if I do it, somebody may revert it)!

I feel that once Vanamonde succeeds in changing this article's title to "Anti-Hindu sentiments" we can add a lot more material here.-Dona-Hue (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, good evening,it seems people are not aware of the degradation of non-believers in Rig Veda and Yajurveda. Dasrya is a degrading term for non-aryans by the Vedic seers. Why are Kafir and pagan so offensive to Hindus now? Thanks. I am a new user here. But I would like to contribute more to Hindu related subjects. And also why is criticism of Hinduism being offensive and 'denigration?' Thanks and take care. Mannyboy2015 (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Mannyboy

Please stop being Pro-Hindu
Dear fellow Wikipideans, please stop being pro-Hindu. If criticizing Hinduism is denigration, then Christianity and Islam should be the forefront. Please stop pretending Hinduism is peaceful or being Hindu means Jain, Budhist, or Sikhi. It's actually funny whenever anything related to Hinduism is based on some local magazines. There should be a criticism of Hinduism section. A concerned minority Indian. Thanks and Regards§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:890F:5F00:EC9E:3A41:475:C1F4 (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

need to clean up
The article needs clean up to meet the standard. Anti Hindu sentiment should be included while valid criticism should be removed or added to another article named criticism of Hinduism. I’m waiting for a senior editor to reply my concerns. If no one does this then I will edit myself. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashoka the idiot (talk • contribs)
 * You can do it, but you need to first gain some experience editing Wikipedia and familiarise yourself with its policies. Signing your posts would be a good first step.
 * You will need to go slow, and discuss here any disagreements you face and be ready to back up your issues with reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Zakir Naik
I feel Zakir Naik needs to be mentioned in this article. Someone please do it! I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:281d:5fc6::1 (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop raising the help template. You've posted your request here, but it's too diffuse to take specific action on.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 01:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Copying from above: "These are a couple of references I want to be incorporated into this article (about a Muslim who has fled India because the Government wanted to arrest him for his hate speeches): Zakir Naik tried to distort Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's message: Art Of Living foundation, Zakir Naik quoted Vedas out of context, tried to insult Hinduism: Art of Living, Zakir Naik glad controversy united Umno and PAS and All you need to know about Zakir Naik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:282A:6771:0:0:0:1 (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It still does does not need the help template, you can leave the links on this page and someone who reads this talk page can add them if they find the fit. CodeLyoko  talk  17:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Severe Anti-Muslim and Anti-Christian Bias As Well As Failure To Distinguish Between Anti Hinduism and Hinduophobia
I see that I'm not the only one whom has noted a severe Muslimophobia and Christianophobia on this article. I also see that others have addressed the presumably-deliberate failure to distinguish between criticism of Hinduism and hatefulness against Hindus. 100.16.225.158 (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can point to specific passages that exhibit this bias, that will be helpful. Pick a passage and explain, briefly (or no one will read it), why you think it should not be included in this article (criticism rather than hate). If possible, provide sources. --regentspark (comment) 13:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for name change.
Request for changing the name of the article from Anti-Hindu Sentiment to Hinduphobia as it is the term which is widely used by media houses for denoting anything even pertaining to this. Edward Zigma (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Hinduphobia" means fear of Hindu. I don't think it is a common phenomenon, even if some sources misuse the term. This page covers prejudices, not "phobias". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * FOR. It would make sense, Anti-muslim sentiment redirects to Islamophobia. Name change would make it consistent. Keep the content exactly the same except possibly fixing the definition up abd changing mentions of "Anti-Hindu sentiment" to "Hinduphobia". Also articles etc specifically mentioning the term Hinduphobia would have a place to go, rather than redirecting to here. Hinduphobia as a term is used far more often than anti-hindu sentiment. Kautilya3 Definition of Hinduphobia: https://www.yourdictionary.com/hinduphobia Hindian1947 (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to provide good, high-quality sources that use the term. yourdictionary.com doesn't count. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Well firstly there's Rajiv Malhotra who wrote the book "Academic Hinduphobia" and coined the phrase also. https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/7341271

There's also the book, "Rearming Hinduism: Nature, Hinduphobia, and the Return of Indian Intelligence" by Vamsee Juluri. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23183450-rearming-hinduism

There's Devdutt Patanaik, who is a famous speaker and writer. Here's an article written by him on Hinduphobia: https://devdutt.com/articles/the-rise-of-hindu-phobia/

Another article talking about Hinduphobia, which has also been sourced and referenced. "Reflections on Hinduphobia A Perspective from a Scholar - Practitioner" by Jeffery D Long. https://www.esamskriti.com/e/Culture/Indian-Culture/Reflections-on-Hinduphobia-A-Perspective-from-a-Scholar-~-Practitioner-1.aspx

An article by Rajiv Malhotra on Hinduphobia. On his official site. https://rajivmalhotra.com/library/articles/washington-post-hinduphobia/

Here's a couple more blogs and/or articles by major news publications mentioning Hinduphobia: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-3943620/How-anti-Hindu-fashionable-India-s-middle-class.html

http://www.pragyata.com/mag/dissecting-hinduphobia-751

https://www.pgurus.com/hinduphobia-in-canadian-universities-some-appeared-to-be-promoting-hindu-holocaust/

Hindian1947 (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The specific phrase "Anti-Hindu sentiment" isn't a phrase used because it's common; it's used because it's the most basic English description of the phenomenon. "Prejudice against Hindus" would be equivalent. For us to replace this with "Hinduphobia", it would have to be generally used to describe the phenomenon of prejudice against Hindus. You haven't demonstrated anything of the kind; indeed, these sources are the exceptions that prove the rule, because after three sources from reasonably significant authors you've started listing fringe sources. There's nothing to indicate Pragyata is reliable; pgurus.com is decidedly unreliable; and the dailymail is so unreliable that it's use was disallowed by a community-wide RfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Fair thing to say. I did specifically mention that the last three were blogs/articles. They do help show usage. Here are a couple more from other sources showing usage of the term. I do believe it's fair to say the term is commonly used to describe prejudice against Hindus.

