Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious harmony in India


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirection at editors' discretion. The reasoning by editors asking for a deletion is stronger and within the purview of deletion guidelines on Wikipedia. My observation is that the title of the article is POV and the content mostly consists of opinion commentary. Arguing that the article is "useful" is not a contention that will give you lot of points.

Although "Religious violence in India" can be presented objectively and chronologically, a change in the title might be considered.


 * I will also note that Mahitgar has canvassed for votes on WT:INDIA and has been warned over email.
 * That Til Eulenspiegel has abetted canvassing by reversion of good faith edits.

Thank you, — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  14:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Religious harmony in India

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - Another three established users (including me) wants it to go (see the discussion going on at Relata refero’s talk page . A complete WP:OR, WP:CRUFT and POV fork.  Harjk   talk   08:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete The article indeed reads like an essay to me for the most part, with the relevant information already in Religion in India. That's enough for me to suggest deletion - but precludes any opinion on the mentioned content dispute over Religious violence in India - that has to be worked out by the editors or within WP:WikiProject India or RfC. --Minimaki (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong Delete Secularism means of worldly, not religious or spiritual. In India, secularism has a different meaning: giving respect to all religions. This is a bogus definition of secularism. This bogus definition of secularism is used by the pseudo-secularists to appease Muslims. On the other hand, Hindu nationalists use terms like "Hindutva" to appease Hindus. In other word, India is secular only in theory. Both pseudo-secularists and Hindu nationalists are not secular and they use religion for their own interest. The article Religious harmony in India is written from a pseudo-secularist point of view. This article is totally unacceptable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Redundant pov fork. Dance With The Devil (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Articles on religious interaction in India is certainly encyclopedic. However, we have those articles already: Secularism (South Asia), Hinduism and Islam etc., etc. An article under this title is unacceptable as begging the question. Relata refero (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The article Secularism in India is encyclopedic. Indians do not relate to secularism and confuse it with religious tolerance. Secularism is about separation of church and state. It is not about celebrating different faiths. The article Religious harmony in India is totally one-sided and there is much incorrect information. Just look at the following paragraph:


 * "In India right from the British period main contradiction was not between religious and secular but it was between secular and communal. In the western world main struggle was between church and state and church and civil society but in India neither Hinduism nor Islam had any church-like structure and hence there never was any such struggle between secular and religious power structure."


 * The above paragraph clearly shows that the authors of the article don't have clear understanding of the term secularism. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The para mentioned is neither my creation nor original research,for that matter through out the article I have done no original research. this openion is of an authority on this subject Asgar Ali Engineer and a reference has been given in the article.


 * Keep : I do not agree with any of the above arguments, I am also a established wiki user and I have taken on myself to keep it to wiki standards. I am going to get peer review done of this article .If in the peer review I do not find enough support for athe article I will let it go.


 * At the end of the day frankly I can not do any thing before brute majiority, most of you who are against this article is also because of POV against the concept so do you consider your vote to be realy fair? if yes, I have no arguments with you.In the article I have given enough reference sources. Idea and wording of Religious harmony in India is not mine but has been part of Indian culture since time immemorial, If there are thousands of resources available about the same and if some one has different openions than me , he or she is open to edit the article and can help me in bringing article to good standard.


 * If wikipedia is realy a constructive activity and if you people realy belive in wikipedia concept you will certainly support this article.


