Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I would be really thankfull if you give a second view of the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of intorduction. These are the typicall western@ media's stereotypical lines and would really promote of the rewritting of the article by an INDIAN or atleast of INDIAN ORIGIN.
Thank you
Regards Yamantakks (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Dear I also wrote the same on your talk page and i am writting here but i want to add something, there may be many people on wikipedia and yes they have different views but on the basis of such an abstract fact you can't justify for the 2nd Paragraph as it misleads the reader by first telling extrememly megative things about it and saying that some believe that. I would be really happy if you unrevertef my changes. Yamantakks (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sometimes "megative things" are just simple matters of fact. Wikipedia appeals to general consensus. You might feel differently, but Wikipedia is not an ideological battleground. It's an encyclopedia. The article about Hindutva is unkind because, to quote Dan Olson, "the facts are just, prima facia, unkind". Hindutva is a fascist ideology, which means it supports things the average world citizen would likely find upsetting. Documenting these things as they are - abhorrent - is not ideological per se, it's standard procedure postWorld War II. Racial mob violence and concepts of ethnic purity/homeland are things anyone with knowledge of political history can recognize as part of a violent, far-right ideology.
There's precious little space for debate when we are dealing with definitions as given.
Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This article is partisan because of selective sourcing, despite the NPOV policy. For example, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, the leading ideologue of modern Hindutva [1] and the inspiration for Modi, is nowhere mentioned. Statements by current RSS leadership that expand Hindutva to include anyone living in India[2] are ignored. Secondary sources related to these statements are available, but ignored. All relevant sides must be presented to justify the NPOV label.
A section called "dissenting views" or "rebuttals to fascism", or similar wording should be added, unless the partisanship is deliberate. I can submit draft content if this is approved. Sooku (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Sooku There are multiple sources given in the article. Just because you do not like them, doesn't mean it's partisanal in nature. Which sources or opinions provided here are "partisanal" to you?
NPOV is not violated just because undue weight is not given to Hindutva politician's views. It's well established procedure to not include overtly biased opinions in WP articles, especially in the main sections.
There is Systemic bias in Wikipedia, especially Western (Global North) and Left-Liberal bias. A prima facie investigation on the authors of the secondary and primary sources in this article confirms such biases, especially the western bias. @Sooku may have misinterpretated such biases with the non-applicability of the NPOV policy, which in itself is mostly followed but a systemic study will show the policy itself favors the biases involved just like most other policies. This contention shouldn't be ignored nor their views be dismissed based on personal assumptions about the user.
Hindutva is a very India based topic and it's sad to see that Indian based secondary or primary sources are not present in an adequate quantity. Hopefully the situation will improve. SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not so sure others will agree. I've reverted the move. The concise "Hindutva" is commonly used by reliable sources, and it generally refers unambiguously to this topic. The article does briefly discuss a historical alternate usage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree, to the sources but title should definitely be changed because Hindutva refers to religion not just politics, and the whole article is about Hindtuva Politics I suggest there needs to be discussion. Because I came to this article via search on google so I’m felt quiet miss directed. Why not have discussion? EntrepreneurPedia (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the Tertiary sources sub-section of the Definition section, there is a sentence which reads, Modern politicians have attempted to play down the racial and anti-Muslim aspects of Hindutva, stressing the inclusiveness of the Indian identity; but the term has Fascist undertones." but the source used doesn't say anything like that, so please remove the sentence. 2406:7400:90:5E60:35D4:1004:3EF1:2E8D (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not done I've confirmed that this exact quote appears in the source. Note that the neutral point of view policy requires specifically that the information in sources should be described neutrally. If most academic sources say that there are racist or violent elements to Hindutva, then there's not much Wikipedia can do about until the academic consensus changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
In the second revert, Vanamonde has removed the bit of text, "integrating it with the rest of the country" but the source cited was already saying that.-QueSera1 (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
In the third revert, Vanamonde has removed the bit of text, "as excavations proved that a temple existed there previously" but the source cited was already saying that.-QueSera1 (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do agree that first edit in this matter was done by me. There are enough sources that mention about the opinion of the Indian Supreme Court related to the definition of Hindutva. I felt that the lede of the article may misguide any neutral reader who is unaware of history of modern India and its politics gets misled by the notion that Hindutva is some fascist agenda. It is important to mention the opinion of the Supreme Court of India on this matter. Perhaps we may discuss on this to achieve WP:CONSENSUS. Vanamonde93 is a senior editor and I am of opinion that it is good heed that person's advice in this matter while achieving consensus. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please read WP:ONUS, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CANVAS. You need to demonstrated that the content you added is verifiable, and you need to obtain consensus for its inclusion, without calling specific editors here because you know they will support you. The sourcing you provided is not good enough. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
In your third revert, you have removed the bit of text, "as excavations proved that a temple existed there previously" but the source cited was already saying that.-QueSera1 (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is not enough for a single source to say something; for us to present an assertion as fact, it needs to reflect the preponderance of reliable sources. High-quality sources do not uniformly support either of your claims. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not done I've confirmed that this exact quote appears in the source. Note that the neutral point of view policy requires specifically that the information in sources should be described neutrally. If most academic sources say that there are racist or violent elements to Hindutva, then there's not much Wikipedia can do about until the academic consensus changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)