Talk:Criticism of Hinduism/Archive 1

Archive 1

anti-criticism of hinduism

This page is not "criticism of hinduism". This page is "anti-criticism of hinduism".

There are more text in defending hinduism than criticising it. What little criticism there is, is so vague that it is not possible to understand it. Perhaps the author thinks that everyone is familiar to the issues of "criticism of hinduism" but I'm not and this article does not help me at all.

Example:

• Hinduism is criticise for being polytheistic

What so wrong about polytheistic? Why the assumption that polytheistic is bad? The article is lacking in details about the "negative Cognition" of polytheistic.

• Many contemporary Hindus are criticized for their intensive ritual ceremonies and seeking boons for sometimes material advancement.

Is the criticism about the rituals? The superstitions? Or the desire for material well being? The article does not make clear. Also it does give us the grounds on which any of the three possible arguements stands on.

• Social oppression

This should be more flesh out. The article spend more energy on defending the views of the contemporary views of Hindus than on the actual Social oppression itself. An article on criticism should explain more on the details of the criticism.

• Hindu fundamentalism

There is very little in the article about fundamentalism.

• Conversions from Hinduism

Why is this a criticism of Hinduism?

• Hindu renaissance

Why is this a criticism of Hinduism?

Come on! Show some professionalism in your article. user:Ohanian 29 Nov

This article was created barely a month ago. For sure, it needs lot of work and polish. By the way, I am responsible for the first 2 points you raised. The criticism was written by someone else and I just changed to say clarify that it is incorrect because it is not polytheistic and that the criticism is not valid since it's viewed from the framework of Abrahamic religions. I didn't write to suit the article's title but just to correct the errors. --Pranathi 19:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to Pranathi

Dear Pranathi,

I don't know who exactly you are referring your comments to, but as creator of this article I'll address some of it.

Calm down and don't rush to judgments on this article, becoz it has barely been started. I put in some material to start things off, but it needs a lot more conditioned and responsible content.

(1) Conversions from Hinduism - are an issue becoz after you take out the politics, you get some real issues about problems with Hindu theology and society. Its a controversial area that must be talked about (with facts alone), just because its a real issue.

(2) Hindu renaissance - is NOT a criticism, BUT the result of mounting criticism. Obviously we need to talk about what efforts Hindus have made to do away with social and theological evils.

(3) Social oppression - obviously some edits have reflected an inabiility on the part of the user to adhere to the purpose of this article. Nobody should dilute the real evil of untouchability and caste abuse, and nobody should forget that Hinduism doesn't condone any of it.

(4) Polytheism - how do you desire to explain the existence of thousands of deities, plus a supreme Trinity as monotheism? However, you are correct that the viewpoint must not be of AbrahamicPOV, but obviously its a criticism.

I always knew that the ride to making this a good article would be bumpy. Not all editors will adhere to the purpose, or NPOV.

You can put up whatever sign you want: NPOV dispute, factual accuracy, content, but the simple fact remains that this article needs expansion.

Jai Sri Rama! User:Rama's Arrow

Rama, I did not write the above - only responded to the user:Ohanian's comments and added cleanup tag per his comment. To make it clearer I tagged his name to his comments to seperate them from mine. BTW, what seems as polythiesm is actually monistic theism or monism. --Pranathi 22:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

---

First of all I know nothing of Hinduism. But I do know a badly written article when I read one. My points are.

1. Since this article is entitled "Criticism of hinduism", it should talk about criticism of hinduism in a professional manner. It is not professional to have 90% of the article defending hinduism.

2. Readers and writers should not assume that just because Hinduism is criticised for X that implies that the criticism must be correct (or true). A criticism can be completely 100% WRONG and still be a criticism. So the authors of this article should try their best to explain each criticisms professionally first. If the authors have further information which shows the criticism to be incorrect then that can be put in a new subsection entitle "rebuttal"

3. If you are afraid that the readers might take each and every criticism in the article as being correct then you should put in a warning.

Polytheism:

Yes I agree that it has its own troubles like creating different factions in the society based on the dieties they worship.

As far as Polytheism is concerned, you got to understand Hinduism first. Its not a religion first of all rather its a way of life. When you mention its a way of life, it means that the individuals who are follow Hinduism, creates their own God in the any form whatever it may be like the nature/tools that they use for their bread winning etc., Since these help in their living, they want to thank these and hence to have a reference to what they are thanking they personify and adore them as super natural ones and worship them. So is there anything wrong in having various different Gods? - Kalai

Warning

This article provides knowledge of the current known criticisms of religion. A criticism is a point of view of a critic. General criticism of a subject are the general point of view of the critics of the said subject. Readers are warned not to insinuate that any criticism written below as being correct (or wrong) merely because it has appeared in this article. Readers are reminded that a criticism is still a criticism even if it later turns out to be wrong.

In short, this article only lists the criticisms and their supporting arguments. It should be treated as the general point of view of the critic(s) which may or may not turn out to be correct.

4. Your response is

(1) Conversions from Hinduism - are an issue becoz after you take out the politics, you get some real issues about problems with Hindu theology and society. Its a controversial area that must be talked about (with facts alone), just because its a real issue.

You should then talk about the following in subsections

• criticism of Hindu theology
• criticism of Hindu religious influence on society

5. Your response is

(2) Hindu renaissance - is NOT a criticism, BUT the result of mounting criticism. Obviously we need to talk about what efforts Hindus have made to do away with social and theological evils.

I don't like to put this to you BUT "Criticism to Hinduism" is the wrong article to talk about "efforts Hindus have made to do away with social and theological evils."

6. Your reponse is

(4) Polytheism - how do you desire to explain the existence of thousands of deities, plus a supreme Trinity as monotheism? However, you are correct that the viewpoint must not be of AbrahamicPOV, but obviously its a criticism.

I'm still dont understand why in general polytheism is worse than monotheism? If the criticism is that Hinduism is polytheism, then explain why this is bad. Let the people who criticism Hinduism for being polytheism explain why polytheism is bad. You may disagree with their explanations but a criticism is still a criticism even if it is 100% incorrect.

Personally I'm atheist so I am extremely interested to hear why Polytheism is worse than monotheism. To me it sounds like "One Santa Claus is good but 10 Santa Clauses is bad".

Ohanian 10:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Good points... This is a young page, but never too early to clean it up. On the charge of polytheism, I don't know what the argument is for it being bad. BTW, polytheism is more like many Gods than many Santas. Apart from having no argument, it's a misconception on Hinduism from some that are not very familiar with the religion. I can charge that say Christianity is polytheistic beacuse there are numerous saints and angels that are revered but it won't be valid in any sense. I don't think untrue statements should be presented in this page - it is not about a separate rebuttal - that is for defending possibly true charges or viable charges when seen from a particular POV. I would eliminate this section entirely and possibly point to another page such as 'Common Misconceptions about Hinduism'.

Also I'd like to differentiate social ills like bride burning from religion. The ill is taking dowry (which is present in all religions) but has been taken to the extreme among Hindus and an added dimension of greed has led to murders. I'll try to make changes soon.. based on Ohanian comments as well. --Pranathi 01:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

As alluded to on Wikipedia:Content forking, "Criticism of X" titles are inherently non-neutral, because they present the debate one-sidedly and imply that the only discussion of a subject is negative. See Talk:Criticism of Christianity#Rendering_this_article_neutral for the many examples of where "Criticism of X" articles have become perennial and unresolvable neutrality disputes, and a discussion of how to address this. Uncle G 03:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This is true, but "Criticism of religion X" articles are usually created because adherents make it impossible to treat criticism in any detail on the main articles. Also, "Criticism of X" articles are of course meant to report on notable criticism, not internet ramblings. Criticism of Islam has a centuries old history, and the article is meant to present that, the opinions of various theologians over time, rather than being a playground of Wikipedians for bashing Islam. That's difficult to enforce because many people Don't Get It, but in principle makes for a legitimate article. dab (ᛏ) 06:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism

--Greasysteve13 09:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed for Deletion

The article seems to do a lot of answering criticism. The article content does not match the title. If we were to change the title to "Reponding to Hindu Critics", that would not be an appropriate encylopedia article. This is why I have nominated the article for deletion. --Janus657 19:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

An article of this calibre cannot just be deleted by PROD-tagging. I have deprodded and put up for a vote. ImpuMozhi 02:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of cited references

The removal of a ciation to a published book (Keay, pp. 53-54.) took place in this edit: [2]. That edit also had the effect of disrupting the new References section which I added in order to try to bring the article into line with format standards at Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout because the removal of the only footnote on the page eliminates the reference to the book entirely. I object to the removal of WP:RS and request opinion from other editors on this matter. Buddhipriya 03:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I see now that a subsequent edit restored the citation. However there were a number of other changed to text that did not have citations supporting them. If we are to upgrade this article we can only do so by following WP:RS. I would recommend that any editor who objects to an unsourced statement either place a fact tag on it, move it to the talk page for discussion, or if you feel it is significantly damaging, cut it. Raising the bar on citation quality may shorted the length of the article, but will improve quality. Also, for guidelines on the use of web sites please note that WP:EL disallows many types of site. Buddhipriya 04:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh you did catch that, disregard my message then, but Buddhipriya I noticed that you didn't place a fact tag on the devadasi section before you removed it. It was not damaging to the article at all, but very relevant to a article that is criticism of practices of religion. Correct my perceptions if they're wrong, but it seem the only edits going on are to remove or counter criticism of this religion, which is the whole purpose of the article. See Criticism of Christianity if you need a comparison. Having said all that, I think we can work together on this by discussing on the talk page and coming to a decision, which is the best way to do these thing. Thank you have a good day.--Kathanar 13:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

Please note currently the reference that I added to Keay, pp. 53-54 only supports the statement that "The Hindu system of varnas identified four varnas in Indian society." Please do not modify that sentence to add material to it, as that would cause the citation to Keay to appear to support the additional material. See this edit. If you feel that additional material regarding this issue should be in the article please add it as an independent sentence with WP:RS as citations. I see that you have raised the issue of the dharmashastra more than once. Is this point of particular importance to you? If so, please help me understand what issue is that you feel needs to be included. If I clearly understand why you feel it is important to the article, perhaps I can assist you in finding a reference for it if you do not yourself have one handy. I would be very happy to assist with reference searches if it would help reduce the number of reversions taking place.

The article text as referenced by Keay establishes that there is a varna system, so there is no disagreement on that point. An additional point that you appear to consider important is the statement that "The Hindu system of varnas in classical Indian legal texts of the Dharmashastra, most notably that by Manu" identified four varnas in Indian society. If you feel that the references to dharmashastra and Manu are important, would it be helpful for me to try to find a citation to support it? Or can the details of the development of the varna system be dealt with in the detail article? Which do you feel is the best approach? I added some references to Flood to support the point that these ideas were important in both the Dharma Shastras and the Dharma Sutras. Do you feel that these references support the point you wanted to make, or have I misunderstood? Buddhipriya 23:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as "dharmashastra and Manu" I did not add that material. I have only been trying to prevent edits and removal of the article which will help promote the hindutva agendas of certain editors of Wiki. Even when the article is about the criticism of hinduism, they will try to neutralize any such valid critique and will vandalize a article until it loses it original purpose. I have no problem with Hinduism myself, I think it is far too complicated to be listed under one umbrella as it as absorbed numerous positive traditions and practices (I must say especially in the southern part of India). My problem is the not owning up to of the abuses while making mountains out of mole hills of other faith traditions who do acknowledge their own shortcomings. This gutting of the purpose of this article and a point of comparison could be for someone trying to say the southern system of slavery in the US was unfortunate and might have been abused, but hey it was originally supposed to be a positive system with all the "darkies" happyily content to serve their masters in a organized society. A more closer example is the apartheid system of south africa and you have a ruling elite pressing the natives and others into servile positions and praising the organized society they had. Do you see the danger of allowing the edits that have been going on? I understand these people might have (religious) pride issues and such, which leads them to have issues with any criticism, but it is not right to whitewash history and events just to make themselves feel better. Wikipedia is about the truth and not just trying to throw roadblocks whenever you can to prevent it. I do appreciate your approach though, I apologize if any of my reverts have done anything to your edits, I am trying to prevent other elements from poisoning the article. Thank you and as far as the dramashastra and Manu it does sound interesting if any references can be found. Have a good day.--Kathanar 23:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Religious component is"

There seems to have been an edit war for a long time over this particular clause. Here are a few references; we can consider how best to integrate the implications into the article.