IBTimes article: https://www.ibtimes.com/npr-producer-slammed-hinduphobia-tweet-forced-resign-2825867

Toronto sun columnist Tarek Fatah: https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/fatah-hinduphobia-at-an-islamic-centre

Huffpost and also a Hindu American Foundation contributer: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_10030678

And here's a link to google scholar. Clear to see that there is significant usage in the academic field undoubtedly. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Hinduphobia&btnG=

Hindian1947 (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I think Hinduphobia is more widely used term rather than anti-hindu sentiment. Anti-Hindu sentiment means something which is in common perception which is against Hinduism. This refer to same meaning as Hinduphobia which means negative perception against hinduism. But keeping this in line with wikipedia convention would be better. Can we reach a consensus on this arguement? Edward Zigma (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Exactly. If we look at similar articles. Anti-Muslim sentiment redirects to Islamophobia, and Anti-Jewish sentiment redirects to Anti-Semitism. Makes sense to do the same with this article and clearly state what the article refers to(prejudice against Hindus/Hinduism) to avoid any potential confusion. Hindian1947 (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * FOR. Both the terms have veguely similar meaning excepting a minor difference whcih I don't think we need to fret about. Crawford88 (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So I can change it or not. Means I don't know how to actually reach a consensus here. So if yoy can tell me the process by this very example, that would be better for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Zigma (talk • contribs) 06:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 1 December 2019
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 16:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu sentiment → Hinduphobia – Commonly used term for the topic in question. Frequently used in academic research, news articles etc. Links and discussion are above. click here to view the previous discussion. Also as Anti-Muslim Sentiment redirects to Islamophobia and Anti-Jewish Sentiment to Anti-Semitism, it would be consistent. Hindian1947 (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The results don't conclusively swing either ways.
 * Also, the two titles refer to quite different stuff.Anti-Hindu sentiments have been often determined to exist in local populations by reputable independent scholars and has been causally linked to riots and similar stuff.The term Hinduphobia, in contrast, was mainly popularized by Rajiv Malhotra and his fellow-voyagers from right-wing, (see Invading the Sacred et al) alluding to forms of systemic discrimination against Hindus by anybody and everybody ranging from Western Scholars and Indian Marxists to Dalit-Bahujan activists and feminists. Independent reputable scholars, outside of the RW coterie, has near-always rejected this, as a skimming of the search-links in the above table will point to. Read this piece in part. Some reliable scholars have though used the term ( (1 et al) &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 06:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

to keep persecution of hindus into account we already have a page for that. . Then it doesnt make sense to account persecution at two places. Anti Hindu sentiment seems more bent towards hinduphobia which is a more widely used term from any source as explained by user. So giving permission to the request seems a good ideA. If you can explain why persecution of Hindus a second page and why we collect persecution issue here also then that would be better Edward Zigma (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my above arguments; essentially, in the absence of evidence that "Hinduphobia" is broadly used to mean prejudice against Hindus and Hinduism, we need to stick with the more general title. Also, the "consistency" argument has no basis in fact. The analogous articles are located at Islamophobia, Anti-semitism, Anti-Catholicism (and other similar titles for other branches of Christianity), and Persecution of Buddhists (a redirect from Anti-Buddhism). The "phobia" suffix applies only to Islam; it would in fact be more consistent with our other titles to keep this at "Anti-Hindu sentiment", though I personally would prefer "Prejudice against Hinduism", which is the broadest and most general title. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree .... &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I thought we already settled this in the above discussion. Even if "Hinduphobia" has some occurrences in scholarly discourse, it certainly doesn't mean what is discussed in this article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For - I've provided multiple links to blogs, articles, as well as scholar work above. I would partially agree with winged blades above. Looking at scholarly articles we can see there's quite a bit of a deadlock. However usage in blogs, articles and in general leans far more on the Hinduphobia side. Google searches(as an example) show there is a huge difference in usage. To Kautilya's point, I would disagree on the premise. The definition is not 'fear of Hindus'. It's more in line with other articles such as Islamophobia, Anti-Semitism. And winged blades argument can be applied to these pages too(jewish group, islamic groups using and helping popularise these terms). A compromise would be moving the page but correcting the definition and clearly stating what the articles actually refers to(I would argue the current article definition is very incomplete too). Hindian1947 (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ForAgree with keeping up with convention it seems good that we should change the name. And Hinduphobia is more commonly and more widely used term rather than anti-hindu sentiment. So its seems appropriate to allow this request.
 * Oppose per winged.-- <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 01:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * FOR. 'phobias' has always been invoked from the emic side, Hindu RW in this case. So, the argument that "others" don't use the term might be to "discredit them" or "it might just not be that popular". One scholar who has done considerable published work (not from Malhtora side) is Vamsee Juluri. Crawford88 (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The first assertion is rubbish, as is the second. You need to be phenomenally ignorant about these affairs to claim that Vamsee and Rajiv aren't any linked. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - After reading comments on the issue with deep thoughts, I think I can agree on not changing it. The reasons given by him are good and he cited how hits are low so fron that purpose too there seems no reason to change the name. I think I have reached consensus on that and I vote to not to change it. Edward Zigma (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

You Tube
I just saw this You Tube video at https://youtube.com/CyhLiEbSUbA and I am wondering if it can be added to the External links section. Can it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:281B:B9F7:7D2E:BD0F:568B:E8E9 (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You tube videos are not considered meaningful for inclusion. --regentspark (comment) 00:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The article doesn't go back far enough
Negative stereotypes, sometimes extreme, of Hindus and more specifically, Brahmans, greatly precede the British Raj as well as the Goan Inquisition. Galders and Gangadhara show how the pre-Renaissance positive image of Brahmans dating from Alexander's time was later interpreted as evidence of proto-Christianity, but gave way in the late 15th century to the pre-Reformation negative image of idolaters and devil-worshippers.

In "Genealogy of Colonial Discourse" Galders further details the critical role played by the "Calicut devil" in the Reformation. Brahmins were considered evil defilers of a pure proto-Christian religion and an analogy was made to the Catholic clergy. Pamphlets in various languages spread these ideas throughout Europe, including Britain.

Thus Brahmins came to be viewed as crass, ignorant purveyors of devil-worship in the very first formative years of European enclaves in India. Arguably, this negative stereotype became a foundation of European thinking about Hindus from the 16th century onward. Since it did not apply to Muslims, Europeans were more inclined to view Muslims favorably.

[Please consider the text above for inclusion in the article] Sooku (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement that it is limited to the British Raj. For instance, the Muslim rule is covered. Please feel free to add new material, but keep it brief please. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

yes prehistoric image of community has not been portrayed properly. Hindu phobia has not also been shown in case of Pakistan Bangladesh UtkarshMishra.1 (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Request to move page to Hinduphobia
The term Hinduphobia is WIDELY used in the media. It also has a decisively higher academic footprint.

