Talk:Anti-Hindu sentiment

Addition of updates

I would like to request the moderators to add this additional info into the 'Definition' section

In 2024, the Hindu Council UK in collaboration with various other organizations which included the Chinmaya Mission, ISKCON, Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh & Vishwa Hindu Parishad among others, released a document called The Hindu Manifesto ahead of the upcoming elections which among many things, formally defined Hinduphobia. The document states

1. Hinduphobia is a set of antagonistic, destructive and derogatory attitudes and behaviors towards Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) and Hindus that may manifest as prejudice, fear or hatred.
2. Hinduphobic rhetoric reduces the entirely of Sanatana Dharma to a rigid, oppressive and regressive tradition. Prosocial and reflexive aspects of Hindu traditions are ignored or attributed to outside, non-Hindu influences.
3. This discourse actively erases and denies the persecution of Hindus while disproportionately painting Hindus as violent. These stereotypes are used to justify the dissolution, external reformation and demonization of the range of indigenous Indic knowledge traditions known as Sanatana Dharma

It describes manifestationns of Hinduphobia to range from microaggressions to calls for genocide, which is manifested as

1. Calling for, abetting or normaliaing the harming or killing of Hindus as a result of an extremist and illiberal view of (Hindu) religion and history.
2. Accusing those who organise around or speak (out) about anti-Hindu hate (or similar definitions, including persecution of Hindus) of bing agents, or pawns of violent, political agendas.
3. Making unsubstantiated claims about the political agendas of people who are simply practicing Hinduism
4. Claiming that Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma doesn't exist as a valid, cohesive category of spiritual traditions.
5. Outright denying or accusing Hindus or any people of inventing or exaggerating the persecution of Hindus, including genocide.
6. Maintaining that all inequality in Indian society, including but not limited to sati, caste, misogyny, communal violence and destruction of places of worship - stem from and are "inextricably bound up with" Hinduism
7. Conflating diasporic Hindu indentity with Indian citizenship, ethnicity and patriotism.
8. Erasure of colonisation, including but not limited to, calling Hindus, "the white people of South Asia".

It also describes institutionalised anti-Hindu sentiment being manifested in the form of

1. Anti-Indian sentiment
2. Lack of action and indifference of government bodies towards providing security and preventing attacks on Hindu temples.
3. Promotion of Orientalist or negative caricatures of Hinduism in school curriculum.
4. Indifference or hostility towards circulation of Hindu religious material composed in native languages
5. Discrimation against Hindu candidates in public institutions and political parties.
6. Delayed visa processing for Hindu preachers
7. Opposition to external manifestation of Hindu identity through religious symbols like the tilak and bindi and traditional clothing like the dhoti and saree
8. Implementing legislation affecting the Hindu community without consulting them.

The Coalition of Hindus of North America, a US based Hindu advocacy body defines Hinduphobia as

...historic colonial depictions of Hindus as bizarre and savage; acts of violence and bigotry towards Hindus or those who are perceived as Hindus; academic publications and commentaries that portray Hinduism, Hindu texts and Hindu society as inherently oppressive and regressive in the name of “academic freedom”; policies and laws that single out Hinduism and Hindus in the name of equality and social justice; characterization of popular Hindu festivals such as Diwali, Holi, and Navratri as oppressive and violent; characterization of Hindus as job stealers and a threat to the fabric of United States and Canada.

In addition to this, I would also request for the following data to be added in the section titled "United States"

According to Stephen Prothero, the first documented case of Hinduphobia in the US was the case surrounding the will of Mrs Sara Chapman Bull. Bull, who was a close follower of Swami Vivekananda, had bequeathed mkst of her estate (valued at around half a million US$) in Cambridge, Massachusetts to the Vedanta Society in her last will issued on 1911. This was challenged by Bull's daughter Olea Bull Vaughan, who claimed that her mother was 'mentally incompetent" while signing the will. Vaughan's attorney Sherman Whipple, argued that Bull had been driven insane by what he described to be a 'psychic conspiracy' involving 'drugs, oriental concoctions, thought viands, breathing drills, wish-waves, malignant vibrations, incense, incantations and orgies.' The case attracted considerable sensationalist and negative coverage of Hinduism in the contemporary American press, with the Boston Herald decrying Hinduism as 'public prostitution, idol worship, antisocial ascetics, child brides and the caste system.'

These additions can also been included in the section titled See Also Bhagavad Gita As It Is trial California textbook controversy over Hindu history 2022 Leicester unrest

~2026-14912-76 (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Could you please shorten and reformat it?
Regards, M.A.A 15:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-14912-76@Mufti Abrar AzizI think that the content is worth considering. We must also consider Lavanya Vemsani (2022) paper which I recently added to the article.

Thanks IND123456 (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Vemsani (2022) paper

@IND123456: I revised the citations to combine them and add the link to the paper, and also moved it out of the lead. I also marked the Vemsani citation as 'Better source needed'.