• Kerala Christians and the Caste System, C. J. Fuller Man, New Series, Vol. 11, No. 1. (Mar., 1976), pp. 53-70. From the abstract:"Christian sects, however, should not be regarded as castes. Between the Christian castes, though, unlike the Hindu castes, individual social mobility can occur under certain conditions. Christian and Hindu behaviour concerning the rules of caste and pollution are almost identical, although Christians could sometimes act as pollution neutralisers. But the most important qualification is that Christians have no concept of bodily pollution."
• Ritual Pollution as an Integrator of Caste and Religion, Edward B. Harper, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 23. First lines: "Beliefs about ritual purity.. form someof the most all-pervasive themes in Hindu culture. They form the basis of 'orthoprax' Brahmanism... Brahmanic concepts concerning pollution relate the Indian system of social stratification to the Hindu religious system."
• De Tocqueville in India: An Essay on the Caste System, Nur Yalman, Man, New Series, Vol. 4, No. 1. This is a review of Dumont's landmark book on caste, perhaps the foremost work on the subject. The paraphrase that introduces the relevant section says "Dumont acknowledges the caste-like features, but observes that while trapped in a Hindu caste framework, their ultimate values and ideology are turned in another direction."

I think there is sufficient material to be able to write at least a sentence indicating the differences between caste-like features in Hinduism and other Indian religions. Hornplease 07:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If people do not stop reverting each other and tackle this issue here, I will issue a WP:RFPP. Hornplease 05:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hindu Fundamentalism

Is "re-establishing a caste-based system of apartheid and untouchability, and brahmin domination" a goal of Hindutva/Hindu Nationalism at all? I recently read about an RSS campaign against untouchability and caste based discrimination (possibly aimed at enhancing their vote bank in north india, but that's besides the point.) deeptrivia (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Its the allegation/criticism of their political opponents and critics. The leftists, Dalit politicians and many Muslims and others seem to believe this is true.

Rama's Arrow 04:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

RSS may be doing anything stupid but it doesn't teach casteism nor it teaches any hatred. No hindu scripture taches hate or racism. The primary text of hindus, the Vedas are too good to be criticized by anyone. Their are traditions that can be criticized, but very little of religious text can be criticized for any flaws. Religious text of hinduism is considered as one of the best even by most people, including philosophers like Schopenhauer, Voltaire, Schilling, Max Muller etc. Caste system is more of a political grouping of medival times than religious grouping. In a temple nobody even asks your caste. Two important things asked while doing rituals are Gotra and place where you live. Gotras are shared between all of hindus. Gotra tells which family tree they belong to. and a Brahmin and a Shudra may belong to family tree of same sage or Rishi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.7.175.2 (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 03:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Question of Neutrality

Hello Everyone,

I made a few additions and corrections to this article today, and I just wanted to acknowledge it.

As part of the editing that I did of the article in question, I simply reworded some paragraphs such that they point to what the criticisms are, while providing both the criticism and in some cases the defence, with the intention of allowing the reader to make up their own mind. I may have failed at maintaining neutrality. If you think so, please feel free to correct this. My only request is that when you make corrections, please put aside as far as possible all your feelings about the matter, and take the position of communicating facts - in this case communicating what the criticism is while hinting that it's a perspective not fact. Criticisms are always perspectives. Facts have no emotion attached.

Here's an example of information being reported: John Doe was killed at 2:31pm. His head was sawed off by Osama Bin Laden's deputy and son, Alphonse Bin Osama [this is a made up name]. Here's what I call "sensationalist written-diarrea": At 2:31pm, John Doe was slaughtered like an animal (halal style) by Osama Bin Laden's deputy and son, Alphonse Bin Osama. I'm sure you can guess which to avoid :) I know I don't need to write all the stuff above, but this is a sensitive topic and I know a lot of us get heated about it, so I'm trying to just bring it up as a reminder to everyone (not just you) that we need to improve the quality of this article. Please do edit it.

Here are a few side thoughts: I am a Hindu. I am a Brahmin, and I don't think it means much because I believe in 'meritocracy' (a philosophy based on rank and rewards issued for merit). I've seen people who are far more talented than myself, who have worked much harder than me, and who have attained far greater accomplishments than me, and to step on them by saying "Oh, I'm Brahmin, so regardless of achievement you are inferior to me by blood and birth". I cringe at the thought of stepping on people and their earned achievements in that way. I also cringe at the thought of being stepped on that way.

I don't buy that the caste system is a problem created by religion. I think it's a system created by an old and bygone society that our society is perpetuating and maintaining, and because it doesn't fit in today's time it is a problem. This is a cultural and societal problem that is maintained by us, and is mistakenly blamed on Hinduism itself. It's important that we distinguish this and take ownership of how we are the problem, and that as a society (together) we have control of it.

On a different and deviating note, I feel that Hinduism is a way of life. Change the way of life and gather a following/social consensus around that new way of life and the result is that you change the face of Hinduism (Yes, this is obviously far easier said than done). The caste system isn't that different. I think some changes are needed in how we implement the caste system, like creating a horizontal ranking, rather than a vertical one that hurts peoples' pride and self-confidence. A major issue is the question of "what do you replace the present and outdated caste system with?". Another issue that people in India and abroad have to cope with are the factors that promote, maintain and perpetuate the present system. Here's an example, the politicians in India are maintaining bills/ acts in the constitution that requires universities to have quotas for different castes with the intention of giving lower castes access to education (as usual they're doing it for the votes - and I don't think I stated that last sentence very clearly). The intention behind that bit of law is great, but it violates the concept of meritocracy, and reduces chances for the most talented people to move further. It serves some people well, but on the whole and in the long term I personally don't think it works towards creating a country that produces the highest quality of product and people. Such laws perpetuate and provide incentive for people to maintain the present caste system. Before we can make any changes to the caste system, we really need to address the factors promoting its existence, and deal with them. The caste system would have been ditched a long time ago if it weren't for factors perpetuating it.

Anyway... this needs further discussion and debate, and isn't going to be solved by me alone or my lone comments and thoughts.

Have a great day.

Best regards, Sarang Dutt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarangdutt (talk • contribs) 05:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Other religions

Caste among Muslims has been documented for a while, and a lot of their practices are unique (such as Muslims not being buried in the same graveyards or Mohammed's descendants being superior to others). Christians have both sect and caste and this complicates their situation even further. It is inaccurate to state that these were "pure" religions "polluted" by Hinduism as some have tried to state.Bakaman 19:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere does it state that, nor is it implied. The words are carefully chosen in line with what equally careful academics have stated. Relata refero (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Academics have noted that Dalit Christians/Muslims have unique modes of discrimination against dalits that have absolutely nothing to do with Hinduism. There is discrimination against dalits by all Indians, regardless of religion, and claiming that Christianity/Islam was polluted by Hinduism, as you claim some state is a falsehood that doesnt belong in the article.Bakaman 20:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything mentioning pollution. I do see, however, an academic citation. The relevant quotes in question include "..Even so, converts to both Islam and Sikhism seemed to carry with them the legacy of the caste system." I can provide additional citations for this quite mainstream approach. Relata refero (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition, how is a "Brahminical" construction of Hinduism differ from the "scriptures"? Especially when the book you cite specifically says the opposite of what you cited it as saying? (I'm still laughing about that.) Relata refero (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have provided citations to show that other religious communities (in India) are stratified in ways that have little to do with Hinduism. "Pollution" is a tagline of your claim that Hinduism's "legacy of caste" follows converts to other religions. What is obvious is that your version is a covert attack of Hinduism, claiming that it is these converts that brought caste into Indian Islam/Christianity.Bakaman 20:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think that way, but your anger should more properly be directed at mainstream academia, not as an attack on me.

That they are stratified in ways that have "little to do" with Hinduism is possible. Yet the fact of stratification may be related. In any case, its not up to us to decide. Scholars have made the point quite explciitly. Please see my quote above. Relata refero (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Brahminical constructs refers to the misrepresentation of Hindu scriptures to retain Brahmin hegemony in India. The book also states that "the Indian caste system in the singular was largely a late nineteenth-century colonial reinvention of tradition". Jalal backs up the fact that the abuses of the caste system have little to do with Hinduism, and more with Indian society, which is notoriously hierarchical and clannish.Bakaman 20:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? The line you quote is followed immediately by "..this is not to say it was an artefact of colonial imaginings" and then says caste was in its "pristine form" "elaborated in the VEdic Age" and goes on to talk about caste in the Rig Veda and ends by saying "derived religious sanction from Hindu scriptures." To cite that very passage as support for a line that says the caste system is "not supported in the Hindu scriptures" is atruly admirable levels of absurdity. Relata refero (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Considering I did not write this page, I have no idea what the large jumbles of self-contradictory say in much of the page. I merely cite what is required and remove misrepresentations of any view from this page, adding RS's to make sure that this page moves up from its current condition.Bakaman 20:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the reference was added by you. You can't disclaim responsibility that easily! Plus you reverted all the large jumbles back in. You're having a bad day. Relata refero (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jalal was added to the lead section, where it is claimed that the Caste system/Sati are mutated versions of Hindu traditions. Jalal backs that up, ergo the lead section of random websites is now in better shape.Bakaman 21:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Except Jalal doesn't back up the line. It was blatant misrepresentation. Also, you kept reverting the random OR essays back in. Relata refero (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jalal does back up the line by stating that the caste system is more complicated than it seems and that many assumptions are the results of colonialism, that economic oppression is omre potent than caste in some places (204), and that caste identity is rooted in "brahminical conceptions of the Hindu religion".Bakaman 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

..conceptions which she implies are the same as "the scriptures". The line doesn't say "of course, caste is a complicated problem, and in addition to scriptural warrant, there are complicating issues". To use Jalal saying "derived religious sanction from Hindu scriptures" as a source for a claim that caste has no backing in the scriptures is something quite unparalleled. Relata refero (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No lead, no structure

Despite several hundred edits, this article is still a rambling mess, and probably worse than the original version, which while being essayistic had the virtue of coherence. There's no lead because no context has been provided, such as who might have started it, for what reasons, etc. We need more than a collection of random potshots. There are, in fact, at least three types of sources, historically. One is the ancient criticisms of Brahmanical religion by Jains, Buddhists, Carvakas and other heterodox movements of over two millenia ago. A second is Muslim sources, describing their engagement with Hinduism during the medieval conquest of the subcontinent. A third, probably the most prolific (and the most pertinent in terms of what gets discussed in scholarly literature), is tracts by missionaries following the European incursion into India. None of this is even mentioned! From the standpoint of apologetics, the standard defence has been to absolve "Hinduism" (conceived abstractly) of any responsibility for social practices, which things like caste and Sati no doubt are. This is problematic, however, because one can't counter the essential claim that such things are Hinduism with a counterclaim that Hinduism is "something else" without also defining what that something else is. Accusation on one side and wholesale denial on the other cancel each other out, and all we'll have to show for that is a quote farm. No good. My suggestion would be to gather a set of sources first, and only then try to figure out what this article should be covering, and how. rudra (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite so. The additional problem being, of course, that most of the additions have come from quotefarms hosted by the appropriate sort of advocacy site, so checking the antecedents of every quote and its context in the original is pure murder. Such quotefarms tend to lean heavily on selective quotation of primary sources, as well... and that's its own little mess. Relata refero (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAP notwithstanding, Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Christianity bear looking at, with the reminder that this is the Criticism of Hinduism article, not the Defence of Hinduism against criticism article. rudra (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam is pretty bad as well, though not in the same way; there's criticism all right, but it consists mainly of Things Robert Spencer Doesn't Like. There have been some recent big changes on the page I haven't kept up with, because those discussions are even worse than these.

