User talk:Vasa17

Feedback on your draft

I think I see what you were trying to do with your edits on the first paragraph, but I'm not sure all of them are necessary. I don't think it's a bad idea to mention that Hindu-Americans have been attacked throughout the history of the United States, but you may want to double check (if you haven't already) that the referenced source corroborates this. Then I saw that you changed "Indian American community" to "Hindu-Americans," but I'm not sure this is actually necessary. I see your point, since the article is specifically about anti-Hindu sentiment, but the paragraph later specifies "Attacks which specifically target Hindus in the United States..." so I think it's ok to mention Indian Americans in general in the first sentence.

I'm not sure all your edits to the second sentence are entirely necessary either. When you change "a process that begins when certain phenotypical features which are associated with a group and attached to race in popular discourse become associated with a particular religion or religions" to "a process that begins when certain phenotypical features are associated with a group and attached to race in popular discourse, and then become connected to a particular religion or religions," you actually change the meaning of the sentence slightly in a way which you perhaps did not intend. The original version is saying that the process begins when these features which are already associated with a group/race become associated with religion. Your version says that the process begins at the point that these features become associated with the group/race itself. Maybe this change was intentional, but wouldn't you say the original meaning makes more sense? Since it is the racialization of religion, it makes sense to me that it means when features already attached to a race then become attached to religion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.

I think your addition of the paragraph of the Pacific Coast riots is excellent. Even though the Indian immigrants were Sikh, as you mentioned, it is still relevant to the article since people perceived them as Hindu (as you also mentioned). One very minor thing is that "1907 Bellingham race riots" looks a bit strange since the "s" isn't part of the link. Maybe either make it part of the link or remove it, since there is no s in the name of the page "1907 Bellingham race riot." Note that if you type "[[1907 Bellingham race riot]]s," the "s" actually automatically becomes part of the link, as in "1907 Bellingham race riots". The reason it didn't for you is that what you wrote is actually "[[1907 Bellingham race riot]]<nowiki/>s." If you remove the "<nowiki/>" tag (which I assume was added by the visual editor), that will do what you want.

Suggestions

The sentence "In April 2015, a Hindu temple in north Texas was vandalised when nasty images were spray-painted on its walls" is not neutral and is in fact plagiarized from its source. The following sentence is also plagiarized from the same source.^[1] Obviously these need to be changed to avoid plagiarism, and I believe the word "nasty" should be avoided since it is not neutral, even though I'm sure the images were nasty by any reasonable definition. (I know you didn't add these sentences, but you could improve them.)

I think you could improve the definition section, as you said in your plan. I wouldn't pay too much heed to Toddy1's comment, as it seems to be mainly motivated by ego, as you mentioned in class. The edit you suggested in your plan sounds like a great idea. If you edit it, the worst he can do is revert it, and remember that our professor will still see your edits even if they are reverted. Obviously don't start an edit war if he does revert it, but I would just go ahead and start on the edits if I were you.

Finally, be careful about formatting. I noticed that some of the formatting wasn't copied correctly when you copied your section to your sandbox. It's best to copy from the source editor (and that way it's easier for me to see your changes as well). Just keep that in mind when you publish your changes to the actual article.

Final thoughts

It looks like you have a great starting point for working on the page. There is already a lot of information on the page, so I imagine that a lot of your work will be revising. If you can find examples from current events, you could add those too.

One takeaway for me from reading the article, since I noticed the two plagiarized sentences, is that I should double check sources and keep an eye out for plagiarism on my own article.

I hope my suggestions help!

By the way, in case you're having trouble finding my draft, I put it under User:AsDaGo/sandbox/Krishnacore. I copied the whole article in since it's small, and then made my edits. Check the history of that page for my edits. I also made an edit to the original page. To see all my changes in one place, click here. If it's not already selected, you can click "Visual" in the upper right of that page to get a nicer, inline view of my edits. AsDaGo (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)