After reading the paper, I have to say that we should consider it dubious. The entire paper reads less like a secondary source and more like an opinion piece. The author's claims about many topics related to caste and Hindutva do not cite sources, and appear to be the author's own opinion, scholarly or not. For example, she discusses a misinterpretation of the Panchatantra made by another scholar (Hatcher 2006), but the section following this is her own opinion, without any discussion of existing literature. Indeed, most of her discussion on Hindutva is her own experience, without any discussion of other scholarly literature backing up her claim of a broader pattern save for citing a paper from 1950 on Joseph Goebbels to claim that the words of an Indian opposition party are similar to the style of Nazi propaganda. More egregiously, the Hatcher source does not appear in her bibliography at all. A search reveals a real Indologist named Brian Hatcher, but it doesn't look like he published anything in 2006 other than a review of a translated copy of Anandamath, or the Sacred Brotherhood by Bankimcandra Chatterji. I could not verify any other source/author matching that citation.

I also cannot verify the reputability of the International Review of Modern Sociology, nor whether it is peer-reviewed or not. It appears Scopus stopped publishing this journal in 2020 due to publication concerns.

While I won't question the author's lived experience, per WP:PRIMARYUSE I think it is clear that this paper should be considered a WP:PRIMARY source. We should consider removing it from the article, or finding a better source. H2so4aq (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@H2so4aq: It is possible that the source may be dubious or even forged. Give me some time to study it in its entirety as Prof. Vemsani is a serious scholar afterall. I will go through the claims of the paper and it's sources, or find a possibly better document of the paper. Let me check about the publisher journal as well. I will let you know the results within 5 days. We can discuss and take action accordingly. I will surely have to appreciate your objective approach to the paper and argument it makes. Many editors don't take such pains, rather just prefer to revert the edit. Thanks for your efforts. IND123456 (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Her expertise is in history of Hinduism. Not sociology of any kind. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@H2so4aq: As per my search, The International Review Of Modern Sociology is a peer-reviewed semi annual publication by Serial Publications. I will update you regarding the paper's credibility. For @Kautilya3: I don't think that matters much, as it is, many scholars have worked outside their degree of Ph. D. subject. That is totally fine. Your contributions regarding the paper are surely welcome. IND123456 (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@IND123456: I appreciate you looking into this paper in detail. I saw the IRMS was published by Serials Publications, but I seem to have missed that their website says it is peer-reviewed! Let me explain my concerns with this journal further:

1. Scopus, a well-regarded database of journal publications, has dropped the IRMS from its database for 'publication concerns' as seen in the table here. Scopus defines publication concerns as including but not limited to issues with journal ethics/integrity.
2. The fact that this database already dropped the journal for concerns about their publication practices casts serious doubt on its reliability.
3. This website lists Serials Publications, Ltd under its list of predatory publishers. A predatory publisher being a journal publisher that has low acceptance criteria and poor editorial oversight. The fact that journal papers have strong peer-review and editorial oversight is the main reason why we trust them as sources.
4. The fact that the paper is missing an entire citation seems like a big red flag. In my own experience, checking that the citations on a manuscript appear in the bibliography properly is one of the most basic tasks for a journal editor.

Taken together, I have serious concerns about this journal's integrity and oversight and therefore the use of the article. Per WP:NOTRS, papers from predatory journals should be considered highly suspect. Further, Wikipedia is supposed to reflect academic/scholarly consensus. If Prof. Vemsani's opinion here is reflective of academic consensus, we should be able to find a better source, preferably a secondary one. Let me know your thoughts. H2so4aq (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I had concerns as well as jstor has the journal up until 2020 but then doesnt keep anything past that.

there is something strange here perhaps, but not sure. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:46, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@H2so4aq, @Bluethricecreamman: Will let you know my thoughts soon. IND123456 (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Fwiw extraordinary accusations require extraordinary proof so not sure a well established journal may be easily dismissed without clear proof User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 12:20, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@H2so4aq@Bluethricecreamman: I think I can give my opinion now. I think that we must not take the paper for granted, but also not dismiss it in totality. We must also not take it as a sole authority. We can only a few (2/3-4)lines to it I guess. Please express your take on this. IND123456 (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that we must not take it as a sole authority. Even if we assume it's a WP:RS, I think we can probably find more comprehensive sources discussing similar viewpoints that would better fit an encyclopedia.

I think the most reasonable course of action is to pare down the text in the article so as to not lend undue weight (as you suggested), and keep the Better Source Needed tag. In the meantime, let's search the literature for secondary sources, such as review papers about this topic. Those would be better suited for the article. H2so4aq (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, will carry out some preliminary action soon. IND123456 (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Only statements made with clear evidence can be covered, not random opinions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @H2so4aq thanks for sharing this talk page conversation with me. Since the sentence clearly says "according to" the author, I don't think a better source is needed. If your issue is with her writing style then the issue is with the field(s) of which she is a part; this humanities scholar is not a journalist. But in any case, upon closer consideration it is clear that this sentence should be moved or deleted entirely. That sentence does not actually explain the rest of the contents of that section. Hindutva is not the topic of this article, but still it is discussed in the "Criticism" section, so at the very least the sentence should be moved there. Hemmingweigh (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hemmingweigh Could you please quote the exact lines you concern and also suggest the exact changes. I have made the lines as a general overview, you may point out at the exact content relevant here from the paper itself. IND123456 (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @IND123456, I was suggesting this line be deleted from the article since it is not germane to the topic of the article: "According to Indian Historian Lavanya Vemsani, the political ideology of Hindutva is often superimposed onto the religion, and seen as a hostile belief. " I am not commenting on the paper, the author, or the journal that published the article. Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

My issue isn't her writing style, my issues are that the article appears to mostly be a WP:PRIMARY source rather than a WP:SECONDARY one, and that I have serious doubts about the journal in which it's published, which appears to be a predatory journal. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should at best be treated similarly to self-published sources.