Criticism of Christianity is a little better; though it also depends heavily in certain places on quotefarms like this one. Its acceptable in bits - at least those bits that haven't been written by whichever person wrote the delightful apologia that is Black Legend.

The truth is that these articles are probably never going to be excellent; but at least if we create a structure that is acceptable, like the Christianity article has, we have a head start on keeping crap out. Relata refero (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs Improvement

The article still needs much improvement, including better wording and verified sources. A few inter-wiki links wouldn't hurt either. I have made a few minor edits to improve the clarity of the article, but it still needs much work. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 06:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, any links to varna should be directed to Varna in Hinduism, as Varna redirects to an article about a city in Bulgaria! --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 06:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Seconding this articles deletion

Article is full of apologists and attempts to explain the benefits of discriminating and stratification of society.

Should either be completely re written or deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.164.187 (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism?

The article's title is deceptive: this was supposed to be an article on criticism of Hinduism, but in fact, the article reads like "Glorification of Hinduism" or at best, "Rebuttal of criticism of Hinduism". Most of the article is devoted to responses to criticism and asserts that these responses are true, while the criticism, which is given a very sketchy treatment, is false. There must be something wrong either with WP:NPOV or with this article. Pecher ^Talk 14:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. We better do something about it. Amir85 18:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. It reads like an instruction manual to Hindus how to deal with criticism. Each criticism gets about a line or two, and then the article embarks on a wordy 'rebuttal' (in the indicative). That's clearly not as it should be, just look at Criticism of Islam or Criticism of Christianity. dab (ᛏ) 06:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No decent criticism of Hinduism, minor efforts to justify it according to the history of the caste system, no evidence presented that traditional Vedantic was also a suppressive device in general, like Roman Catholicism, that claimed access to secret knowledge, etc. Also no Criticism of Buddhism website in existence, welcome efforts to help me create it- I could upload a link if others willing to contribute... Also need philosophical arguments against Hinduism, yoga, etc- ie. aspects of fatalism, tendency to gravitate towards 'absolutes', magical thinking as it's basis, etc, etc. Members of the public voice their concerns over failure of administrative authorities to keep websites biased again, this is repeated problem with religion on all wikipedia sites and in regards to biographies. Members of the public need to argue for greater mediation in the creation of unbiased websites.

Part of the difficulty in "critiquing" a "religion" like "Hinduism," is the variability of religion and religious life itself: "Hinduism" represents a class of sects noted anciently as being of the region of the Indus river. Until this day there seem to be no apparently non-regional "orthodoxies" within the modified worships of thousands of local deities. One yogi writer, whose name escapes me at the moment, noted that Hinduism consists of scripture(s), temple(s) and deities: there are no "orthodox" priests and administrative overseers like a Pope or prelate. Consequently one may worship Lakshmi, while another invokes Ganesha, Krishna, or Shiva on the same holiday. To the untrained mystical eye, even, stories of Baby Ganesha seem suspiciously like transmogrified tales of Baby Jesus -- possibly a kind of Asian response to early Christian missionaries. Insofar as the "casteism" of the region: are those castes not similar to or the same as the castes given us by our own general observations as we progressed (DNA-wise) out of Central Africa to the far ends of the Earth? Blackness and Whiteness are at opposite spectral ends and each may have an occasional claim to be at the top of the evolutionary progressions: those occupying the bodies of such tints usually seem quite willing to claim the superior station, usually without merit -- as within the relative "orthodox" castes or sects of Christianity or Judaism themselves. 71.51.75.154 (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Truth

Hinduism is the only religion in the world that intrinsically still preaches and promotes Racism aka Casteism. I understand that Hindu parents covertly train their children to coerce other caste children. --m 07:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Be a little courageous if you are honest and not cheating your own mind. Can you complete the sentence with information on what racism hindu parents teach and what kind of coercion they teach their kids? Also, racism of what kind? If you are talking about casteism then you should say some like Brahmins hate Vasihya's, Vaishya's hate Brahmins, shudra hate everybody something like that. While you won't be able to prove it, but you can at least make your statement a bit more meaningful/understandable. -skant

As a child born in a Hindu family, I can say that the claims made by 'm' are wrong. As a matter of fact, most children learn about the caste system through their school books. 203.200.95.130 (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to second the above commenter. I was born in a Hindu family, and didn't learn about the caste system until I studied India in 9th grade. It's only after that I asked my parents what caste we were, and they said it really didn't matter. Later I found out we were historically Brahmins, but noone cared anymore. Everyone in my family has married people and socializes with people with whom we are completely unaware of or unconcerned about their caste.

m, Please continue to spread vile hatred and vitriol with absolutely ZERO basis or knowledge. I'm the world needs more of this for sure. 70.50.202.73 (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I support the guy above me. I ah half Brahmin (the high caste and half lingayath(one of the working castes). Most Hindus despise the caste system, which was actually devised by the rich to keep the poor poor. This was in a time, though, when the rich were the religious leaders and kings and Hindu scriptures were still being written, so the rich influenced the scriptures to include this system which mad the life for poor people harder. So, in fact, the caste system is not truly a religious system, but just a plan devised by greedy, egotistic ancient rich people to increase their level in society and to lower the level of the poor and working-class people.--71.197.182.95 (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Weasel

This whole article needs alot of work to conform to wikipedia guidelines.

it is full of Weasel words

and POV from both sides. i would go ahead and edit out all the weasel words and phrases and POV but then there would be no article left...sigh.

please people, wikipedia is not a forum.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb312 (talk) 00:52, 04 July 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy section

The "Erotic idols" section contains WP:SYNTHESIS. The quote of John Marshall just notes the nudity and eroticism in some Hindu motifs. He does not explicitly describe them as being sexually immoral, which seems a personal opinion and WP:OR (section was earlier called sexually immoral idols). Classifying Kali as an erotic motif is abstract. Her nudity is part of her fierce nature. None of the references in the section have explicitly criticized Hinduism for having "erotic idols". The some references do not have page numbers. Both references in the lead are sourced to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania books, but portrayed not as views of the institution, but a worldview and IMO could be WP:POV of one institution, does not "represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." (WP:POV quote).--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"Indian mythology is an inextricable jungle of luxuriant growths. When you enter it you lose the light of day and all clear sense of direction." from New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology is misrepresented s criticism: The full para reads: "Indian mythology is an inextricable jungle of luxuriant growths. When you enter it you lose the light of day and all clear sense of direction. In a brief exposition one cannot aviod over-simplification. But at least one can point out how, in the most favourable circumstances, paths may be traced leading to a methodical exploration of this vast domain." [3] p. 329. The Reasoning for scriptures by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania is used as reference, only for the "complex logic" of Hinduism and does not explicitly reference the possible WP:OR: "Such complex concepts make critics to question the reliability of Hindu doctrines".

I would request User:Critic007 to quote the exact sentences on which his/her assertion that Erotic idols and complex mythology are criticized is based on. Also, who these critics are? Also, add page numbers for all references.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am in no way able to reason the way User:Critic007 is thinking. Existence of nude/"erotic" figures in religious art/imagery only shows that the society allowed a great level of freedom of expression. What is there to criticize anyway. Perhaps an anti-freedom activist may criticize this : But that is just like the Church's "criticism" of Galileo. Such "criticisms" are not from a Neutral-POV; and are just modeled so to propel their own motives. Moreover, the argument that the Philosophy is "complex and does not conform to normal logic" is very biased POV. Einstein's Special Theory Of Relativity is complex and its associated concepts of length contraction, time dilation wouldn't conform to what one can call "normal" logic. But that doesn't give you space to criticize but only to ponder in awe. Arjun^codename024 17:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing sourced statements is vio of policy in wikipedia. If User:Redtigerxyz was a decent editor he should have removed only the statements which are specifically Undue (if any). There is no original research, all are taken from reliable books. Those who oppose religious doctrines or those who negatively analyze a religion is by definition a critic. If the statements about the sex cult is not true, then why Swami Sankarananda had specifically responded to the issue? I do not oppose the removal of the term "immorality" because the source does not specify it directly. However removing the whole is section is a clear vandalism. I have not specified the pages for some citations but the book "Mankind search for God" and "reasoning from scriptures" contains all those statements. Criticism of blind faith and sex cult is widely acknowledged, and hence is a worldview. (for examples search google with those terms) I am reverting the inappropriate changes. --Critic007 (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Also even a renowned scholar Wendy Doniger, who has served as president of the American Academy of Religion, has criticized Hindu ritual, including sexual, blood, and fringe elements in her book "The Hindus: An Alternative History".

Some of her other scholarly criticism books are as follows

• The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology-criticizes hindu mythology
• Tales of Sex and Violence: Folklore, Sacrifice, and Danger in the Jaiminiya Brahmana-criticizes sex and sacrifices to God's

So the criticism is not original research, many books had acknowledged it. This is also not an sythensis. Because the above mentioned books directly criticize mythology and sex rituals. I will add more citations. Please don't take the criticism article mentally, Compared with criticism on Christianity and Islam this article is too short and many issues are not included. Probably the reason is because western world generally consider Hinduism as a blind faith and hence they don't want to touch this article. user:Arjun024's reasoning is invalid because all religions have some logic, but Hinduism's logic is considered as not confirming to normal logic used in other religions. Worship of Erotic idols is considered as a ridiculous practice by western world.--Critic007 (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

1. "Hinduism's logic is considered as not confirming to normal logic used in other religions." seems to be the view of just 1 critic, Wendy Doniger. Critics is over-simplification
2. Reasoning for scriptures just states facts and does not explicitly criticize Hindu mythology for being complex. Associating with the previous sentences is WP:SYNTHESIS
3. The Hindustan Times just the book was no. 1, not that it "criticized Hindu ritual, including sexual, blood"
4. John Marshall is just stating the facts and not explicitly saying that the depictions are immoral
5. The Encyclopedia of World Faiths just says that Shiva is also noted "for his eroticism.." that's not criticism
6. Mankind's search for God says Kali is nude and was offered human sacrifice. That's a fact, not criticism.

I request Critic007 to present quotes from the references that explicitly criticize Hinduism, not just facts that someone perceives as being immoral, ridiculous or illogical. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me quote from Critic007: "user:Arjun024's reasoning is invalid because all religions have some logic, but Hinduism's logic is considered as not confirming to normal logic used in other religions. Worship of Erotic idols is considered as a ridiculous practice by western world." - Here, your argument that Hindu logic do not conform to normal logic is highly predicated on the argument that the logic used in other religions conform to normal logic. Needless to say, this is a hugely biased POV. The worship of such idols may be ridiculed by the monotheistic world at the same time feeling nothing ridiculous about a God without a shape or image. The article as written by Critic007 is as if read from a Christian Church's website. Arjun^codename024 09:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Arjun024 what we need is a consensus in the matter. User:Redtigerxyz had pointed out some issues regarding the sources I used. I have accepted it and would try to add more convincing citations in future. However please note that criticism on irrationality and logic is not my own personal opinion, the reliable book The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology is the source. Criticism usually come from other religions nevertheless it is not the reason to conclude that those criticism are invalid.--Critic007 (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I went through the book The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology and confirm that some critics have indeed criticized Hindu mythology as being not akin to Christian doctrines about God(s), evil and sin. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are so rude in including certain texts.-:) I will be looking for more meat behind it.Thank you--Critic007 (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The section on marshall's conclusion of linga as phallus is widely rejected by Hindu community. So how can you say it is not a criticism? It is not considered as a fact. See Lingam#Interpretation_as_phallus. Marshall's conclusion is indeed a criticism because worshiping a sex organ is immoral. I see many documents and books which oppose the proposal that Linga is a Phallic emblem--Critic007 (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Marshall's conclusion is not criticism. It is a disputed conclusion that is widely rejected by Hindu community. Marshall does not say "worshiping a sex organ is immoral". That may be your personal opinion, but Marshall does not say that. I have removed the section as there is no explicit criticism. Critic007, I advise you to incorporate the Phallic worship section in Lingam#Interpretation_as_phallus appropriately. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you ask a citation to prove that worshiping a sex organ is an indecent or immoral act.I have made a request for comments.--Critic007 (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

My take is; calling something "immoral" depends on the beholder and should be avoided. Eating meat is "immoral" to a number of people in India; not to many in the west. Why should worshiping sex organ be projected as "immoral" ? Arjun^codename024 18:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Disputed Text

Philosophy

Complex mythology

Critics say that Hindu philosophy and mythology is very complex and does not conform to normal logic. Concepts including reversal of salvation in which men try to save the gods, coming down of Gods to earth in order to expiate their sin and thus regain lifeblood, removing the impurity of death from themselves by Hindu gods, and giving it to the men were considered as illogical, irrational and lacking common sense by critics. Hinduism teaches that the god Brahman includes three forms—Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer. But Hindus do not think of a personal god with an individual existence. It is of noted that the Hindu Rig-Veda hymn, 10. 121, is entitled "To the Unknown God." Also Hindus believe that all natural objects possess a soul that never dies, that the soul experiences a virtually endless cycle of reincarnation, that the forms in which it is reborn are determined by deeds (Karma), that release from this “endless wheel” is possible only by extinguishing all physical desire, and that if this is achieved, the soul will merge with the universal spirit. New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology states: "Indian mythology is an inextricable jungle of luxuriant growths. When you enter it you lose the light of day and all clear sense of direction. In a brief exposition one cannot aviod over-simplification. But at least one can point out how, in the most favorable circumstances, paths may be traced leading to a methodical exploration of this vast domain"

Sexuality and Erotic Idols

Erotic sculpture found in Khajuraho lakshmana temple.

