Talk:Holi

Proposed Deletion
Greetings everyone,

I propose that this content below should be removed from the Environmental section about "alleged" deforestation happenings during Holi.

"An alleged environmental issue related to the celebration of Holi is the traditional Holika bonfire, which is believed to contribute to deforestation. Activists estimate Holika 30,000 bonfires every year during Holi, with each one burning approximately 100 kilograms (220.46 lbs) of wood. This represents less than 0.0001% of 350 million tons of wood India consumes every year, as one of the traditional fuels for cooking and other uses."

There were two sources cited. One is from Times of India - which is considered generally unreliable based on a discussion on WP:RSN in 2020. Upon further look, the article lacks evidence based off a "scientific study" (not pointing to "which" scientific study) and not clearly stating whether Holi causes deforestation.

The second sentence "This represents less than 0.0001%" is derived from this article (which I had to do some research to find since the link didn't work). Overall, this information doesn't make sense to put next to a deforestation claim and is WP:SYNTH.

- Unless there is evidence that Holi explicitly contributes to deforestation, it's not worth mentioning this info. Just wanted to mention this to see what everyone thinks before I remove it.

@Rasnaboy @Materialscientist @Chronikhiles @ButterCashier I'd appreciate your thoughts:)

Chilicave (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There certainly is environmental impact with every festival and celebration. In Holi's case, this may be less compared with other festivals, but still I feel it's worth mentioning it in the "Environmental Impact" section if we have a source. Maybe we can ask for a better source (to replace the TOI source). However, this should not be added to the lead or other sections, giving undue weight, as Holi does not explicitly contribute to deforestation (which will only violate WP:UNDUE). A sourced mention in a right section is appropriate IMHO. Let's see what others say. Rasnaboy (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the content itself should be left intact for now. The existing unreliable sources could be removed and a citation needed template could be added. Chronikhiles (talk)  09:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey @Rasnaboy @Chronikhiles
 * Thanks for taking the time to read my proposal and provide your feedback!
 * @Rasnaboy
 * Speaking of the WP:UNDUE, would it not be violated if this information is left under the Environmental Section without a proper source? Referring back to the policy, "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
 * Yes, you are absolutely correct that Holi can possibly contribute to deforestation. But if the information comes from a generally unreliable source then why leave it hanging there?
 * @Chronikhiles
 * Suppose if the TOI source is removed, and a tag is added (momentarily). This still violates WP:Verfiability, and the information can still be challenged and easily removed at any point in time.
 * Overall, per these two policies, removing such information is plausible and if a reliable source is found, then hey, who's stopping who to add it back? Just trying to improve the article. Let me know what you think.
 * Best Chilicave (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I confess that I'm not sure about Wikipedia policy regarding this, but this was my reasoning: The template inclusion would offer time for users to find a reliable source to support the content, failing which it could be removed in the future. But I realise that this is far from ideal. As such, if this is not in line with the website's policy, I defer to the judgement of those who know better.  Chronikhiles (talk)  05:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RSP, "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable" which reflects the [|RfC at WP:RSN]. Now since TOI isn't deprecated, I'd suggest we keep it and tag it with Template:Better source needed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Fylindfotberserk @Chronikhiles @Rasnaboy
 * Ah, thank you for the clarification.
 * Upon further research starting from the Times of India article, I found a research article published in the same year. On page 130, it is mentioned that Holi "is believed to contribute to deforestation" and this information was derived from "a local tabloid." This could be referring to the TOI article, since information looks identical.
 * Further research took me to this article (page 19) which also cites Gardner and Lal about the belief of deforestation.
 * Then, finally, this prompted me to visit the Gardner and Lal article (page 1404).
 * Although the TOI source is of "no consensus" and "generally unreliable", does this mean that it still stays in the passage? Or is it removed and replaced with these three sources to clear all this hullabaloo? Chilicave (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Replacing it with the research papers seems like a better option to me. Further expansion can be done based on the new sources. Lets see what the others have to say. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I will take this silence as an agreement. Nobody seems opposed to that idea. I'm going to remove the TOI article and replace it with the sources that I mentioned above.
 * Thanks again for everyone's input! Chilicave (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2024
In the "Issues" Section, under the "Environmental impact" sub-heading, change "According to a local tabloid, 30,000 bonfires burn every year during Holi, which is approximately 100 kilograms (220.46 lbs) of wood." to "According to a local tabloid, 30,000 bonfires burn every year during Holi, burning an estimated total of approximately 3 million kilograms (3306.93 US tons) of wood."

The current language is unclear that the cited reference referred to each individual bonfire burning 100 kg of wood. 30,000 bonfires burning 100 kilograms of wood? That isn't even 30,000 matches! Mapgame (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ I clarified that this refers to the amount burned by each fire, but I did not add the calculated total because it is not in the cited source. Thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development II
— Assignment last updated by Baskotas (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)