Talk:Hindutva

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Why is the data against Hindus?[change source]

Why is the data against Hindus every where it looks like there is a malicious intent by reference to anti hindu books! There are positive books and when ever I tried other editors undo them. Please be fair because partiality always has a consequence. Ajganguly (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Aganguly we have to respond in kind. There are more of us than them. Not that it matters because we have Dharma on our side. Divyendra (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
If you think there are problems with the article, discuss them here. Don't just vandalize the article by removing properly-cited criticism of the movement just because you think it's "anti-Hindu". V2Blast (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
And to add onto that point: don't repeatedly add your own uncited original research, especially when it's written in a clearly unencylopedic/inappropriate tone. If you have a problem with the properly cited criticism, find reliable sources that address it. This article is not your personal website to promote the movement. --V2Blast (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

NPOV template[change source]

The page's edit history seems to have a long back-and-forth of partisan editing. The page should be examined (and more importantly sourced) to make sure it is an objective overview. Brantmeierz (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree page topic is a partisan belief, with history or perspective explicitly intended to correct millennium-old social justice concerns. Respectfully, modern Hinduism developed from multiple pre-Hindu sources, as did non-Hindu religions, cultures and philosophies in the Ganges valley and plains. A "geographic philosophy" sounds like a POV belief and propagandist phrase, an expression of a particular contemporary religious/ nationalistic perspective. CLAUnderwood (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I've removed that line; it's effectively meaningless as-is outside of its propagandist-sounding nature. The article needs a lot more attention, not just to remove/rephrase the non-NPOV language but also to elaborate on the topic and cite its claims. V2Blast (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
V2Blast, IP editors are changing the article back to the non-neutral version without sources. I've simplified the English of the sourced version in Special:Diff/6898011. — Newslinger talk 23:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)