Renowned scholar Wendy Doniger, who has served as president of the American Academy of Religion, has criticized Hindu ritual, including sexual, blood, and fringe elements in her book "The Hindus: An Alternative History" which was #1 bestseller in the non-fiction category in India in 2009. She say that several passages in rig-veda promotes immoral sexual activities. She alleges that in Rigveda 10.62, it is implied that a woman may find her own brother in her bed. Her book mentions the Vedic devotee worshipping different Vedic deities to a lying and a philandering boyfriend cheating on his girlfriend. She also concludes that Dasharatha was addicted to sex when infatuated by Kaikai.

Archaeologist Sir John Marshall, speaks of " 'The Great Mother Goddess', some representations being pregnant female figurines, the majority being nude female figures with high collars and headdresses. . . . Next comes 'The Male God', ‘recognisable at once as a prototype of the historic Shiva’, seated with the soles of his feet touching (a yoga posture), ithyphallic (recalling the lingam or phallus cult), surrounded by animals (depicting Shiva’s epithet, ‘Lord of Beasts’). Stone representations of phallus and vulva abound, . . . which point to the cult of the lingam and yoni of Shiva and his spouse." Shiva is also noted "for his eroticism, as the bringer of fertility and the supreme lord of creation, Mahadeva." Worship is rendered to Shiva by means of the lingam, or phallic representation. As the Mother Goddess, Kali Ma (Black Earth-Mother) is depicted as naked to the hips and wearing adornments of corpses, snakes, and skulls. In times past, strangled human victims were offered to her by believers known as thugi, from which came the English word "thug."

Hindu scholar Swami Sankarananda disagrees with Marshall’s interpretation, stating that originally the venerated stones, some known as Sivalinga, were symbols of "the fire of the sky or the sun and the fire of the sun, the rays." He reasons that "the sex cult . . . did not originate as a religious cult. It is an after-product. It is a degeneration of the original. It is the people who bring down the ideal, which is too high for them to comprehend, to their own levels." As a counterargument to Western criticism of Hinduism, he says that, based on Christian veneration of the cross, a pagan phallic symbol, "Christians . . . are the votaries of a sex cult."

Phallic worship

Some Western scholars including David James Smith and Monier Williams alleges that Shiva linga represents male sex organ or phallus. Worship is rendered to Shiva by means of the lingam. Archaeologist Sir John Marshall, speaks of a " 'The Male God', ‘recognisable at once as a prototype of the historic Shiva’, seated with the soles of his feet touching (a yoga posture), ithyphallic (recalling the lingam or phallus cult), surrounded by animals (depicting Shiva’s epithet, ‘Lord of Beasts’). Stone representations of phallus and vulva abound, . . . which point to the cult of the lingam and yoni of Shiva and his spouse."

The view of lingam as phallus has been debated by several scholars and philosophers. Hindu scholar Swami Sankarananda disagrees with Marshall’s interpretation, stating that originally the venerated stones, some known as Sivalinga, were symbols of "the fire of the sky or the sun and the fire of the sun, the rays." He reasons that "the sex cult . . . did not originate as a religious cult. It is an after-product. It is a degeneration of the original. It is the people who bring down the ideal, which is too high for them to comprehend, to their own levels." As a counterargument to Western criticism of Hinduism, he says that, based on Christian veneration of the cross, a pagan phallic symbol, "Christians . . . are the votaries of a sex cult."

References

Although the view of lingam as phallus has been debated by several scholars and philosophers none of the debaters have really considered the Hindu worship of Lingum as a worshiping a symbol of power of destruction. As Hindu religion is so old that the burden of mythology is so enormous that the true reasons for worshipping the Lingum are long forgotten. If we study the Hindu mythology which unfortunately is not in written form anywhere and has been transferred from generations to generations by means of elaborate storytelling, we actually can relate the Lingum to a nuclear power source for which the technology existed at that time. ( or so is proudly said by every Hindu) Here are some thought provoking questions relating to Lingum worship 1. Why the shape is exactly similar to the nuclear power plant dome found anywhere today? 2. Why no Hindu will complete the 'Pradakshina' (A ritual of circling the temple by walking around it) of a Lingum and only allowed to do so only in Half circle mainly never to cross the part where the water from the lingum is let out of the temple. 3. Why the Lingum is constantly cooled by water stream (Called Abhiskeka in Hindu religion, Lingam is the only place of worship where it is done no other deity has this Abhisheka!) We do have similarity in modern nuclear power plant where we do exactly the same thing to the Dome and never cross the heavy water due to radiation.) 4. The story in Hindu mythology where king Rawana won the Jyotirlinga (a source of power Literal meaning – Jyoti = flame) from god himself and since god didnot wat to give the technology to Rawana(as Rawana being evil)his son Lord Ganesh tricked Rawana and the technology never went to Rawana. As we see now how well it fits? Hindus take pride today in claiming that in entient times they had all sorts of weaponry which come very close to today’s nuclear weapons at least in their description of destructive power(Reference Mahabharata- Narayanastra: capable of destroying all vegetative life for many years, however given the fact that Indian method of transferring knowledge to next generation was only vocal all the knowledge is lost, which sounds reasonable as the Hindu culture dates back well before Buddha and Christianity. There is a possibility that Lingum worship has a very different reasons and background. It would be very inappropriate for anybody to link it to sexuality based on some art forms of Khajuraho which can very well be an art form when there was no paper and painting discovered. This is an important point of view when crating an unbiased and complete understanding of Hindu religion. Unfortunately there are no references to this as the thinking is based on the stories in Hindu mythology and of course there can be a biases as I am a devote Hindu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyentorne (talk • contribs) 12:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but what the hell is this?

I was browsing the nicely constructed Hinduism page on Wikipedia and then saw a link leading to this article. However, this does not appear to be a criticism section. It's just all defense. I'm not even sure what of, since it just says "caste system" and then it goes on to say how it was never a part of Hinduism.

I can understand apologetics, but this is just way too much. There are no criticisms, just defense. I'm not saying I want to see it get railed or anything, but some actual information would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.67.48 (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article isn't portrayed correctly or even contains correct information for the most part, but the caste system was never forced upon the public as a direct result of the religion; it was society that was to blame for the problems that arose with the caste system.Asherek (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've flagged the "Caste system" section as NPOV -- as anon above points out, it's just a lenghty defense that tries to "prove" caste has nothing to do with Hinduism. Jpatokal (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's still not much to do with Hinduism and more to do with society. Are you going to suggest that we should start blaming the KKK on Christianity itself? Might be an extreme example, but it's along the same lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asherek (talk • contribs) 22:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is phallic worship section relevant

phallic worship (using male sex organ in worship) is done by Hindus. But most hindu scholars disagree with the interpretation of phallus as Lingum. Is the section relevant to the article? I included it but some editors disagree with it stating that phallic worship is not a criticism. I would like to get some fresh blood in the discussion. please give comments after reading the above discussion Critic007 (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

* Comment. I am rather puzzled by the existence of the articles criticising specific religions. I think the paragraph starting, 'Renowned scholar Wendy Doniger, who has served as president of the American Academy of Religion, has criticized Hindu ritual...' is not particularly fair or relevant and should be removed. It seems to be based on a US-centred POV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Duty

Hello All,

I'm a devout and proud Hindu myself, but I feel it a necessary duty to discuss all the problems of Hindu society to protect the integrity of my religion.

Such an article will infact tackle propaganda and false notions about Hinduism head on.

I know that some contributions will be strongly disputed, but it is the duty of all Hindus, I firmly believe, to address the toughest issues with candour and a commitment to the truth based on factual knowledge. I feel we all owe it to Lord Vishnu to become better Hindus.

Jai Sri Rama! - Nirav Maurya.

Recently my owner ( I stay on ground floor in a rented house) arragned a house warming ceremony on successful completion of the first floor and he invited all the neightbourhood. No one attended because he was a Dalit (Schedule Caste). All the people out here who are very much concerned about their religion and the ill affects of casteism, kindly take a note of this. The truth of the matter is that whatever Hindiusm teaches (good or bad), on the ground, Hindus find ways to hate each other. All talk about caste/varna is not that glaring problem in India is nothing but misrepresentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.180.5 (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

dC- Criticism: If Hinduism praises the "supreme personality of Godhead" as Visnu, woudldn't recognizing the teachings of the Buddha be hypocritical since he preaches the atheistic viewpoint of no-self. The Buddha teaches that the self is a construct of mental aggregates and that the highest truth is the eternal mind with no self defining personality. The highest truth in Buddhism is a type of selflessness, while the Hindus believe in a supreme personality with respect to the Godhead. These two views seem to directly dispute one another, yet the Hindu's recognize the Buddha as a manifestation of the supreme God Visnu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.123.253.114 (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Difference between Hinduism and other religions may not be criticism of either

Just stumbled upon this article - this certainly needs a lot of work to get to a good shape. The second line of opening paragraph reads: " ... Hindu philosophy and mythology is very complex and does not conform to normal Christian logic".

I propose that the difference between the logic (or whatever parameter) of one religion to another may not be one's praise and other's criticism. On first glance these are just the properties of the respective religions. Criticism needs to be defined here - let me make a quick start point for definition of criticism:

If a proven and inherent property of any religion is giving cause to suffering to anyone (weather its to the adherent of the religion or not), say without following the principle of natural justice, it can be criticism.

May I request the people better in knowledge than me to refine the definition. After this task, we should be able to do justice in the betterment of the article._M_ (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Caste system

The section on the case system contains no criticism at all. It in fact appears to criticise the caste system for not being hindu enough. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

caste is defined by one's deeds and qualities in hinduism

in Bhagvad Geeta (4/13) lord Krishna says, "Four classes of people are created by me according to their Guna(qualities) and Karma(deeds)". present situation of castism is not according to the Dharma.it is based on birth while it should be on karma. so the society should be criticised not Hinduism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.178.196 (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

above user is correct.cast system is misleaded by the society and the so called high cast for their own greed . but the system as said by the gita is a group of similar jobed family --Ashim nep (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Article Rewrite

I have no expertise here. However, reading the article, I see that it has no criticism in it, and many, many dubious facts with it, along with attacks of other religions, including my own. In addition, the word "Whore" appears, which should never be in Wikipedia, or in any other encyclopedia for that matter unless there is a very good context.

