Talk:Hindu nationalism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

AFD[edit]

This article as been listed on RationalWiki:Pages for deletion#Hindu nationalism.

This article has no place on RW - it's racismof the worst kind Silver Sloth 05:06, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Do you have any idea about Hindu nationalism? --AlmaAmerica 05:10, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
I have tried to fix a bit. It might need discussion about whether it reflects the projects objectives.
I don't know much about Hindu nationalism in particular. Nationalism in general does bring out some violent behaviour, there is no need to describe it as a mental disorder though, I doubt it is listed as one by any Psychology association. \approx\pi 05:13, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
RationaWiki is a satirical site. If Uncyclopedia can describe neoconservatism as a mental disorder, then why RW cannot describe Hindu nationalism as mental disorder? AlmaAmerica 05:14, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Where does it say we are a satirical site? We have been known to use humour to express a point but we don't launch into on serious pieces. \approx\pi 05:16, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
The article Conservatism starts with "Conservatives are usually mad at the damn Liberals". If conservatism can be labeled as madness, then why not Hindu nationalism? --AlmaAmerica 05:17, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Maybe English isn't your first language. When some one is 'mad at' something then 'mad' denotes angry, not a mental disorder. Silver Sloth 05:21, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
It start with a (not particularly) humourous statement but then discusses, Conservatism in slightly more serious way. I see nothing overtly humourous about what you wrote also as it is a topic unfamiliar to the reader more care needs to taken in explaining it. \approx\pi 05:22, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
This "article" reminds me of the time that a strange editor called Oppp on Conservapedia changed its articles on India to focus on the supposed persecution of Christians in India, and other such nonesense as "Oppression of Men's rights in India". Articles such as this showed his "evidence" for this, while failing to point out that three examples in a country of over a billion people does not make a country systematically and violently opposed to Christianity. Any way, back on topic, I don't see why this article exists here, so agreed on the AFD. Bondurant 08:10, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
keep (do we do all that WP: stuff here?) it's a valid subject which RW could cover - just because we (mostly) aren't directly affected doesn't mean it's outside our scope. This could be rationalated, snarkified and side-by-sided (and whatever other words I can make up :D ). It'll need expanding and sourcing too. The thing it shouldn't be is what it's been so far - a hatchet job and a stub. Totnesmartin 08:43, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
weak keep Whilst it is mainly covered by nationalism anyway I think we need more articles in general. So if we can have more info on why this is unique and significantly different form of nationalism the it would be a stronger keep. \approx\pi 08:56, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
This could fall under our "Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism" and maybe should be part of a wider series on nationalism. Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 10:58, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
merge I see no reason why this couldn't be added to the article on India which also touches on the subject of religious divide. My main concern as it stands is that, even with the 'mental disorder' bit removed, it gives too little and only one side. It has echos of Andy's history course condensing the Irish troubles down to Bloody Sunday. There's far, far more to it than that. Silver Sloth 09:12, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
STRONG KEEP I feel that this article has a useful, functional place here. However it needs to be improved. I notice that there are no citations in the piece but suspect as soon as I put pen to it the [citation needed] labels will quickly follow. I could rough the piece out a bit but am not inclined to do too much digging for sources. This movement is somewhat analogous to America's Religious Right and it needs attention. Carptrash 10:47, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Knock yourself out. I'm not too sure how you are going to write much on it with out references though. Don't feel like we will immediately jump on you either we are usually more friendly than the reception you got earlier, its just most of the new people we get tend to have come from either Wikipedia or Conservapedia first so they no the unwritten rules (which we should write down). \approx\pi 10:52, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
This is a subject that I (and to a greater extent my partner {who will have nothing to do with you - or most of my tangents for that matter}) have been seriously following for a while. They are a very scarry lot and I will avoid libelous stuff. But that's all for later. My broomstick is all warmed up and I have to fly. Carptrash 10:59, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Keep, although it could use some sources, and and as Susan points out below, it needs to indicate that not "all" Hindus believe this (an actual percentage would be nice?). Main reason - they seem like nutjobs. Are they? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:56, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Nationalism in context[edit]

Some indication should be made of the fact that Indian Hindu nationalists are a minority. In the UK, Hindus (many who retain their Indian nationality) are, by and large, extremely moderate and inclusive. I do not believe that they Nationalists) are any more representative than fundamentalist Christians or Muslims. I do not deny their existence but would be wary of overemphasising their significance. SusanG  ContribsTalk 12:06, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
A minority yes, but they did form a government in the 90s - didn't last though, and India went on to have a Muslim President and Sikh Prime minister ;) Totnesmartin 12:20, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Actually a BJP-led coaliation government did win the re-election and lasted a full term. Also, BJP is the second largest political faction in India. As an Indian living in India I can say that saying that Hindu nationalists are a "minority" although of course this doesn't imply that all Hindus are theocratic nationalists. — Unsigned, by: 117.194.100.190 / talk / contribs 23:07, 6 April 2011

This is a valid article[edit]

I think there can be no doubt that many members of BJP/RSS are total nutbags, as bad as the worse that any Western country has to offer, filled with virulent hatred for Muslims and Christians and anyone else who is seen as threatening Hindu hegemony. So I think it is legitimate to criticize this aspect of Indian society. At the same time, one shouldn't reperesent that as being a majority view among Indians, it is not - all the Indians I know who have mentioned the issue have a strong dislike of BJP/RSS and all they stand for. And I think as well as the extreme wing of BJP/RSS, there are more moderate members also. So, an article which tries to tar all Indians or all Hindus with this would be unacceptable. But, at the same time, one has to admit that this is a large, influential and worrisome minority within India. --(((Zack Martin))) 07:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Hindutva[edit]

For the purposes of RationalWiki, this can be merged with Hindutva.

Yes. Yes it can. TeenageWasteland (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Done. --ThisIsYeah (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)