Talk:Persecution of Hindus/Archive 2

Pre-Independence Riots
Events such as violent Direct Action, 1927 Nagpur riots and the Noakhali riots are missing in this article on the Persecution of the Hindus. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A riot is an act of spontaneous violence, how is it persecution? Direct action day warrants a mention though. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Then could you please search for instances of persecution. I am sure you will find a number of them. Those riots mentioned occurred on Hindu festival days and involved the non-political killing of Hindus. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Noakhali riots were carried out after rumors of attacks on Muslims on Calcutta. I dunno if such as that falls under persecution. At the same time in Bihar Hindus were chopping up Muslims, see Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia p 213. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's one single source and like you say of others, this person isn't a historian.Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Please search up for instances of Hindu persecution for us to know more. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * DS, I think it's fair to include a riot along religious lines an instance of persecution. The Gujarat riots are considered instances of Muslim persecution, after all, and they were ostensibly provoked by Godhra. So why not the same standard here? The issues above, with temples and so on, are very different; there was actual conquest going on there. Noakhali, as far as I know, was a religious riot, pure and simple. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have added a section on Direct Action Day. Please review it for relevance and other issues. Thanks in advance. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC) I have also added a few lines on the Naokhali riots of 1946 as well. Please review that as well, thanks. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

"‘It’s A Myth That Muslim Rulers Destroyed Thousands Of Temples’"
See here and this paper from Richard M Eaton shows that all the temple destruction stuff has no place in this article, at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. This seems to have stemmed from Hindutva writings... StuffandTruth (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think an interview conducted by Tehelka group at Thinkfest where they invited a Taliban leader has any value, there are enough neutral sources to claim that thousands of temples were destroyed.-sarvajna (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sarvajna, that Tehelka interview is with Richard M Eaton, where are you getting "taliban" from? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Richard Eaton proves that the number of temples destroyed were not in thousands he arrives at the number 80 according to records he obtained. But there could be temple desecrations that were not recorded as there are many nondescript village shrines in South Asia.Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC) There is material written outside Hindutva which claim that there was oppression upon the religion (not exactly about temple destruction) during the Muslim conquest, for instance Will Durant says so and M A Khan also says so. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The paper I linked shows that temples were destroyed but not as a form of persecution, it was political in nature. I think it is a very good source. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sikandar Butshikan's legacy begs to differ. --RaviC (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Come on, I present a paper from a historian and you point me to a wiki article? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Such myths should be handled with care and removed if no reliable sources are found for inclusion. Today, in India, such Hindutva writings are being used for political purposes by right-wing politicians. Thank you, Bisswajit   14:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments
AcidSnow has blanked the '2005 unrest in Nowsera' section in the Persecution of Hindus article (one can see that at diff), but I believe it was wrong to do so, please comment on the talk page and then revert his edit. Thanks!:Khabboos (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed text:
 * ''"On 29 June 2005, following the arrest of an illiterate Christian janitor on allegations of allegedly burning Qur'an pages, a mob of between 300 and 500 Muslims destroyed a Hindu temple and houses belonging to Christian and Hindu families in Nowshera. Under the terms of a deal negotiated between Islamic religious leaders and the Hindu/Christian communities, Pakistani police later released all previously arrested perpetrators without charge. "'

References


 * Oppose, and why do you keep doing this? I have explained to you several times and so have many other users that it was not persecution. Since it was not, it should not be in article or section discussing persecution. You were also using a sock to do so even after you know you can add it in. "then revert his edit", have already requested for you to stop demanding to get your way, but I will do so again. Please stop as it's disrespectful. AcidSnow (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose restoration, the content is not persecution. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Darkness Shines, your not the first user to say that as I have mentioned in my original response, but this user does not seem to care as he has been forum shopping, opening several request for comments, using sock puppetry and demanding that I get reverted. AcidSnow (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What socking? I see none on this article? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The socking accusations were, but I don't see any sign of an SPI. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support restoration - many Hindus were killed by that Nowshera mob (our readers need to know that Pakistan is persecuting all its minorities: Hindus, Christians, Shias, Ahmadiyas, Jews, Zoroastrians/Parsees etc.). Temple destruction is tantamount to 'persecution' also.—Khabboos (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the sources you cited said "Chief Minister Mohammad Akram Khan Durrani has ordered a judicial inquiry into the incident and suspended two senior police officers. He also ordered immediate rehabilitation of the temple." So I think we are justified in saying that the Pak government persecutes senior police officers who do not do their job very well.  But that is the only persecution by the Pak government that is supported by that source.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose restoration - The main topic is not persecution of Hindus, but blasphemy-charges. That topic should be contextualised.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Clarification: the topic in the source is "Abuses of Religious Freedom" --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose restoration but for different reasons - Mob vandalism against religious minorities is as much persecution as any pogrom. But it is not WP:DUE weight here, where the entire historical and global scope of Hindu persecution must be dealt with. Probably it should be moved to a more specialized article about religious conflict in Pakistan. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Mob violence wasn't specific to Hinduism. It seem to be directed at all non-Muslims there in this situation. The Christians being a specific target.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep One of the sources (US Department of State) actually claims exactly what you have written. The source speaks of persecution of religious minorities, among them the Hindus and the Christians. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It has been almost three week and the majority of users have opposed the restoration, so I have closed this. AcidSnow (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose restoration as this is irrelevant to the context of persecution of Hindus. Benfold (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert, why
The Taliban imposing Sharia law cannot be added to this article with the source used, given it does not mention either Hindus nor persecution. This edit uses this source, the source does not mention persecution at all. This edit is no good, a guy got shot, so what? The sources do not say he was killed in an act of persecution. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This reference/citation mentions, "beheadings, kidnappings, and the destruction of girls' schools", which are all acts of persecution, so why should it be removed?—Khabboos (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Where in that source does it mention either persecution or Hindus? It does not, in fact, the next time I see you making shit up I will file an AE request against you. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A Hindu being shot and killed is tantamount to persecution of a Hindu - I'm sure the reason for it was simply his religion. Apart from this, I had used other references, so I'm sure we can remove just this one citation and use the others. If you want to discuss my edits we can do it here, but if you want to file an AE request against me, you are free to - remember I haven't reverted your edit/s and I'm ready for discussion (please read Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers).—Khabboos (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Read WP:OR, when you understand it come back. I have no interest in what you are sure of. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OR says that we should have the appropriate references/citations which I have done to the best of my ability. If there's a mistake, I'm sure you can correct me, I don't plan to edit war with you!—Khabboos (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Read it properly. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K., thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You just removed the quotation of the arson attack on the 'Art of Living' centre in Islamabad as speculation. However, at Quotations, I read that if we are quoting something (within double inverted commas) with a good reference citation, it is allowed. Please clarify.—Khabboos (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are quoting something written or said by someone, you need to provide a good citation that he/she said or wrote it. If you are doing a quotation, it has to be what was really written - not what you think was written. If what was written was in another language, you should provide the original in the citation, and your translation in the text.  (It is not very helpful to have lumps of Arabic or Ukrainian in the middle of English-language text, but we do not mind having the original in the citation. This is not a licence to add stuff that breaks other policies.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Does my edit break other policies (if so, which ones)? I thought I was following the policy mentioned at Quotations.—Khabboos (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The edit we are talking about is this one, where you posted the following:
 * "On March 10th, 2014, Pakistani newspapers reported that, "An internationally-affiliated yoga centre on the suburbs of Islamabad was set on fire by unidentified arsonists in what might be a religiously or nationalistically-motivated hate crime.""


 * This was reverted by Darkness Shines, who said that it was speculation that that you should read WP:NOTNEWS.


 * You made a number of mistakes.
 * 1. The quotation is from The Express Tribune, Pakistan. It is 100% false to say that the Newsweek Pakistan had those words (which your edit did say).
 * 2. You should have said the publisher was The Express Tribune, Pakistan, not The Express Tribune News Network. It makes it very confusing for other people if you get this stuff wrong.
 * 3. You have to ask the question, what is the relevance of the article to the subject of the article. If you were adding to an article on the Yoga Centre, the stuff extracted from the newspaper would have been relevant, and if you wanted you could have tagged on speculation by the newspaper.  It might have been useful to have added a date in the text - often this kind of speculation in newspapers is completely wrong - see Murder of Joanna Yeates.
 * 4. It is speculation by the newspaper that the arson might be relevant to religious persecution. This is where the WP:NOTNEWS comes in.  Wikipedia can wait until it is known why the arson took place.
 * --Toddy1 (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In Pakistan, terrorism and sectarian violence are a frequent affair and the Government either ignores the incidents or if there's an enquiry, doesn't act on the findings (the Indian media has reported that many times), so what should we do? Will we ever be able to mention the acts of persecution in Pakistan on wikipedia?—Khabboos (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * An editor reverted my edit, which can be seen here, but I'm not happy with it. Please comment at Talk:Persecution_of_Hindus—Khabboos (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * First, I would like to say that I don't believe this is the correct way to use a RfC, but I will pursue anyways. However, the deciding factor should not be whether to add something, it's whether to include something. We as editors do not decide whether something is edited. Reliable, verifiable sources do that. If the sources are reliable and cover the specific event, and there is no other problems like WP:TONE or WP:NPOV then WP:CENSOR may be applicable to this situation. Overall, I think it should be included if those caveats are met. EDIT: There seems to be another problem with WP:NOTNEWS as justification. Indeed, there should be no speculation at all. It should all be documented in the sources. Ging287 (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is documented in the source/reference/citation and I merely quoted it according to what I read at Quotations.—Khabboos (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Came here via RfC, so no preformed opinion. I'm not sure I can add more than Toddy1 and Darkness Shines have said on the issue. The revert and removal of information was by policy, and more importantly a good decision by the editors to keep speculative, context-less reporting off of an important topic. Khabboos--As an apparent new editor in wikipedia, I'd like to recommend working from sources where weight and context are clear to get some good experience at editing. I've found in my experience that working from RS books really helped me to understand when referring to news sources is appropriate and adds to the context of articles. This will help you avoid OR, avoid the pitfalls of NOTNEWS, and ensure that your edits contribute to the overall content of articles and not just in introducing individual incidents. EDITED: By opening a request for mediation while the RfC is still open, Khabboos shows blatant forum shopping. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Exclude information Unless the source specifically says that it is persecution against Hindus then we should not include it here. AIR corn (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Axxn 07:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Belarus data added.
 * Date for bot. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How about making it a comprehensive article
The Hare Krishna movement is being subjected to religious persecution in Russia. Their requests for allocation of land for temple construction have been denied by the Russian government. To add insult to injury, vile abuses were heaped upon the person of Lord Krishna by bigoted clergman of Russian Orthodox church. Should we also include a topic on this page which talks about the operational issues faced by the sect. This would be especially relevant considering the fact that this sect has more non-Indian devotees and major operation outside India.