You are right that it should be either deleted or moved elsewhere in the section. For a section overview, we should be using a review article or a collection of multiple sources, not a single paper. H2so4aq (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objection to me deleting this sentence? Hemmingweigh (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hemmingweigh I do not have any objection as such to its removal, but still I will not recommend that the paper be totally trashed out of the article, at least at this moment in time, though it may come from a doubtful journal. The author is though a trained academic. The paper may be utilised elsewhere in the article, though as a opinion source. IND123456 (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I took out the sentence as per consensus here. I agree the paper is dubious. I think we should remove it from the article. Shahinshah121 (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Recent updates

User:Lyod Sulla asked me to explain some recent edits. The edits were to update the article and comply with WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. I made the following changes:

• I moved some specific information in the lead to the appropriate sections. This included quotes.
• I adjusted the language as per WP:NPOV
• I added a sentence to the lead that more accurately represented the article's content. Lead needs to summarize the key points of the article.
• I added a few references that are WP:RS. These were largely more recent.
• I broke down the criticism section for reading ease.
• I deleted a single sentence, because it was vague and not cited (about Muslims generally).

There are areas for further improvement. Such as,

• The Pat Robertson's section is messy and need to be reorganized.
• The article language is sometimes not WP:NPOV
• There is more scholarship and journalism to be integrated in the criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahinshah121 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, some references on the page are failed verification. I have begun tagging them. Shahinshah121 (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I am continuing to edit this page. I am especially giving attention to WP:BALANCE, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and basic updating. Shahinshah121 (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Your edits are pre-dominantly nationalistic pov where you're literally questioning Hinduphobia's existence and weaponization in the lead para.

You're calling neutral edits which explain Hinduphobia and its weaponization in some cases "WP:NPOV" and turning around and calling your edit questioning Hinduphobia's existence itself "neutral".

That doesn't account to wikipedia's neutral view, just as we see in line with Islamophobia, Anti-Christian sentiment, Antisemitism and Anti-Sikh sentiment.

Weaponisation of a phobia of a religion by that religion's extremists in some cases, needs to be addressed in a para further in the article, as is the case in all of the articles I've mentioned.

Also you did NOT get talk page consensus to restore your edits but you did it anyways.

I have reverted your edits back, do not tamper with the lead or all the other articles would need to be edited.

Lyod Sulla (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2026 (UTC) —  Blocked sockpuppet.

Shahinshah121, you can't make a series of contentious edits and then edit war over them. Your best bet is to raise the supposed NPOV issues here, and obtain WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not think that correctly describes my edits. I will gain consensus here for substantive edits. I am reinstating failed verification tags. those should not be removed. Shahinshah121 (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Why do we need to mention that a discriminatory sentiment does not exist in a territory where it is in the majority? That should be obvious to not deserve a mention of it at all. Cf. the recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamophobia in Bangladesh. Neither is this done for any other anti-religious sentiments (as mentioned above).

Attempts by the Hindu nationalist-brigade to weaponize this shouldn't affect us. As don't the weaponizations of antisemitism by ultra Zionists in Israel or anti-Christian sentiment by the Christian nationalists in the U.S. (cf. the foreign policy of Trump's second admin) or of Islamophobia by Muslim nationalists in Bangladesh.

First we need to flesh out the weaponization in the body through academic sources (see source criticism below), only then can any inclusion in the lead be vetted. Though precedent tells us that it would still likely be undue. Gotitbro (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Further note, the claim that anti-Hindu sentiment doesn't exist in the US (where it is in the minority) is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL one and would require an WP:Academic consensus or something close to it for it to even be considered.

Do note that most of the criticism from certain US academics mostly focuses on the "-phobia" terminology not the existence of the phenomenon itself (see previous RM discussions). Gotitbro (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

It's very far from a neutral point of view. A lot of opinions stated as facts. Mevsherd (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Lyod Sulla: I understand that you have are reverting Shahinshah121's edits, and are discussing them above. But what you have not explained is why your revert also deleted the paragraph about pajeets.^{Comparison of the article after Lyod Sulla's reverts with the article before Shahinshah121's edits} Please either (a) explain why you deleted it, or (b) reinstate it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Kautilya3 has restored the paragraph about pajeets. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on lead edits

This article has many problems. Some are protecting it and so I seek consensus here for edits.

• lead issues:
  • says "Hindus have historically been, and continue to be, considered Kafirs (disbelievers) by some Muslims." Cited source does not support and says "Certainly, it would not be in keeping with the true qur'anic spirit to denounce the Hindus as kafirun as has been done frequently by some sectarian Muslims. It was never the unanimous view of the 'ulama' to reject Hindus as kafirun."
  • says "Hindus have historically been, and continue to be, considered... Heathen, Satanic or Demonic by some Christians." Cited source does not support this general claim and covers years 1721-1893 and only in United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahinshah121 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
  • has paragraph: "According to the religious dialogue activist P. N. Benjamin, some Christian evangelists dislike the concept of Hindu gods and consider Hindu rituals barbaric, and such attitudes have caused tensions between religious communities." Too specific for lead. Benjamin does not have a Wikipedia page.
  • lead says nothing about criticism. It needs to do this to summarize article.
  • language of "observed" fails WP:NPOV.

