Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:23, 28 January 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Persecution of Hindus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hinduism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was last assessed in April 2012.

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 August 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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

Axxn 07:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Belarus data added.

POV tag

I just tagged this article for POV, for the following reasons;

1) The figure of 80 million deaths in the lead. This is:

a)Referenced, but to a source that has received criticism, which is not presented here. Furthermore, further down the article says there are no official estimates of the death toll.

b) The entire population of the Mughal empire at its height was 175 million; of the Tughlaq empire, 70 million. So the figure of 80 million Hindus killed becomes even less believable. Again, if a controversial source is presented, its critique must be, as well.

2) The figures for the death toll at the hands of Timur are references TO HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY. If there is a less reliable source, it is hard to think of such. It is more than likely that he inflated the number of people he killed; killing "kafirs" would be a matter of pride.

3) The coverage of the Babri Masjid controversy is remarkably skewed; the opposition is not presented at all.

4) The article makes only a passing mention of the tolerance towards Hindus of the other Mughal emperors besides Aurangzeb.

5) The section on the nizam, apart from being written in incredibly POV language, is referenced to a self-published source, not an academic one. Again, definitely not RS.

6) The coverage of partition is also rather biased. Hindus were killed, in large numbers, obviously I'm not denying that. But there is a fundamental difference between equal numbers of Hindus and Muslims slaughtering each other, and Hindus being exclusively persecuted. The article neglects to make this clear. Persecution and violence are subtly different.

7) The section on the republic of India is also problematic. The statement abotu ruling parties in general is unsourced. Only one of the sources about Tamil Nadu state that the parties are anti-hindu, and that is a blog, therefore not RS.

I could go on in this vein for quite a while, but that would be pointless. All I'm saying is that these issues should be fixed before the tag is removed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Population of these regions was above 70 million - 100 million during Maurya Dynasty, which is like 300 BCE.. And during mughal empire it had only 175 million? So obvious that at least 80 million were killed. Rest is completely not coherent neither obvious, when you dispute the neutrality. One source is from wordpress(which you can remove) But other 2 sources are heavily reliable. If there's a conflict and both were killed, point is that who started the conflict and how many were killed in that. The similar incidents are also cited for Persecution of Muslims, so? Bladesmulti (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is "obvious," apart from the fact that you are a self appointed authority on the subject. All I am saying is this; the figure of 80 million is way, way larger than any epidemic, war, or genocide previously recorded; even world war 2 was only 60 million deaths, across four continents. Given this, the figure needs much better sourcing. As of now, it has only one ref. Moreover, the criticism of that ref have not been mentioned. As for the other sources; they say that leaders in Tamil Nadu have made anti-hindu statements, which is not the same thing. And you have responded to three of the points I made. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Because it seemed that only 3 points could be argued. Its certainly proven to be correct that 80 million is actual figure, it is used by Ali Sina as well, the bigger question will be that why the population not even doubled in 1800 years(300 BCE - 1500 AD), when it would go 3 times higher(1947-2014)?

What is wrong with the babri masjid? Except that it was plagiarized, like many other worship places.

Not all incidents include the persecution of both hindus and muslims. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

BM it seems to me as though you are deliberately being obtuse. Please go read WP:NPOV. Misplaced Pages cannot state that something has been "proved" except in the case of overwhelming evidence. You don't have that. The criticism of the study MUST be presented, and the lead is not the place for that. If you are not interested in cleaning it up, I will do it myself, but the tags will remain until they can be removed by consensus. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully, this page is not about criticism, but whatever related to the persecution. If its historical, it cannot be further argued. Unless you got some source that says "no, 80 million is wrong figure", Which I doubt. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You still refuse to discuss any of the other points. And of course I have sources. Try Simon Digby and Irfan Habib, for starters. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

What they wrote? And like I said, that you are treating it like its some criticism, when criticism can be derived even from the primary theories. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Fringe Claim