There are numerous such instances of religious persecution of Hindus by intolerant societies. This also has a strong historical relevance because Islamic conquest of India involved massacares and extreme brutalities. The title of this article is misleading since people would assume we'll talk about all these issues, when in essence we are only talking about one report which captures these attrocities in one year.

Any suggestions on this would be welcome!

indologist


 * I second that motion and add some references to back it up:

( 1) http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=NEWS&id=1136261415, 2)http://www.defendrussianhindus.org/). I hope that wikipedia readers will be exposed to all the fact of this horrible situation in Russia and not be blinded by the usual christian-sympathetic propaganda of the west. Subhash Bose
 * Dating for bot. Vanamonde93(Talk) 23:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Malaysia
I read that, "Malaysia's top court ruled Monday that non-Muslims cannot use the word "Allah" to refer to God, delivering the final word on a contentious debate that has reinforced complaints that religious minorities are treated unfairly in the Muslim-majority country." here. I seem to be running into 'edit wars', so someone please add it into this article.—Khabboos (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you explain as to how this is a form of "persecution"? Also, it's not "the final word" in any form or way. AcidSnow (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Why does this article exist on Wikipedia
The contents of this page can be easily accessed from other chapters on Indian History. This article is being used as a promotional material teaching hatred of Muslims and Christians in India. Wikipedia should delete this RSS sponsored page 2.29.25.81 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, no articles on Wikipedia are "sponsored" by any ultra-nationalist or terrorist groups. This article has contributors from all around the world of varying faiths, ethnicities, and national backgrounds. One need only look at the revision history to see that this is the case, and any assertion otherwise is conspiratorial nonsense. This article, just like every other article accepted on Wikipedia, is attempting inform a global audience about a notable subject of interest. The historical persecution of Hinduism is a serious concept which deserves the treatment of its own article.


 * I'm sorry that you feel that this "hatemongering", but Wikipedia is not censored. While some might certainly feel this way, the article is extremely well cited using reliable sources, and nowhere overtly (or even covertly) promotes hatred of any group of people. Rather, it reports what the sources say as per our neutral point of view policy, and we always consider what might be undue weight to any particular point of view. The very existence of all these numerous citations from reliable sources shows that this is a serious subject that many people around the world, and not just in India, consider worthy of discussion. There will always be subjects and historical events that some would consider unflattering or problematic, or be a source of tension, but that is never a reason to censor information. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Persecution by sikhs
Sikhs Persecution of hindus, american sikhs have set up events which the center core value is anti hinduism, In lathrop, central california The BRASF Or commonly known as Bhim rao Ambedkar sikh Foundation, set up a event in which the speakers claim that "hinduism is nothing but a tool for propagation of caste"http://sikhsiyasat.net/2015/04/05/hinduism-is-nothing-but-a-tool-for-propagation-of-caste-says-mulnivasi-sangh-vice-president/

I think it is about time that a sikh section is built up, instead of this Punjab notion, youtube and sikh websites are caked with ani hindu events and yet all you have is this tiny section on punjab with a excuse of blue star?92.236.96.38 (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)horse teeth

Deletions by Scaleng
For what it's worth, the material should have been kept out if the deletion reasons were valid instead of restored with a note to basically WP:SOFIXIT. However I was about to do the same revert as as the quote is in the book, there no evidence one source is Islamophobic, and other text can be found in sources. --Neil N  talk to me 11:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am tagging all the problematic issues identified. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, none of the deleted passages struck me as seriously problematic. The "Hindu Kush" issue, for instance, is covered in detail on its page. Let the people contest it there if they want to. Similarly, Ram Janmabhoomi and temple demolitions etc are widely discussed issues. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Fernand Braudel paragraph is on page 232 as claimed. Please don't contest attributed passages unless you check the book or have the entire quoted pages visible on Google Books. I believe all of your deletions this morning were hasty, and you should not repeat such behaviour in future. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As this article is about persecution of Hindus then obviously some people will have POV that some text is against non-Hindu religions. If Hindu kills another Hindu it will not come under scope of this article, when non-Hindu will kill any Hindu then only it will be under scope of this article. So some people will have obvious issue that this text is "Islamophobic". Same case with Persecution of Muslims in India where when any muslim kills another muslim it will not be part of article, so that article may seem like "Hinduphobic" for certain POV holders. So we should avoid such POVs and should always restore what is obvious truth. -- Human 3015  Say Hey!! • 13:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The quotes mentioned are from websites like on hinduonnet.org which cannot be accepted as VALID HISTORICAL record and therefore the edits. It is not a matter of whether it is Islamophobic or not. -- User:Scaleng
 * Please remember to sign your messages by appending ~ at the end.
 * I have referred you to the page WP:TC in my edit summary this morning, which gives you a variety of tags you can add to challenge any content that you find problematic. The other editors can then try and fix the problems. Various parts of Wikipedia would be in different stages of development. Not all editors would be equally good at finding and citing sources. That doesn't necessarily make the content false. In general, you should only delete the content that you think is obviously false. In all the other cases, you should tag it with an appropriate tag, such as "citation needed", "unreliable source", "failed verification" etc. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per wikipedia's Editorial policy, all content needs to be Neutral point of view; and verifiable. The edits that you insist on maintaining violates both these standard requirements of Wikipedia. I suppose there is a reason why you want to continue to maintain this content on this page? Content like "claims", without citeable references cannot even exist on Wikipedia, per the editorial guidelines. - User:Scaleng
 * , I have added book sources for matter that deleted. You can check those books and can write those reference by using "Cite Book". Also we can add more info to article by using those references.  Human 3015  Say Hey!!  • 06:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The keyword is verifiable. To delete the existing content, you must be confident that it is not verifiable. Since all of your deletions have been reverted and many of them verified, I hope your confidence in your own verification ability is shaken a bit and you stop this battle ground behaviour. In any case, right now you appear to be a single purpose account, with your attacks on this page. If you persist with this behaviour, you will end up at WP:ANI. You have already been informed about the ARBIPA sanctions. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you were interested parties - It has been over 3 months since the tag discussion, and it appears that WP:POV tag is dated now. I am removing it - but if you feel otherwise, please let me know and I will self-revert and continue the discussion. thanks! --Sdmarathe (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The article needs to be revised to make it more reliable.
It claims "Between the years 1000 AD and 1500 AD the population of the Indian subcontinent decreased by 80 million." which doesn't automatically mean they were Hindus. They may have been Muslims or Shikhs or Buddhists. Also, this claim is by a historian who is often refered as "anti-Islam". The article is highly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aou00000 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I would agree with you that the article is in poor shape and all efforts to improve it would be welcome. Please note, however, that WP:BIASED sources are allowed on Wikipedia. To counter them, you would need to bring other sources that contradict their assessment. Then we can state all viewpoints as per WP:NPOV. Labeling a scholar as "anti-Islam" is not a good idea, unless you are able to back it up with reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I could find a number of sources that shed another light on the sources backing the claim. I'm also in favour of nuancing the claim itself, because a population decrease does not necessarily imply genocide. There is a weak correlation between the Turko-Islamic invasions of India and the population decrease, but a causal link has not been proven. I believe even Koenraad Elst himself would admit this. Also, as a tiny remark: Sikhs only existed, at best, for a few decades around 1500 AD. I doubt many of them would be included in the number of 80 million.2A02:1810:352C:3E00:6D29:DC21:A60F:50AE (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I moved it to the body and attributed it, because it is a WP:PRIMARY source. I haven't found any source that states the numbers without attribution. So, it is just a claim of one author; doesn't represent scholarly consensus. I also note that K. S. Lal reduced the number to 30 million in the cited source. The original source is said to state 80 million, but Digby's review said 75 million. (These numbers seem to fall out of the hat, hardly reliable) Please feel free to add other critiques. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

K.S Lal's estimate that india's population was decreased by 30 million contradicts most other estimates
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/35488/did-indias-population-decrease-by-80-million-between-1000-and-1525-ce in this post, the answer points out that K.S. Lal is cherry picking estimates that fits his own views. Also, K.S. Lal works for the Indian government which raises questions about his neutral position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aou00000 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That website is not a reliable source. If you have other estimates supported by such sources, feel free to add them. Vanamonde (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst
Editor Kansas Bear keeps on adding back after I replaced a source from Koenraad Elst with journalist and author Sam Miller (journalist) who goes in depth to the works on Hindu persecution by supporters of Hindu revanchism like Elst. Also Elst in not academic or scholar, he may be an orientalogist and Indologist but his objectives are mostly always pointing out their great aspects and furthering theories of Hindutva politics. He is particularly attracted to promoting the Hindutva cause. All of this is visible on his Wikipedia article itself and he has been noted for this by several academics and authors.