To address I suggest rewrite of lead:

Anti-Hindu sentiment, also referred to as Hinduphobia, is the irrational fear, hostility, or negative perceptions directed toward practitioners of Hinduism or the religion itself. It has been alleged in various contexts across multiple countries, often arising from historical conflicts and sociopolitical factors. The concept remains controversial in some usages, especially in the United States and India where critics allege it is used to silence criticism of Hindu nationalism.

Shahinshah121 (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Shahinshah121

I oppose this section in lead as it questions the very existence of Hinduphobia. Instead it needs to be added in the criticism section.

The Islamophobia page does NOT mention the weaponization of Islamophobia by Islamic extremists in the opening para of the lead and when it does mention it, it's shut down by citing contradictory academic opinion.

The Antisemitism page does NOT mention the weaponization of Antisemitism by Zionist Jewish extremists in the opening para of the lead, instead it's mentioned further way down in the article.

The Anti-Christian sentiment does NOT mention the weaponization of Anti-Christian sentiment by Evangelical extremists in the opening para of the lead, in fact it's not mentioned in the article at all.

So, in order of all these pages, I firmly oppose inclusion of criticisms of the very existence of Hinduphobia because of its weaponization, in the lead.

Lyod Sulla (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC) —  Blocked sockpuppet.

It is all a question of WP:NPOV. (1) We do not mention expression of doubt in the lead of climate change theory, because doubt in that theory is regarded a fringe belief. (2) But doubt in the validity of critical race theory is mentioned briefly in the lead of that article, because doubt is not fringe. (3) The leads of Phlogiston theory and the International Jewish conspiracy say that the respective theories are wrong, because that is the generally accepted viewpoint, and the idea that either are correct is now regarded as fringe. In articles we try to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The lead tries to summarise the most significant points in the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Observed

Shahinshah121, you said that you wanted to replace "observed" with "alleged" in the following sentence in the lead: It has been observed in various contexts across multiple countries, often arising from historical conflicts and sociopolitical factors.. You tried to justify this on grounds of WP:NPOV. There is a bit of WP:NPOV that is relevant to this: WP:OPINION, which talks about the need to "avoid stating opinions as facts". You have got a point, but "alleged" is worse than "observed" because it expresses doubt (see MOS:ALLEGED).-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

point accepted on alleged. I thought to change "observed" because it "can imply objectivity or truthfulness" (WP:EXPLAIN). I suggest "It has been seen..." Shahinshah121 (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't buy any of these concerns or edits. This page suffers from the fact that a separe page on Hinduphobia has been merged into it, and people keep giving it undue weight. So occasional clean-up is necessary.

• The Kafir mention is verified by the clause to denounce the Hindus as kafirun as has been done frequently by some sectarian Muslims. It is not politically correct any more, but there are plenty of conveying the same meaning, e.g. ‘we are different from the Hindus in every possible aspect of life’, by General Asim Munir days before the Pahalgam attack, which was conducted along religious lines.
• The same applies to the "heathen" term as well. Why do the westerners go on banging about the caste system, while knowing fully well that hierarchies exist in practically every society? It is a way of putting down an alien religion that they dislike. Audrey Truschke even commented that people marrying within their caste, a normal practice among Hindus, as "caste discrimination" (though not in print)
• P. N. Benjamin can be removed from the lead; that doesn't bother me.
• But on the bigger point, the supposed critcisms are only about the term "Hinduphobia". I have no idea why these scholars dislike the term. But apparently they are trying to grade hate. Unless you reach the level of the hate that the Muslims/Islam have faced, you can't use the term "phobia". So, well, that is their opinion. Where is the criticism there? Has there any real analysis happened about the instance of phobia that have been cited, for example by Vamsee Juluri? All that I see is an effort to discredit him by calling him "right-wing" or whatever. So what if he is right-wing? Criticisms have to be directed at the theory, not at the theorist. That is hardly scholarly.

So in my view, nothing from the criticism section is yet ready for the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

a lot of this response seems not relevant. I suggest this sentence to accommodate for legitimate points of @Kautilya3: "The concept remains controversial, especially the term "Hinduphobia" in the United States and India, where critics allege it is used to silence criticism of Hindu nationalism. Shahinshah121 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I am afraid it is relevant. If you keep dismissing discussions like this, especially in heavily contentious topics, you will end up at WP:ARE. Your revised sentence is equally dubious. At the moment you are running up against three editors. I suggest you either quit or start an RfC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Why do the westerners go on banging about the caste system, while knowing fully well that hierarchies exist in practically every society? - This is your opinion, Kautilya3, and I fail to see the relevance to your point about the "heathen" term.

