Talk:Hindus: Difference between revisions

Archived

Old material has been archived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogress (talk • contribs) 16:41, 22 July 2008

Hindu term first used in Avestan language

"Hindus" is derived from a Sanskrit word "sindhus" that means "dwellers by the Indus River." The term Hindus is first used in Nations of Vendidad in "Avesta"-the holly book of Zorastrians. The term Hindus is used to refer to people living alongside river Indus. As one of the 16 Aryan Nations of that time,Hindus are numbered at 15 among 16 nations,this is the first use of the term "Hindus" ever.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vendidadnations.jpg

Add Link to Great Tang Records

In the Etymology section, there's a reference to "Record of the Western Regions" which could be linked to the article Great Tang Records on the Western Regions.

2001:708:310:52:4ECC:6AFF:FE54:6F9A (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hindoo

There's a relevant AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindoo. – Uanfala (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The infobox

@Rajkumar 1 02: the article already has a dedicated section on demographics etc. What is the value of this infobox, which lately is witnessing unsourced OR and some revert warring (1 and 2)? Just because another article has an infobox, is not a good reason to do the same in this article. Lets discuss. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: The information in the infobox is not the same information that is in the demographics section of this article because the infobox lists the 20 countries with the most Hindus similar to on the page of Jews, Muslims, and Christians. This kind of an infobox also isn't unique to pages to religious groups. Articles about ethnic groups or nationalities such as Azerbaijanis, Indian people, Moroccans in addition to Pakistanis, Japanese people, and British people list more than 10 examples of "Regions with significant populations." Also, it's not unsourced or original research. Every country had its source noted as coming from this website. Kamalthebest (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Other wikipages are irrelevant (perhaps you should delete it elsewhere). That template was adding OR about zillion Hinduism traditions, which misleads. Further, the long list of estimated demographics, though indeed sourced to Pew Research, is better discussed in an NPOV manner from multiple sources in the dedicated article such as Hinduism by country. We already link to it. Picking a winning source, even if it is Pew Research or CIA, is OR/POV, just like picking a grid of faces for ethnic groups. The wikipedia community already discussed this sort of stuff in infoxboxes, and decided not to push POV or OR in infoboxes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Other wikipages on similar groups of people are not "irrelevant." It is a well-known pattern that articles regarding religious groups such as Muslims and Christians have infoboxes that give basic information on "Total population," "Regions with significant populations," religious denominations within the religion, as well as common "Languages" spoken where that religious group lives. I agree with your point that the infobox listed too many denominations but I didn't do that. See my original infobox here. I only listed the four largest denominations. I'm going to revert to this version unless you can give me a solid argument as to why this information should not be included. I don't understand that point about WP:NPOV because the infobox doesn't even make any statements, it's just statistics. And Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, reputable source. Kamalthebest (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest:: Please don't threaten an edit war. Just look at the sources cited in Hinduism by country. The numbers there in many other sources and those in of Pew Research do not match. Picking one source as a winning source, when multiple reliable sources exist, or more reliable sources exist, is taking sides. Taking sides in such cases is POV-y. The best way to deal with this, is to discuss Pew and other sources in summary style section with NPOV, with link to the main article. That is what this article is currently doing. Further, it is you who needs to offer "a solid argument" as to why single sourcing the statistical data that excludes disagreeing statistical sources, and census data, is NPOV. You need to persuade why include a flawed infobox at all.

Beyond traditions, it is puzzling that you listed Indonesian as the second most prominent language, and some others, with this edit, as "predominant language of Hindus" for the infobox. You did so without sources. You also ignored the zillion other languages Hindus speak regionally. The Shiva image you chose is POV-y too. The infobox you created "is" loaded with OR and POVs. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: It's not POV-pushing to get all the values from a singular source. If we used different sources to get the information for populations of different countries, it would be inconsistent because India's information would be from 2015, Indonesia's info would be from 2013, Bangladesh's info would be from 2014, etc. That is why we need a singular source and Pew Research Center is the only source that lists the actual population of Hindus by raw number rather than by percentage. Information for other religious groups such as Christians, Muslims and Jews was already gathered from Pew Research so this isn't some random source I chose to push an agenda. I already mentioned that the information in the infobox is completely different to the main article because the main article does not list basic information on "Total population," "Regions with significant populations," religious denominations within the religion, as well as common "Languages" spoken where Hindus lives. I don't know why you keep bringing that up because it's not the same information. Further, I listed Indonesian as one of the languages Hindus speak because over 4 million Hindus live there and speak Indonesian. You claim I "ignored the zillion other languages Hindus speak regionally" when I explicitly did not ignore them. In the infobox, I intentionally included the phrase "other vernacular languages of the Hindu world" which would include regional dialects and such. And you claim the Shiva image is too POV-y? How? If you don't like it, change the image, don't delete the entire infobox. Kamalthebest (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: Sorry, it is POV pushing, if you take sides. The WP:NPOV page clearly states, "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." You are picking Pew over others, inappropriately. You also added Indonesian language without source. Bali Hindus speak Balinese language, and that is not same as Indonesian (if by that you mean Javanese language). 4 million is not even 1% of the total Hindu population, to list them second is strange. Picking Shiva image is again taking a side. Anyway, I don't want to argue with your opinions / wisdom / prejudices / ignorance. No unsourced POV-y, OR filled infobox, please. There is no value in a wrong data filled infobox (which ignores more accurate census data, and presents old inaccurate estimates). Feel free to take this to DRN / RSN / NPOV / ANI / etc boards. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Once again, it is not POV-pushing to add information from a reliable, nonpartisan source such as Pew Research Center. It is inconsistent to add values from a different sources because different sources will come up with different values that aren't comparable with one another. It is not "editorial bias" to choose Pew Research over other sources. Pew Research is the only source that lists the actual population of Hindus by raw number rather than by percentage. I will change Indonesian language to Balinese language as per your suggestion. Calling me names like "prejudiced" and "ignorant" for attempting to add genuine information is not an argument. Wikipedia says to be WP:BOLD in adding information so I'm re-adding it and you can go to the "DRN / RSN / NPOV / ANI / etc boards" if you feel you're still upset. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: Don't selectively wiki-lawyer. Wikipedia does suggest be WP:BOLD, but it also suggests WP:BRD and don't WP:EDITWAR. You may want to read the neutral point of view policy page again. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I am taking this to "dispute resolution" if you keep reverting genuine content. Is that ok with you? Kamalthebest (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