This article appears to be unsalvageable. I think a total rewrite is in order. --Lionheart Omega (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There is an ip address currently editing the article that seems to be trying to help add relevant content yet seems incapable of actually obeying any wikipedia policies in doing so. IrishStephen (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see. Should I watch it, and go from there? --Lionheart Omega (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and decapitate the hydra. Let's hope the heads don't come back! -Tinkerttoy (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The deed is done. I gave that b---- some . B---es LOVE .

Defence

It's interesting that the author placed a defence for each section and I think that's an okay idea because it gives you both sides and not just one biased side, even though this article is suppose to be biased. Well other than the caste system which is now gone and the status of woman, which is the same as men, I can't think of any other criticism with Hinduism. The contrasting of Hinduism with the other 'major' religions is interesting because it implies something about polytheism and monotheism but you should if you are going to keep that section compare the contrasting and contradicting beliefs of each religion.

Efforts of Christian Missionaries

As fas as I know, the Christian Missionaries were not the first people to take steps to abolish Mandatory Sati in the Later medieval ages. So I'm rephrasing the below line.

This was banned due to the efforts of Christian missionaries, along with reform Hindu movements and activists organizations.

Suport and References for caste-based i.d. among muslims, christians and others to this day?

"Caste-based identification was not unique among Hindus,[6] to this day it is also found among Muslims, Christians, and others." 68.55.60.111 (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The main section of the article is inappropriate

The main section of the article, "Social structure in India", is inappropriate.

It is presented as criticism of Hinduism but is, in fact, criticism of India's social structure. It should explain/reference clearly how that criticisable social structure is created/influenced by Hinduism or be removed altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.144.228 (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The main section this page argues that the caste system was not hereditary.

The true essence of caste system was not by ones birth or by one's parents inheritance but it was by ones acts or by profession/heredity.

Instead of giving a criticism of Hinduism, the main section argues that the caste system was not hereditary. To support this claim, it cites a book without giving the page number which can be verified.

i.e. A Shudra can become a Brahmin (Example: Valmiki Rushi who wrote Ramayana)

Giving an example of a conversion from a Shudra to a Brahmin does not mean it was a norm. --Gauravsood0289 (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

This page is facing an edit war. Please post your contentions here before reverting the page again. This would help us reach a consensus much faster.

Wikipedia's three-revert rule (3RR) says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts within a period of 24 hours. Anyone violating this risks being blocked or even being banned. See more about the same here: Wikipedia:Edit warring. --Gaurav 19:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravsood0289 (talk • contribs)

Regarding the latest edits, the lead sentence needs to comply with WP:MOS, unsourced info must carefully be removed, and this, as I've noted on Akshatra's talk page, is not a WP:RS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User: NeilN since when did the caste system became by profession nor by birth. This line does not give the link of the source. Moreover you also removed the the criticism of Idol Worship (which was sourced)by Brahmo Samaj. Akshatra (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Akshatra: The caste sentence does have a source ("Caste System in India: A Historical Perspective", Ekta Singh, 2005, p. 25). The idol worship section can go back in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The lead sentence and some other sentences too was changed by Bladesmulti in this [edit] . So I had to revert that back. He fabricated his own. @User: NeilN @User:Gauravsood0289Akshatra (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Akshatra: No, you did not "have" to revert that back. I've made a note of your broken promise at WP:3RRNB. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines says that one should "Avoid stating opinions as facts". For example, it says that an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." So, we could say that "According to some scholars the true essence of caste system was not by ones birth or by one's parents inheritance but it was by ones acts or by profession/heredity" --Gaurav 20:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravsood0289 (talk • contribs)

I think "Untouchability" would be a more appropriate title for the subsection currently titled "Varna System". --Gaurav 20:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravsood0289 (talk • contribs)

Bladesmulti Why did you revert the page without posting your contentions here?--Gaurav 04:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Issues with the current version of the page:

(1) The following statements make a Faulty generalization: "The true essence of caste system was not by ones birth or by one's parents inheritance but it was by ones acts or by profession/heredity.[9] i.e. A Shudra can become a Brahmin (Example: Valmiki Rushi who wrote Ramayana), or Kshtriya can be come Brahmin (Example: Vishwamitra Rushi, by whose grand son's name Bharata, India was named as Bharata centuries ago), or Kshtriya can be come Shudra or Vaishya or reversal."

(2) Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines says that one should "Avoid stating opinions as facts". The statements should be of the form: Person A criticized Hinduism for this, Person B criticized it for that and so on. The criticisms may or may not be legitimate. To contend a criticism we cannot say that Person B's criticism was unjustified. We can only say that "person C said that Person B's criticism was unjustified".

We can look at the page Criticism of Christianity. This would give us a better of what can and cannot go into the current page.--Gaurav 04:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravsood0289 (talk • contribs)

Bladesmulti's version is better than Akshatra's version. The only obvious thing that can be fixed right now is getting rid of the "i.e.," fragment. And, again, can you please fix your signature? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Gauravsood0289, but we are not going to copy content from Criticism of Christianity to here. Because this is wholly different subject.

Go through the page history, this page somehow expanded by the copyright violators, none of their sources included any criticism but only unconstructive opinions. Those sections you are talking about were removed because they are unreferenced and unwanted. Till now, we have found no constructive criticism about Hinduism, only some doubts about the caste system which was varna and prevalent for centuries, but not rigid and nothing to do with religion because it was social issue. We don't know anyone who targeted Hinduism for that except some no namer missionaries, that cannot be backed by any sources or Ambedkar who has been added to External links. Because this whole edit oonflict is organized by a sole disruptive editor, Akshatra, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Siddheart a obvious sock puppet, there is no chance to even bother about these edits because they are resolved and the current version is here for almost 1 year. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't make Ad hominem attacks. Please answer my contentions.

Following are some points in support of Akshatra's version: (1) Akshara's version does not say that idol worship is wrong. It only says that Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj criticized it which is true. (2) Are you saying that untouchability and caste system never existed.

I am not saying we should copy paste text from Criticism of Christianity page. I am just saying that the page is well written and honestly lists all the criticisms people have made of Christianity over time. We can at least learn about the style of writing from it. --Gaurav (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There was no Ad hominem, 1. This link to source that was removed like 1 year ago from this page, about Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj being critical of Idol worship is misrepresented. It links to the book cover, but you can read yourself, especially p.117-120. It just says that Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj rejected belief in image and replaced it with the belief in book(scriptures). I don't see that they were critical anywhere! User who had added this misrepresentation had also added the quote of Bible that considers it as a sin. It was Original Research. 2) Untouchability or caste became part of legal procedures but that's after the british rule. There is no criticism about it. Only social responsibility, but for that we have Caste system in India . Bladesmulti (talk) 05:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"Because this whole edit oonflict is organized by a sole disruptive editor, Akshatra" is an Ad hominem.

Can you cite a trustworthy source saying that the practice of untouchability stated during the British Rule.

Pages 117 and 118 of the book you mentioned are not part of the preview. I could not find the word Arya Samaj or Brahmo Samaj on pages 119 and 120. --Gaurav (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You have still not answered my issues with your version of the article. --Gaurav (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Blades...copying your note "2) Untouchability or caste became part of legal procedures but that's after the british rule. " . I am sorry to say that you are wrong. Untouchability existed before the British rule and also there are literatures regarding such practices found in Manumsriti, Buddhist texts and Jain texts. Also reformers such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy were critical to practises such as Sati Pratha etc. Do you have a proof that Untouchability only became legalized after the british rule? Infact it was vice-versa that British rule also implemented various laws to end untouchability and Sati Pratha. These are found in the NCERT textbooks published by government of India for Children. Akhil.bharathan (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Akhil.bharathan Raja Ram Mohan roy never said that Sati practice was part of Hinduism, he actually said that it is sin according to Hinduism, "In a petition to the British East India Company in 1818 Ram Mohan Roy wrote that "All these instances are murders according to every shastra." per Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India.

There is nothing like caste in Hinduism because the word "caste" comes from "Casta" and there was no caste system before the British Rule. Varnas were not granted by birth, but from profession. When you don't read sources that are provided on this article and ask "do you have proof" like I am interacting you face to face, it simply decreases your credibility.

You can stop reverting to some FRINGE activist like David Haslam and stop removing the reliably sourced material just because you Don't like it and consider discussing here before you advocate fringe theorists. No one is going to recognize "untouchability" for this article, unless there is some notable criticism like "Hinduism is not good, because of castes", but since there is no such existence nor any criticism similar to it, I see no hope in arguing about it. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti You have reverted the article twice in the last 24 hours. If you revert it again, I will have to report you.--Gaurav (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Both suspected socks, its just interesting that a CU was never run on him, though he(siddheart) is a prolific sock master, but very soon CU will provide results. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I cannot comprehend your comment. Can you be more clear.--Gaurav (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(1) The book "Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India" is a primary source because it presents the arguments of the author. It does not present a general consensus about the Sati practice. I can point to many books that argue the opposite.

(2) To support that caste system was not hereditary, you cite "Caste System in India: A Historical Perspective". I could not access the book. But, if the book is not a primary source and rather presents general consensus, you should be able to point me to a different book which supports the same.

(3) You keep making personal attacks like: "You can stop reverting to some FRINGE activist like David Haslam". See wikipedia's guidelines for personal attacks here: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I hope you will focus on the content rather than the character of the author in future. --Gaurav (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not personal attack because it was about content not about the editor. Anyone who don't compile with the NPOV standard or goes on claiming things only for agenda are fringe. I find it funny that you don't tell User:Akshatra about stop making personal attacks, though he clearly did on multiple editors, just see the edit summaries. But here you are misrepresenting policy for making false allegation about me. Now you can stop derailing.

Just read Caste system in India if you have to look into it, there are actually many to name or add but I am not bothering. "Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India" is no where used as source and the reason why I stated it, that has to do nothing with this article. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Section "Edit war" tagged infested by socks

May I know which of Wikipedia's guidelines allow you to tag a talk page section as "Infested by socks"; and what are the criteria for tagging. --Gaurav (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Gaurav, would you rather I just deleted the sockpuppets' posts as per WP:BLOCKBANDIFF? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN I think I have behaved in very civilized way: (1) I have not reverted or edited the article even once, even though you and Bladesmulti have done so more than once. (2) I have not abused anyone.

Instead of answering my objections, you just close the section calling it "Infected by sockpuppets". I don't think this is the right way of answering objections. --Gaurav (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Gaurav, I have no issue with your behavior. However the section above was triggered by edits by a sockpuppet and contained posts by multiple sockpuppets. We do not reward that behavior (WP:RBI). So do you want me to re-open the section above and remove all the socks' comments or do you want to start a clean section below outlining your concerns? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You reverted my edit on the talk page. I had just made a comment. You cannot just delete my comment. I have a right to have an opinion. If you did not like it, you could have commented back. --Gaurav (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Read your talk page please. It was important the info be removed right away. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. I apologize for the harsh comment. --Gaurav (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please open the "Edit war" section now.--Gaurav (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Capitals00 edits

[Copied from User talk:Capitals00]

I made this edit[4] because caste system among Muslims is about muslims of numerous regions around the world, thus labelling that article as limited to "Indian Muslims" is underestimation. Since there is no separate article for the caste system of Sikhs, it shouldn't be mentioned, but since their communities have a caste system as well as others like Zoroastrians, Jains, I mentioned "among others", instead. I changed a section title to "Widows", because provided source has not used the word "discrimination" anywhere or anything similar. Is that enough for a explanation? Capitals00 (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing.