With that said, I agree that the revised sentence is still dubious. None of the sources found so far consider "anti-Hindu sentiment", as a concept, controversial. @Shahinshah121, per WP:LEAD the lead section should summarize the article with NPOV. I suggest dropping the matter for now, and building WP:CONSENSUS for changes to the 'Criticism' section. After that, you can summarize the added content in the lead if necessary. There's no point arguing how the lead should summarize content that isn't in the article, especially if you believe the existing section needs to be overhauled. H2so4aq (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

It is not just my "opinion". I can find dozens of published sources that voice the same view. The point is that prejudice may exist in various forms, not just in employing particular terminology. So Shahinshah's claim that the mention of heathen term should be thrown out because it is a century-old isn't quite valid. This page is preceisely about such prejudices. So throwing out inconvenient facts that expose such prejudce is not NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The existence of other prejudices doesn't affect whether the "heathen" remark stays or goes. That's why it's irrelevant. If sources don't use the term "heathen", then the term doesn't go on the article per WP:V. That source specifically discusses its use between 1721-1893. Generalizing that view to the present is original research, unless the author does so explicitly in the book.

If you can find reliable, published sources for these views, please list them and lets add them to the article. Indeed, if they are common in literature they need to be on the article. We can't argue based on the idea alone that such sources exist, without finding them first.

The source discussing century-old events means a better source is needed if we want to describe what is happening now as well. I agree @Shahinshah121's proposal is not quite valid, but not because prejudice exists in many forms. It's because the right thing to do per WP:NOCITE is to search the published literature and find a better source for this claim. If we somehow can't find one, then it's time to remove it. H2so4aq (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I would Thank @Gotitbro: for the kind invitation to participate in this discussion. However, on my part, I feel that it would be great if I take some time to study the arguments advanced here and to support or oppose those in line with WP:RS and other protocols. Thanks. IND123456 (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I am coming from Wikiproject Hinduism and would appreciate the TL;DR version of any remaining issues in this discussion. One aspect that needs to be immediately addressed is the use of "irrational" in the first sentence. Certainly the first sentence of an article should reflect the entirety of the article and not a small paragraph at the bottom. Hemmingweigh (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

FYI for any who are still interested, I removed the term "irrational" per MOS:LEAD: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." This article is primarily a geography-specific overview of anti-Hindu sentiment, and does not mention anywhere the irrationality of the idea of anti-Hindu sentiment. Hemmingweigh (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Suggested Rewrite of criticism section

Section is out of date and disorderly. It is also too short since the concept is so controversial. I suggest rewrite:

Academics, journalists, and Hindu American advocacy groups have questioned the validity of the concept "Hinduphobia".

Hindu Advocacy Groups Criticism

Hindus for Human Rights, a Hindu American pluralist advocacy organization, states that "we reject the notion of systemic 'Hinduphobia' in the United States or India with any equivalence to Islamophobia or anti-Semitism. The group further cautions that "cries of “Hinduphobia” in the U.S. is a cover for surging violence against Muslims and Christians in India." Other South Asian American advocacy groups have concurred about this risk. Prominent Hindu Americans, such as Ro Khanna, have also used the language of "crying Hinduphobia."

Journalist Criticism

Journalists have questioned various aspects of "Hinduphobia." Some have questioned the categorization of particular crimes as anti-Hindu, calling attention to how such claims often rely on "misclassif[ing] anti-Asian racism, anti-Muslim violence, and criticism of Hindu nationalism as anti-Hindu hate." Others have called attention to the Hindu nationalist ideas behind this concept and links with Zionists.

Academic Criticism

Scholars generally have not found evidence to support claims of Hinduphobia. Brian Collins found the tropes of Hinduphobia to be a popular weapon employed by the affluent Hindu diaspora in stifling critical academic discourses on Hinduism—parallels with Kansas creationists were drawn. Scholars affiliated with the South Asia Scholar Activist Collective (SASAC) reject "Hinduphobia" as an ahistorical and inappropriate neologism employed by the Hindu Right in order to suppress academic inquiry into topics concerned with Hinduism, Hindutva, caste, and the Indian State. While racist and anti-Hindu prejudices have been indeed observed, in their view, Hindus have not faced any entrenched systematic oppression in India or the United States; the claimants of Hinduphobia were also accused of engaging in discrimination against Muslims, lower-castes, Dalits, Christians, and progressive Hindus. Jeffery D. Long concluded that "[i]t seems that Hinduphobia can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder and can sometimes be a genuine phenomenon."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahinshah121 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I think expanding this section would be completely UNDUE because nothing of substance has been said by any of these sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

And we should also keep in mind that this page is on "Anti-Hindu sentiment", not "Hinduphobia" (a controversial neologism). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

"nothing of substance has been said" means you don't agree. we still need to cover it, even if you don't like it.

The page says anti-Hindu sentiment and Hinduphobia are synonyms. the scholarship cited is about the concept. some of the quotes use "anti-Hindu."

Shahinshah121 (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

You are welcome to state whatever substance they have given, apart from their opinions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

While we debate larger expansion, I want to add this sentence to criticism. it is wrong to not give voice to Hindu groups on this issue:

Progressive Hindu groups, such as Hindus for Human Rights, also reject the notion of systemic 'Hinduphobia' in the United States and India as "a cover for surging violence against Muslims and Christians in India.".