It should be included. The common issue with a community all over the world UtkarshMishra.1 (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Question
Friends and fellow Wikipedians, just removed this. He asked me to get consensus for it, so please comment. Can we have those sentences in this article? Please comment if it should be restored.-Dr2Rao (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the addition of that.-Dr2Rao (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. These sources are not weighty enough to merit inclusion here. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion per Vanamonde Idealigic (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion, it's a WP:REDFLAG claim considering Indian politics today. Doug Weller  talk 17:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I invite others also to comment.-Dr2Rao (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:CANVAS? On what basis have you selected the editors you pinged? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not know about WP:CANVAS but will refrain from it in future. Please let me know how many people I am allowed to "ping" at a time.-Dr2Rao (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not about a number of people, it's about how they are chosen. You cannot just ping editors who you think will support you, and when you ask for opinions, the request needs to be phrased neutrally. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * so can I ping any number of people if I follow the 2 rules you mentioned?-Dr2Rao (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Make it more neutral. Also add more incidents with citations if possible. Do not delete completely. Manasbose (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Oppose in the current form. I think that the cited sources do not support the sweeping statement:  'The Indian Government's policies are blatantly discriminatory against its majority community' . I suggest you write something specific that the sources do say, for example:  'The law that empowers the government to take control of temples is considered to be discriminatory towards Hinduism. This law has its origins in the Mughal era.'  The Discoverer (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the addition as written. The statement is not supported by the sources ("smack of blatant religious reverse-discrimination" is not the same as "are blatantly discriminatory"), but more importantly, opinion pieces should not be used to make such definite statement - if used, it would need to be attributed as an opinion, and there is the question of balance in citing such opinion and whether it is WP:UNDUE. All of which means that it needs to be written much more carefully, and more and better sources (e.g. independent academic analyses) are needed. It is possible to explore the question of whether laws that apply only to Hindus or government control of temples or privileges granted to other groups are discriminatory or anti-Hindu, but that is not what is written in that sentence. Hzh (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - far, far away from a neutral description. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The statement is clear WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I've changed the section heading as this is clearly not a request for comment. If it had been random editors would have been asked to comment and others could find it at the list of RfCs. Doug Weller  talk 15:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Anti-Hindu sentiment
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Anti-Hindu sentiment's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "jl":<ul> <li>From Samhita: Lochtefeld, James G. "Samhita" in The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol. 2: N-Z, Rosen Publishing, ISBN 0-8239-2287-1, page 587</li> <li>From Yoga Sutras of Patanjali: James Lochtefeld, "Yama (2)", The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol. 2: N–Z, Rosen Publishing. ISBN 9780823931798, page 777</li> <li>From Yoga (philosophy): James Lochtefeld, "Yama (2)", The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol. 2: N–Z, Rosen Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8239-3179-8, page 777</li> <li>From Yogi: James Lochtefeld, "Yama (2)", The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol. 2: N–Z, Rosen Publishing. ISBN 9780823931798, p. 777</li> <li>From Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: James Lochtefeld, "Yama (2)", The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol. 2: N–Z, Rosen Publishing. ISBN 9780823931798, page 777</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Definitions
This page lacks definitions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Unsuitability of Swarajya as a source
As pointed out by a user in this edit's summary, Swarajya magazine is known to be a propaganda website and is very biased. The Wikipedia article for Swarajya itself states that the site propagates misinformation and its 'journalists' are engaged in propagating communally charged fake news. This makes it a very questionable source indeed, and in concurrence with Winged Blades of Godric's edit summary, Swarajya cannot be considered as a WP:RS, and cannot be used as a source, particularly to support a statement that levels accusations against an ethnic or religious group. The Discoverer (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, putting up what's right need not necessarily be unreliable. You are making all right wing sources unreliable on the basis of left wing media. Why is this so? Wikipedia page of Swaraj is venadalised by leftist like you, why not any left leaning portal has been written truely? Trust me you people are running an agenda on Wikipedia just to gain something but you are actually rewriting the history the way you want it UtkarshMishra.1 (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows a NPOV. If a neutral point can be read as more "left wing" in 2020, that is perhaps because the "right" in mainstream news has disbalanced the centre. I agree with User:The Discoverer. Tanyasingh (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC) P.S.- History has always been 'rewritten', or written by the powerful. The point of wikipedia is to change that, with its open access and copyleft policy. And copy'left' may not be what you think :)

Swarajya is as much ‘propaganda’ as The Wire, Quint, and NDTV are. Focusing on issues and events that are ignored by mainstream news does not necessarily mean that it is ‘propaganda’. What evidence is there to say that the right has “disbalanced” the center, when it is debatable what exactly “center” even means? Liberalvedantin (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Consider for example that advocating vegetarianism and preventing animal cruelty in the US is considered more of a liberal lifestyle, whereas in India it is considered a more right-wing view. In truth these political identities are social constructs. I am replying here to comments made by both Tanyasingh and UtkarshMishra. Liberalvedantin (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

"Criticism of Hinduism" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Criticism of Hinduism. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 11 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. jps (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of content with a Reliable source
, has removed this:. Please add it back if you feel it can be here.
 * Yeah, good call. It is totally WP:UNDUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent delete of content
See Talk:Persecution_of_Hindus. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Levixius, Kautilya3 and Possibly, please revert the deletions of TrangaBellam. I don't understand why it should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.89.93 (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that that IP was talking of this edit and was trying to ping, and

Medieval spans
The used sources (and assertions) are bogus. See Talk:Persecution_of_Hindus for more details and consensus. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * - Opinions are needed, as you were part of the consensus. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

From a quick review last night, I decided that the section needs considerable expansion. Writing one pithy sentence with half-a-dozen citations is never a good idea. TrangaBallam, please include specific page numbers and representative quotations where we can locate the supporting material. It also seems to me that the content makes too strong claims such as "historicans rejected ...". The real situation is much more nuanced. Also keep in mind that any attack on religious practice counts as "persecution". The motivations do not matter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am confused. Why is this thread here, while it is talking about Persecution of Hindus? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We are talking about this edit. The rest can be discussed on that page. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * - Apart from the edit mentioned just above,   this edit and this edit also need to be  discussed. All the sources used are "reliable" but you  people  need to  improve the sentences used.