That is the right approach and I already suggested DRN etc above. You are welcome to, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rajkumar 1 02:@Joshua Jonathan:@Quebec99:@NadirAli: In the meantime, do any of the other recent editors of this page have an opinion on this matter? Maybe a third opinion will help? Kamalthebest (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Third opinion may help. This is more of a core content policy issue, rather than a relative preference. Please consider the nav template I added to this article today as a possible good faith compromise. Also, please remember to sign your comments with four "~". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I don't consider adding the nav template to be a compromise because it doesn't hold nearly the same information as the infobox. If you want to add it, I'm fine with that, but the infobox should also be added. The nav template should take the place of an infobox. Kamalthebest (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I find much merit in Kamalthebest's arguments.

• Even though there is plenty of diversity across the Wikipedia (in quality, content, etc.), we should make an effort to make sure that similar pages have similar content. So drawing parallels with other religious group pages is perfectly fine.
• Using the Pew figures is also fine, because it is accepted as a neutral and authentic source. If there is variation in the figures from multiple sources, that can be discussed in the body of the article, and the infobox can summarise it in some way. Giving a range of figures is often the solution used.
• Other details can be certainly discussed (the Shiva image is certainly a problem), but I don't think we can maintain that putting an infobox is illegitimate in any way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Kautilya3. I agree that the Shiva image could be changed. I am not knowledgeable enough on Hindu theology so I just chose a god that I recognized from the Hindusim page, but this could be changed to another picture of anything as long as it is associated with Hindus. It doesn't even need to be a divine figure. Kamalthebest (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: It is the dispute and edit warring in other similar articles, particularly ethnic groups of Africa (see Amhara people, etc) for example), that is a part of my concern. I had initially let the infobox remain, if you study the edit history. But, just like the Africa space articles, we have amazing unsourced POV pushing in the infobox. It will weaken this article if we mislead with Pew estimate for 2010, when better and more accurate 2011 census or other data is available. What is the value in presenting wrong data or unsourced OR in infobox? If demographics is what we want to present, how about we copy paste the table from Hinduism by country article, with embedded notes for NPOV, in relevant section below? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

(ps) On your suggestion, "similar pages have similar content".... why not make Christian and Muslim article similar to this (Hindu) and Buddhist article? Why assume the format of those articles are right? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:@Kautilya3: The only edit-warring I see on the Amhara people page is the one that you initiated. Nobody else seems to have a problem with this. If someone starts to add unsourced info, remove it. I have no opposition to removing unsourced content that someone adds to the infobox. I agree with you there. However, if you want to remove sourced info in fear of someone potentially adding unsourced sometime in the future, I disagree. Also, you can't just copy an entire other article (Hinduism by country) into this article WP:Copying within Wikipedia. It will make this article way too long. The infobox is supposed to provide a summary, which is why only the 20 countries in the world with the highest Hindu population were included.

Also, don't start removing infoboxes from other pages to match this one. That's not how Wikipedia works. More content is better when it's sourced. The pages for Christians and Jews have had an infobox for years and no one has an issue with it but you. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: Please don't cast aspersions without studying the Amhara people article's edit history carefully. You are plain wrong about the edit warring history in its infobox. See 1 2 etc. You lecture about "sourced content" and "unsourced content", but you added a lot of stuff unsourced. Please don't do so. If you want to add top twenty summary only, you can do so in a table where you present multiple sources or add clarifying notes for accuracy. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: What you linked in reference to the Amhara people article is an example of someone adding unsourced content. That's not edit-warring. I said above that, "If someone starts to add unsourced info, remove it. I have no opposition to removing unsourced content that someone adds to the infobox. I agree with you there. However, if you want to remove sourced info in fear of someone potentially adding unsourced sometime in the future, I disagree." I'll say it again: I am fine with removing unsourced content. I did not add unsourced content. Here is my source. I linked a source when I added the infobox originally. Therefore, it was sourced content. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I would have no objection to using the data from the Hinduism by country article. But I suspect that it will be hard to maintain, with a variety of sources, which are prone to change periodically, causing edit-warring etc. But if you think the Pew data is vastly inferior, I guess we will have to punt it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Yes, using the data from the Hinduism by country article will be difficult to maintain. Pew research is not "vastly inferior." Look at their website. They are a very reliable source. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Pew report is now dated and inaccurate data. Pew Research is best used with caution, useful in some articles when presented along with or contrasted with the data in competing WP:RS. But to use only Pew's old estimates/projections in prominent infobox is to misinform, mislead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: The solely uses Pew Research data. So obviously it is legitimate. It's already in use. Kamalthebest (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)