Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Hindu Identity


 * 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 redirect. Mostly Rainy 10:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

UK Hindu Identity
The scope of the article totally duplicates the Hinduism in the United Kingdom article (part of the "Hinduism by country" series), and advances original research POV arguments about the use of the "British Asian" ethnic label which would fit much better inside the British Asian article. If that weren't enough, the article also makes sweeping one-sided POV arguments (backed up by cherry-picked blog comments and unrelated news stories). Anirvan 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: This may be a controversial and unpleasant subject. But that should not mean it should not be addressed in Wikipedia. I believe that it is a significant issue. I request you to read the references before making a decision.


 * One would think that Indians and Pakistanis/Bangladeshis, who once shared a common history, and are from a region that was once just one country, would be very similar. However the Indians and Pakistanis/Bangladeshis in UK have developed into very distinct communities, with different lifestyles and outlooks.


 * The data on employment and education is from UK government sources. These are very singificant measures. I am sorry, there is no gentler way to do the comparision. They do bring out the differences using concrete numbers.


 * Those of you who have followed the news from UK, and the riots involving the "Asian" youth may have noted that that the Hindu Indians were not among the rioting youth, but rather on the other side. In one case the "Asians" burned the cars of the Hindus. I request you to please do read the articles on the riots in UK, before judging the article to be "pov".


 * Should Indians in UK continue calling themselves "Asian"? Many don't think so. They resent not having a distinct identity. They were not among the "Asian" rioter. They have nothing to do with the "Londonistan". The article addresses this issue. If you think this deserves to be discussed, please vote ''Keep'.--ISKapoor 19:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect to Hinduism in the United Kingdom  hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 02:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Delete the content and redirect to Hinduism in the United Kingdom, in case anyone attempts to search for this topic. Fabricationary 02:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The articles Hinduism in the United Kingdom is intended to be a quick overview, it is intended to be informative, as are Islam in the United Kingdom and British Asian. The article UK Hindu Identity is about a controversy, which needs full explanation.


 * Delete and redirect to Hinduism in the United Kingdom and in some cases send content to British Asian or Islam in the United Kingdom.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  06:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Delete the content and redirect as above. Nuttah68 07:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete & redirect per Nuttah68. Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  08:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Possible Merge to Hinduism in the United Kingdom and British Asian if the topics can be re-written NPOV. Some of this article does seem that it could be worked into either/both of the others, but it is blatantly POV as it is. -- Wine Guy  Talk  09:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect per above Lurker 10:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Hinduism in the United Kingdom. Merging would be difficult as it contain heavily non-neutral text. &mdash; Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Question: Ambuj, can you suggest how it could have been "neutral"?--ISKapoor 20:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The UK Hindus are now a completely different community from UK Pakistanis/Bangaldeshis. UK Government statistics show that the separation is now very wide. The article should be expanded to explore how people from the same subcontinent can diverge so much. --Coffeesuds 14:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment that is dealt with at Hinduism in the United Kingdom. Nuttah68 14:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Increased cultural/religious/linguistic/national fragmentation and divergence among various British Asian communities is in no way specific to British Hindus; it affects all British Asians, and the larger discussion could be dealt with in the British Asian article. Anirvan 16:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note Anirvan, I am sorry to say this. You are very eloquent. You are very good. But what you are trying to do is get significant facts eliminated from Wikipedia when they don't match your perspective.--ISKapoor 20:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge to Hinduism in the United Kingdom and British Asian per Wine Guy. — Reinyday, 16:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as per above. -- Alias Flood 16:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Delete/Redirect/Merge. The article is a relevant topic, and looks promising with good references, but is mostly off-topic to itself, original synthesis, and not neutral POV. Suggest the author(s) completely re-write it quick with an account of the Runnymede research. Probably best developed in the Hinduism in the UK and British Asian articles first. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep needs some work though...--D-Boy 01:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Hinduism in the United Kingdom. Note that "delete and redirect" is not a possible option if any content is being merged, since the history needs to be preserved. --bainer (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Hinduism in the United Kingdom - Parthi 22:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hinduism in the United Kingdom and merge content with British Asian, possibly creating a separate article British Indian. See my full comments below. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the deletion proposal


 * Anirvan, in his proposal for deletion writes: "The article also makes sweeping one-sided POV arguments". He also stated at Talk:UK Hindu Identity "The article can be summarized in a line: "British Hindus are smart, wealthy, and good-looking, and hate being associated with evil Pakistani and Bangladeshi riot-causing terrorist-loving Muslims." It's racist, essentializing, full of unlabeled POV, and consists almost entirely of original research."


 * I take strong exception to this. I did not write anything about Hindus being good-looking. As for the race, the Muslims of the subcontinent belong to the same race as Indians; in most cases they have risen from the same castes and tribes as Hindus.


 * I don't think I need to defend what the UK government studies directly say about education and unemployment. However let me mention about two things that many apparently may find offending and POV.


 * Involvement in "Asian riots": Let me say this again, and you can check it yourself by looking at reports in British publications. Yes, it is absolutely true that in recent riots Oldham Riots, Bradford Riot and the like, the Asians involved in the violence were Pakistani/Bangladeshi, and not Indian. In the Bradfort Riot, the "Asian youths" burned cars belonging to Hindus and whites, and a Hindu's Chemist shop was looted by "Asian youths".


 * About the militancy: It should be acknowledged that many among the Pakistanis/Bangladeshi communities in UK have tolerated Islamic militancy. It is no accident (and it is not a secret) that a  number of notable participants and supporters of militancy, with activities  spanning countries outside UK (including India and Pakistan), have come from the  UK Pakistanis/Bangladeshi community. Even now, about 15% of them consider the underground bombers to be "martyers". I am sorry to bring this out, but it makes them and UK Indians very, very different. If it is not permissible to mention that on Wikipedia, then Wikipedia is not what I, and many others think it is; and I, and many others, should not be wasting their time on Wikipedia.--ISKapoor 05:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There are problems with this article - mostly because of the fact that it is not NPOV. For example, it generalises by using statistics about British Indians and applying them to Hindus only.  True, Indians do far better than other South Asians in the United Kingdom when it comes to money and education, but Indians are not a homogeneous group.  Indians comprise of roughly 45% Hindus, 35% Sikhs and 15% Muslim.  The statistics for Indians cannot be generalised to apply to Hindus alone.


 * However, the article touches on an important (and a very none-PC point) that is felt by Indians. Indians dislike the moniker "Asian" because the largely inconspicuous Hindu and Sikh groups do not wish to be tarred with the same brush that Muslims have been tarred with.  It's a way for Hindus and Sikhs to get away from the "everyone that's Asian is a terrorist supporter" opinion held by some. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sukh, yes you are correct, the Sikhs form a large section of the Indians in UK. That needs to be taken into account. You are right about one of points being very non-PC. I think it is very important and needs to be addressed factually.--ISKapoor 03:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge to British Asian, and let the POV issues be thrashed out there. I would like to refer editors wondering about the POV of the main contributor to this article to an extract of the above exchange that made me laugh out loud: Anirvan characterised ISKapoor's viewpoint as "British Hindus are smart, wealthy, and good-looking, and hate being associated with evil Pakistani and Bangladeshi riot-causing terrorist-loving Muslims." ISKapoor replies: I take strong exception to this. I did not write anything about Hindus being good-looking. Delightful. Absolutely delightful.Hornplease 06:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect, as per other comments. --Soman 09:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand Include references to Sikhs UK also.--Vikramsingh 19:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect, as per other comments. Content forking. --Mais oui! 15:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.