Anti-Hinduism in Islam and Muslim Communities
I feel like there should be more coverage of anti-hindu bigotry in muslim communities. The evidence of anti-hindu bigotry existing in places like Pakistan, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and of Muslim rulers of India should be merged into a section titled Anti-Hinduism in Muslim Communities. There also seems to be a clear indication of anti-hindu bigotry being more prevalent in Muslim-Majority countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krao212 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Wait what how? 950CMR (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Medieval spans
The used sources (and assertions) are bogus. See Talk:Persecution_of_Hindus for more details and consensus. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * - Opinions are needed, as you were part of the consensus. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

From a quick review last night, I decided that the section needs considerable expansion. Writing one pithy sentence with half-a-dozen citations is never a good idea. TrangaBallam, please include specific page numbers and representative quotations where we can locate the supporting material. It also seems to me that the content makes too strong claims such as "historicans rejected ...". The real situation is much more nuanced. Also keep in mind that any attack on religious practice counts as "persecution". The motivations do not matter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am confused. Why is this thread here, while it is talking about Persecution of Hindus? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We are talking about this edit. The rest can be discussed on that page. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * - Apart from the edit mentioned just above,   this edit and this edit also need to be  discussed. All the sources used are "reliable" but you  people  need to  improve the sentences used.

Anti-Hinduism in Islam and Muslim Communities
I feel like there should be more coverage of anti-hindu bigotry in muslim communities. The evidence of anti-hindu bigotry existing in places like Pakistan, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and of Muslim rulers of India should be merged into a section titled Anti-Hinduism in Muslim Communities. There also seems to be a clear indication of anti-hindu bigotry being more prevalent in Muslim-Majority countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krao212 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Wait what how? 950CMR (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hindudvesha
I found the term "Hindudvesha" when researching Anti-Hindu Sentiment. I have found the term used by several American Hindu groups. American Hindus Against Defamation (AHAD), the Hindu University of America, and HinduPACT (Hindu Policy Research and Advocacy Collective USA) have used the term. Dr Ajay Shay, co-founder of the Hindu Students Council (the largest group of Hindu students outside India) has also used the term.

Kalyan Viswanathan, President of the Hindu University of America, has written an article (https://blog.hua.edu/blog/hindudvesha-systemic-hinduphobia) in which he argues that Hindudvesha is distinct from Hinduphobia. He considers Hindudvesha to be "a deep-rooted emotional response that negatively influences one's perception of the world, or something or some phenomenon in one's world. Hindudvesha, like systemic racism or anti-Semitism, is an ambient, all-encompassing discourse that denigrates and delegitimizes Hinduism and the Hindu people as it relentlessly problematizes, dehumanizes, and demonizes them. Its accusatory rhetoric treats Hindus as objects or patents to be examined and diagnosed. It presupposes and concludes that Hindus and Hinduism are unacceptable because something about them is irredeemably bad and wrong, evil and demonic."

Kalyan goes on to say that "both Christian theology and enlightened modernity nearly totally agree on the conclusion that Hinduism is irredeemably bad and wrong, evil and demonic. They seek to redeem the Hindus through urgent eradication, using secularization, civilization, modernization, westernization, Christianization, or Islamization. In other words, Hindus must be emancipated, liberated, and saved from Hinduism itself, or at the very least be regulated, policed, accused, interrogated, monitored, shamed, and silenced."

He credits Hindudvesha's rise in the colonial era to James Mill.

He says there are 2 types of Hindudvesha: Blatant Hindudvesha (conscious and explicit) and Blind Hindudvesha (unconscious and implicit). He says that "Common to both the blatant and blind forms of Hindudvesha is the underlying presumption that the champions of the discourse are discovering and representing objective and unbiased truth about the Hindus, and that they are merely seeking a legitimate corrective based on an honest critique of Hinduism’s many perceived problems."

He also says that "Blatant Hindudvesha is explicit, conscious, and does not even try to pretend that it is an honest critique of Hinduism. It consciously and relentlessly demonizes Hinduism and disregards all evidence to the contrary. It is a discourse that begins with the premise and prejudice that the “Hindus'' are the problem, no matter what the issue is, and ends by repeating this foundational premise as the conclusion of its argument."

He also says that "Blind Hindudvesha is implicit, unconscious and masquerades as a genuine and honest, even an objective criticism of the Hindus. It is unaware of the prejudices that drive its discourse, and mostly unwilling to examine the underlying historical factors behind the emergence of such a discourse. Blind Hindudvesha thrives on the weight of endless repetitions and long chains of citations and also ends up calling for the eradication of the Hinduness of the Hindus, even if not explicitly so at all times."

I understand that this is not a common word, and that general academics do not really use it. However, I think that it would be good to include the term Hindudvesha in this article because many American Hindu groups use it as well as some academic Hindus (involved at Hindu University of America), which would allow for a minority viewpoint in this article. Additionally, this term, as explained by Viswanathan, provides a different historical framework than is currently explained in the article right now, which I think would provide readers with an additional perspective.

I am thinking there could be a section under the section "Definitions and background" for Hindudvesha, and then there could be 2 subsections under the Hindudvesha section, which could be (1): Hindudvesha vs Hinduphobia and (2): Blatant Hindudvesha vs Blind Hindudvesha.

I am actually not sure if it would be better to instead have a whole other Wikipedia page for the term, but I think it would be best to just include it in this article. What do you all think about this term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakespeare143 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The source is a blog and appears to be original research. VV 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit request
Someone please add this to this article.
 * This seems similar.


 * Not sure what aspect of either of those sources are relevant to the article. VV 18:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you not read? Other communities are also asking for the free rice (only Muslims are beneficiaries now). They believe it is discriminatory.
 * , may also reply.


 * I did read it. What is the statement/sentence that you want added? VV 05:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit requests should be of the form "Change X to Y". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , this is what I meant. You probably need to change the sentence.
 * There is nothing to change. It doesn't belong here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Definitions
The definition attributed to Professor Long is incomplete. Jeffery Long, a Professor of Religion and South Asian Studies, defines Hinduphobia as “an intense and deeply rooted aversion — a fear and hatred… of Hindus and Hinduism [which manifests itself] as a set of intellectual claims that portray Hindus and Hinduism in a negative light.”