Also his own blog post very clearly has him insulting Muslims that too for their positions during prayer and also contains false claims made without any real research (http://koenraadelst.blogspot.in/2013/06/the-difference-between-dharma-yuddha.html). But User:Kansas Bear still doesn't think there is any proof or anything wrong with him. I am not altering any content, merely replacing the source with a neutral one that too one that delves into the issue. Sam Miller isn't a professor but his work is a good research, and he has also been a student of history at Cambridge. Regardless, per rules someone who is non-neutral and biased cannot be used as a source. And someone who writes just for furthering a movement or particularly uses insult in his work cannot be considered to be either non-neutral or reliable. That said, it doesn't mean all his works are unreliable, but we cannot blindly trust it at that. He is certainly neither scholarly in actual nor neutral. 117.241.119.176 (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Koenraad Elst's support of the Out of India theory and his ties to Hindutva politics do make him questionable but as he also has a PhD in relevant fields he is not automatically unreliable when discussing the history of India or Hinduism. Miller is just a journalist but his specialty is India, so he's not unreliable either.  That said, if they both report that K. S. Lal has made claims regarding India's population, it's kinda ridiculous to say that one source is reliable and the other isn't.
 * The blog post does not insult Muslims for how they pray, it mentions someone else who insulted how they pray. Getting that confused raises concerns about either the your linguistic competence or else your honesty.  Accusing Elst of insulting Muslims is like saying that 18th century English author Edward Gibbon destroyed ancient Rome.
 * And we are allowed to use biased sources, we just have to be neutral in how we present it. You have not demonstrated that Elst's claims about Lal are biased -- in fact by citing Miller you've proven that Elst's claims about Lal are accurate.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You are misunderstanding me. The issue wasn't about Elst's summary about KS Lal's statement. The issue was about Elst himself. We may be allowed biased sources in some specific cases and exceptions. However in this cases, we already have a multidude of other sources available. That's why I don't think Elst is required at all here.


 * And actually it was his own blog post. I didn't miscomprehend. And this is a part of his own statement: "In Islam, the first blood that flows is that of an unbeliever who laughs at the Muslims praying with their bottoms up in the air: he is hit by the Muslims with an animal’s bone. There is no trace of self-defence: an unbeliever exercises his freedom of expression and the Muslims decide to become violent."


 * No matter what the reason of kind of political agenda, this kind of comment and language is completely unacceptable and non-neutral. One may comment about murder of critics, but this is way beyond any civil language or neutrality. Not everything said by someone is incorrect. But this doesn't make them reliable or non-biased. There is sufficient proof that Koenraad Elst is very biased and numerous other scholars have commented about this. I only replaced him with another source as I thought there was no justification for his use. 117.215.227.26 (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You said "his own blog post very clearly has him insulting Muslims that too for their positions during prayer" -- Elst does not insult Muslims for how they pray. He talks about someone else insulting them for how they pray.  Should we arrest Truman Capote for murdering the Clutter family?  Elst then documents the history of the concept of Jihad and how it has changed over the centuries.  Besides, how is the blog relevant regarding the cited source?  Other than the fact that they share the same author, there's no connection.  You say that other scholars have commented on Elst's bias, and yet you cite none to demonstrate that he is unreliable for what he is cited for in this article -- which would be a problem anyway, since you have cited a source that supports the information he's being cited for.
 * If you want to get a total ban on Elst, you need to do that at WP:RSN. They can establish a site-wide consensus that Elst is just never appropriate.  Trying to argue that he should never be cited by tackling individual citations is useless and disruptive.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * What is this then: "In Islam, the first blood that flows is that of an unbeliever who laughs at the Muslims praying with their bottoms up in the air". He is not stating someone else's statement, this is his own. What is "bottoms up" and "unbeliever who laughs" supposed to be? He is himself using this langauge, no one else. This is a hypothetical statement and an insultive attack using a crude example. He is referring to "someone else" laughing, but is he representing any specific real person? You are misinterpreting or misrepresenting what he is actually saying. His comment shows his bias against Muslims. This has nothing to do with any research or scholarship. I don't know why you are defending him with reasons that don't even make sense.


 * And what he's comparing is between Dahramyuddha or Jihad. And his following comment: "Later, Mohammed would have a handful of critics assassinated and another handful formally executed. This is the model and justification for the murders or attempted murders of writers, cartoonists, film-makers and other critics of Islam during the modern age." This isn't even related to that and based on some Islamic traditions which he doesn't mention in addition to the other details. Eitherits poor research, or he's missing it out deliberately. Either way it is not good.


 * The rest of his comment is devoted to typical Hindutva commentary with "Islam-bashing" which he describes like describing history but is misses out key portions and of why and what. Also there's more wrong statements, where he attempts to claim that Golden Temple had a "Vishnu Idol" and its name "Harimandir" means Temple of Vishnu, while there is no such proof such an idol existed nor the name actually means nor ever meant that. This is a clear example of poorly researched statement indicating his intent, which has been pointed out by multiple scholars regarding many of his works. Clearly unreliable.


 * He is not reliable and not non-neutral. I am not saying he should never be cited anywhere, he can be cited if situation demands it. But he shouldn't be cited in this article. There are 3 other sources already used, his work is not required at all nor adds much to the article. He is definitely not reliable or trustable as a source. There are other sources that mentions KS Lal's statement so what is the need of Koenraad Elst? Please remove him from the article. It is wrong and not good practice to us him.


 * Am I the only one needs that needs to go to RSN? If you believe that he is reliable you then who don't you take it to WP:RSN yourselves because under present circumstances he doesn't seem to be. Not everything from an unreliable source is incorrect, but that doesn't mean it should be used when there is no reason to use it. 117.215.227.26 (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Move/partial merge proposal/RFC
Folks who are watching this page may be interested in this discussion: Talk:Anti-Hinduism. Vanamonde (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content
@Kautilya3, I am surprised by your removal of sourced content here, although it was not added by me!-Dona-Hue (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * .....they seem to be Reliable sources!-Dona-Hue (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to argue about the reliability of the sources. Note that WP:HISTRS are needed for history. As a first step, you might fill in the full citations, which weren't included by the IP. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So, if I add the full citation for each of the references, will you let it remain?-Dona-Hue (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If the reliable source mentions that the victims killed were Hindus. Marvellous Spider-Man  03:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the sources also clearly state that the victims were killed because they were Hindu? For example, from this source it appears that the Tughlak ruler was more interested in the gold in the temple than in persecuting Hindus. --regentspark (comment) 04:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To whomsoever it may concern and to those who are unaware, the entire list in discussion was copy-pasted from List_of_massacres_in_India. Interested editors can verify the content and sources there, before bringing the same to this article. Best regards,  Tyler Durden  (talk)  07:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added a link on top and that should be enough!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Persecution of Hindus. 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/20111012052145/http://www.hindustantimes.com/Under-renewed-threats-pandits-may-flee-the-Valley/H1-Article1-477268.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Under-renewed-threats-pandits-may-flee-the-Valley/H1-Article1-477268.aspx
 * Added tag to http://dev-bd.bdnews24.com/details.php?id=241410&cid=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930191446/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2005%5C12%5C09%5Cstory_9-12-2005_pg1_7 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2005%5C12%5C09%5Cstory_9-12-2005_pg1_7
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.indiatvnews.com/Common.aspx?path=19%2F209
 * 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
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/news/bn2005/bn-2005-00-16.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090309182856/http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?id=u250pmj6q7047403 to http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?id=u250pmj6q7047403

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) 07:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

So many edits by User:Mfarazbaig - are they approved?
I see several edits that User:Mfarazbaig made, and some of them pretty much change the entire tone of the contentious arguments ! Some of the changes suggest WP:POV but I will leave that up to the discussion. I will agree that a majority of their edits were cleanups and I appreciate the user for it! Sdmarathe (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * - Kudos to your blind revert & restoring the repeated sentences as well. Did you even go through each edit separately before reverting? - Mfarazbaig (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I reverted some legitimate copy editing edits as well. But this is what happens when you repeatedly revert other editors and do so along with snarky comments about using ctrl F. You won't be taken seriously. Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 22:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "when you repeatedly revert other editors"? That's a false accusation. I only reverted Kautliya once. After which Vanamonde suggested me to, "make contentious changes one at a time." And I did exactly that, regardless of what my edit summaries were. I am not aware of any WP policy or guideline that bounds me to explain in great length each word I edit outside of the edit summary and more specifically on the talk page. If any of the involved editors reverting me including you, would have cared enough to tag me here and asked for further explanation, I would have explained it. Case in point, the editor above has done just that and actually appreciates it. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The WP policy is WP:CONSENSUS. Wikipedia is written by consensus. It is not your private web site to write whatever you want to write.
 * The guidelins is WP:BRD, which asks you to discuss when an edit is reverted. Repeatedly reinstating a contested edit without discussion is edit warring. If you keep doing it, you will get blocked.
 * Your edit summary said you were removing repeated content. If that is all you did, it would have been fine. But you were also doing a number of other things, in particular adding citation needed tags to passages that already had citations. That kind of thing throws the reliability of your whole edit into question. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My edit summary after Vanamonde's revert read: "Added tags. Removed repeating sentences." I don't know what you are on about. None of the sentences I added tags to, had any reference. What happened to, assume good faith? - Mfarazbaig (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My guess is it (AGF) went down the drain along with the part of your edit summary you omitted in the description above Please use your eyes & the brain to spot them. I suggest you stop defending your reverts here and focus on fixing the article in discrete steps and discussing any non editing changes on the talk page. --regentspark (comment) 23:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