 * Thanks and Regards


 * Mahitgar (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename as Religious interaction in India or merge into Religion in India as the current title is begging the question as someone above has pointed out. Under the title Religious interaction in India, one can do a critical analysis with proper citations. If it emerges from the citations that religious interaction is indeed harmonious, that can find a place in the lead. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The article I am working on is going to be rather long with many relevant sections, I do not know how it will accomodate in any other single article which is already long enough.210.214.60.111 (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: The article is full of WP:SYN and WP:CRUFT. The first paragraph of the article is based on the personal speculation of the current PM of the country. Some personal opinion of some individuals have been conflated with the concept of "religious harmony". "We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true" -- it is the personal opinion of the PM and addition of such opinion as fact in the article in utterly unencyclopedic. "Our civilization great is the fact that it is based on the idea of the co-existence of faiths - Sarva Dharma Sambhava. This notion implies that we have equal respect for all Dharmas, for all faiths. Elaborating this idea Swami Vivekananda used the metaphor of many rivers flowing into one mighty ocean" -- this is also a personal opinion of an individual, not fact. The "Background' section says "Constitutionally, India is a secular and in practice the religious diversity of India extends to highest levels of government. Currently, the Prime Minister of India is a Sikh, the President of India is a Hindu, Vice President of India is a Muslim and the chairperson of the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) is a Christian." The fact that the particular country has politicians or Government leaders from different religions is not equal to religious harmony, and it is not in case of India only, it is a fact in many other countries also. The entire article is collection of some indiscriminate quotes and information punched together to make a hodge podge in the name of "religious harmony". In the "History" section, there is a large quote associated with Asoka, "King Piyadasi (Ashok) dear to the Gods, honours all sects, the ascetics (hermits) or those who dwell at home, he honours them with charity and in other ways. But the King, dear to the Gods, attributes less importance to this charity and these honours than to the vow of seeing the reign of virtues, which constitutes the essential part of them. For all these virtues there is a common source, modesty of speech. That is to say, One must not exalt one’s creed discrediting all others, nor must one degrade these others Without legitimate reasons. One must, on the contrary, render to other creeds the honour befitting them." But this is an isolated case associated with a king, it is not any fact. The section "Symbols of religious harmony" is strange. It includes Ajanta Caves, Akshardham temple. All these are conflated with the concept of "religious harmony". Overall the article is WP:CRUFT and unencyclopedic.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is meant to be an Encyclopedia. Wikipedia content should primarily describe and define FACTS - things as they are, with minimal POV. POV are only acceptiable in content as mention of the fact that some people have that POV. But the POV itself cannot be a full page. This page should preferably removed otherwise the material in the page should be made more neutral and moved to page 'Religion in India'. (unsigned)


 * Keep I just read this article and found it informative; maybe it could use some trimming and more work, but I wonder if there are ultimately some kind of political motives for suppressing access to this information. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"User:Otolemur crassicaudatus says: ..... WP:SYN.... add single sentence quotations from article..."
 * Keep I have read through the comments, and I don't see what is the problem here except for POV of those who want to delete it. Let me sum up:"User:Harjk says: Another three established users (including me) wants it to go (see the discussion going on at Relata refero’s talk page . A complete WP:OR, WP:CRUFT and POV fork"
 * 1) Who are these "established" editors? If they are really "established", don't they know it doesn't matter if they are established or not?
 * 2) WP:OR? How come the whole article is WP:OR? Is "religious harmony" original research? Or is "religious harmony in India" original research?
 * 3) WP:CRUFT - Is this article about fanboyism? Is this article Fancruft? Are the editors "fans" of religious harmony? Is that a bad thing?
 * 4) POV fork - I don't know what does this mean. Let me just say this: religious harmony is not a "POV fork" of religious violence.
 * WP:SYN states: "Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position."
 * 1) The article is talking about religious harmony. The article is not "fancruft". People stating there is no religious harmony in India are not worth arguing. If people are not stating that, then where is the advancement of the "editor's position"? This is not "editor's position", this is truth and the article is about that, not "editor's position".
 * 2) Regarding the quotations: I would suggest that those who have a problem with it because it is not cited, remove the quotations. No one is stopping you. No one has stopped you until now! User:Otolemur crassicaudatus has no edit on the article or talk page until now. If that argument is taken seriously, we can just form a cabal and nominate any article in which we don't like the some sentences.
 * Actually, no one can even argue with his opinion. OC complains about "this was an individual incident", and then goes on to defend "individual" incidents of violence in Religious violence in India. This anti-India (or is it anti-Hindu) double standard-ness has got only one word.

I said this last time when this article was speedy deleted: we are working on it - it is not inflammatory - it is not WP:OR - yes it reads like an essay, and suffers from weasel wording - it is to be expected because not many editors have edited it yet.

I don't see what is the problem.

And regarding the nominee, the "established editor" since Feb 28 User:Harjk, is a troll and the cabal nature of his "ilk", as another "established editor" calls it, is obvious. And a look at the contributions will tell you that it has been that way since some time. And the one who started this discussion, as provided in the very first link, has been established since December 11 - and without any previous interaction with User:Relata_refero, goes on to complain about an article none of them have every edited or discussed on its talk page. None of the editors here have shown any attempt to improve the condition.

