Talk:Hindutva
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Newslinger in topic NPOV template
Why is the data against Hindus? change
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
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)
- 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)