Fringe claims have recently been added to the introduction. KS Lal seems to be the only one who seems to be making the "80 million" claim, and is obviously disputed by other historians on the matter such as Simon Digby - an authority on pre-Mughal India. To add balance it must be made clear that there is only one source claiming this number, and is disputed by reliable historians and is by no means universally accepted view of Muslim rule in India. StuffandTruth (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Where did Simon Digby claimed that 80 million is a wrong figure? Apart from KS lal, this figure is also used by Ali Sina, no one seems to be defeating him on his debate for years now. Also the population of Indian subcontinent was over 50 million - 100 million during 300 BCE, but during 16th century it was 100 million - 175 million. Obviously because there was large genocide. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Simon Digby - a reference has been supplied where he contested the figure. Bizarrely you have quoted using "Ali Sina"? He's not a scholar or historian (which institution of learning does he belong to? What qualifications does he have to speak on historical matters? Where are his views universally accepted in academia?) so he's irrelevant here. Hence not a reliable source. You clasify that as a genocide, but genocide has to fit a particular set of conditions. No historian has ever claimed it was genocide. Genghis Khans invasions killed an estimated 40 million it has been claimed. What's important is the source and quality of reference. StuffandTruth (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any source at all. Can you link that here? the books published by Oxford University uses K.S. Lal figure, So why you cant? You are now contradicting your own isolated claim that "only KS lal use such figure". Bladesmulti (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(Sigh). What is this then --> "Simon Digby, review in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 38, No. 1. (1975), pp. 176–177". It does not need to be published in a book. He did it in a journal. So please stop being disruptive. Again the source you provide with is quoting Lal, and is not an independent estimate. So like them we make clear who is making the claim and who disputes it. Show us where it is universally accepted? StuffandTruth (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It is reliable estimate, that's about it. If it was K.S. Lal the first to collect all records and calculate them. He will be credited for it. You are like saying that "Alexander Graham Bell was not inventor of phone, that is fringe, no one else claim to be inventor of phone, except him". Read WP:I just don't like it, fits here. Since you have provided no link of that journal from where you have discovered the claim by Simon Digby, it should be removed instead, it is not verified, neither can discovered any sources that says so. Since he was so "orientalist", "historian", like you suggest, he must had more than 1(unknown) source for disputing such a widely accepted figure. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"It is reliable estimate, that's about it". If that is what you claim then why is it that no historian has ever thought of replicating it and why is it that his view is not universally accepted? The fact is I'm trying to include both views of both historians, unlike you (and it's laughable you even consider Ali Sina a historian or scholar when he is known for his virulently Islamophobic views). Its you that doesn't want the inclusion of Simon Digby (because you don't like it). Further, your analogies make no sense. Lastly references do not need to be hyper linked. Where is the policy on that? Simon Digby's piece is easily found in any university which stocks journals (ie Cambridge, Oxford where he was based and numerous other universities). They are so easily available anyone could verify them. Another historian has also disputed the works of KS Lal. This includes Irfan Habib. StuffandTruth (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Never called Ali sina a historian. But that he also use the estimate. It seems like you are fabricating source, since there is 0 mention of such dispute by Simon Digby anywhere. And there are no historians who have disputed the figure of K.S. Lal. Irfan habib only criticized him, not his work or estimate. He claims that K.S. Lal was from "RSS" which is obviously WP:FRINGE, now. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You most certainly insinuated Ali Sina was a reliable source. Your claims are getting ridiculous. The reference is there, and it is verifiable. There is no more to be stated on the matter. StuffandTruth (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

When I did? Quote me. The reference doesn't seem to be verifiable, probably someone made it up and you got convinced. Because if he had criticized there would be even a single source which would cite Lal being criticized by him. But there is none, we got multiple for Habib though, but they are highly unrelated. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I already told you how to verify it. Your tirade is getting tiresome. StuffandTruth (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all coming with a baseless claim like "Fringe claim", and "Only k.s lal refer to this figure", later getting debunked, because there are many scholars who uses the same figure. And failing to verify the fabricated source which can be WP:OR, and then edit warring not only here, but also on Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, for this original research or fabrication... What you will call it? Bladesmulti (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You've claimed Digby's piece does not exist and you've stated it was 100% fact that it was fabricated (doing mass deletions on other articles without evidence). Yet here they are. I've more than proven you are a disruptive, disingenuous editor who has an agenda. Need I kick your ass more? Here is the source (hyperlinked): Digby, Simon (1975). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. University of London. Vol. 38, No. 1. (1975), pp. 176–177. You'll notice at his conclusion he says the sources of KS Lal appear so poor that they appear "wilful, if not fantastic". StuffandTruth (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

His book might be interesting, but he is not a Historian, only a historian can dispute another historian. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It's in a journal. And yes, he is a historian. Your bullshit is getting very tiresome and is on the verge of trolling. StuffandTruth (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Writer, and Historian, 2 different things. Other than that, he hasn't presented any figure of himself, neither he can present any of his own figure or research, which makes him less credible for disputing a figure that is accepted by number of Historians. Probably that is why the reference is limited, limited to himself. You haven't read WP:OR carefully. There needs to be multiple sources for a information, that you are claiming. Don't add primary sources, if he hasn't been referred by multiple scholars for the similar concept. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Also the current source is just re-print of what he wrote. Issue in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You can explain. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Blademulti it seems you editing style is a problem across wikipedia. i come here and find you edit warring over if the man can be called a historian. You gonna fight over that!!!! By God, I am a historian, it is not like being a nuclear physicist in Quark theory. But you doing this kind of thing is not good for wikipedia. Can you please review this type of editing and STOP!--Inayity (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That is not even the whole point. You are basically claiming that anyone can be regarded as historian. I mean seriously? Bladesmulti (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

