Talk:Hindus

Infobox image

There seems to be a repeated effort to replace the present infobox image of this article - That of Durga Puja - over the past year, with various editors presenting the argument that it is not representative of Hindus as a whole. An editor recently replaced it with an image of a Hindu bridegroom without discussing the change on this talkpage with other editors, and seems to have performed this same action this time last year. I have reverted this edit, both due to the lack of consensus, and because it is only representative of a northern Indian Hindu. if anyone wishes to replace the present image in the future, please discuss it on this talkpage, build a consensus, and then proceed. Personally, I would recommend that if you do nominate a new picture here, let it be as pan-Hindu and pan-Indian as possible without accounting for region-specific representations of Hindus. Thank you. Chronikhiles (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Closed early per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Hindus → Hindu – Right word Karsan Chanda (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Imzadi 1979 → 05:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) specifically calls out this example as an exception to the naming convention of using the singular form of a word as an article title in listing the exception that we pluralize groups of people. Imzadi 1979 → 05:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PLURAL. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Procedural close "Right name" is an incoherent argument for a move. With no rationale, there is nothing to debate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose move. This is an obvious plural subject. O.N.R. ^(talk) 07:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clearly should be in the plural per WP:PLURAL. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Jews, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, etc. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2024 (numbers inflation)

Greetins there seems to be an overestimation of the number of Hindus in many countries.

When we have the official censuses numbers why rely on religious organizations that *always* exagerate the numbers ?

I mean here the exageration is not even adding 100 000 but literally doubling even sometimes tripling the numbers.

So why not just stick to the official numbers provided by government, considering that the controversies surrounding the numebrs are always highlightened in the articles anyway ?

My changes :

Hindus

1809 painting of Durga Puja celebrations in India
Total population
1.2 billion worldwide (2022) (15% of the global's population)
Regions with significant populations
India	1,106,000,000
Nepal	28,600,000
Bangladesh	13,130,102-20,149,351 (2022 census)
Indonesia	4,646,357-18,000,000
Pakistan	4,444,870 (2017 census)

Just to clarify, all you've changed here is the total number, correct? How have you made the updated calculation? I can't seem to find either the old or your suggested value in any of the sources or by adding all the numbers together (unless I've made a mistake or missed something obvious, which could 100% be the case). Tollens (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Greetings oh yes sorry I meant to take out the maximal numbers and their references, I did it for Pak but for example not for Bangladesh (where I have to take out "20,149,351"), basically there are sensationalist numbers pushed by religious organizations that double and even sometimes triple the official numbers, thanks. 2A02:A03F:6504:1700:C1D4:25DD:8D1A:A3F (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

 Question: It appears that the numbers you have provided are already included in the infobox (as low estimates); are you suggesting the other estimates be removed entirely? If so, you'll need to provide some evidence of the unreliability of the sources you accuse of fabricating higher numbers. Simply stating that they are unreliable is not sufficient for that. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Basically yes, as the "lower estimates" are in fact official govt censuses while the "higher estimates" are from religious organizations that provide no statistics/empirical backup to these claims.

For instance Nepal's 2022 pop is estimated at 30 million et Hindus here apparently make 28,5 million which is impossible if you know that roughly 80% of Nepal is Hindu... so what's my solution ?

You take the latest official govt census, for Nepal being 2021, that shows a population of 29,192,480, then you apply the official Hindu % (81) and you get 23,745,163 (instead of 28,600,000), and instead of all these references (often you can't verifiy or don't even give the same numbers), you put the following in the infobox "Nepal (2021 census)

You can do the same for Bangladesh (13 million is based on 2022 census), Indonesia (4 million is based on the 2018 census) and Pakistan (4 million is based on the 2017 census.)

These "lower estimates" are just the OFFICIAL governmental numbers, obviously religious organizations will always exagerate them for their own benefits (financing and political representation) but in the case of Indonesia these estimates are a ridicilous 4x times higher, so let's stick to the govt censuses ?

Especially as the higher estimates are discussed in different articles pertaining to these questions, no need to push them into the infobox as some official numbers.

Thanks. 2A02:A03F:6504:1700:E473:5BF8:E8F4:6B01 (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2023

Please remove flags from infoboxes per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, similar my edit [1] 112.204.206.165 (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

"Hindoo" considered derogatory?

The texts quoted that consider "Hindoo" derogatory state that it was used "on the street" as a "slang word". I believe the source was stating that calling someone "Hindu/Hindoo" was considered derogatory, not any specific spelling. The difference in spelling cannot be heard in spoken speech. DenverCoder19 (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@DenverCoder19: I believe that you are right. I have trimmed the citations appended to the claim in the lead; retaining the ones that clearly refer to the "Hindoo" spelling while deleting the ones that appear to talk about "Hindu/Hindoo" being used as a verbal slur. Let me know if I missed or overdid something. Cheers.

PS:Not too active at the moment so a ping would be appreciated if you or anyone else need a clarification/response.. Abecedare (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I've trimmed it further. The text doesn't say what the source says. The first source is a "dictionary of ethnic slurs" from an obscure publisher in Portland, Oregon that says "it is one that may lend itself to derogatory use (?)". The second source is a kind of vague statement that speculates that more sound-based spellings can be considered "lowly" in general, without actually saying that this is what the evidence bears out for Hindoo.

Cf. "Moslem" for "Muslim" or "Jews" (instead of "Jewish people"). Just because a phrase is used more often by one group of people, doesn't mean it is always derogatory. See Muslim#Etymology

Any Anglophone can tell you when someone says "The Jews" instead of "Jewish people", it quite likely means the speaker is prejudiced against Jewish people. But Wikipedia still happily uses the phrase "Jews" and does not label it as "derogatory", because it is not exclusively so. DenverCoder19 (talk) DenverCoder19 (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)