AGF merely means that we assume your edits are well-intentioned. It doesn't mean that everything you do will be accepted. They could still be wrong or misguided. All edits are subject to review by other editors. There is no rule that says that every sentence should have a citation. You need to look at the nearest citation and check if it supports the content or not. I presume you haven't done so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your assumption is wrong. I did check the nearest citation. Stop assuming and actually get to "review" as you say, instead of blindly reverting. I did what Vanamonde suggested and each edit should have been reviewed independently. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't typically edit specific topics like these, but from my understanding is that numerous edits have been revoked all for the sake of keeping one unwanted edit away. The citation tag argument seems solid to me. If certain sentences are not sourced, why are the citation-needed tags removed? If I am correct WP:RS requires that either unsoruced content be removed or at the very lest have have a tag such as {dubious} {citation-needed} or similar tags in this category until the sentences are cited or modified. Or am I missing something here?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Both I and Vanamonde have explained in our edit summaries the reason for our reverts. You need to stop going OTT about the revert and focus on the issues. You have two options: either redo the edits one issue at a time so that we know what is what, or explain here the justificaation for the individual edits here. Take your pick. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case I think it should be fair to allow Mfarazbaig to boldly restore the changes save for the disputed one which we can always discuss here.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't get it. The edit was reverted because the rationale supplied in the edit summary was inadequate for the edits done. If he does the same thing again, it will be reverted again and he will be liable to get blocked. Please treat Wikipedia with respect. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Mestiço
In the Portuguese Goa section, there is a word, "mestiço", but when the reader clicks on it, it leads to the article on, "mestizo". Please correct it to link to the article on, "mestiço". Thanks!-Karumari (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 15:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
Hello all, I understand that this is a politically charged issue. But, I believe this article has been written predominantly from one point of view, with a political agenda of emphasizing 'persecution of Hindus'. These are my reasons for believing so: 1) 'Persecution' is a loaded term, and connotes a systematic oppression. To call an entire community persecuted, I'd expect there to be shown a global/universal/common intent to marginalize or ill-treat. However, this article merely notes individual events, without examining the causes and contexts for each of those events. It does not cite any author who argues that Hindus have been persecuted. The article itself seems to be arguing the case for persecution, which violates WP:NOR. 2) The article lists some cases in which there is no prima facie evidence of 'persecution', or any sort of ill-treatment (eg. the section on Hyderabad). 3) Like I said in point 1, the article does not examine both sides of each of those events. Though, of course, some of those events arguably do not have more (reported) sides (eg. Mughal invasions), many others do. Further, many of those rulers cited to have destroyed temples and killed Hindus as part of their conquest, also have reported history of patronizing and supporting Hindu scholars, artists, and temples. Without examining those counter-points, the article paints a one-sided picture of constant persecution. I'm not saying that the article should argue one way or the other (in fact, the article shouldn't be arguing either way at all, but reporting existing research). 4) Some of those references do not contain the content cited. Also, some references are entire books, from which it is very onerous to pick out the content being cited. Along with the POV slant, it leads one to wonder if that content actually exist, or has been cherry-picked.

I'd suggest an overhaul of the article, changing of the title, and examining all points of view. I'll slowly make these changes as I get time, and I request that we politely discuss it here. Thanks! Neogarfield (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding on here, I deleted a few sections. Please do ping me here before reverting the edits? We can discuss and find ways to make the content better. Here are the sections I deleted, and the reasons for my deletion:


 * Madurai - no mention in the references, Madura Vijaya is work of fiction
 * Hyderabad - really, no mention of any violence or ill-feeling towards Hindus.
 * Sri Lanka - again, no mention of any violence or ill-feeling towards Hindus.
 * Saudi Arabia - the cited article does not in any way mention the destruction of Hindu items or property.
 * Fiji - there is no reference given for the claims, and the rest of the section did not deal with any ill-feeling towards Hindus.
 * Bhutan - deleted line without reference about the ethnic cleansing of Lhotshampas Hindus

Thanks, Neogarfield (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the removal because these examples fall under the wide definition of "persecution" You can talk here without adding tagbombing the article, or unilaterally removing reliably sourced content. Shashank5988 (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey! Three responses.

Thanks! Neogarfield (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The parts I deleted either did not have evidence for ill-treatment, hostility, oppression, or persistent harassment; or, the references did not mention or indicate the claims mentioned here. Would you disagree? I can give my reasons in more detail.
 * 2) I do believe that you are right, and there is a case to be made for persecution of Hindus on the wide definition. However, I wonder whether it is the purpose of the Wiki to argue the case? I ask because I'm not sure of this, and I'd like some reference. Further, I'd be comfortable if the article just quoted some author or academic historical work that made the argument for the persecution of Hindus.
 * 3) If you're accusing me of tagbombing or removing sourced content, the onus would be on you to demonstrate that.

it is in the nature of the articles titled "Persecution of X" that they will be one-sided. However, you are welcome to bring up sources that present the "other side" and if we find that the balance is wrong, we can amend the text appropriately. While the content and the sourcing may not be great for many of these sections, I know from my research into these subjects (particularly Madurai and Hyderabad) that the charges of persecution are real. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the response,. I respectfully and firmly disagree that "it is in the nature of the articles titled "Persecution of X" that they will be one-sided", especially in the context of an encyclopedia entry. Any encyclopedia entry should present the discourse surrounding the concept, not argue from one side or the other. I'd entreat you to present sources from Wikipedia policy that present your case. I'm only happy to present you sources for my claim. (the preliminary read being WP:NPOV ) I respect the knowledge you bring from your own research. It is very valuable in knowing the 'lay of the land'. However, Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia, is not a place to present original research. I presume I don't have to point you to the relevant wiki pages for this policy. If we want to make a case for, say, persecution of Hindus in Hyderabad, we'd have to present sources that argue that case; sources that, of course, meet the criterion of WP:Verifiability (which many of the sources cited on this article do not have). I also request you to give your reasons to reverting my edit (which would be in terms of arguing against the reasons I gave for my deletions). I also request you to respond reasonably to each point, and not in terms of general comments ("unilaterally removing sourced content" - I did give my reasons for doing so, to which you haven't responded before reverting; I will assume good faith and wait for your responses). And if we cannot agree here, maybe we should bring in other editors into the debate as well. Thank you for engaging with me and taking time out to do this! Neogarfield (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You can find fuller discussion of Hyderabad in the Hyderabad State page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: I'm sorry, it's not you who reverted my edits and owes me a response, it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neogarfield (talk • contribs)

WP:LEAD:

WP:WNTRMT:

You may be of the opinion that there are no issues, but Neogarfield clearly is not, while Kautilya3 has suggested to them to add info to balance this article. That's also a sign that the issue has not been solved. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:CITELEAD. This article has been thoroughly reviewed and there have been also RfC (Talk:Anti-Hindu_sentiment) which decided what should be kept here and on Anti-Hindu sentiment. One would need strong reasons to tag the article, however Neogarfield's concerns sounded more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and pointed no clear issues with the reasonable sections, I felt that there is no need to keep the tag on the place which doesn't helps either way. Should we keep tags on place only because one person misunderstands our policies? D4iNa4 (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As I have now said in multiple locations; the article describes persecution in a number of different countries, both present and past. Without a source discussing where persecution was most intense, there's absolutely no policy-based reason to mention some countries, and not others, in the lead; particularly when we're adding a contentious category such as "Muslim majority countries". Vanamonde (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Neogarfield has raised several specific concerns, as listed above. What I'd do, if I were you, is to address those specific issues, and check/argue if they're correct or not. To make a start:


 * 'Persecution' is a loaded term, and connotes" a systematic oppression. - the first line of the lead links to Religious persecution, which starts with a definition: "Religious persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group of individuals as a response to their religious beliefs or affiliations or lack thereof." So, that's a working defnition to judge whether the info in this article is appropriate or not, especially "systematic mistreatment" and "as a response to their religious beliefs or affiliations or lack thereof."
 * The first paragraph of Persecution of Hindus says