I can give tonnes of citations for that fact that the deletion of this article is being debated because some people have got problems with "assholes"[sic] editing Religious violence in India, but that is for another debate so I will refrain.--ÆN↑ÞÆº§®»Ŧ 15:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems you are a habitual person who disrupts other editors where divisive and hot places. I’m telling you just keep yourself out with all your personal attacks. I’ve clearly replied you earlier that I’m an established user who is the owner of multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy (and this account started from 23-Feb, check my user page also). You don’t have any right to act as an inspector and big brother of Wikipedia. If you want it to be kept, leave your comments as per reason with no personal attacks (Read WP:NPA also). -- Harjk   talk   08:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There just seems to me, to be something a little shady about an "account" who says that in wishing to be exempted from all scrutiny of peers. 70.105.26.170 (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Let the lead editor complete the article, and over a period of time POVs and such issues shall get resolved. The subject matter is central to the Indian ethos and culture, and thus notable to have a place here - it should not be "gassed" as few persons may not like this reality. We have pages and pages on the characters of computer games, why can not we have a page which deals with a central and pertinent theme (in existence for centuries) of Indian society and culture? People should know that the subcontinent of India never followed one religion, and people mostly lived/ are living with religious harmony. --Bhadani (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article is well-sourced and is less cruftish than harjk's pet article. As anupamsr states, it is evident harjk is a troll with an agenda, going around votestacking . Baka man  17:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep with minor revisions. This article adds information to the wikipedia even though some POV'd statements are present. asnatu (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename and merge. Rename the article to (say) Religious interaction in India (as User:Sundar suggested), and merge with Religious violence in India. It is not NPOV to have ying and yang articles on two aspects of the issue; if the merged article is deemed to be too long, it can be split into sub-articles (for example, Religious interaction in India (medieval period), Religious interaction in India (post-independence), or along some other lines), but the current approach does not seem to be the correct one. Abecedare (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename and Merge per Sundar and Abecedare. The history of religion in India is full of complex interactions. To reduce that history to "Violence" and "Harmony" is absurd, therefore both those articles are POV forks of Religious interaction in India or Relationships between religions in Indian history. ~ priyanath talk 19:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge POV fork with existing article Religious violence in India. --Ragib (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This article is full of false information. Look at the following paragraph:


 * "There are some rationalists and secularists who reject religion in its entirety but such rationalists or secularists are extremely few. Though there are no census figures available but one can safely say they are less than 0.1% in India."


 * Most rationalists and secularists oppose organized religion. How can anyone suggest that "one can safely say they are less than 0.1% in India"? In India, there are about 5-10% atheists and agonstics. There are other similar false information. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment (nominator) - What people are talking about rename & merge. It is full ridiculous, outlandish and rubbish OR pov fork stuff that should be deleted and re-directed to Religious violence in India. -- Harjk   talk   05:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - The header at the top of this page says - "Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~ at the end. Happy editing!" Perhaps the nominator needs a (very) healthy dosage of this advice/admonition. asnatu (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD. -- Harjk   talk   04:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is an important article which shows interaction of people from different faiths in India. DemolitionMan (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Read WP:USEFUL. Hope it helps you. -- Harjk   talk   06:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Yann (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOREASON or WP:JUSTAVOTE. -- Harjk   talk   10:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The usefulness of this article is obvious and I am disappointed that there is an attempt to remove this article. An article illustrating how religious harmony has been maintained in an extremely diverse country such as India would be very valuable and useful since casual readers often assume that religious harmony and diversity can not go hand in hand. This article could be renamed "Freedom of Religion in India" (something along the lines of Freedom of Religion article). I wouldn't suggest merging this article with Religious violence in India as it would lead to constant push and pull and POV issues. Desione (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A possible bad faith comment by User:Desione. He is building a kind of edit war with me and making edits against consensus [1], [2]. The edit history shows it all to be pov pushing against consensus. -- Tomb of the Unknown Warrior   tomb   08:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC) (harjk changed signature from now onwards)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.