Shahinshah121 (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Shahinshah121 (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Why is "United States" of interest? This article is not about United States. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

there is a section on the United States. maybe you should read the article before commenting

Shahinshah121 (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

And you can't use terms like "reject" as if they are some superior authority. The best you can say is "disagree". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

done. Shahinshah121 (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - I also see you making giant leaps of WP:SYNTHESIS and cherry-picking fragments of sentences to push your POV. For example, the Historical Dictionary of Hinduism states

academic scholars of Hinduism and religious groups that have been accused of Hinduphobia objecting that legitimate disagreements or differences of interpretation have been placed by Hindu critics on the same level as racist hate speech.

and your paraphrase of it is

Academics, journalists, and Hindu American advocacy groups have questioned the validity of the concept "Hinduphobia".

How on earth did you go from "objecting" to "questioned the validity" and "differences of interpretation" to "validity of the concept"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I thought the paraphrase accurate. we can adjust to your wording.

please assume good faith. I am pushing no POV. I am trying to fix the article where it needs it.

The Historical Dictionary of Hinduism is one source. the sentence you cited summarizes the entire section with 12 citations. I think you know that.

Shahinshah121 (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Don't summarise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment.

1. I see no reason to break the section into three subsections. Three paragraphs would do just fine, without the WP:NPOV implications of having entire subheadings.
2. The sources need to be higher quality. The books from Long and Collins are good secondary sources. The Business Standard and Washington Post articles are okay. But other sources are self-published, including the Hindus for Human Rights and IAMC pages.

This section needs more citations to reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, like books or journal review papers that engage with existing literature rather than representing a single author's opinion alone. For example, neither I nor the reader can verify that Hindus for Human Rights represents other progressive Hindu groups in their opposition to the term "Hinduphobia", or that they are a notable group on their own. That notability should be derived from reliable sources, not their own website. H2so4aq (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

We should indeed stick to academic sources for a contentious topic like this. Gotitbro (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely. Could you expand a bit on your position. IND123456 (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@H2so4aq: gives a pretty good explanation above that we can do without activist SPS. Gotitbro (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I have gone through it. IND123456 (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

You mean peer-reviewed sources? Academics also write lots of unverified and unsubstantiated opinions on various platforms. They are not worth much. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Then how do you differentiate between useful and non useful content in our context... IND123456 (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Look, it is plain and simple. If somebody says, there is prejudice, and here are instances, that can appear on any platform. But if somebody claims that prejudice doesn't exist, they better get it validated by experts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

So what kind of prejudice are we dealing with? Is there prejudice against the Hindu community? or the other way? IND123456 (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

This page is about anti-Hindu prejudice. But the point I was making is more general. The standards needed for claiming prejudice and rejecting the claims are quite different. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we should be declaring a different standard here. The standard for inclusion of material seems to be the same no matter what it is. Whether claiming prejudice or rejecting claims, we want secondary, peer-reviewed sources.

As you stated before, anyone, academics included, can write unverified or unsubstantiated opinions. Anyone can claim prejudice, or describe their own experience of prejudice. Such writing is a WP:PRIMARY source. Especially for a contentious topic, we should be looking for WP:SECONDARY sources, including books or peer-reviewed journal review papers. High-quality secondary sources can analyze claims and connect them to the broader pattern/idea of anti-Hindu sentiment, or offer criticism, all based on engagement with the literature. And the peer-review process helps to ensure their quality and accuracy, although it isn't perfect. Same goes with prioritizing review papers (WP:NOR: research articles tend to be more useful as primary sources and review articles as secondary sources) over research papers. H2so4aq (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I think I will

Have to mostly agree. There is a need for more peer reviewed articles. IND123456 (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I think attributed "opinions" should be fine from peer-reviewed sources. The major problem was with citing activist orgs and politicians of all things.

But these also mainly pertain to the "-phobia" terminology and can be limited to a dedicated section dealing with the various names for this topic and response and/or criticism thereof. Gotitbro (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The activist/advocacy self-published sources need to go. Why are we reproducing content directly from the SASAC activist handbook and the website of HfHR advocacy group? Please find reliable secondary sources instead. Wikipedia is not for advocacy. UnpetitproleX (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I haven't looked but if there are other advocacy/activist group SPS in the article, for whichever view, they also need to go. UnpetitproleX (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

We don't need any new rules. I think we should stick to standard policies, WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY, and more importantly WP:YESPOV. Don't elevate opinions to facts or degrade facts into opinions.

In a topic like, the presence of activist groups on all sides is inevitable. They are the ones that raise the issues and they are the ones that counter them and a free-flowing, if somewhat confused, debate ensues. Problems arise only when Wikipedians fail to understand the debate, and act as if some higher truths have been revealed by some one or the other. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

By the way, "scholarly" and "peer-reviewed" sources are equally bad. We were just discussing one of those just above this section. And, scholars are equally "activists". Frankly, I find the debate stifled in the scholarly sphere because the bar to entry is very high. At the same time, the standards of objectivity are very low in social sciences. People even deny that there is anything called truth; there are only "perspectives". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I guess we have a points here. As it is, activists, though they might have an ideology whatsoever, are the ones on ground zero. Other sources, for example from academia is just a distant observer of various arguments from all sides, politics and also media, and it the one to comment upon the issue seeing all this commotion and also the relevant history of this issue. I see that we can't totally avoid activist and advocacy groups. IND123456 (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