 * So, apparently that was not religious persecution, but simply ("") an act of powerplay, and brutal violence against a population which defended themselves against slave-traders. Violence, indeed, but not religious persecution. To call this "religious persecution," a source is needed which says so.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC) / update  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To call an entire community persecuted, I'd expect there to be shown a global/universal/common intent to marginalize or ill-treat. - that's a personal opinion, though not unreasonable.
 * However, this article merely notes individual events, without examining the causes and contexts for each of those events. - that's a valid argument, an sich; but, which needs to be qualified with specific examples. Yet, Neogarfield also provided an overview of deleted sections, with arguments why he deleted them.
 * It does not cite any author who argues that Hindus have been persecuted. The article itself seems to be arguing the case for persecution, which violates WP:NOR. - that's a solid argument. The argument is valid, as long as there are no sources for each specific episode which says that Hindus, c.q. Indians, were "persecuted" because of their religion. Otherwise, the apt descriptor is (historical) violence against Indians.
 * Like I said. Since the nearly whole article has been thoroughly reviewed during these years, there are no chances that it contains enough "original research" or violates NPOV that it would need to be tagged. One would need strong reason to tag the article and these "concerns" are unconvincing. I would try describing them in smaller details for now:-
 * "However, this article merely notes individual events, without examining the causes and contexts for each of those events.... does not cite any author who argues that Hindus have been persecuted": We can only mention the part about persecution while keep the lenghetier details about the incident on the incident's main article. There is no need to mention particular authors though we have attributed the sentences to the authors where it was pretty necessary.
 * Claim that "section on Hyderabad" to be unrelated to persecution is absolutely wrong.
 * "the article does not examine both sides of each of those events": see WP:GEVAL. It would be necessary to present only when equally reliable source is disputing the information but it is not necessary to when we lack reliable sources for other side.
 * "Some of those references do not contain the content cited": Which source?
 * These "concerns" are not actually presenting any concerns with the article as a whole. While there might be problem with a few sentences or paragraphs, it can be better resolved by editing than questioning the validity of whole article. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "nearly whole article has been thoroughly reviewed during these years" No, it hasn't. It has existed for a long time, some structural issues have been discussed, and some specific content has been worked over in detail. Plenty of other content has not been examined in a long time. Vanamonde (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * [Neogarfield] does not cite any author who argues that Hindus have been persecuted versus [D4iNa4] We can only mention the part about persecution - you'll first have to present a source which says that (in this specific case, but it applies to all examples) were "persecuted" (source?) because they were Hindus.
 * [Neogarfield] "the article does not examine both sides of each of those events" [D4iNa4]: see WP:GEVAL. It would be necessary to present only when equally reliable source is disputing the information but it is not necessary to when we lack reliable sources for other side. - with other side you mean when there is no reliable source stating that those events were case of religious persecution? In that case, the info shouldn't be there at all...
 * NB: Persecution of Hindus should start with an introductory sentence, saying something like "Hindus were persecuted during the Muslim-reign of India because of their religion." With WP:RS, of course. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * If you are going to search for "persecution" which itself needs no explicit mention in the reliable source then we are going to cut a large part of every persecution-related article. One will have to provide rebuttal that how these examples fails to fall under the wide definition of "persecution". The examples disputed by Neogarfield do fall under persecution and the sources describe the involved elements which justify the inclusion. Shashank5988 (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Ehm, no. See WP:OR and WP:BURDEN. We provide an overview of what WP:RS say about the topic; if you conclude that a specific case is religious persecution, that's WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  08:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As long as it is illustrating the subject it is WP:NOTSYNTH. "Persecution" has a wide definition. Religiously motivated mass murder or slaughter or massacre can be described as "persecution" even if the word "persecution" was not used by the source. Have you figured out multiple examples from this page so far where the incident has been misrepresented as "persecution"? Shashank5988 (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * That's an essay. We're talking about the basics: what exactly constitutes "persecution"; which sources apply this definition to violence against Hindus? The subject hasn't even been defined... I'm not talking about dictionary definitions; I'm talking about solid publications. I suggest you take up the challenge, and provide reliable sources delaing with the topic of persecution of Hindus. After all, you're the one who dismissed Neografield's concerns.
 * See also WP:LEAD (that's a guideline):
 * Compare this to the lead:
 * What's the topic? "Religious persecution" has not been defined;
 * What's the context?
 * Why is the topic notable? (see my comments on Hindu identity)
 * What are the controversies?
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  09:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What are the controversies?
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  09:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It is still a well known standard that is applied. Lead often attracts disputes and non-neutral editing, maybe that is why the lead of the article is small, just like Persecution of Muslims. Not saying that we should never develop it but current one may not be all that bad. I agree that descriptions about what counts as persecution can be provided or what we consider relevant for the article. Shashank5988 (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Definition & explanation of narrative
The article should start with definitions of persecution and religious persecution, and provide a short overview of WP:RS sources/authors stating that Hindus were (religiously) persecuted. It should also explai why this is an important topic in India, and how it has shaped the narratives of Hindu nationalism. After all, that's what this aricle is actually about: Hindu-identity, and the way it was shaped in response to India's history. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  08:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about lead or a new section? Shashank5988 (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * A new section, which may be summarized in the lead. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added some. Note that it's not just about "religion"; it's about ways of life and power-bases. Lifeworld aptly summarises this broader "gestalt." Maybe this article should be mobed to "Violence against Hindus." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I also think that since other persecution articles (Persecution of Muslims) should also include a similar section of definition since they also discuss the persecution just like this article. Though we will move there later, but I am not sure about the page move. It will require much wider consensus. Shashank5988 (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Was 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case involved persecution of Hindus?
I added text regarding Malegaon bomb blast case that not just involved two individuals mentioned, but it was a much broader case. and CuriousPerson18375 (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In the TV interview, Sadhvi Pragya details the plot . and  CuriousPerson18375 (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, except in very limited circumstances, you tube videos are not considered reliable sources. Using a video, as in this case, by someone apparently accused in a bombing, let alone using it for broad generalizations, is way beyond the pale. I know next to nothing about this case but I can assure you that this material doesn't satisfy our requirements for reliable sourcing and verifiability. --regentspark (comment) 01:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally, Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur is the person being accused of perpetrating that attack. She is obviously neither an independent nor a reliable source when it comes to judging whether her arrest was a conspiracy; nor is she a reliable source for how she was treated in prison. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Nicholas F. Gier Source not cited accurately
"Will Durant called the Muslim conquest of India "probably the bloodiest story in history",[15] but this is not accepted by some contemporary historians.[16]"

Nowhere in the source 16 (The Origins of Religious Violence: An Asian Perspective) does it give any refutation to Will Durant nor the claim that the conquest of India was one of the most bloodiest in history. It seems to emphasize the times of peace between the Hindus and Muslims after the conquest rather than claim that the conquest itself wasn't as violent as Will Durant claims. I think it's appropriate to change that to "citation needed".

That source itself also makes some bizarre claims: "No Muslim or Hindu enclaves were seized; populations were not expelled on the basis of religion"

This claim is objectively false https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India this list gives multiple examples of Hindu enclaves being attacked by Muslim armies and the population being ran out and killed along with Hindus being forcefully removed from their land to be put into slavery based on their religion.

Another claim is "There is in fact no evidence of any rebellion toward the Dehli Sultanate..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellions_against_Alauddin_Khalji One leader of the Dehli Sultanate faced three rebellions alone.

So I would also like to call into question this source as being up to scholarly standards as it does contain pretty glaring factual errors. 76.184.220.115 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Will Durant
, Will Durant's analysis reflects the early 20th century, European prejudices. It is not current. WP:HISTRS requires modern historical scholarship, which did not exist in his time. If current scholars have endorsed this view, then you need to cite them. And, you also need to cite the contrary opinions such as this one:

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, FWIW; scholarship about colonized countries during the colonial era frequently reflected the prejudices of its authors more than it did reality. Also, works that had a very broad scope are often not the best for understanding very specific phenomena. Where contemporary scholarship exists, that should be given more weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

All that can be said about Muslim invasions is that their laws of war allowed them to attack civilian populations and plunder them, and also capture them and enslave them if they resisted. The "booties" the invading forces gathered are well-documented. This was certainly below the standards of war that the Hindus practised at that time and, for this, the Muslims received a terrible reputation. Beyond that, ideas like Muslims having killed millions of Hindus and persecuting them day in and day out are all wild imaginations. Ibn Battuta's shock at the Madurai Sultan's conduct shows that it was an extreme case, and by no means standard among the Muslim rulers of his time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "European prejudices"? The violence committed by Muslims against Hindus during the conquest of India is well documented and most of our understanding of what happened comes from historical Indian and Muslim sources, not European. Will's work echoes what Indian historians have long said so discounting his work under the grounds of a baseless accusation of being prejudice and not containing proper scholarship with no justification is not grounds for that source to be invalidated. If you are going to claim that sources "require modern historical scholarship, which did not exist in his time" then you have to actually provide a lot of detail and citations as to why, where as all you have provided is the claim itself. Also, contrary opinions can be cited but don't NEED to be cited, especially the one you cited as it does not attempt to refute what Will Durant claimed. I see no reason to discount Will Durant as a source as you have not provided adequate reason to do so. 76.184.220.115 (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Modern historical scholarship is a raquirement for reliable sources for history. Historical scholarship prior to 1950 is deemed to carry inadequate standards of history. Modern scholars may not pay attention to or critique such works except when it is part of their research to do so. If what Durant says is true, you would find modern historians repeating it, and if they do, you can cite them. And, don't bother citing Koenraad Elst because he is considered WP:FRINGE.
 * For European prejudices, see for example:, especially the discussion starting p. 6.
 * I will not be responding to your personal critique of Nicholas Gier below because it is not Wikipedia's purpose to analyse scholarly assessments. If you think there is value in your analysis, you may submit it to a journal. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2019
In the "India" section please insert the following:

