Jump to content

Talk:Hindutva

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rquest for deletion or reviewing of certain articles

[edit]

I would be really thankfull if you give a second view of the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of intorduction. These are the typicall western@ media's stereotypical lines and would really promote of the rewritting of the article by an INDIAN or atleast of INDIAN ORIGIN.
Thank you
Regards
Yamantakks (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To @Daxserver,
Dear I also wrote the same on your talk page and i am writting here but i want to add something, there may be many people on wikipedia and yes they have different views but on the basis of such an abstract fact you can't justify for the 2nd Paragraph as it misleads the reader by first telling extrememly megative things about it and saying that some believe that. I would be really happy if you unrevertef my changes. Yamantakks (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes "megative things" are just simple matters of fact. Wikipedia appeals to general consensus. You might feel differently, but Wikipedia is not an ideological battleground. It's an encyclopedia. The article about Hindutva is unkind because, to quote Dan Olson, "the facts are just, prima facia, unkind". Hindutva is a fascist ideology, which means it supports things the average world citizen would likely find upsetting. Documenting these things as they are - abhorrent - is not ideological per se, it's standard procedure post World War II. Racial mob violence and concepts of ethnic purity/homeland are things anyone with knowledge of political history can recognize as part of a violent, far-right ideology.
There's precious little space for debate when we are dealing with definitions as given.
Best regards,
Magpiesmeanstoeuphoria (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Inspired by European fascism" is NOT accurate paraphrasing of the source. The source cited offers an opinion that this is the case, and it should be clear in the sentence itself that the statement is an opinion. In my view such opinions are better described as "criticism". As you say, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an ideological battleground; so please stop using it to manipulate the Overton window of the easily influenced. 49.184.153.200 (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following cited sources do clearly support that claim, which is an accurate reading of the sources:
  • Patricia M. Sant (1999). Indigeneity: Construction and Re/presentation. Nova Science Publishers. p. 85. ISBN 978-1-56072-674-6. Hindutva, especially in their early stages, exemplify a process of ideological borrowing from both European fascism and a fabrication of " Vedic Hinduism " that defies the binarism of local/global.
  • Chaitanya Krishna, A. G. Noorani (2003). Fascism in India: Faces, Fangs, and Facts. Manak Publications. p. 4. ISBN 978-81-7827-067-8. the archival evidence presented by Marzia Casolari conclusively shows how much the proponents of Hindutva admired European fascism; liberally borrowed from it and this influence continues even today.
— Newslinger talk 22:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The redirect as well

[edit]

Hindutva should be kept redirected to Hindutva Politics, if there’s any problem lets have discussion over it, I’m sure others will agree to it. EntrepreneurPedia (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure others will agree. I've reverted the move. The concise "Hindutva" is commonly used by reliable sources, and it generally refers unambiguously to this topic. The article does briefly discuss a historical alternate usage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, to the sources but title should definitely be changed because Hindutva refers to religion not just politics, and the whole article is about Hindtuva Politics I suggest there needs to be discussion. Because I came to this article via search on google so I’m felt quiet miss directed. Why not have discussion? EntrepreneurPedia (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2024

[edit]

In the Tertiary sources sub-section of the Definition section, there is a sentence which reads, Modern politicians have attempted to play down the racial and anti-Muslim aspects of Hindutva, stressing the inclusiveness of the Indian identity; but the term has Fascist undertones." but the source used doesn't say anything like that, so please remove the sentence. 2406:7400:90:5E60:35D4:1004:3EF1:2E8D (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article seems to have been written with an intention of maligning Hindutva (POV as Wikipedia says). Someone should go through the sources to see if the sources really say what is mentioned in this article.-2406:7400:90:5E60:8CA9:F986:45D3:ED5B (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done I've confirmed that this exact quote appears in the source. Note that the neutral point of view policy requires specifically that the information in sources should be described neutrally. If most academic sources say that there are racist or violent elements to Hindutva, then there's not much Wikipedia can do about until the academic consensus changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of text

[edit]

EarthDude, Bsskchaitanya, Dāsānudāsa and DaxServer, Vanamonde93 has reverted some text with these edits: [1], [2] and [3]. Please find and add the necessary sources and add all that back with sources.-QueSera1 (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first of those were added by the User Bsskchaitanya.-QueSera1 (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the second revert, Vanamonde has removed the bit of text, "integrating it with the rest of the country" but the source cited was already saying that.-QueSera1 (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the third revert, Vanamonde has removed the bit of text, "as excavations proved that a temple existed there previously" but the source cited was already saying that.-QueSera1 (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that first edit in this matter was done by me. There are enough sources that mention about the opinion of the Indian Supreme Court related to the definition of Hindutva. I felt that the lede of the article may misguide any neutral reader who is unaware of history of modern India and its politics gets misled by the notion that Hindutva is some fascist agenda. It is important to mention the opinion of the Supreme Court of India on this matter. Perhaps we may discuss on this to achieve WP:CONSENSUS. Vanamonde93 is a senior editor and I am of opinion that it is good heed that person's advice in this matter while achieving consensus. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bsskchaitanya:, please bring up more reliable sources for what you want this article to convey.-QueSera1 (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: In your second revert, you have removed the bit of text, "integrating it with the rest of the country" but the source cited was already saying that.-QueSera1 (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In your third revert, you have removed the bit of text, "as excavations proved that a temple existed there previously" but the source cited was already saying that.-QueSera1 (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not enough for a single source to say something; for us to present an assertion as fact, it needs to reflect the preponderance of reliable sources. High-quality sources do not uniformly support either of your claims. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of prelude/background

[edit]

We need to add some background on the topic like the jihad and unjust atrocities commited by the peaceful community. Also this article seems to promote secularism and western ideals. The sources and references are also from clearly biased authors. Please dont present false information here atleast. Satyamev Vijayate. Jai Hind. Ram Ram. Jai Shri Ram 🙏 122.187.117.179 (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]