Talk:List of Hindu temples in the United States

One per state and prominent?

Hindu Temple - Nebraska I would think if a state has a major temple it should be listed, at least 1 per state for the list if they have one, and then additional prominent ones. The Temple in Omaha,NE would be a prominent one for the region there as an example. I'm not good at adding to lists so hoping someone else that is would like to take this on. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Huntsville, Alabama

The Hindu Temple in Huntsville, Alabama is not listed. You can verify its existance at the website: http://www.hccna.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.154.210 (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Notability requirements

Given that Wikipedia is not a directory, this page really should be trimmed back. Maybe there should be a notability requirement for temples on this list, such that only those with either a citation or an existing Wiki article should be added? PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be managed. Currently the list-article states there exist about 900 Hindu temples in the U.S. and that 910 are named in this list. It should be reduced to those notable to a certain degree:

1. accept ones having a separate article, which can be assumed to be individually Wikipedia-notable topics (though some should be AFD'd and deleted probably)
2. accept redlink item ones where some statement of significance is provided in a Notes column, and where supporting inline references are present and do support apparent wikipedia-notability for separate articles
3. accept certain "blacklink" ones where an article is not called for, but some significance at a lower "list-item-notability" level is established in Notes column along with appropriate inline reference(s).

I will plan to wait a bit for comments here, then most likely proceed to delete most redlink and "blacklink" items lacking suppport, probably by moving them to a section here on this Talk page for further review. So maybe that will mean removal of 600-700 items.

--Doncram (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Complete, dynamic list: I disagree. Notability is not a Wikipedia requirement. User Doncram does not own this list and cannot make a unilateral decision on notability and negate the work of hundreds of individuals who contributed to this list.

Many other Wikipedia lists are comprehensive and contain hundreds of entries, for instance: 'List of sovereign states,' 'List of HBO original programming,' 'List of Jews in sports,' 'List of Hindu temples in the United Kingdom.' Years of research, including taking and collecting photographs, by many individuals has gone into the compilation of this List of Hindu temples in the United States. This list, as all Wikipedia lists, is a work in progress and references for all entries in the list are dynamically being added. Do *NOT* delete any items from this list - this will be considered vandalism and reported as such.

The lead section has been updated to specify this list is intended to be complete and dynamic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram1751 (talk • contribs)

Ram1751, I am fully aware of many huge list-systems in Wikipedia; I myself happen to edit mostly within United States National Register of Historic Places listings which has 94,000 items and is a complete list of all NRHP-listed places. But there are standards for notability for all list-articles. You can't simply assert that any list (say of pets you have had) is worthy of being a Wikipedia list-article; the topic has to meet wp:LISTN (and see wp:SALAT). And for valid list-articles, there is some flexibility for editors to choose whether the list-items should be limited to just topics that are individually Wikipedia-notable (have or could have separate articles about them) vs. should allow for items at some lower standard, there does have to be some standard. Lists cannot be indiscriminate collections. And it is not "vandalism" to disagree with you and to begin to insist that some standard must be applied here. Please do comment on what you think the standard should be. E.g. do you think it should be just #1 and #2 above, or allow any #3 type ones or not? Also please do comment in RFC opened below. --Doncram (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

opposition to improvement

I visited this article and began a lede stating what it is, a list of Hindu temples. This is opposed stridently by editor User:Ram1751 who wishes for it not to include a lede, and has twice deleted a lede, reverting the article to be a historical account of some guy talking in 1880: "Following his famous speech at the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago, Swami Vivekananda established Vedanta Societies in New York and San Francisco in the 1890s." They have also visited my talk page to threaten me being blocked. I gather they think that was really a "famous" speech (maybe it was in some circles). But this is a list-article of Hindu temples in the U.S., like there exists a List of Baptist churches in the United States, a List of Methodist churches in the United States, and other lists itemized on Template:Lists of religious worship places in the United States, and history of some speech etc is secondary, is not the lede for this topic. Really I think they are just battling against my separate suggesting on this Talk page that the list-article should be limited to notable temples and that it should omit completely unnotable ones. I don't really believe anyone can oppose having a lede. They just want to draw the line and battle, it somewhat appears to me. Okay fine, let's involve some others; I will start an RFC. --Doncram (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

RFC: should the list-article have a lede, and should it have any standard for inclusion of items or not?