• I don't see caste system among Muslims "all around the world." It is predominantly in the Indian subcontinent. So I think the labeling as "Indian Muslims" is fine.
• The absence of an article on Caste System among Sikhs is not relevant. All that matters is whether it is verified by reliable sources.
• Adding "others" to subsume other religions is ok. But we should note that Hinduism is the only religion that has sanctified the caste systems. Other religions have not promoted it, to the best of my knowledge.
• As for widows, the correct term would be "mistreatment of widows" for which there are plenty of reliable sources [5]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems that main problem is with the section of widows itself, source[6] seems to be talking about the situation of some widows by focusing on a couple of real life cases, but what it has to do with Hinduism? There is a whole book about it, where it is clear that Hinduism allows remarriage of widows, since Vedic Period. Yes this non-scholarly of NY Times has also misrepresented the British law of remarriage, which was established only after Vidyasagar,[7] who claimed that nothing in Hinduism oppose remarriage of widows (per my first link). There is a taboo in Hindu society, but not illegal, and that's same with bisexuality, something not forbidden by Hinduism itself. I would support removing the whole section and detail on Women in Hinduism instead. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with here. I said "numerous regions around the world", not whole world. But we can figure that out later. Capitals00 (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

References

@D4iNa4, Sorry I didn't see your response earlier. Think of it this way. Somebody has challenged you to write a proper section on the topic by putting a one-liner there. You can take up the challenge or leave the one-liner there.

Whether "Hinduism" prohibited widow remarriage or not, I don't know. But the fact is that the Hindu society had prohibited at the advent of the modern period. How this came to be is for us to find out. The question of what to include in "Hinduism" is always difficult one. I see people claiming that Ayurveda is part of Hinduism, Arthashastra is part of Hinduism, Indian mathematics is part of Hinduism, but on the flip side, caste system, slavery, maltreatment of widows etc. are not part of Hinduism. We can't have it both ways. Either "Hinduism" is broad and includes everything about the Hindu society, or it is narrow and limited to what the texts say. For myself, I rely on reliable sources and there are plenty among the link I gave. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Taboo on remarriage that is found among only a few people doesn't prove that there is sanctioned mistreatment in religion. Women in Hinduism#Widowhood and remarriage describes it, and expanding the section would mean that we would repeat those sections into this article. There is no authentic taboo, there are no punishments in India or Nepal if a widow remarries, in fact they are allowed by the law. That's why I don't see reason in having a section which offers no criticism to religion but contradicts WP:ADVOCACY. Capitals00 (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed. I would expand Women in Hinduism instead. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

D4iNa4's edits

Please, explain why you said these well referenced texts are "useless" ? Drivarum (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I would also like an answer to that. And I would like Kautilya3 to explain themselves better. El_C 08:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

El_C, Superstitions linked only a news event, it didn't mentioned "Hinduism" or how Hinduism is criticized for these events.

Varna added was largely an opinion piece, it was more like "Varna system is Hindu origin, and I don't like Varna, thus its criticism of Hinduism", article or sources are not mentioning how Hinduism is targeted for it or that Hinduism is responsible. In fact the last source mentions "Caste in Indian Muslim Society", does it means "caste" "varna" becomes part of criticism of Islam too?

Widows: an article of NY Times, that doesn't mention "Hinduism", rather the article title is "Once Widowed in India".

None of this constitutes as criticism. If anything is mentionable on entire wikipedia, it is about the widows, and it is already covered in Women in Hinduism, with much better sources that actually details about the women. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Drivarum, why don't you try to find better, more reliable sources? El_C 08:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I will look for more sources and I will add more to the article with proper sources. Drivarum (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Criticisms should be made by reliable or notable sources, not Wikipedia editors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Can we include criticism from notable persons or organizations if there are reliable sources? Drivarum (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• The person or organisation criticising is a WP:PRIMARY source.
• A scholar covering the criticism would be a WP:SECONDARY source.
• Ideally the sources should be SECONDARY. If you have only PRIMARY sources, we would need to discuss them and see if they are appropriate. You would be hard put to find consensus here if the sources are proponents of other religions who are trying to throw mud at Hinduism. All such SECONDPARTY sources would be thrown out. Sources must be WP:THIRDPARTY to qualify.
• For any thing historical, WP:HISTRS applies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Smatrah's edits

I've reverted some edits by Smatrah, beacuse it seemed biased (removing info on caste-distinctions among Christians and Muslism), while hisa ddition on idol-worshio was unsourced WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, his deliberations on Bible and Abrahamic religions were OR and out of place here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)== What's the use of articles like this?

Dear!

• I have removed comparison with other religions which is not suitable to be discussed here should we write that idol worship is supported or rejected by Hinduism in the section of criticism of Christianity. If not then there’s is also no need to write comparison of other faiths.
• I have added to the scripture so that others can tell that which scripture say that caste system is not hierarchical. It is our right to get explanation of such material or refute it
• idol worship section does include a verse of Holy Bible. But first it includes a paragraph that is well referenced.

Hope you have understood. Smatrah (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• I you only want to add criticisms, without responses to tnose criticisms, you're vioalting WP:NPOV.
• You added a "where"-tag; that's for geography.
• The reference for the idol-worship is from 1832; it was found by a Google search for ""their idols are silver and gold" hindu". This is just a random addition, without any consideration for context, history, or relevance.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Typically, the section on idol worship was a re-insertion of text which was first added in 2011. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Again redirect war started?

It is unclear to me why this is a redirect even after the criticism page keeps getting restored by multiple editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmanoj (talk • contribs) 10 november 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the thread above? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Possible Redundancy

If the sole focus of this article is to discuss the caste system, wouldn't this be essentially a less-comprehensive duplicate of the Caste system in India article? One course of action could be to rewrite this article from the ground up to be structurally similar to the Criticisms of Christianity article. Alternatively, perhaps this could be merged into the more specific caste article.

My question: Is this article in need of fundamental change (either rewriting or merging)? -- ExParte ^talk 06:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to "Anti-Hindu sentiment": see Talk:Criticism of Hinduism#What's the use of articles like this?. There are more criticisms than just the caste-system; this article (Criticism of Hinduism) covers to little items. Anti-Hindu sentiment covers more, so "Criticism of Hinduism" should be merged into "Anti-Hindu sentiment." The terms "anti-Hindu sentiment" and Hinduphobia" need some explaining, by the way. See Jeffery D. Long (2011), Historical Dictionary of Hinduism, Scarevrow Press, p.142:

HINDUPHOBIA. Aversion to Hindus or to Hinduism; cultural bias, possibly ethnically motivated, against Hindus, Hinduism, or both. This term was first coined by independent scholar Rajiv Malhotra

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to "Anti-Hindu sentiment": Hinduism is also called a way of life thus it is not comparable to others. I say keep redirect since the recent unprecedented edit war hasn't produced a single reason that why there should be an article.

@Ex Parte: You may want to withdraw the RfC since anyone reading the above discussion would know why this article is kept as a redirect for years. The new accounts and long dormant accounts you see who are edit warring here are actually coming from this misleading thread on Reddit. We should be ignoring their non-reasoning.

@RoySmith: Given the gross off-wiki campaign, can you just WP:ECP lock this time? You were right that semi protection would not work. Wareon (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Wareon, Remind me; I vaguely remember this title, but can't find where I talked about semi-protection. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. I found it. It was the redirect I protected. I'll take a look. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

6 month ECP applied. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Don't redirect to "Anti-Hindu sentiment": IMHO Criticism article would have valid points of criticism against Hinduism, but 'anti-Hindu sentiment' is just sentiment, prejudice; which may or may not be valid. I see some distinction between these two articles. -Abhishikt (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

At least, phrases like "anti-Hindu sentiment" and 'Hindu-phobia" are defined in scholarly literature, and have a historical context. "Criticisms" voiced at that page can somehow by limited be sticking to scholarly definitions and descriptions. But "Criticism" is bottomlessly broad... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think keeping this article makes sense only if there are works discussing the criticism of Hinduism that treats all aspects as an organic whole, see also WP:CRITICISM. Right now I'm not seeing much [8] so I would recommend a merge/redirect to Anti-Hindu sentiment. (Note that we have criticism of Christianity and criticism of Islam, but in both cases you find people who label themselves critics of those religions and write books criticizing them or about different critiques). (t · c) buidhe 18:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think it is a big problem to redirect "Criticism of X" article to "anti-X sentiment" just from an epistemological standpoint. Surely, there are criticisms of Hinduism that have nothing to do with anti-Hinduism sentiment. For example, a good number of post-colonial historians criticize the very category of Hinduism as a colonial and inappropriately chauvanistic enterprise. Such criticism can hardly be called "anti-Hindu sentiment" under the terms our article on anti-Hindu sentiment describes it. jps (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Which is to say, if we must merge, merge back to Hinduism and do the proper WP:CFORK. jps (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• A few minutes of google searching shows there are criticism that are made in scholarly sources. But if this article has to be deleted (shouldn't this have happened via an AfD?), it should redirect to Hinduism, not Anti-Hindu sentiment.VR _talk 02:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment -@ජපස: it should be clear that there is no consensus to redirect this page to Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Reverts by

While first restoring the stub diff, against consensus, User:ජපස has now three times changed the redirect from Anti-Hindu sentiment to Hinduism, with the following explanations:

diff:

WP:SILENCE for some months means, perhaps, let's try this.

diff:

Reverted to revision 987989176 by ජපස (talk): See talk.

diff:

Undid revision 988115382 by Joshua Jonathan (talk) The explanation is GIVEN ON THE TALKPAGE AND NO ONE DISAGREED. You had ample time to explain your objections. There also is nothing on "criticism of hinduism" in the redirect page you trying to keep it pointing to (which is a misnomer -- there are criticisms of Hinduism which are not hinduphobic, obviously).

• WP:SILENCE says "Consensus is assumed when there's no evidence of disagreement." It's quite clear, from Talk:Criticism of Hinduism#RfC on Possible Redundancy, that there is no consensus not to redirect this page to Anti-Hindu sentiment.
• "See talk" probably refers to the thread mentioned above; repeat what's stated above. ජපස gave no further explanation at the talkpage.
• The explanation is GIVEN ON THE TALKPAGE AND NO ONE DISAGREED. - no, there is no explanation at the talkpage; and the AHs article contains more substantial info than the CoH-stub, while the Hinduism-page contains no criticism whatsoever.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a ludicrous redirect because criticism of Hinduism happens in other contexts other than anti-Hinduism sentiment. The proper course of action is to include criticism in Hinduism and redirect from there with a proper WP:CFORK as indicated. jps (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for expansion

See also: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 11 § Criticism of Hinduism

A common consensus in the previous comments here seems to be that the article was too short and contained little new information that wasn't already present in the Caste system in India article. Other users also pointed out how other criticisms of Hinduism are easy to look up online (both primary and secondary sources) but had not been presented in the article. I propose that we rewrite the article from ground up to match the tone, neutrality and quality of information available in the Criticisms of Christianity or Criticism of Islam articles. Some of this information will come from both the much larger Caste system article and Women in Hinduism article and should provide a entry point and summary of those. Other criticisms of Hinduism are also made in scholarly work and have been made historically for instance in the speech Annihilation of Caste by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar - the chief architect of the Indian Constitution. Similar criticisms are made by the still active Dalit Buddhist movement. This level of information with sources should parallel the quality of the previously mentioned articles on Islam and Christianity. As per Wikipedia policy WP:CRITS (Philosophy, religion, or politics) it does make sense to continue having such an article for the purpose of providing a one point access to all related topics. PS: I am relatively new and don't really know how we should go about doing this expansion. Should I present an edit as a further extended-protected request? Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Editing to add that upon reviewing old edits of the article I have discovered that massive changes were made to overall content of the article including outright removal of sections without discussion (no Talk exists for those changes). The article did have a summary of some of the topics I have mentioned in my proposal plus some more - and they seem to be different enough from the Anti-Hindu sentiment page to justify the proposal. An example of the previous state of the article that could perhaps address some of the concerns raised by the other editors here related to uniqueness of content and overlap with the Caste system article. [[9]] Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor Ujwal.Xankill3r:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Recent consensus appears to be against anything but a redirect here, so you will need to garner a consensus on the correct talk page, Talk:Hinduism, not here. This page does not seem to be watched by enough editors. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 01:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor Paine Ellsworth: I understand and will try to get involved in building concensus. Regarding the suggestion to do so on the page Talk:Hinduism would that actually be appropriate? Wikipedia guidelines on Criticism WP:CRITS of Philosophy, religion, or politics seem to advise against having a criticism section for those topics within their articles. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor Ujwal.Xankill3r: my understanding was that you want to expand an article under this title, "Criticism of Hinduism"? Since it is a redirect, and this talk page can be expected to receive minimum traffic, it would be best to discuss expanding this redirect into an article on its target page's talk page. That way you can hope for more input from editors who are more knowledgable about the subject. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 05:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I see that the target article has just been changed to Anti-Hindu sentiment, so perhaps it would be better to try to garner consensus at Talk:Anti-Hindu sentiment? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 05:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor Paine Ellsworth: I am a bit wary of taking the discussion over to Anti-Hindu sentiment - especially considering that the redirects seem to be an edit war between two other editors (redirects have changed multiple times over last 24 hours) and the tones of the two articles and topics covered seem to be very different. The main Hinduism article would perhaps be more appropriate but the reason I started out here was that this article actually started out with a lot of content but devolved over time by what appears to be sustained suspicious edits (anonymous, no Talk) to remove the content it used to have. Please see the older version here [[10]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk • contribs) 11 november 2020 (UTC)

