Talk:Secularism in India

message: The article is dominant with arguments and references favoring a negative view of secularism in India. Requesting editors to incorporate both sides of the controversy proportionately in compliance with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Solatido 05:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Problems

message: The article text appears to be problematic and POV. It seems to deal with secularism in India, and not in South Asia at large. For example, secularism has a different meaning in Bangladesh or Pakistan than it does in India. Secularism in either India or South Asia is a broad and complex idealogy; the article text consists solely of criticism of Indian secular movements, e.g. "Secularists in South Asia consist of Hindu-born Marxists, Muslims and other people" appears to be a red-baiting, Muslim-baiting statement. The article seems to paint secularism in India as marginal, although self-declared secular political parties have ruled India for most of its history as an independent nation. I recommend either deletion, or a substantial rewrite, as the article as it stands is POV, mislabeled, and misleading. Anirvan 02:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV problems 

message: I just removed an amazing amount of overlinking. How amazing? Several hundred links. The thing is. Wikilinking is wonderful. But we should not link every instance of every word. This has a good discussion of what should be linked and what shouldn't be. 2, 3 or 4 links is fine. (Literally) 100 of just "English" is not. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlinking 

message: This is a hulking beast of an article at about 119 kilobytes, much larger than the recommended size. I'm not sure how best to do it, but we should probably split this off into a few smaller articles per Wikipedia:Summary style. Any suggestions? --Explodicle (T/C) 16:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Ok, it looks like we've got a problem. This source is under the Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India license. That "noncommercial" detail makes it incompatible with the GFDL, so we can't just cut and paste. We're going to have to either completely rewrite or delete these articles:
* History of Indian secularism
* Religious conversions in India
* Views on Indian secularism
I feel like a jerk doing this right after everything got split up per my suggestion and I'm very sorry, but right now it's violating copyright. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creative Commons problem 

message: I propose that pseudo-secularism be merged into this article, as I don't believe that article satisfies notability, in particular WP:NEO. There is only one reference using that term, and a subsection of this article devoted to the topic should suffice. Let me know your views. SPat talk 18:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not neologism any more - the term finds 4800+ mentions on Google Books, minus the Wikipedia references. Also, I believe that the term is used outside India as well, though not as widely (and maybe not in the same context). A few examples -- Rachid al-Ghannouchi, Guy Haarscher and Leon McKenzie / R. Michael Harton. utcursch | talk 03:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I have removed the following content from the article that attributed views to Inden that I could not find in the cited source:
I have left in a direct quote from Inden's text. If someone can find views matching the above somewhere else in Inden's writing, please link to it here so that we can discuss what can and should be added back to the article. Abecedare (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ronald Inden]] 

message: "For example, the minimum age of marriage for girls is 18 for Hindu and Christian Indians, while the personal law according to sharia allows Muslim Indians to marry a girl less than 12 years old"-Looks lik thi is factually incorrect & is propaganda based.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.224.129.74 (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please check the validity of this statement in the current version

message: , Wikipedia is written through WP:CONSENSUS. All new content is reviewed and vetted by fellow editors, and and the WP:ONUS for its inclusion rests on you, as the contributor, to demonstrate that it belongs in the article. WP:Edit warring will get you bocked.
The edit history indicates that you have edit warred with four different editors over the last few months , , , . All without any discussion.
And your last edit summary is ridiculous, because my revert had said clearly: "MOS:LEAD is supposed to summarise the article". Did you see the edit summary? Did you read MOS:LEAD? If so, can you explain how your editing is in line with its requirements? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New [[WP:UNDUE]] content in the lead 

message: User:Kautilya3 recently removed some amboxes that I placed at the head of the article. Here is why I believe that these amboxes are needed.
T:POV: The article is clearly written from the point of view of an anti-secularist. There have been multiple issues raised with this article's content over the years (expressed in previous sections), and most of these remain unresolved.
T:Essay: The article is much more like an essay, to argue the POV outlined. There are multiple instances where the article attempts to argue that secularism is merely a front for "muslim appeasement", such as in this passage:
:Supporters state that any attempt to introduce a uniform civil code, that is equal laws for every citizen irrespective of his or her religion, would impose majoritarian Hindu sensibilities and ideals. Critics state that India's acceptance of Sharia and religious laws violates the principle of Equality before the law.
This section is basically implying that equality for all religions is not what secularism is, when in fact that is exactly what it is. There is certainly valid criticism regarding the implementation of secularism, but passages like this clearly demonstrate POV.
T:Rewrite: Much of the content in the lead section belongs in the "Criticism" section.
As for the split template, that one's not debatable (there's a split discussion at Talk:Pseudo-secularism).
For this reason, I have readded the amboxes. YttriumShrew (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Discuss nature of secularism in Indian context 2409:4065:D0E:8038:0:0:3C0A:BC04 (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political theory