If an activist or advocacy group's views are significant, then finding a reliable secondary source that reports these views should not be hard (note, I'm not saying use only peer-reviewed scholarship, just a reliable secondary publisher of their primary views/opinions). The problem with citing directly to activist/advocacy group websites is, anybody can make a website and publish whatever they want to on their website. Whether or not this view is part of the public discourse around the subject can only be vetted through a reliable/secondary publisher. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, WP:SECONDARY coverage of PRIMARY sources is useful. Hopefully they can cut out some of the chaffe. But those distinctions are getting blurred too, e.g., the Savera article published by Political Research Associates. Is it PRIMARY or SECONDARY? Or is it an op-ed? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Since PRA is a think tank with declared political motives, declaredly 'progressive'. Think tanks in many cases (especially when political) act like advocacy groups. Savera is self-described activist group. Anything from SPA, imo, should be attributed to them and included if it is found in a SECONDARY source. Again, if a view is significant, finding a mainstream secondary source for it shouldn't be hard. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Attribution is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. We still have to decide what WEIGHT to give it and whether it is DUE at all.

The problem is that I find the supposed "scholarly" sources are no better. Here for example is a claim in a Dheepa Sundaram's article:

Additionally, HAF has sponsored events featuring controversial Indian speakers such as Aarti Tikoo Singh, who notably stated that “Islamophobia is a ‘bullshit word.’”[122: Hindu American Foundation Hosts Islamophobia-Denying Journalist, ORGS. FOR MINORITIES OF INDIA (Oct. 24, 2019), https://www.ofmi.org/hindu-american-foundation-hosts-islamophobia-denying-journalist/ ]

Here an activist group's claims have been reproduced in a "scholarly" source with no background checks of any kind. There is lots of prejudiced material of this sort in this source, so much so that the entire article has to be treated as an "activist source". The author is a founder-member of the SASAC group, which presumably organised the DGH conference. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

With no comment on the quality of Sunadaram's scholarship or the rest of her article in Drexel Law Review, this specific claim about Tikoo Singh will be unreliable because it depends upon what is essentially an attack article, without a byline, about a WP:BLP. Peer review is not always efficient, some discrepancies do seep through, and we can always judge sources individually on their own merit. That said, I'd rather depend upon a peer reviewed source which reveals its references for us to judge, than websites of activist and advocacy groups which do not have to go through any scrutiny at all. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I am citing this as an example of the quality of scholarship in the area. Peer-review is unlikely to fix it, since the general quality of scholars in the area is also poor and/or biased. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I am citing this as an example of the quality of scholarship in the area. Peer-review is unlikely to fix it, since the general quality of scholars in the area is also poor and/or biased. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines, rules, standards, policies, essays, and who-knows-what-else are incoherent, bloated, and frequently useless. Mevsherd (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Notes

References

New Suggested Rewrite of criticism section 1 August 2026

Here is a suggested rewrite that accounts for feedback about privileging academic sources and not introducing subheadings. I ignored not relevant opinions about caste and disliking scholarship. I kept the Hindus for Human Rights reference. I think it is fair to give them a sentence on their views.

Scholars generally have not found evidence to support claims of Hinduphobia. Brian Collins found the tropes of Hinduphobia to be a popular weapon employed by the affluent Hindu diaspora in stifling critical academic discourses on Hinduism—parallels with Kansas creationists were drawn. Jeffery D. Long concluded that "[i]t seems that Hinduphobia can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder and can sometimes be a genuine phenomenon." Scholars affiliated with the South Asia Scholar Activist Collective (SASAC) reject "Hinduphobia" as an ahistorical and inappropriate neologism employed by the Hindu Right in order to suppress academic inquiry into topics concerned with Hinduism, Hindutva, caste, and the Indian State. While racist and anti-Hindu prejudices have been indeed observed, in their view, Hindus have not faced any entrenched systematic oppression in India or the United States; the claimants of Hinduphobia were also accused of engaging in discrimination against Muslims, lower-castes, Dalits, Christians, and progressive Hindus.

Journalists have questioned the categorization of particular crimes as anti-Hindu, calling attention to how such claims often rely on "misclassif[ing] anti-Asian racism, anti-Muslim violence, and criticism of Hindu nationalism as anti-Hindu hate." Others have called attention to the Hindu nationalist ideas behind this concept and links with Zionists. Hindus for Human Rights, a Hindu American pluralist advocacy organization, states that "we reject the notion of systemic 'Hinduphobia' in the United States or India with any equivalence to Islamophobia or anti-Semitism. Prominent Hindu Americans, such as Ro Khanna, have also used the language of "crying Hinduphobia."

Shahinshah121 (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how is this supposed to be better? This still has all the issues of the other version (WP:SYNTH, WP:SPS, WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:UNDUE etc. the most glaring). Only getting rid of the sub-headings does not address any of the concerns with the content. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

This content is well sourced and cited. It is very relevant. I changed the emphasis and shortened some sections from prior draft. Lots of it is in the criticism section now. By specific objection:

• WP:SYNTH does not apply. Everything is cited and attributed to sources.
• WP:SPS says "Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." That applies to SASAC.
• WP:NotAdvocacy does not apply. This is all relevant to the subject. The only possible issue would be Hindus for Human Rights. Does anyone really think that we should not give a Hindu group a sentence for their views on this?
• WP:UNDUE does not apply. We are discussing making a one-paragraph section into two paragraphs, in a long article.