To editor Ujwal.Xankill3r: your concerns are noted and understood. So far, my research shows that this page has been prodded, deprodded and then submitted to AfD. Went like this:

• Prodded on 6 July 2006
• Deprodded and AfD'd on 7 July 2006
• AfD resulted in speedy keep on 7 July 2006

I'm still digging, but so far it appears that this page should not have been turned into a redirect without an AfD discussion first. If that is what I find, I will have to restore this article and possibly open another AfD. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 03:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor Paine Ellsworth: thank you. I'll go join the discussion over at the AfD page. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I have before, at Talk:Criticism of Hinduism#What's the use of articles like this?, given a possible way to improve this article. But improvement will be hard, since "Criticism of..." is an open invitation for trolls and warriors to dump any "info" they find appropriate - and which will attract the kind of deleting-editing you mentioned. Unless there is a solid base, grounded in solid sources, to exoand this article, expansion will be useless and fruitless. You'll have to find independent sources which give an explicit overview of criticisms, not criticisms collected by editors. Maybe "On Hinduism", by Wendy Doniger is a start. But wait, do I hear there the agitated breath of Doniger-haters?... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor Joshua Jonathan: I do understand your concern but a threat of trolls should not prevent us from presenting good and useful information about a topic to the public at large. And I do believe that there is a solid base grounded in solid sources to expand this article. I'll make my argument over at the AfD page for this. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Just take care to do a thorough job. Not collect the criticisms you can find yourself, but the criticisms found by reputable scholars. That is, not their own criticisms, but the criticisms of others. Consider also if you should take a topical approach, or a historical approach. That is, present sub-topics such as the caste system, or present the criticisms that existed in various historical times, which will provide more context. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course, will do. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

What's the use of articles like this?

Articles like this seem useless to me; they're an invitation to activily criticising religions, instead of presenting long-standing criticisms.
That being said, Quara, What are some of the worst ever criticisms of Hinduism?, may give a usefull hint: use authors like Rajiv Malhotra as a source, who respond against criticisms. They give clear hints of what those criticisms are. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I do think the caste system, although sanctioned by Hindu tradition, is not a necessary element of Hinduism (even as Hindu scriptures try to explain it in religious terms, as they do with pretty much everything). Historically, it is also much younger. In my view, while there are quite a few things Hinduism is validly criticised for, the article merits a complete rewrite. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe criticism should not be presented topically, but historically/'ethnically'. That is, for example: Islamic, Sikh, British, modernists. What were their criticisms, and why were these criticisms raised? What offended them, what goal did they want to ac omplish by raising them? Some links:

• ""Why I critisize Hinduism the most
• Encyclopdia Britannica, Hinduism and Islam
• The Diplomat, The real history of Muslim-Hindu relations under akbar

That's just some results from a Google-search; they already make clear that listing criticisms only is deceptive. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• The varna system (which is what westerners typically mean by "caste system") is definitely part of Hinduism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Some argue that the varna system is pre-Hinduistic – at least Puruṣa-sūkta may precede Hinduism by a millennium or so. Also, varna was always descriptive, much like social class in Europe; it was jati that was injunctive (mostly in later period, onwards from 13th century or so). But again, as much as the jati tradition was sanctioned by religion, it did not form an essential part of the doctrine (or whatever we can call a doctrine) nor was limited to the Hindus.

It's a tricky subject with plenty of OR going even on the part of academics, and I don't feel very comfortable drawing a simplistic formula "caste ∊ Hinduism". — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Wherever it may have come from (which I don't want to get into), once it has been put into a religious text and people accept it as part of religion, it is part of religion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The last part is doubtful. It is well possible to be a pious Hindu without sharing a belief in the varnas. Heck, I venture to say that the majority of pious Hindus do not know what a varna is. Anyhow, I won't be able to source it, whereas there is plenty of English-language books that call all the various traditions of the Subcontinent "Hindu". So, I will lose on WP anyway. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Two years later, and I still think that the relevant "criticisms" are the historical onez: Islamic, British, Dalit. How did the Muslim-rulers perceive Hindus? How did the British? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC) All the criticisms are included at Anti-Hindu sentiment; better redirect "Criticism of Hinduism" to that article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Including criticisms on a page about prejudice, hate and discrimination against a religion is unreasonable. They are separate subjects and need to be separate articles. It's not a question of saving space; one cannot simply merge two themes and use a name that implies hatred. It's misleading. RonnieSingh (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that the contents of this article can be merged into Caste system in India. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The caste system isn't the only thing within Hinduism that is criticised. There are several past and present issues that are criticised. It's the height of dishonesty to put those criticisms under "Anti-Hindu Sentiment." आज़ादी (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Caste systems exists in other religions too and other religions exist in India too. How can this be merged in caste system in India? Also the caste system isn't the only criticism about hinduism. Why is this even a issue? The redirect is just misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.238.216.127 (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• The Caste system is not specific to Hinduism, it exists in other religions in India too. Why should this be under Criticism of Hinduism?? It's a cultural practice and not a religious one. — Imtushar (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2020

Caste system in India is not specific to Hinduism, it exists in other religions as well. It is a cultural practice and not a religious one. Could you please explain why is it mentioned under criticism of Hinduism? Imtushar (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Please be sure to provide a reliable source.Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Stub restored

Success... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Awesome! I already have a rough sketch for what content should go under the current Social structure header to make it more directly relevant to Hinduism instead of being a generic write-up on caste. I'll put in an edit request over the weekend. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request (Social structure) on 28 November 2020

Replace contents of the section Criticism_of_Hinduism#Social_structure with the following. Current content is a response to the criticisms instead of listing the criticisms themselves. Note that for now I have mostly copied over some of the text (including references) from relevant pages of Wikipedia. I have cross-checked some of the references to ensure that these are valid. It may also make sense to move the current content of the section to a sub-section for Response to Criticisms. Copied content on Ambedkar from Dr. B. R. Ambedkar; see that page's history for attribution. Text on Periyar originally contributed by User:Wiki Raja on 2008 21 November on the page Periyar E. V. Ramasamy.:

The caste system in India has been criticized by various social, religious and political figures such as Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Periyar E. V. Ramasamy and others.

In a conference in late 1927, Ambedkar publicly condemned the classic Hindu text, the Manusmriti (Laws of Manu), for ideologically justifying caste discrimination and "untouchability", and he ceremonially burned copies of the ancient text. On 25 December 1927, he led thousands of followers to burn copies of Manusmriti. Ambedkar's critique of the Hindu social order in The Annihilation of Caste was so strong that Mahatma Gandhi described Ambedkar as a “challenge to Hinduism”.

Periyar explained that the caste system in south India is, due to Indo-Aryan influence, linked with the arrival of Brahmins from the north. Ancient Tamil Nadu (part of Tamilakkam) had a different stratification of society in four or five regions (Tinai), determined by natural surroundings and adequate means of living. Periyar also mentions that birds, animals, and worms, which are considered to be devoid of rationalism do not create castes, or differences of high and low in their own species. But man considered to be a rational being, is suffering from these because of religion. He further explains that amongst dogs you do not have a Brahmin dog, or a Pariah (untouchable) dog. Among donkeys and monkeys we also do not find such things. But, amongst men there is such discrimination.

Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Please see WP:COPYWITHIN. There are rules for copying text form one article to another that are required so that attribution of the contents can be maintained. None of these have been followed here and it is not even clear which articles are supposed to be the sources of the proposed text. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I've added attribution for the copied sections. I also paraphrased the sentence on Ambedkar that I had included from the external source and removed one sentence. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request (See Also section) on 28 November 2020

Add the following articles to See Also section as they are linked to the current article -

• Criticism of Hindutva
• Anti-Brahminism

– Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor Ujwal.Xankill3r:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you :) Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Social structure

I have removed the "Social structure" section, because it was so clearly not about Hinduism but about Indian society; criticism of varna would have a place here and I don't have any opinions about Ujwal.Xankill3r's proposed additions above, but my view on the existing section was that it was not really salvageable, and it would be a negative for the readers if this were kept (since it's just misleading). I know that this leaves the article below stub level, but IMO it would be better to move it to draft space rather than keeping irrelevant content in it, if it can't be expanded relatively soon. Here is content I removed:

Extended content

The caste system in India has frequently been criticised. The caste system in India and Nepal has existed for centuries. It is described as a hierarchical, endogamous and closed system of castes that assigned people different classes in society. Hindu scriptures however state that the caste system is not hierarchical but based on the person's character, knowledge and work. According to Chatterjee, the institutionalization of caste makes Indian society "radically different from the western society." It is also found among Indian Christians, Indian Muslims, Sikhs and others. Systems similar to the Indian caste system can be found in other parts of the world as well, like Songbun of North Korea, and Hukou of China as well as the caste system in Pakistan. Then the British started to classify castes for the purpose of colonial administration. References

--bonadea contributions talk 13:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the previous content was generic and mostly about Indian society at large. That said, is there some way to get more eyeballs on the article and the Edit request? Would it be appropriate for me to cavas on the project pages for instance? Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I will rewrite the section in a way more relevant to Hinduism.

Ibrahim5361 (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan is overly strict

I think most of the text I added would probably qualify to be in this article. Joshua Jonathan keeps removing sections on the basis of "Where is the criticism?". Note that this article has been around for 8 years and that is all that has been added. In order to make this article grow, we need to be less strict, and if you think something is missing you should add to it rather than removing it. Ibrahim5361 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I am glad he is strict. Otherwise, this page would become an axe-griding exercise. To write about Criticism of Hinduism, you need to know about Hinduism first. Perhaps better read the Hinduism article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This addition by you is a classic example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You are making connection between the two claims by using non-scholarly sources which are ultimately unrelated to this subject. As for your earlier edits, other than providing a passing mention of "Hinduism", how your sources[11][12] are actually critical of Hinduism? Wareon (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

If you want to write about criticism of Hinduism, first define what"Hinduism" is, and what is to beincluded as criticism, according to WP:RS. Do not just grapple together some incidental facts; stick to scholaly sources which treat the subject of "criticism". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2021 : Section on Sati

Add a section on the practice of Sati and its criticisms with the following text. Note that this is only a basic starting point for the section and criticisms from other prominent reformers/scholars/activists/ will be needed going forward. Since most of the content is copied over from the main page on Sati the edit will need a comment as per WP:COPYWITHIN.

Copied content from Sati (practice); see that page's history for attribution.