Please comment: should this list-article start with a wp:lede describing it as a list of notable Hindu temples in the U.S.? And should the list-article include any and every temple, no matter how non-notable, upon any editor's wish for mention of items having no known mention in reliable sources? --Doncram (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

There are two distinct issues and I suggest to comment/answer them separately.

1. Should this list-article start with a simple wp:lede such as in List of Baptist churches in the United States, a List of Methodist churches in the United States and other lists itemized on Template:Lists of religious worship places in the United States and not with an historical account of Hinduism in the U.S. starting with the speech of Swami Vivekananda in 1893?
2. Should this list-article be limited to notable Hindu temples that are backed by reliable sources?

Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Responses to RfC

• 1. Support a simple lead, because the historical account seems a duplication of Hinduism_in_the_United_States#History and is not appropriate as a lead for this list-article.
  2. Support the notability requirement, because it is what is done in many similar cases. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Hello all,
  1. With regard to the lead, it makes sense to include one. Perhaps the best way to populate this section is through further talk page discussion amongst interested editors.

     This discussion should happen during the RfC. That's the role of the RfC. Issue #1 is not clear, because it seems to only ask if there should be a lead, but obviously a lead is needed. It is even required by WP. The true question is whether an history of Hinduism can be considered a lead and this should be discussed now. Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  2. Regarding the issue of notability, according to WP:NLIST, notability of a list is based on the group. If a group or set is notable then every item within it does not necessarily have to be (“Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable”). Therefore, rather than removing content that is already there, I think interested editors should try and find reliable sources for existing temples on the list. Kind regards, PinkElixir (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• 1. I agree with the addition of a lead section in line with Wikipedia policy and best practices.
  2. However, I do not support removing temples from the list that might not individually meet the notability requirement. I agree with the reasoning that PinkElixir has set forth with WP:NLIST. In addition, looking at WP:NPOVFAQ, we should be aware of the predominant Anglo-American perspective on Wikipedia. WP:BIAS/WP:WORLDVIEW is also relevant here. The availability of English Wikipedia sources for Hindu temples in the United States may not be as accessible as it is for Baptist or Methodist churches. With both these considerations in mind, I do not agree with shrinking the list at this time. Apollo1203 (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• 1. Per WP:LEADFORALIST, the article should have a lead (not lede) section. The current lead is consistent with the guidelines in WP:LEADFORALIST, so it should be retained. It is a brief historical account of Hindu temples, not Hinduism in the United States. As Dominic Mayers mentioned, the historical account of Hinduism in the United States can be found here: Hinduism_in_the_United_States#History. The lead historical account in this article is not a rewrite of Hinduism_in_the_United_States#History - the two are completely different. The lead section of this article includes only pivotal historical events relevant to Hindu temples in the U.S. For instance, Swami Vivekananda is mentioned only because his organization built the first Hindu temple in the U.S., as well as the first Hindu centers in the 1930s and 40s. (BTW Doncram insults Hindus by referring to Swami Vivekananda as 'some guy' - this is like referring to Pope John Paul II as 'some guy' for Catholics.) Likewise, the other individuals (Yogananda, Mahesh Yogi, Prabhupada, and so on) are mentioned only in the context of their pivotal roles in establishing the first Hindu temples, centers, and ashrams in the U.S.
  2. Regarding notability, I fully agree with the views of Apollo1203 on this topic. In the case of this article, the group or set is notable. For the same reasons cited by Apollo1203, I also do not support removing temples from the list that "might not individually meet the notability requirement." Regarding verifiability, reliable sources and references are being added to this list - this is a work in progress and will take time, given the hundreds of entries in this list. Ram1751 (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussions

I just want to make sure there is no confusion regarding the issue #1. The history of Hinduism in the U.S. is not considered a lead in the formulation of the issue (even though this history is located before any section). @Apollo1203: and @PinkElixir:, please inform us about how you understood the issue, because I am considering requesting a cancellation of this RfC, because it is unclear. To put it in another way, issue #1 is whether a history of hinduism in the US is an acceptable lead for this list. Make sure you look at this history at the start of the article and consider that it duplicates Hinduism_in_the_United_States#History before making a judgment. Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding issue #2, notability of individual temple might be optional, but verifiability is not optional. At the least, there should be some verifiable evidence in a reliable source accessible on the internet or libraries that the temple is a genuine location where people actually meet. Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding a brief history of temples

I am not sure what could be a history of Hindu temples that is not an important part of the history of Hinduism, but I know that what we have now is more like a history of Hinduism. It starts by mentioning the speech of some guys, it mentions yoga teaching (and teaching is not about temples per se, in fact yoga can be taught in any other location), etc. Religious texts are often controversial and they must be located where they fit so that we minimize the effort to obtain neutrality, accuracy, etc. In fact, now it becomes clear to me what the lead should be about. It should explain what the list contains. No history is needed. The history of temples is too tightly connected with the history of Hinduism, in fact, it is an important aspect of it, especially if you mentions speeches, etc. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The history of Hindu temples (not Hinduism) in the U.S. provides important context for this list. It is not a rewrite of Hinduism_in_the_United_States#History - please reread that article.

The history has been moved to its own section. The lead section has been revised per the consensus on this Talk page.

Ram1751 (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It's an improvement. Now, we have a clean distinction between the lead and the history aspects. We can separate the issues regarding the lead from the issues regarding an history section. Further discussions might be needed to clarify what is a Hindu temple. Is any center that teaches Yoga a temple? Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I just checked the other lists of Hindu temples in different countries. They can be found inside List_of_Hindu_temples_outside_India. I found about twelve of them. None of them, except this list has an history section. They all have a very short lead. The list for all Hindu temples around the world (outside India) has a longer lead, but still it is only a very brief overview of the distribution of the Hindu temples around the world, no history at all, directly to the point of the list, as it should be. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Fine - all of those lists would benefit from the addition of a History section for additional context. P.S. I thought Dominic Mayers was closing this RfC! :::Ram1751 (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. The history of Hindu temples is part of the history of Hinduism and it makes no sense to have this within a list article. To provide a context what many lists do is simply to provide a link to a standard article. Regarding closing the RfC, I need to wait to make sure that no one objects, especially Doncram. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The history of Hinduism dates back to nearly 2000 B.C. The history of Hindu temples in the U.S. is a tiny, narrow part of that history, so specialized that it is not even mentioned in the article History of Hinduism. This is why a History section specific to Hindu temples in the U.S. is needed.

Ram1751 (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

First, you should consider the history of Hinduism in the U.S. in your argument, because there is an article about Hinduism in the U.S. Second, it does not matter that it is only a part of that history and how big this part is, it still fits within that history. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Closing the RfC

I propose to close this RfC, because the question asked is now obsolete and a few points have been clarified. In particular, three persons out of five supported that verifiability in reliable sources is sufficient for inclusion in the list and I have no strong opinion against it, so it is almost four persons. This does not prevent anyone from creating another RfC. I suggest to address a single issue at a time and to discuss in the talk page the statement of the RfC before announcing it. If no one object, I will simply remove the RfC tag. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No objections - please close it. Thank you! Ram1751 (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2021 (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.

Requirements for inclusion in list articles

List articles are intended for navigation. Most entries should have Wikipedia articles.

Entries which do not have Wikipedia articles must have third-party citations. Citations to the organization's website are not sufficient. We should only include entries that might be notable enough for an article. This is indicated by the existence of third-party citations.

I have cleaned out the uncited entries; however the self-cited ones should either be cited to third-party citations or removed as well. Skyerise (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you please point to the Wikipedia guidelines or essays on which these statements are based? Thank you. Ram1751 (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure. See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Content policies: "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines." Skyerise (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

See also WP:LISTORG, which specifies "If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group." Skyerise (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Skyerise: seems like this list is a little different than the canadian hindu temple list or other similar lists. The Hari Om Radha Krishna temple does not have its own wiki page so I now see that it does not meet that qualification. I'm also assuming a link to an incident about a recent burglary at this temple would not be considered a sufficient third party source per WP:LISTORG correct? (only third party link that I could find, but there are several publications citing the incident). Unfortunate that certain places get left off, but ultimately, appreciate the efforts to keep this list streamlined! Schwinnspeed (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)