These sources contradicts you:

1. Obviously a historian (Indian Express Obituary).
2. Digby, Simon (1975). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. University of London. Vol. 38, No. 1. (1975), pp. 176–177. StuffandTruth (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Only a article heading by Sweta Dutta doesn't make him historian.

Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

Right now it is hard to figure out whether the "80 million" is about Hindus or all indians, although it mostly seem to be of Indian. It is also hard to figure if Digby is disputing the number or not. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

For anyone interested on RS of Digby: StuffandTruth (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

See also

I go through articles looking at EL and See Also. My question to the person rapidly expanding the section is when will its expansion be too long? Why not Add persecution of gays and lesbians and Rastas and Shiite, Akan religion, Zulu religion, Inuit religion. What is the criteria for inclusion? When will the see also be full? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inayity (talk • contribs)

Persecution by Muslim Invaders

Does all that crap really belong in this article? Invasions by foreign forces do not really fall under persecution, does it? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The case is different here, the Invasion was accompanied by Persecution so it does belong.-sarvajna (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really seeing that at all, looting, rape and general mayhem was part and parcel of things back then, did these guys invade for booty, or to persecute Hindus? Going along the lines the article are then the Vikings persecuted Christians. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

More importantly, a lot of the sources (like Durant, for instance) refer to violence in the course of battle. Now obviously Hindus were killed in battle, but that does not count as persecution. So even without getting into the debate about booty vs persecution, we should definitely remove stuff referring to battle casualties. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Invasions included persecution as well, a well-known example being that by Ghengis Khan and the Mongol invasions in West Asia. Now Muhammed of Ghori, Muhammed of Ghazni and Timur were involved in the destruction of temples and killing of 'infidels' which amounts to religious persecution. So it is not crap. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 08:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Plundering and putting temples to the torch is not persecution, it is the well known tradition of "kill, rape and pillage". Unless these guys invaded for the sole purpose of killing people due to their religion, then none of these invasions are persecution. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I see, it should be made sure, whether the aim was to convert/promote religion. Or simply plunder. For example, greek's invasion is not regarded as religious persecution, for Indian subcontinent. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If the destruction of places and objects of worship (which brings a stop to the worship of a faith) do not amount to religious persecution then what else is. Mahmud Ghazni's repeated invasions of South Asia brought about the decline in the Hindu civilisation and his capture of Punjab paved the way for Muslim dynasties to take over the Hindus for the first time. The Hindus are called 'polytheistic' and 'idolatrous' by monotheists but still they are a religion. I suppose one would empathise better by understanding what religion means to different beliefs. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The claims of what really amounts to religious persecution is disputed. However unsourced material needs to be challenged. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No, if a temple or monastery or church is torched and plundered by an invading force that is not religious persecution, it is invaders doing what invaders have always done, how many of the sources in those sections actually call these attacks persecution? If none of them do, well then the article is a prime example of OR. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Many ' similar persecution articles ' speak of the destruction of religious places (not necessarily temples, churches or monasteries), libraries, holy sites, etc., by invading forces and they have documented references. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not care about other articles, we are discussing this one, so how many of the sources say these invasions were persecution? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether you care about other articles or not, one article can be written by taking other articles as reference. There is nothing wrong in that.-sarvajna (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It does matter. That's the whole fucking point. Otherwise this article is a rehash of the military conquest of India by Muslims. StuffandTruth (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Medieval

Removed Medieval. Because K.S. lal's figure were about population of Indians, not about Hindus, all historians, critics, regards them as "decrease of Indians", not "hindus". So it has been removed.

The section was itself copied+pasted from the lead. It made not much sense. It didn't worked greatly as a description for whole article either. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Now because StuffandTruth has reverted it back. I would like to have opinion from Sarvajna, Darkness Shines, Kanga Roo in the Zoo. And anyone else who is involved. That the "Medieval" section should be added? Since the reliable historians, and even less recognized critics, regard them as "decrease of Indians", not "decrease of Hindus". Bladesmulti (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Hinduism articles
• Mid-importance Hinduism articles
• B-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics