Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism/Assessment

For the importance scale, I think there should only be around 100 "Top in Importance" articles. These articles are the ones that need to become Good articles and Featured articles. Gizza^Chat ^© 06:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gizza, only a few articles must be rated "Top". While such a thing may seem subjective, it is needed. All other articles, which seem as important as the "Top"-rated articles must be rated "High". --N R S | ^T/_M\^B 13:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temples

Shouldn't famous Indian temples like Jyotirlings, Shakti Peeths get a high class rating ???--Redtigerxyz 06:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be some standardization. For example the article on Dakshineswar_Kali_Temple is rated as high-importance whereas the article on Kalighat_Kali_Temple is rated as low-importance. Kalighat is almost the head quarters of Kali worship. It is a Sakthi Peeth and is very old. Both the articles of of start class.--Sankarrukku 07:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at my disagreement to the entire rating/assessment business below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.247.113.44 (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re-alignment of importance

I went through the importance scale of the project and frankly it doesn't make any sense to me. How can non-Indian temples have higher importance than Indian temples? It should be the other way around. My recommendation:

Top: Indian temples at key pilgrimage sites. High: Major Indian temples (eg: Well visited Divya desam sites for Vaishnava temples) and well-known temples outside US Med: Temples outside US; City specific main-temples

Please let me know if there is any feedback from the current project members on this classificaiton. --Kalyan (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly immature and incorrect to name Hindu Mythology and Theology as 'Low Importance' and so on

It is highly immature and incorrect to name some or many Hindu mythology and theology as 'Low Importance'. Throughout Hinduism and even in scriptures these items were never mentioned, neither classified nor referred as low importance or otherwise. Who is making these decisions that are inconsistent and inaccurate and immature to classify things as unimportant, low important and so on. These classifications are AT BEST subjective and NOT required.

Let people decide what is important and not important or what is relevant and not relevant. The classification and categorization should be objective and wikipedia is not the place to make something as important and low-important. The role of wikipedia hinduism project should be provide information that is both historically and scriptures wise accurate.

Adding these dimensions like rating and all is over-doing it without proper basis (even if you provide how these are rated page).

I grew up Hindu, I continue to be a Hindu and not even once a character/scripture/text of Hindu was taught to me in the low/high important rating scale nor read it that way. Many of these articles are faith based and by classifying them as low or high importance you are basically insulting the people and their faith.

I am officially recording this as an OBJECTION in the talk page so it is known to everyone my DISAGREEMENT to the ratings business. Because we don't want to create an impression to the general public there is such thing as low or high important Hindu scriptures, mythology, texts, characters and so on that these are so classified in Hindu texts exists.

I am also officially questioning the qualification and the profile of people who are responsible for maintaining/managing the Hinduism Wiki project and what right you have to rate Hindu scriptures, texts, characters and so on as low or high importance now matter how good or bad your intention is, or how objective you sound.

It an an ABSOLUTE NO-NO to rate Hindu scriptures, texts, articles and characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.247.113.44 (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]