In September 2019, 17 Hindu students were suspended by the Christian-run "Church School, Beldih Triangle" in Jharkhand for chanting Jai Shri Ram in the schools, lading to the protests by the Hindu organisations. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌ for a couple reasons: 1) There's nothing in your request that this is persecution; and 2) This is a recent news item that doesn't really fit into the scope of the rest of the section. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Ram Punyani
Ram Punyani was a Professor of Biomedical Engineering, IIT Mumbai. He's not a historian by any stretch of the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rioter 1 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

, here is the passage you deleted from the article:

Please state what your objections are, to this passage. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have reservations about the authority of this source. If you have any alternate citations from a reliable soruce, pls feel free to include those and remove this. Rioter 1 (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I take strong objection for your allegation of sock puppeting, here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rioter 1 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice that it was a different editor that did the first deletion. I didn't mean any sockpuppetry.
 * Coming back to the issue, if the source is not satisfactory, then you can easily add a tag. The deletion of the content is warranted only if the content itself seems dubious. But if you read the Aurangzeb page, similar things are said there as well. So I don't see any reason to doubt it. In the context of this article, which is about Hindu-Muslim relations rather than history, Puniyani is perfectly fine. It is a book published by SAGE, and Puniyani is enough of an academic scholar to cull information from various expert sources.
 * It is often said that "WP:HISTRS is an essay". That means, use it judiciously not blindly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just dropping a review of the book over Critical Asian Studies:-
 * &#x222F; WBG converse 14:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm okay with the facts in those quotes about his sponsorship and donations to temples and gurudwaras, but his assertion that "Aurangzeb was not fanatically anti-Hindu..." is WP:UNDUE. You don't need a Ram Punyani to assert Aurangzeb's motives. If a wiki admin can deny mention of a source citing WP:HISTRS, it definitely is applicable here as well. Rioter 1 (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are loads of other sources that are used in an WP:UNDUE fashion as well. Will Durant being the prominent example, but also Fernand Braudel, and Vincent Arthur Smith. If you want to clean up, you need to clean up all of them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "If you want to clean up, you need to clean up all of them".. Why is that? I'm interested exclusivly in this article. Rioter 1 (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "If you want to clean up, you need to clean up all of them".. Why is that? I'm interested exclusivly in this article. Rioter 1 (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

What's the neutrality issue?
At the top of the article you're told that the neutrality of this article is disputed. By whom? When? On what grounds? Don't the readers need to know more than just a pithy slanderous phrase?

Someone needs to go through the paragraphs of the article and point out which parts are biased and provide references to support the accusation. Otherwise take the neutrality flag out. I cannot find anything that is not factual. Most of it is milder than what the conquerors' own historians wrote. Sooku (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * On top of that, Wikipedia Admins are actively engaged in whitewashing these atrocities on natives in the middle ages. here and  here, both of whom are Wikipedia Administrators have been actively reverting well sourced contemporary sources citing some weird one-off rule from WP:HISTRS to remove sections and sections of this article. Rioter 1 (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what well-sourced contemporary sources mean. You need to use WP:HSC compliant stuff in controversial domains. &#x222F; WBG converse 06:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * May-be, one fine day, I will get enough motivation to remove all WP:HSC non-compliant sourcing and remove the multiple instances of synthesis and outright fabrication. Examples may be located in my edits, days back. &#x222F; WBG converse 06:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * For starters, Firishta was a court historian of Mughal era. Both of you have removed mentions of his contemporary account Tarikh-i Firishta. The other one is a colonial compendium by Sir Elliot, H. M. His book, 'The history of India : as told by its own historians. The Muhammadan period' is just a collection of contemporary historians in the medieval period. Rioter 1 (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Clean-up of sources
Beginning today, and over the course of next ~48 hours, I will be removing all sources (and corresponding content) that are not compliant with WP:HSC and/or WP:HISTRH. Obviously, all primary sources and works of colonial amateur historians will be removed. &#x222F; WBG converse 06:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thumbs up! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Rationale for cleanup reorganize
For ease of navigation, section headers should be ordered by chronology or geography, not both, and certainly not overlapping each other ( ==India== vs ==South Asia==, ===1971 Bangladesh genocide=== vs ==Bangladesh==, etc. ). -- Nemoschool  ( talk to me ) 23:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2019
In BANGLADESH section, please add the following on top:

List of masscare targeted at Hindus and Buddhists minorities by radical Islamists and Razakar:
 * 1962 Rajshahi massacres
 * 1964 East-Pakistan riots
 * 1971 Bangladesh genocide
 * Operation Searchlight
 * Chuknagar massacre
 * Jathibhanga massacre
 * Shankharipara massacre
 * Razakar
 * 1989 Bangladesh pogroms
 * 1990 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence
 * 1992 Bangladesh violence
 * 2012 Chirirbandar violence
 * 2012 Fatehpur violence
 * 2012 Hathazari violence
 * 2012 Ramu violence
 * 2013 Bangladesh Anti-Hindu violence
 * 2014 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence
 * 2016 Nasirnagar Violence
 * Noakhali riots
 * Persecution of indigenous peoples in Bangladesh

58.182.172.95 (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This request would result in a massive case of WP:OVERLINKing so the hatnote has been modified to provide a link to List of massacres in Bangladesh instead. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Synthesis in Khalji dynasty section
In the first paragraph of the Khalji dynasty section, this article combines what two reliable sources say:

"In the instructions that 'Ala'uddin Khalji is said to have issued to Malik Kafur before his campaigns in the Deccan, it is assumed that "horses and slaves" would form a large part of the booty."

"K. S. Lai's assertion that the forcible enslavement of Indians due to military expansion "gained momentum" under the Khalji and Tughluq dynasties is supported by available figures. At the beginning of the fourteenth century, Barani suggested that Sultan 'Ala' al-Din Khalji owned some 50,000 slave-boys, and had an additional 70,000 slaves ... Later that century, Sultan Firuz Tughluq is said to have owned 180,000 slaves."

to arrive at something that neither of the sources say explicitly:

"Religious violence in India continued during the reign of Jalaluddin Firoz Shah Khalji and Allauddin Khalji of Khalji dynasty. Their army commanders such as Ulugh Khan, Nusrat Khan, Khusro Khan and Malik Kafur attacked, killed, looted and enslaved non-Muslim people from West, Central and South India."

A reliable source is needed that deals with the religious aspects (and perhaps less importantly, with the named people other than Allauddin Khalji and Malik Kafur, specifically: Jalaluddin Firoz Shah Khalji, Ulugh Khan, Nusrat Khan, and Khusro Khan). --Worldbruce (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This article, along with others related to the activities of Muslim rulers in the Indian subcontinent, have seen dreadful quantities of original research being inserted over the years. I would cull such instances; the likelihood of someone coming by to fix these is negligible. If you have the time to check other sources here, that would be much appreciated, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.gurmatveechar.com/books/English_Books/A.Brief.History.of.the.Indian.People.by.Sir.William.Wilson.Hunter.(GurmatVeechar.com).pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Yours, Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 15:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of content from Aurangzeb
Hello, The section Aurangzeb (1658–1707) under Mughal says "However, he also built many temples", I think such things are irrelevant and justifies his cruelty. There is much proof of him breaking down the temples, this neutralize and justifies the entire sentence. We are talking about the persecution done by Aurangzeb and not him doing us any good. This statement should be removed. Jenos450 (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Please explain why you removed the information on Aurangzeb that Jenos450 had added. Where will I find information on the policy that "Raj era sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia"? I would have replaced the information but I see that this is an area where discretionary sanctions apply, so we had better edit carefully. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I did not see this post and the discussion with Jenos450 moved to User talk:Jenos450. See Vanamonde93's comment below and the discussion on the user talk page. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Essentially, the guideline in question is WP:RS. Sources from the period of the British Raj in India are almost without exception authored by administrators, rather than scholars, or have no editorial oversight, or propagate scientific racism in some form, or were written with the interests of the administration in mind rather than historical accuracy, or were reliant on local sources of dubious merit. Avoiding such sources has been a long-standing practice in South Asian articles on Wikipedia. Jenos450 needs to find high-quality sources supporting the content they wish to add before they reinstate it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