India asked UN to oppose Hinduphobia which it defined as hatred and violence against Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikhism. Coolcyberabadi (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I can confirm that Jeffrey Long has been quoted accurately as per the cited source.
 * As for Government of India statement, it is a WP:PRIMARY source, and we can't use without it being embedded in some context by a WP:SECONDARY source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Rename proposal
Proposal for renaming the article from "Anti-Hindu sentiment" to more appropriate Hinduphobia. Coolcyberabadi (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * you might check the archives of this talk page because this has been proposed in the past and failed to achieve consensus. If you would like to try again, you can go to Requested moves and follow the instructions there to make another attempt to garner consensus for this article name change. Thank you for your input!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 17:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021
Please change X (no info) to "A petition was submitted to allow conducting of temple processions by villagers at a district in Tamil Nadu on a specified route as has been done traditionally but which was objected to by local Muslims and the the Madras High Court passed a judgement that "religious intolerance" is not good for a secular country." This can be used as a reference. There are many other references online
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Where would you like that to be added? The article is broken down by country, and the India section links to another article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It can be added to the India section. If you don't know how to, don't add the "answered=yes" tag to the top of this section.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please specify. Randomly anything cannot be added. Run n Fly (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2021 (2)
Please change X (no info) to "The Indian diaspora across 30 countries has been protesting the genocide of Hindus in West Bengal in May, 2021" using this, this and this as references. This is about what is happening in reality!
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Where would you like that to be added? The article is broken down by country, and the India section links to another article Run n Fly (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Objection The protesters have alleged a genocide, but there is no evidence in RSs of any sort of genocide or targeting of Hindus. The New Indian Express article cited says that the BJP claims 6 of its members died, while the TMC claims that 3 of theirs died. This is no genocide. This would be best described as violent clashes. Hindupost is not a WP:RS and possibly Eurasian Times too. The Discoverer (talk) 06:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Misspelling
Professor is misspelled as "proffesor" near the bottom of the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantum10000 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for the observation! -- DaxServer (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Chattalpalli Durga mandap at Deganga.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October, 2021
There was a lot of violence in Bagladesh recently and their PM was forced to say that the perpetrators will be hunted down according to this and this, so please make a sentence and add it using these sources. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.94.148 (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , or, please do the needful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.94.148 (talk) 07:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Using the sources mentioned above, please add a sentence to the Bangladesh section like, "Following reports of vandalism of Durga Puja pandals in Bangladesh, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina issued a warning to the miscreants and said they would be "hunted down and punished". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:e04:e621:845e:b8c1:67a8:7e77 (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it generally fall under WP:NOTNEWS? Also, please sign!! — DaxServer (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This belongs to our article on the persecution of Hindus. Why, here? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's already mentioned in the appropriate article—Persecution of Hindus—through much more reliable sources than above. Also, this event is notable enough for inclusion and meets WP:NOTNEWS#2. WikiLinuz  ( talk ) 19:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Sikhs are not Hindus
Based on the above statement I do not think the first paragraph in the United States section of the "Other Countries" section is relevant- the sources make clear that the discrimination is not based on the Hindu religion (as many of those being discriminated against are not even Hindu, but Sikh) but because they are Indian. This would be better included in the Anti-Indian sentiment page. In a similar vein, much of the section on anti-Hindu discrimination in Afghanistan is irrelevant as it discusses Sikhs, who are not Hindus. Autumn astronomer (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This page has a tendency to collect material that's out of scope., if there's content not focusing on Hinduism as the target of discrimination, please feel free to remove it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hinduphobia
Authored by a collective of South Asian Scholars including Ananya Chakravarti, Manan Ahmed Asif, Supriya Gandhi, Davesh Soneji, Purnima Dhavan, Audrey Truschke, and Dheepa Sundaram. Going by their page, I am expecting addition of more heavyweight names, soon.
 * This definitely belongs at our article, at worst with attribution. Thanks to for bringing my attention to this new welcome development. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * My proposed paragraph — The term Hinduphobia was introduced by Rajiv Malhotra to call out western academics who "distort their religion [Hinduism] and perpetuate negative stereotypes". Jeffery D. Long agrees and defines Hinduphobia to be "[a]version to Hindus or to Hinduism; cultural bias, possibly ethnically motivated, against Hindus, Hinduism, or both". Vamsee Juluri adopts a similar stance.In 2021, a group of South Asian scholars formed a collective to combat (what they termed as) "Hindutva Harassment". They rejected Hinduphobia as an ahistorical and inappropriate neologism employed by the Hindu Right in order to suppress academic inquiry into topics concerned with Hinduism, Hindutva, caste, and Indian State. While racist and anti-Hindu prejudices have been indeed observed, Hindus have not faced any entrenched systematic oppression in India or United States. The claimants of Hinduphobia were reverse-accused of engaging in discrimination against Muslims, lower-castes, Dalits, Christians, and progressive Hindus. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't the time to assess the sources in detail, but certainly the thrust of this statement is worth including. The point that discrimination is real, but not systemically entrenched, is crucial; as is the material about the term being used to stifle academic inquiry and critique of political movements that are quite distinct from any religious belief system. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good job, . It is certainly NPOV and factual. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks @both of you. User:Joshua Jonathan, any improvements? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

This new group is incorrect about Hinduphobia not being structural in America. There is a long history of anti-hindu sentiment there. They seem to be political and at war with the BJP, RSS and so called Right Wing Hindus. Such material is politically biased from the outset and should not be deployed here. If they refute Hinduphobia when their own records show 18% of Hindus experience it, there is something wrong. Jnanashuddhi (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Request to add content and make corrections removed. Content subject to copyright. Jnanashuddhi (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