Many editors dislike the criticisms of Hinduphobia. But personal opinions are not relevant here. Shahinshah121 (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

No. It appears there is a basic understanding of what these guidelines mean.

"Scholars generally have not found evidence to support claims of Hinduphobia" is uncited WP:OR, and an exceptional claim at that. Also evidently untrue given what Long (2011) says.

"Journalists have questioned the categorization of particular crimes as anti-Hindu", first, which journalists, in the plural? All I see is a cite to one article from Mukta Joshi for Jewish Currents, specifically about the HAF. Apart from WP:UNDUE, it is also blatanly misrepresenting the source; to cite one journalist's article about one single American organisation's conduct for sweeping claims about multiple journalists questioning the entire existence of anti-Hindu hate crimes raises serious WP:CIR and WP:POVPUSH concerns, in a WP:CTOP no less. Keep going in this direction and you will end up at ARE.

"Prominent Hindu Americans, such as Ro Khanna, have also used the language of "crying Hinduphobia."" first, that's not a faithful representation of what the source or Ro Khanna are saying. Second, which prominent Hindu Americans, in the plural, i.e. who apart from Ro Khanna?

As for WP:SPS, you seem to have missed, or omitted, the very next sentence: "Be careful when using such [subject-matter experts' SPS] sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will likely have published it in independent, reliable sources." Surely, since SASAC and their manual has been around for over half a decade now, you'd be able to present an 'independent, reliable source' which is not self-published? Coming to H4HR, no, activist group SPS are not reliable, unless you want us to fill this article with content cited directly from the websites of HAF and other activist group SPS with the opposite view. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok. Then what would you have to say of the sentiments in Pakistan and that of cross border terror attacks in Indian territory, where people are first asked their religion and then killed or crimes thereof. We can't limit ourselves to the West. IND123456 (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The expansion of the section is WP:UNDUE in many ways. First of all, the topic of the page is "Anti-Hindu sentiment", not "Hinduphobia". The best thing to do would be to create a section on "Hinduphobia", and cover the arguments for and against it.

Your content also needs to be more truthful. It is not "journalists", one journalist. It is not "the categorization", it is HAF's categorization. You also need to state that HAF's characterization exaggerated anti-Hindu hate by including other kinds of hate. Such categorizations are debatable, not black-and-white. Moreover, you can't take a tag line from the source, which is not generally reliable. The claim that "anti-Muslim violence" was mischaracterized is wrong. The article does not actually say that. It was more likely to have been violence directed at Hindus through anti-Muslim hate. You need to read the article and summarise it accurately. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I notice that UnpetitproleX made very similar points, more clearly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Notes

References

failed verification tags

I have added failed verification tags. I will keep checking and adding tags as appropriate to improve article. please remove only if source is verified or claim is changed to be accurate. please document removals here. Shahinshah121 (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I removed two better source needed tags added by user:UnpetitproleX for the Hindutva Harassment Field Manual. They were marked WP:SPS but that states: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." The many authors of the manual meets that requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahinshah121 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Please could you explain why you think this is the case. Yes, I have seen the article in The Scroll; it ticks some of the boxes, but not all of them. It is arguable that the authors are akin to conspiracy theorists. I would not mind you using their manual as a source for what it is cited for, if you cited other sources (independent of the believers in their theory) for the same things too. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The NCRI reports (including one which was a joint collaboration between NCRI and Rutgers University's Miller Center for Community Protection and Resilience and Center for Critical Intelligence Studies, and thus arguably not even SPS) you removed here were also authored by scholars. Can you explain the double standard you are applying here? UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

see my other comment. let's keep this discussion in one place. Shahinshah121 (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

But you are the one splitting the discussion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I requested dispute resolution for this page. Shahinshah121 (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

References

Notes

removed social media section

I removed the "on social media section" because it relied on only one, not WP:RS source. Shahinshah121 (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

In the recent discussion on the talk page about the criticism section, several users have spoken strongly against using WP:SPS. The only source in the social media section was WP:SPS. We can't have different rules for different parts of the page. If someone wants to put back in social media section, they should remove all references to self-published sources and use only peer-reviewed academic sources, to reflect talk page. Shahinshah121 (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

You cannot simultaneously defend one SPS (& here) and remove another of exactly the same type. Either scholar-written SPS are reliable or they are not. Arguing that the SPS you agree with is reliable but another of the same type which you disagree with is unreliable is WP:TENDENTIOUS editing (which is WP:DISRUPTIVE) in a WP:CTOP. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The difference is that the Hindutva Harassment Field Manual was authored by several well-regarded and published scholars. I linked to a list. the NCRI reports have been authored by non-experts on South Asia, and one lead author was an undergraduate, I think. WP:SPS discusses the reliability of authors. Shahinshah121 (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

One of the reports you removed is also clearly not SPS. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Here's a relevant reliable secondary source (and another) on the report. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

A rutgers article on a rutgers self-published report is not WP:RS. maybe it's not even a secondary source. the second one is from Times Now. Wikipedia lead on Times Now describes it as a "right-wing news channel in India" that "is widely seen as supportive of Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party" and "has been criticised for reporting misinformation." citing these kinds of sources works against your argument. Shahinshah121 (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I can't find anything to say Rutgers Today is unreliable on RSP. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

a university advertising their self-published report is not WP:Independent Shahinshah121 (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)