On the original point, viz., the statement about building temples should be removed, I don't agree either. It is a single brief statement, included to provide balance. The record of Aurangzeb is mixed and the scholars have not reached a consensus on whether his actions represent relgious persecution or whether they were political battles of some sort. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Where it is said it is mixed? Please provide a source Kautilya3. Aurangzeb is notorious for his religious atrocities. I don't think a balance is necessary when we are talking about something pessimistic like the persecution faced by Hindus. If it was his page, I would have totally agreed with you. All the prosecutor has done something merciful, this would call for an effort to justify everything on this page. Jenos450 (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding to my point above, Aurangzeb did not share his forefather's virtues. He was a vigilant promoter of Islam, converted Hindus, and probably even despised them. He had wasted many Hindu temples, looted them, and razed those to the ground. A subtle change was made in his policy- though construction of new Hindu temples was completely banned; he said at some point in time that he would offer financial help to help preserve Hindu temples. A sudden change of heart? Not much. He opposed Hinduism and all signs of it, till his death. He declared the policy of helping temples financially as it was completely driven politically. You see its not persecution and irrelevant to the page, If it should be added, it should be only on his own page. “Hitler saved more Jews than he killed” Jenos450 (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the sentence on building temples was awkward and out of place, but I think there is a better way to achieve the balance Kautilya3 is looking for, primarily by being more specific about what was actually done during Aurangzeb's reign and why. Take for instance the phrases "numerous campaigns of attacks against non-Muslims" and "destruction of numerous temples". I don't think the word "numerous" is ever appropriate in an encyclopedia, because... how many is it? It implies "too many to count" but in this case is really "some unknown number". We should instead have some kind of estimate. The "numerous temples" sentence cites an article by Richard Eaton (the link is dead so I'm linking to a different pdf I found) that lists exactly 5 temples desecrated at Aurangzeb's order. In a 2015 interview with Eaton he both downplays the number of temples presumed to have been demolished by Muslim rulers and also says it's certainly more than the 80 he was able to definitively account for. He says that more temples were desecrated in Aurangzeb's reign than others, but also explains this not through religious hostility, but through Aurangzeb's long and particularly rebellion-filled reign. He also says "it is hard to argue that he harboured any personal animus against non-Muslims". Despite all this, you are correct that Aurangzeb is notorious. I think the best path forward is to note that Aurangzeb has a legacy as a persecutor of Hindus, while also noting that there is some debate both about the extent of his persecution and about whether his motivations were primarily religious or political. That way it's not about balancing Aurangzeb's good/bad reputation, it's about balancing the known/unknown facts of the situation. Shmarrighan (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I just added my attempt at balancing this section out. I'm not entirely satisfied, but hopefully it's an improvement. Let me know what you think. Shmarrighan (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

A separate article for "Violence against Hindus in India"
Starting this topic as the "Persecution of Hindus" deals with persecution in general. There have been separate riots specifically targeting Hindus in different parts of India post-independence. Therefore, "Violence against Hindus in India" should ideally qualify for a separate article. --Athosindia —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. All that info can be incorporated here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.11.25 (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Disagree that will be just another redundant WP:CONTENTFORK. Whatever you want to add, could and should be added on this page. --Walrus Ji (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Italy
Why does the Italy section exist? I propose to remove it. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Bhutan
The government conducted an ethnic purge. Also, a significant minority of the Lhotshampas were Buddhists. How do we perceive this as persecution of Hindus? This is a nice summary. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , agree with the removal. A lot of content here is WP:Synthesis, original research or just plain crap. If the sources are reliable, and the content does not belong here, please consider moving the content to other relevant article of the incident or the geographical area. Walrus Ji (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

SriLanka
Can SriLanka's Civil War, an ethnic conflict be deemed as persecution against Hindus? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , No, it is not. This is another example of blatant original research and POV pushing. I suggest removal from this article. if the sources are reliable consider moving it to incident articles. Walrus Ji (talk) 07:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Pakistan
Why are there 2 sections for Pakistan? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , go ahead and merge them. no need to start threads for every trivial edit. Walrus Ji (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Mappila Riots
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrangaBellam (talk • contribs) 08:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Direct Action Day
Why we are reading Direct Action Day as an example of Hindu persecution? Riots like these were multi-sphered complex events where diverse social forces converged. [Source - Joya Chatterji, Janam Mukherjee, Anwesha Ray, Debjani Sengupta, Nariaki Nakazato, Suranjan Das and every single scholar who has studied the riots in around the last three decades.] TrangaBellam (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming no opposition from and others, I will reduce the contents. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Direct Action Day is an obvious addition. Being multi sphered isn't an excuse to ignore it. LearnIndology (talk) 11:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I need to quote from 10 monographs, again. Will do soon. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * LearnIndology, these are the most prominent scholars who have worked on Direct Action day in the last two/three decades. I can add a few others (Suranjan Das, Rakesh Batabyal, Gyanendra Pandey (historian) and Sumit Sarkar).
 * So now, please provide scholars whose work covers Direct Action Day (not in a cursory manner), who have been published by academic presses, who contradict the above themes of analysis and who note the event to be a "persecution" of Hindus.
 * I will also request and  to say their opinions.TrangaBellam (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see how this can be labelled as "persecution". It was a political conflict and a riot. (It also occurs to me that Calcutta was the only place where the Direct Action Day turned into such mayhem.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Direct Action day was not the first incident of anti Hindu violence, during the partition era. Nor did the event only include violence against the Hindus. As has been quoted above. The author/s of this article seems to have focused entirely on one side of the event ignoring the other. I am against adding any POV or one sided (Anti Hindu) version of the Direct action day into this article. The reader is best served in reading the Direct Action day article itself. All the subsections should be clubbed together under the section heading Partition of India and it should have a NPOV summary of the partition violence. It should be explicitly mentioned in that section, in some way that Not Only Hindus but Muslims and Sikhs were also victims of large scale and rampant violence in that era. Right now the section appears to mislead the reader into thinking that Hindus were the only victims thereby propagating the one sided victimhood mentality. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am in full agreement. 14:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Better to remove then. LearnIndology (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I will also request and  to say their opinions.TrangaBellam (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see how this can be labelled as "persecution". It was a political conflict and a riot. (It also occurs to me that Calcutta was the only place where the Direct Action Day turned into such mayhem.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Direct Action day was not the first incident of anti Hindu violence, during the partition era. Nor did the event only include violence against the Hindus. As has been quoted above. The author/s of this article seems to have focused entirely on one side of the event ignoring the other. I am against adding any POV or one sided (Anti Hindu) version of the Direct action day into this article. The reader is best served in reading the Direct Action day article itself. All the subsections should be clubbed together under the section heading Partition of India and it should have a NPOV summary of the partition violence. It should be explicitly mentioned in that section, in some way that Not Only Hindus but Muslims and Sikhs were also victims of large scale and rampant violence in that era. Right now the section appears to mislead the reader into thinking that Hindus were the only victims thereby propagating the one sided victimhood mentality. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am in full agreement. 14:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Better to remove then. LearnIndology (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Medieval persecution by Muslim rulers - Issues raised by TrangaBellam
The citation-numbers refer to this version.

Qutbuddin Aibak
The three sources affirm the statement(s) but nowhere do they note these to be forms of persecution against Hindus, which is the subject of this Wikipedia entry. As Prof. Eaton and others have noted, in medieval era, acts of temple destruction in India were politically motivated and meant to affect display-sites of sovereignty and power. Religious motivations were negligibly nil or absent in entirety. See Battle of Talikota where a similar case has been discussed in considerable detail.

TrangaBellam (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Khalji dynasty (1290-1320 AD)
TrangaBellam (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * [24] is 150-year old Elliot, whose aim was to justify the England rule in India by exaggerating the atrocities of the Muslim rulers from a non-critical translation of medieval chronicles.
 * Sanjay Subrahmanyam
 * Mohammad Habib.
 * Manan Ahmed Asif - ...the magistrate, collector, and later secretary to the Government of India in the Foreign Office, Henry Miers Elliot (1808–1853), established the archival study of “Muhammadan India” as the Dark Ages. He epitomized the general colonial understanding of Muslims as invaders in India :- ... Elliot spearheaded a truly monumental project for the nineteenth century— the acquisition and excerpted renderings of Persian histories. He remained unconvinced that the Muslim chronology added actual knowledge to Indian pasts: ... ...It was Elliot who “corrected” the figure of the twelve raids of Mahmud to the now-mythical “seventeen raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi on India.” Elliot also framed Mahmud as driven by avarice and characterized Mahmud’s Hindu adversaries as naturally weak and docile: ... Elliot’s seventeen raids that Mahmud waged on India would become totemic—W. W. Hunter reproduced it in A Brief History of the Indian Peoples (1880), and Vincent Smith added the number to his The Oxford History of India. By 1920, everyone taking the Indian Civil Services Exam would reflect on the seventeen raids of Mahmud: Ashoka was the perfect Indian King; Mahmud, the perfect Muslim invader... The paradigmatic five thousand years of the colonial episteme was premised on a Golden Age of India that had its zenith in the age of Ashoka and that declined as a result of Muslim invaders, epitomized by Mahmud Ghazni. This India was to be differentiated from the Hindustan of the colonial present on the basis of customary practices that made the people of India remain in a state of so-called primitivity, produced through subjugation by Muslims... ...My effort here in exhuming colonial historiography is to rethink the role of historical writing in Arabic and Persian for the second millennium. These histories were collected and rendered into English in slices by Elliot and others under the analytical assumption that they lacked a philosophy of history and that they were beholden to power in such a way as to render them full of superfluous and biased information. Reframing the second millennium as Hindustani—rather than “Muslim”—allows us to step away from the historiographic blockades to investigating the past... For Elliot, Muslim history, like the Muslim despot, was a site of revulsion, of horror, and a demonstration that the British were there to “fulfill our high destiny as the Rulers of India.”...
 * Richard Eaton -- But Elliot, keen to contrast what he understood as the justice and efficiency of British rule with the cruelty and despotism of the Muslim rulers who had preceded that rule, was anything but sympathetic to the “Muhammadan” period of Indian history. Noting the far greater benefits that Englishmen had brought to Indians in a mere half century than Muslims had brought in five centuries, Elliot expressed the hope that his published translations “will make our native subjects more sensible of the immense advantages accruing to them under the mildness and the equity of our rule.” Elliot’s motives for delegitimising the Indo-Muslim rulers who had preceded English rule are thus quite clear. Writing in 1931 on the pernicious influence that the colonial understanding of pre-modern Indian history had on subsequent generations, Mohammad Habib remarked: ...
 * A, B — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrangaBellam (talk • contribs) 11:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
 * [25] is a college-textbook level survey and ample errors have been noted (see Battle_of_Talikota for one). Anyways, the fact is merely attributed to contemporary historians and no persecution is claimed. As I said before, temple destruction and looting shall not be equated to persecution of Hindus.
 * Both the sources over [27] do not satisfy rigors of historical scholarship. The latter does not mention of Hindu persecution. I can't access the first one.
 * [28] is a discredited source. See the trailing cites over Battle_of_Talikota.