So, there isn't even one line pointing the opposite view even when the rest of the page presents with (limited) historical events of anti- Hindu events? Entire paragraph is present only to downplay this. Why aren't there any counter points? Its not as if there aren't any sources for it on wikipedia. There is anti Hindu sentiment in the USA, might not be as prevalent as Islamophobia but it does exists and this page plays right into the hands of hate groups that attack hindus using right wing govt in India as an excuse. "Dismantling Global hindutva conference held this year is an example for such sentiment. https://theprint.in/opinion/hinduphobia-is-a-reality-scholars-at-dismantling-global-hindutva-conference-must-know/728983/ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/indic-positive/the-truschke-purana-a-saga-in-hinduphobia/ I can post even more references regarding this, but if you guys want to consider just western publications as reliable source where Hindus are a minority, then I have to say Wikipedia fell in to the same trap. All I am asking is to present counter arguments in the page. This article is completely dismissive of any discrimination towards Hindus. That's just not the case. Raghu487 (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It's amazing to see the gall of Jonathan, TrangaBellam and Vanamonde of using a quote from known Hinduphobes as the definition of Hinduphobia. Its like asking Neo-Nazis to define Antisemitism. All of the quoted so-called "scholars" actually supported/organized the recent 'Dismantling Hindutva' conference which was largely condemned by Hindu organizations around the globe and has been largely considered Hinduphobic. Its absolutely idiotic to include any definition (on a page regarding hinduphobia) from people whose work has been largely recognised as Hinduphobic by various Hindu organisations. People like Audrey Truschke have been known to ignore issues like Hindu genocide, temple-destruction, sexual slavery and forced conversions during the Islamic Rule era. The fact that editors here are forcing this definition on Wikipedia is a prime example of Anti-Hindu Sentiment on Wikipedia. Toshi2k2 (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Jonathan, TrangaBellam and Vanamonde show Inherent bias in their edits, which should not thus be considered at all. Additionally, the 'Dismantling Hindutva' conference should be mentioned in the article as an recent example of major Hinduphobic incident. Toshi2k2 (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that describing actions by other editors as idiotic is a violation of our personal attack policies; please refrain from doing so. Instead, please provide reliable sources that supports your premise if you want something to be edited. WikiLinuz  ( talk ) 07:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Bishonen: Looks like a NOTHERE. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2022
A sentence reads, An editorial in Pakistan's oldest newspaper Dawn commenting on a report in the Guardian on Pakistani Textbooks noted 'By propagating concepts such as jihad, the inferiority of non-Muslims, India's ingrained enmity with Pakistan, etc., the textbook board publications used by all government schools promote a mindset that is bigoted and obscurantist. Since there are more children studying in these schools than in madrassahs the damage done is greater. Please add this sentence also just befre or after it, Text books in Pakistani schools foster prejudice and intolerance of Hindus and other religious minorities, while most teachers view non-Muslims as enemies of Islam, according to a study by a US government commission using this as a source.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 03:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , did you even bother reading what I posted?-2405:204:53AA:5467:82ED:DC86:113F:10D3 (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did. My knowledge of this subject is not very good, so I'll leave it to the editors who regularly watch this page. Cheers, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 03:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ –– FormalDude  talk  12:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2022
I see that you are asking people to expand the India section of this article, so you people can add that, Two Articles, 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India give special benefits and privileges to the minorities to manage their educational and religious institutions but not to Hindus to do so.
 * It also says, .....anti-Hindu policies. “Hindu temple land are being snatched away,” he said. The two State governments have hiked remunerations being given to moulvis and Christian priests, leaving out Hindu priests 115.96.180.149 (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * VHP is not the arbitrator of Anti-Hindu sentiment; use academic analyses. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , you can probably do that much better than me, so please do. Articles 29 and 30 are truly anti-Hindu.-115.96.180.149 (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But how can I confirm it unless presented with scholarship in support? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, this, this, this and this say similar things. You may add anything about those articles of the Indian Constitution.-115.96.180.149 (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You have an inability to read sources, I suppose. Do not ping me further. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Etymology of Hinduphobia: Article has serious errors
The article erroneously traces back the origins of the term Hinduphobia to Rajiv Malhotra. In fact, Lexico traces the term back to the 19th century: https://www.lexico.com/definition/hinduphobia

As far back as 1887, the term was used by the Hindu Spectator https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Voice_of_India/am1KAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=hinduphobia&pg=PA196

In 1910, Dr Sudhindra Bose used the term: https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Cosmopolitan_Student/sU9JAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=hinduphobia&dq=hinduphobia&printsec=frontcover

In 1972, Harold Robert Isaacs used the term

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Images_of_Asia/n2YhAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=hinduphobia&dq=hinduphobia&printsec=frontcover

In 1992, David Kopf used the term https://www.jstor.org/stable/604496

Tons of other examples.

Frankly, I am shocked at the omission and do hope it is unintentional.

JuneisnotApril (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * These instances all seem to be uses of the term, rather than a discussion of it's history, and as such listing them would veer into original research. The current discussion is so obviously incorrect, though, that I've removed it. Prabuddha Bharata is not, in any case, a scholarly publication. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with your removal. If we see the quoted text: It refers to a footnote [1], and when we peek into that footnote, it reads 1. Personal communication. I think "personal conversations" cannot be authoritative. Although we generally prefer secondary sources over dictionaries, if we look at Islamophobia article for example, the usage history under "etymology and definitions" seems to be sourced from Oxford English Dictionary.  WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 17:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Here is an article on the word use dating to 1866. Lexico used this to date and enter the term in the dictionary. The use of references in the article like 'Hindutva Harassment Field Manual' which are contradicted by this evidence is dubious as it is an anonymous website and there is no evidence of it being scholarly. If this Hindu Human Rights source written by a PhD candidate is not scholarly enough then Hindutva Harassment Field Manual is certainly not scholarly. https://www.hinduhumanrights.info/use-of-the-term-hinduphobia-1914-1997/#:~:text=From%20this%20preliminary%20study%2C%20the%20first%20use%20of,Newspaper%20of%20Yorkshire%2C%20England%20of%2020%20March%201883.Jnanashuddhi (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The website that you're referencing here isn't reliable - no matter if it's written by a Ph.D. candidate or anon editors. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources as defined by our policies . WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 12:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@WikiLinuz the Hindutva Harassment Field Manual is 'original research' and it is included in this page without qualification as to its claims. Please be consistent.Jnanashuddhi (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Definition Section
This content (cited below) has nothing to do with the definition. It should be removed. Leave the definition section for definition. Include historic use or academic debate on definition similar to development of definitions for other forms of bias and prejudice.

As to its merits, South Asian Scholars Collective does not comply with Wikipedia verified sources. The claims are also unsubstantiated as to accusations that victims of Hinduphobia are themselves default perpetrators. What kind of logic is this? Victim blaming is unethical. If some people reject a word that existed since 1866, it is on them to demonstrate with evidence that no Hindu persecution in all times or places exists or could exist in the future. That is a level of absurd exceptionalism. Wikipedia should not repeat absurdities unless the persons are named and their words are cited verbatim as examples of Hinduphobia denialism. A subcategory of Hinduphobia denialism is recommended for this content.

