Talk:Hindus

Hindu persecution section

@EarthDude - starting this talk discussion to get more clarity on this revert with edit summary "per WP:ONUS; persecution has not been a defining historical fact for Hindus and as such is WP:UNDUE, in the same way the persecutions of Muslims or Christians is UNDUE in their article". You have mentioned "persecution has not been a defining historical fact for Hindus and as such is WP:UNDUE", but I am not fully clear what part of WP:UNDUE you see as requiring complete removal of the section for that concern - Is the concern that the section is too detailed or the section should not be here at all, or some other reason? Also, seems this section has been in the article for a few years (more than 5 years?), and I have often seen editors cite WP:STABLE and WP:STATUSQUO and then discuss on talk - WP:STABLE seems to be just an essay, but I was wondering if you see any reason not to follow that approach here while discussing the issue. Asteramellus (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@EarthDude has also made a similar revert at Christians , and their explanation is at the talk page here . While I do think WP:UNDUE is a good justification for keeping the section on persecution short and putting further elaborations in the main article, it's not as strong of a justification for removing it entirely. The fact that the topics of Christian and Hindu persecution are WP:NOTE enough to merit their own articles that meet the requirements laid out in WP:SIGCOV (for historical instances of persecution) and WP:SUSTAINED (for currently ongoing instances of persecution) means that the section should be kept under WP:DUE, in my opinion. 11achitturi (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@11achitturi I see your reasoning on keeping the section short but it's already quite concise compared to other sections Swirlymarigold (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there is any basis for comparison between Christians and Hindus. It displays total ignorance of history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Overemphasis on Sanatana Dharma

I don't see how this is due, either for the lead sentence or the infobox. Do a significant proportion of reliable sources covering Hindus as a people also refer to Hinduism as Sanatana Dharma? Is it really due weight to mention an endonym for Hinduism in the lead sentence of an article about Hindus, when such endonyms don't even appear in the lead sentence of our article on Hinduism itself? Why not cover other endonyms, such as Vaidika Dharma or Arya Dharma, which are more historically rooted than Sanatana Dharma, a term that only emerged among orthodox Hindus in the 19th century? As I've already mentioned in my edit summary, I think a better alternative would be to cover other endonyms for Hindus in the body of the article, rather than in the lead sentence or the infobox, which isn't an appropriate place for this. — EarthDude (Talk) 04:18, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 @Longewal — EarthDude (Talk) 04:19, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Citations for "Sanatana Dharma" have been given. What do they say? Where are the sources for your other candidates? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Sanatana Dharma is already in the body. What I am saying is that it's undue for the lead sentence and the infobox specifically given that most sources don't deal with it. — EarthDude (Talk) 11:59, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I was confused about the page. On this page, the term "Sanatana Dharma" has no place. It is completely off-topic. But I would like to make it clear that the supposed justification for deleting it, based on the claim that there "other terms' that are supposedly more or equally prominent, is basically WP:OR. Anyway, this discussion is closed for me here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2026 (UTC)