 * * Copied (and trimmed) response * Elliot's work has been published in Oxford and Cambridge. If they want to add a counter-argument, they can add it in the subsequent sections to balance out the article. LearnIndology (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see the prohibition on using Raj-era sources in these domains, as noted by administrators and . If you can point to recent scholarship, that explicitly rejects Eaton/Tandon/Manan Asif's views on Elliot OR explicitly contradicts my writeup about Battle of Talikota (and Aiyangar) OR positively reviews of the old Cambridge History of India Series, I will have to obviously accept that blanking in totality and starting afresh doesn't remain a recourse anymore. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC) * End of copied (and trimmed) response *
 * A source from 1871 is indeed to be rejected. Arguing that "Elliot's work has been published in Oxford and Cambridge" is not a serious counter-argument. Please take the arguments serious; merely voicing your objections won't suffice; quality of the arguments counts. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Madurai Sultanate (1335–1378)

 * The sole source is translations of Ibn Batuta's chronicles, which was not meant to be used as a historical source, at all. Read this review to understand the complexities.
 * TrangaBellam (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Tughlaq Dynasty (1321-1394)

 * 27 has been discussed.
 * [30] notes temple desecration etc but is silent about motives. Remember Eaton.
 * I cannot access [31].
 * [32] is interpreting a single medieval commentary. Again, as in [30], the motives behind iconoclasm are not described.
 * [33] is quite dated and additionally, quite poor; note that this review notes, The value judgements embodied in the narrative are often those of the medieval sources, which, as has been apparent since the labours of P. Hardy and Mohammad Habib, should generally be treated with extreme caution. That is, there is no critical and contextual reading of medieval sources.
 * [34][35][36][37] are all from Elliot, who has been already discussed.
 * TrangaBellam (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Sikandar

 * I am not very knowledgeable about Sikandar but problems persist (if claims of persecution are true, we need much recent and better sources):-
 * [46] About 85 years old but EI1 has a sterling reputation. So, I can accept its use, unless contradicted.
 * [47] is about 90 years old and ridiculously poor. No critical and contextual reading of primary sources.
 * [48] is Elliot.
 * [49] is a 125 year old travelogue by a British officer who did not have any training in history.
 * [50] is a 100 year old source - read Manan Asif and others about generalized issues with these.
 * TrangaBellam (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Lodhi dynasty (1451-1526)

 * [51][52] == [47] and has been discussed.
 * TrangaBellam (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Bengal

 * What is the point?
 * Loss of fluidity in caste-hiearchy is a form of persec. against Hindus?
 * Ending state-patronage for Brahins (who soon came back) equates to Hindu persec.? Are Kayasthas not Hindus?
 * Where does Eaton note these to be persecutions?
 * TrangaBellam (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Deccan

 * [85][86] == [47] and has been discussed.
 * [87] seems to be but ?
 * In paragraph 2, the Battle of Talikota finds a mention. Please read the linked article, once. To understand why older sources shall not be used at all.
 * TrangaBellam (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Northwest

 * A single source, 140 year old. Read The Loss of Hindustan by Manan Ahmed Asif to understand underlying issues in using these sources.
 * TrangaBellam (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Mahmud

 * We are describing Mahmud (and Somnath) and there isn't any Thapar? Whose monograph is referenced in every single discussion on the locus, since published?
 * Neither [19] nor [20] claim persecution of Hindus; if anything, [20] disproves.
 * [16] is de-contextualised reading, but all good since its attributed to the primary source.
 * Need to read [18].
 * TrangaBellam (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Timur

 * [38] is Vincent Smith, who has been extensively discussed by Manan Asif. There are others.
 * [39] is a non-academic popular survey of history. We can't use it when there are hordes of specialist sources
 * [40][43][45] is Elliot. Already discussed.
 * [41] is by someone who writes popular histories for younger audiences.
 * [42] - The word 'Hindus' is in quotes; why footnote 9 exists? Abuse of source.
 * [44] is by some local publisher. I spot no reviews, and neither have the book. No idea.
 * Now, let's see Irfan Habib's article on Timur-historiography notes:-
 * ...“Faithless Hindus”, he adds, had gathered in the Congregation Mosque of Old Delhi and Timur’s officers put them ruthlessly to slaughter there on the 29th of December. Clearly, Yazdi’s “Hindus” included Muslims as well...
 * It may be necessary to know that in pre-Raj days, the term Hindu meant different things to different folks.


 * Let's see what Francesco Orsini writes:-
 * ...His campaign in India and conquest of Delhi in 1398–9 was not an attempt at integrated conquest, nor was it an attempt at plunder and loot. Rather, his Indian campaign was conducted in order to secure an influence over important adjacent territories so that no larger state formations could emerge in that direction...


 * This is very interesting. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Tipu Sultan
TrangaBellam (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * [65] does not satisfy RS. Alexander Varghese is not a scholar. Atlantic Publisher is a front for publishers of varying repute from Macmillan to vanity presses. The book has not been cited by anyone else or been reviewed over some journal of repute.
 * [66] is very old and a non-specialist survey.
 * Need to read [67]. Have this.
 * [68] is over 125 years old. See the section about Eliot.
 * [70] is in vernacular and I don't see necessity of using it in a domain which has high quality scholarship in English. I don't know the language and have not read it. Nothing much against usage unless it advocates fringe views.
 * [71] is by some amateur scholar.
 * [72][73] Very good. Reputed publisher, reputed scholar and recent.
 * [74][82] - Not fond of using columns from newspapers but both are good enough.
 * [75] is by a local publisher and a non-scholar; no reviews. I have read this and it's quite awful.
 * [76]
 * [77][78][81][83] We cannot interpret primary sources, for us. The secondary sources are about 11 years back from Raj-era and mere literary translations.
 * The most recent article concerning the broader contours of Tipu's historiography is by Janaki Nair:-
 * I don't think that there exists any consensus about Tipu being a persecutor of Hindus. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I support the removal of the section. Walrus Ji (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I support the removal of the section. Walrus Ji (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Resolution
, how do you propose to resolve this ? Walrus Ji (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove the entire section (for now) unless you are able to answer the above points. Rewrite (you and others can help out) to show that claims of Hindu-persecution in medieval spans are almost always false and/or highly exaggerated on a rigorously contextual analysis. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * — You have taken part in a discussion about Aurangzeb, over this talk-page. So, please give your opinion. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * TrangaBellam made a bold edit, with an extensive explanation, which seems to make sense; you reverted while insisting on discussing, yet did not respond to any of the issues raised by TrangaBellam. So, I think it's misplaced to accuse TrngaBellum of "us[ing] the talk page to hold hostage the content." And you also reverted this removal by Walrus Ji, so I think you have some explanation to do. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * (general comment since pinged) Clearly, the article was (and, to some extent, still is) way too long. TrangaBellam has made the effort to clean it up and, if anyone feels that important content has been deleted perhaps they should just discuss it here on the talk page. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am both pissed off and upset as the problematic content that I had removed has been twice restored without any explanation. has made great effort to improve this page. Cleaning up the problematic parts by removing them was the right way to move forward. For now, the version by TrangaBellam should be restored. Content should be added only after discussion. --Walrus Ji (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, BhaskaraPattelar and LearnIndology, only reverts with the argument that TrangaBellam's edits should be discussed, yet no intention to discuss? In that case, there is a consensus to stick to his removals. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any logic in TrangaBellam's argument. Just because they don't agree with the author doesn't mean we will blank the article. Elliot's work has been published in Oxford and Cambridge. If they want to add a counter-argument, they can add it in the subsequent sections to balance out the article. LearnIndology (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant whether I agree or not. I have cited a bunch of reviews and recent scholarship. Please see the prohibition on using Raj-era sources in these domains, as noted by administrators and . If you can point to recent scholarship, that explicitly rejects Eaton/Tandon/Manan Asif's views on Elliot OR explicitly contradicts my writeup about Battle of Talikota (and Aiyangar) OR positively reviews of the old Cambridge History of India Series, I will have to obviously accept that blanking in totality and starting afresh doesn't remain a recourse anymore. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * could you please respond to the issues and arguments raised by TrangaBellam, at the appropriate subsection, instead of retorting to Ad hominem attacks? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You can revert me. LearnIndology (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I assume you have no issues. JJ, we seem to have consensus. Can i undo the last revert? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yes, you have my support. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the Christmas has arrived. Congratulations guys! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2021
i want to edit wikipedia 103.58.40.39 (talk) 07:32, 7 January 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. --TheImaCow (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Kazakhstan
TrangaBellam (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Jammu Massacre
Jammu Massacre need be mentioned in context of Rajouri/Mirpur. I propose to include it. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Unopposed. Doing this. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)