"In 2014, Brian Collins (Chair Professor in Indian Religion and Philosophy at Ohio University) found the tropes of Hinduphobia to be a popular weapon employed by the affluent Hindu diaspora in stifling critical academic discourses on Hinduism — parallels with Kansas creationists were drawn.[5]

In 2021, a group of South Asian scholars formed a collective to combat (what they deemed as) growing harassment of academics by people and organizations affiliated with Hindutva.[6][7] They rejected Hinduphobia as an ahistorical and inappropriate neologism employed by the Hindu Right in order to suppress academic inquiry into topics concerned with Hinduism, Hindutva, caste, and Indian State.[8][9] While racist and anti-Hindu prejudices have been indeed observed, Hindus have not faced any entrenched systematic oppression in India or United States.[8][9] The claimants of Hinduphobia were also accused of engaging in discrimination against Muslims, lower-castes, Dalits, Christians, and progressive Hindus.[9]"

Jnanashuddhi (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Controversy section
The controversy section largely cites from 'Hindutva Harrassment Field Manual' which is a heavily partisan activist site. The site does not reference its claims nor are any 'scholars' listed and thus it is an anonymous website recently set up by unverified sources. The full Hinduphobia entry is not cited and should be examined carefully as to its claims:

A recently coined term popularized by far-right groups to claim systematic and targeted discrimination against Hindus for being Hindu. Scholars of South Asia overall consider the term “Hinduphobia” inappropriate for several reasons. It is deployed to stifle academic inquiry into Hinduism as well as to tamp down critiques of the Indian state, Hindu nationalist positions, Islamophobia, and casteism. “Hinduphobia” rests on the false notion that Hindus have faced systematic oppression throughout history. Anti-Hindu bias, while real and painful in individual cases, is neither systemic nor entrenched in modern society, in either India or the United States. The term seeks to mirror and thereby discredit “Islamophobia,” similar to claims of anti-white racism to undercut anti-black racism. “Hindumisia” is a synonym, sometimes preferred by India-based (rather than US-based) Hindu nationalists. In many cases, those who claim to be victims of “Hinduphobia” or “Hindumisia” are engaged in discrimination against others of South Asian descent, including Muslims, lower-castes, Dalits, Christians, and progressive Hindus.

Given the obviously incorrect first sentence and the 'original research' of the remainder, this section should be either qualified as non verified theorisation by anonymous 'scholars' in the United States or removed. The content comprises Hinduphobia denialism and is itself an example of anti Hindu sentiment. None of that is clear to readers who see verbatim copy pasted sections from this source without it being evident it is a truth claim made by this activist group.Jnanashuddhi (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Consult this list for authors. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The content of the website is 'original research' and accordingly it does not matter if it is written by a PhD.Jnanashuddhi (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you look into what "original research" means in Wikipedia. As I already pointed out, original research is a policy for the article content, not contents in a source. Further inept conduct would be taken as disruptive behavior. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 23:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The source as demonstrated makes unsubstantiated truth claims refuted by official data and existing peer reviewed scholarship. It is not a verified source as per the Wikipedia definition here. If the title was changed to 'Hindutva Harassment Field Manual' it would be more accurate than 'Controversy' which requires multipolar views to be presented. There are multipolar views on this issue and they should be incorporated or the content accurately qualified. It is not merely about the 'left' SASAC versus the 'right' Hindu American Foundation with whom some of the members of this group are presently engaged in litigation. Jnanashuddhi (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please cite the existing peer reviewed scholarship. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The cited definition of Hinduphobia that you removed was from Oxford, Trangabellam. On what grounds did you remove that definition? As for the controversy sources, the inclusion of material from SASAC website goes against the verified sources policy of Wikipedia. The content is not peer reviewed and does not need peer reviewed material to disprove it as it does not hold up a-priori. If you can add that site, then Hindu Human Rights which you got removed from Wikipedia is also as good because much of the content is written by scholars and they are an established NGO of 20 years. SASAC is a newcomer to the scene and has no better verification. Please be consistent or follow the Wikipedia rules.Jnanashuddhi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What is meant by "from Oxford"? It is a town.
 * On the other hand, I think the use of the SASAC website with contentious claims is inappropriate. That whole section seems pointless. It is not a definition of anything. Needs to be removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What is meant by "from Oxford"? - They were referring to Lexico's (produced by Oxford University Press) entry of the word hinduphobia. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 00:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. I guess OUP is trying to make some money. It is still the same as dictionary.com. No good. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oxford English Dictionary made the entry from OUP after lexicographers investigated 155 years of word use. You cannot simply rule it as unverified and compare to 'dictionary.com' as this is an academic source. Please explain your revert without the anti-intellectualism. In addition I agree the controversy section is partisan disinformation and should be removed. Jnanashuddhi (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to citing Oxford English Dictionary, if you can find it there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It is published by Oxford so please undo your revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnanashuddhi (talk • contribs) 00:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried looking at Oxford English Dictionary and its American Edition via my access through Wikipedia Libraries, but I couldn't find an entry for the word "Hinduphobia" in there. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 00:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also,, new messages are intended. Please use ":" when replying to a message. WP:TALKGAP. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 01:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are saying that a dictionary source that is powered and published by Oxford English Dictionary (OUP), cannot be verified because it is not Oxford English Dictionary. Yet there is a definition reference allowed from an ashram journal by Jeffrey Long? This appeal to authority seems arbitrary. Jnanashuddhi (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Long is an academic who has published important peer-reviewed volumes on Hinduism etc. and hence, his views matter. (I suggest that you get more acquainted with the discourse - Long is probably the only Western Academic, with some repute, who has been a consistent supporter of HAF's claims. Trying to have him discarded is unproductive.) TrangaBellam (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, Lexico is reliable enough. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

, please explain the tag. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The proponents are dismissed in one sentence each and the critics given all the space. That can't be the way we do things here! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The ashram publication is defended. Given that Lexico is more verifiable than that, suggest undoing the reverts on the definition. AS for 'getting familiar', try not to paternalise. It seems this group of editors are more concerned about Hindutva political activists and their support for their opponents than providing information on Hinduphobia. This entry is impoverished as compared to other similar entries because the gatekeepers of this entry will not allow similar content to be included as other entries such as etymology, historic texts and evidence of the historic contexts within which the term Hinduphobia was deployed. A more recent term has less issues due to the prejudice held within this cohort of editors against the very existence of the word Hinduphobia. Jnanashuddhi (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * historic texts and evidence of the historic contexts within which the term Hinduphobia was deployed - We need sources that engage in such analyses. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Why was the controversy section removed? While there is discussion to be had around the term Hinduphobia, it seems that refusing to include some of the cited materials from the Hindutva Harrassment Field Guide and what was on the previous controversy section from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hindu_sentiment&oldid=1072879834#Controversy, I cant seem to find justification for why it was wholesale deleted.