Extended content

Sati was a historical Hindu practice in which a widow sacrifices herself by sitting atop her deceased husband's funeral pyre. Records of sati exist across the subcontinent. However, there seems to have been major differences historically, in different regions, and among communities. Initial statistics on the prevalance of Sati are available in reports from Christian missionaries in the early 19th century. Anand Yang summarizes the regional variation in incidence of sati as follows: ..the practice was never generalized..but was confined to certain areas: in the north,..the Gangetic Valley, Punjab and Rajasthan; in the west, to the southern Konkan region; and in the south, to Madurai and Vijayanagara. Religious reformer Ram Mohan Roy criticized the practice as being completely against the women's right to live in society as a human being. He published arguments against sati and other practices in his work Translation of Several Principal Books, Passages, and Texts of The Veds, and Some Controversial Works of Brahmunical Theology. Opposition to the practice of sati by reformers ultimately led the British Governor-General of India Lord William Bentinck to enact the Bengal Sati Regulation, 1829, declaring the practice of burning or burying alive of Hindu widows to be punishable by the criminal courts. Isolated incidents of sati were recorded in India in the late 20th century, leading the Indian government to promulgate the Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987, criminalising the aiding or glorifying of sati. References

Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I am ok to add a section on Sati, but a better connection with Hinduism needs to be made. Where in Hinduism is Sati stated to be a Hindu practice, and how many Hindus and which Hindus practised it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Updated to answer the question of how many and which hindus. As part of the answer I have wikilinked to the relevant section on the main page which would give the reader a more in depth idea. Also added a citation for the first statement on it being a historical Hindu practice which alongside the wikilink to main article should be sufficient to establish its link with Hinduism. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

What was the background of Ram Mohan Roy's opposition? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The background is mostly this bit from the main Sati page under Principal reformers and 1829 ban - In 1812, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, founder of Brahmo Samaj, began to champion the cause of banning sati practice. He was motivated by the experience of seeing his own sister-in-law being forced to commit sati. Should I add this statement to the edit request? Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There's more to it, I think. For what I know about it, Hindu reformers/modernists weere influenced by western (progressive) thought, a x grjed to catch-up with western dominance by emating western thought, fitting it i to their own cultural mold. Helpfull, of course, for the British rulers, who rejected sati. So, how did this interplay work out?

As I wrote before, we can structure this article thematically - caste, sati, etcetera. But that's the level of a high school paper. Or we can structure it chronologically. In that case, we first define what "Hinduism" is: a synthesis of Brahmanical religious-political-societal norms and practices, and a host of local practices and beliefs. Caste and sati come from this Brahmanical thought; opposition against it is as old as the start of it's expanding influence; see the Buddha. Poly-theism comes from this multitude of local practices; opposition against it has to be situated in the context of Middle Eastern religious thought, the prevalence of monotheism, a d tbe interwovenness of political and religious thought. And the 'criticism' of urine-drinking is the 'clash' between pre-modern anx modern thought, which is a worldwide phenomenon.

Relevant 'stops' on the route, after defining Hinduism, are bhakti and the ideal of an egalitarian society; Muslim rule; colonialism and modernism; and present-day nationalism and modernism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the need of having a historical and sequential flow to the article as well. Perhaps we should do both like the article Criticism of Islam? This kind of structure is also present in articles like Caste in India and can provide a reader with both the historical perspective and thematic perspective. In fact as far as I can tell even the Criticism of Christianity article is presented like that but it's not evident looking at the article itself. Most of it is actually summaries of other articles which are all ordered like the CoI article. They have a history section up front which gives historical context and then thematic content. See Textual criticism and Biblical criticism. That said may I request that you add the Sati section as a subsection of a new section on Criticism of Practices and create an empty History section at the top under definitions? We can then expand those to hopefully bring this article more in line with the ones on other religions. It might also make sense to move the current section Caste system under the new one on Practices. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It will be great if JJ can work on an article of the kind he describes. (A lot of work, but plenty of encouragement from me!) On the matter of Sati though, I still feel that it is sensationalist. We can't possibly ignore the maltreatment of widows, which is pretty much universal throughout Hinduism, and focus on just isolated instances of sati to grab "headlines". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we need to also include the overall maltreatment of widows along with Sati. Maybe Sati can be a subsection of it? So ultimately this portion of the article might have this kind of a structure: Practices -> Maltreatment of Widows -> Sati. Sati need not be named as a separate section necessarily and can just be part of the maltreatment of widows section. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

JJ: The Sanskrit professor Witzel of Harvard University published his "Sati" studies and analysis of Vedic literature in 1996 (Journal of South Asia), concluded that there was no Sati in the Vedic period (~ pre-800 BCE). The Yale professor Brick published another Sati-focused paper in Journal of the American Oriental Society in 2010. Brick shows that there is no mention or evidence of Sati (or equivalent such as Sahagamana) in post-Vedic period in Dharmasutras and all the way to the Dharmasastras (~ pre-500 CE). The earliest discussions in Brahmanical literature appears around 10th to 12th-century CE, per Brick (early Indian manuscripts are generally difficult to date exactly). This is the period when major Islamic raids and slave-taking began in the northwest and west Indian subcontinent, but there is no persuasive evidence that these raids and invasions were linked to these Sanskrit debate on "right or wrong" on Sati. FWIW.

It is good that you and others will try to review and improve this article. But I suggest you all to keep the following in mind, as we do with other "criticism of ..." articles, if quality scholarly article is what you all seek rather than OR-filled bashing/misinformation:

1. Hindu =/= Hinduism, avoid making that jump, see good comments by K3 in the Talk:Hindu article and other articles over time (archive?); there are parallels to this in every major religion and those born into that religion (for example, Sikhs practiced Sati and the wives/lovers of the last Sikh emperor Ranjit Singh for example committed Sati, yet Sati is not sanctioned by Sikhism, see).
2. Avoid WP:SYNTHESIS; the criticism should be discussed in mainstream peer-reviewed scholarly sources and we should summarize those discussions, no "synth" of sources to manufacture criticism that those scholars do not state (avoid linking Buddha here, beyond all his brilliant spiritual discussions, Buddha was not a social reformer and in his time, Sati was not sanctioned or even mentioned/implied by any Brahmanical or in any literature, see Witzel/Brick)
3. The RS used in this article should have a substantial criticism-filled discussion of Sati (or whatever topic) in the context of "Hinduism", and should not be a passing comment or remark

I am certain this article with improve with K3 and you and others attending to it. Cheers and keep safe and well in these unusual pandemic times, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. As the back and forth below clearly demonstrates, this has the potential to be a non-routine change. This should therefore become a separate talk page discussion as this is outside the scope of an edit request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2021

I request to add a section "scripture" following this lines, Many analysts of Hinduism claim that Hinduism embraces elements of all contemporary religions, therefore scriptures such as the Vedas (espacially Rigveda) and Puranas of Hinduism contain elements of Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, and have adopted significant amounts of Greek religion and Avesta of Zoroastrianism; for example: Asura from Ahura, Deva from Daeva, monotheism, Varuna, Vishnu and Garuda from Ahura Mazda, Agni from fire temple, heavenly juice called Soma from the drink called Haoma, Devasur's battle from the war of words of contemporary Indians and Persians, Arya from Ariya, Mitra from Mithra, Bṛhaspati from Dyáuṣ Pitṛ́ or Dyēus and Zeus, Yajna from Yasna, Ṛta from Asha, from Nariyasangha to Narasangsa, Indra, from Gandareva to Gandharva, Vajra, Vayu, Angiras from Ahriman, Mantra, Shambhala, Kalki, Maitreya, Yam, Yaksha, Rakshasa, Rudra from Sarva, Nasatya from Nanghaithya, Ahuti, Humata to Sumati etc. Bhavishya Purana and Allopanishad are two of these examples. 116.58.201.237 (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. I don't see any criticism here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It is criticism because critics claim by showing these that, hinduism is not any actual divine religion rather than a man-made religion. I always see that, most of the Indian and Hindu users in English wikipedia are too much political rather than neutral. I saw it before many times, and again saying that because, few seconds before I checked the revision history of this article and identified what changes have been done removing many notable contents technically. You all are just giving a lame political guard to this article. By the way, with this topic, a new article can be made, Draft:Hindu-Zoroastrian relations. 116.58.201.20 (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ujwal.Xankill3r and Ms Sarah Welch: 103.134.25.90 (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

References

In previous three days, I have found a lot of principal words of hindu scriptures which are directly derived from Zoroastrianism, I have been reading vedas for previous two years, and now it seems nearly obvious to me that hindu scriptures have no basic root, it has owed all the elements from other religions and mythology, and a lot mostly from Zoroastrianism, so along with Buddhism and Jainism as second/third source, Zoroastrianism can be said as the first root source of Hindu scriptures, thus making the draft above makes sense. 103.134.25.90 (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Krishna Dvaipayana was born in 400 BC, when Cyrus the Great was the king of Iran, who was at time a Zoroastrian, at which time Dvaipayana may have gone there and stolen these, perhaps he had direct contact with Emperor Cyrus. Sorry, then the king of Persia was Artaxerxes II or Darius II or Artaxerxes III, and they all are Zoroastrians. 103.134.25.90 (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not criticism. You are also wrong. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Your proposed edits are your own original research. This is not allowed, see WP:OR. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Notes

• Before expanding the early opposition section, please read The Snake and the Mongoose: The Emergence of Identity in Early Indian Religion, Nathan McGovern, Oxford University Press, January 2019. Much nuance need to be introduced. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Given the abysmal lack of content in this article, addition of a basic minimum of information should be the top priority.

At this point in time, this article paints an incredibly misleading picture by how there apparently are no criticism of hinduism. This is obviously not true, as any form of (non-)belief draws criticism from plenty of angles (whether smeared of justified). Now from what I gather (and what I assumed when I stumbled onto this article), there appear to be some overly-zealous agents engaging in disruptive editing with various more or less valid justifications, but an empty article isn't a solution for anyone. While discussion should obviously continue, and will I welcome anyone who does a deep-dive into some aspect, there needs to be a basic minimum of information of this page ASAP. This partially extends what @C1MM touched in the thread above and tries to give a more manageable and concrete prospect.

NOTE: Any kind of frustration perceived in this message is solely based on the non-informative (or`stub`) nature of the article at the time I'm writing this. It should under no circumstances be understood as any kind of hostility towards any of the beliefs mentioned in this message or towards their followers

This article isn't about faults of Hinduism, is about criticism of Hinduism. Entries on this page don't need to be absolute truths applying to every follower ever, they just need to be criticisms. Entries can even talk about noteworthy misconceptions as long as they don't whitewash or deny any valid criticisms. I mean the article Criticism of Buddhism even includes mentions of violent acts committed or inspired by followers of Buddhism. Is anyone trying to convince people there are no instances (or even allegations) of violence inspired by Hinduism?

Furthermore how about politically motivated criticism? There must have been genuine, indisputable smearing of leaders or of the belief as a whole. And I'm not talking about slight exaggeration or valid criticisms that were denied as politically motivated slander. For example the article Criticism of the Baháʼí Faith mentions the accusations of subsequent Iranian administrations that claimed Baháʼís where agents or spies of Russia, Britain, the Shah, the United States, and even as agents of the zionist agenda.

Leaving the possibility of any controversy whatsoever behind, I'm sure there are plenty theological criticisms. I'm sure there countless resources about Christians leveling criticisms against spiritual (especially the polytheistic) views in Hinduism How could there possibly be any controversy there that would barr it from being included here? But we don't even have to look as far, because I'm sure the other two major Brahmic religions have plenty of dogmatic differences as they don't have the Vedic influence present in Hinduism. The article Criticism of Jainism for example has a large paragraph about the Jain interpretation of Karma as challenged by the Vedanta and Sāṃkhya branches of Hindu philosophy.

In conclusion, instead of attempting to prospect some monolithic section about some controversial topic that not make it into the article for some reason after all, the priority should be to just create a basic collection of various criticisms (including fabricated once, as long as they are presented as such). This massively reduces initial workload, will create an article that's at least somewhat useful and it can always be refined at a later point. A collection of basic entries is also much less economical to vandalize, as the effort to do so becomes close to equal to the effort of adding an entry. A nice consequence of that would also be how a bare minimum article will be much more likely to motivate a serious contributor than this `stub` article.

As a final note not related to the rest of this message: Gandhi has at times made criticism of other belief systems and attempts to explain the difference in hinduism and what the reason for this difference is. It would be a fascinating cultural-analysis project to look for and reason about times he failed to adequately reflect on hinduism in his comparisons SkSlick (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)