Hinduphobia as section title
This section title makes no sense; we've previously established that this isn't uniformly used as the term for anti-Hindu prejudice; as such, the term needs to be discussed in the definitions section, not used as the title. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree. Also, the article needs to be clear on two aspects: (1) Anti-Hindu sentiment exists esp. in Pakistan etc. and (2) these grievances have been hijacked by Hindu Right to claim of a Hinduphobic America, Western Academy etc., which scholars reject. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Not only the section title, but the section itself doesn't make sense. I proposed somewhere above, to get rid of it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not attached to the section, but honestly the material therein is among the better material in the article; the rest is such garbage. Agreed entirely, TB; more generally, prejudice against hindus (which I would prefer as a section title; "sentiment" is weird in this circumstance) is real, and for that very reason, needs to be precisely delineated, and separated from people crying wolf over it. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with documented cases of prejudice, if they exist. But I don't see the point of narrating the Hindutva propaganda and then spending enormous amount of energy in shooting it down. That is not what this page is about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The term Hinduphobia was coined in 1866 and it is used throughout literature for 155 years. This stands apart from anything SASAC refer to as 'Hindutva' and there is a long history of the term used by western authors who have nothing to do with any Hindu political movement. Scholars use the term frequently in peer reviewed research and it appears in significant historic documents such as the Indian Parliament Hansards. To remove it because SASAC doesn't like it would be prejudiced and anti-intellectual.Jnanashuddhi (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Scholars use the term [Hinduphobia] frequently in peer reviewed research - Quotes, please. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, nobody has removed the term; we're discussing its use as a section title. Your arguments are entirely off the mark. Vanamonde (Talk)
 * Well you sure have been busy haven't you 'not removing the term hinduphobia'. Especially TrangaBellam.Jnanashuddhi (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is the google scholar search result for Hinduphobia . Why is none of this being referenced in this entry and where is the definition section now? I would write some content but there is no point given TrangaBellam is obviously possessive of this page and wants it to remain the impoverished cousin of every other form of anti-X-sentiment.Jnanashuddhi (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to list specific sources; not wave at a search result. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @TrangaBellam This is one of the largest one. It enlists a detailed "Glossary" of anti-hindu words. It also has multiple anti-Hindu entities called out on its platform and it terms this sentiment as Hinduphobia. >>> Extorc . talk ; 08:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * According to you, is a reliable source for describing Hinduphobia and documenting anti-Hindu entities? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You left out the part where this was stated by its critics. While there may be an issue with the origins and motivations of the organisation, we cannot discredit it on the basis of what its detractors have said.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm baffled as to why we're still discussing this. My point is very simple; if "Hinduphobia" is the primary term used for prejudice against Hindus, it should be the article title; if it's not, it should be discussed, along with other terms, in a section called "definitions" or "terminology". Having "Hinduphobia" as a section title in an article about prejudice against Hindus makes as much sense as a section titled "India" in an article about India (see how stupid that sounds?). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please find us an OED entry for the term "Hinduphobia". (Fyi, OED $$\ne$$ Lexico). WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 03:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2022
Please remove the word, "Hinduphobia" from the lead. Hinduphobia means fear of Hindus but anti-Hindu sentiment means sentiments against Hindus and Hinduism which is not the same. 2405:204:5682:8044:0:0:11B7:30B0 (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This seems to be a common usage of the term, and is similar to homophobia, transphobia, and other non-fear uses of the -phobia suffix. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hinduphobia can be replaced with Hindu detestation.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , you people may want to discuss and replace Hinduphobia with Hindu detestation in the lead (the first sentence) as the previous IP is asking.-202.140.62.212 (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is written by summarising reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , then you people must delete the term Hinduphobia from the lead as it is unsourced and unrelated to, "anti-Hindu sentiment (phobia means fear)".-202.140.62.212 (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't define a word yourself, and taking it apart doesn't work. Antisemitism does not mean being against semites, eg Arabs, it is specifically about Jews. The word Hinduphobia means fear or hatred or both. Doug Weller  talk 13:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop pinging me. -- WikiLinuz { talk } 🍁  15:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please avoid blanket pings :). The current argument of literal translation seems inappropriate, feel free to leave better arguments if you find any. Cheers. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Controversy Section Deleted
Why was the controversy section deleted? I saw that there were discussions about it, but I didn't see anything specifically about people agreeing to delete it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hindu_sentiment&oldid=1072879834#Controversy Sawerchessread (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I still would like to add this back in. Though anti-hindu sentiment is undeniable, the term Hinduphobia is actively debated in South Asian political academia as appropriate or a catch-all to group criticism of hindutva ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawerchessread (talk • contribs) 19:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ONUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Definitions section
, it seems (I haven't checked) that the "Definitions" section came from merging a page on Hinduphobia into this one, and it hasn't been revised for this page. The section makes no sense as it stands.

Even otherwise, nobody has said that "anti-Hindu sentiment" equates to "Hinduphobia". I don't mind a section on the latter being present here, but the main content itself should be regarding the former. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I will reiterate V93's comment: TrangaBellam (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the section heading has been changed, it would be helpful to insert the word being discussed (Hinduphobia) in the first sentence of the paragraph, in place of the [which] tag currently present. Scholar Jeffery D. Long defines the term Hinduphobia as an irrational aversion of Hindus or Hinduism. 117.194.200.183 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2023
In the UK section, please add, "51% Hindus feel they are bullied, forced to convert and had beef thrown at them due to what is taught in schools in the UK according to a report. 49.205.146.96 (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Will probably have to be rephrased, but Ill look into it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Blog/Catalogue like
This article reads like a mix of a Wikipedia article, a list of relatively minor incidents of hinduphobia, and someone’s personal blog/essay (one which does not follow NPOV). IMHO the article focuses far too heavily on instances of hinduphobia, as opposed to covering the actual phenomenon, (again, imho) a large portion of this article could either be removed or moved to a more relevant article, and it could more than stand a a major rewrite focusing on the actual phenomenon of hinduphobia. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Rewriting with the focus on the actual phenomenon of Hinduphobia is fine but you tend to remove a lot of relevant stuff as well (like you did in the Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan article), so I suggest that you don't do it.-1Firang (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t intend to make edits here without talk page discussion first so that isn’t an issue, but I do feel the need to comment that the consensus at that articles talk and Teahouse was that the removals I made were broadly relevant. Googleguy007 (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

adding to lead section
I've tried adding to the lead section a bit to give a better overview. I also slightly changed some of the wording with regards to muslims considering all hindus as kafirs.

I think this edit remains neutral, but I'd still like someone to take a look over it to confirm? homo momo (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * also I think the New Zealand section was misplaced such that american incidents were layered below. Ive moved it to be correct, I think? (i.e. all incidents are United States are in the United States?) homo momo (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've made a partial revert to the lead. I don't see where sources support a broad distinction between Muslim-majority countries and the "West". Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)