Talk:The Hindu Pantheon

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Hinduism

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Last Revert

Have you even read how you are editing the text, original text is "The Hindu Pantheon is illustrative of the Enlightenment concept of education of foreign cultures and religions; it was significant as it sought to dispel any European preconceptions that Hinduism was a largely inferior and mystical religion." And you are making it "The Hindu Pantheon is illustrative of the Enlightenment concept of education of foreign cultures and religions; it was significant as it sought to dispel any European preconceptions that Hinduism was a largely inferior and mystical rel(?????)" Every single time. Capitals00 (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this article is not about the worldwide accepted view, but it's about the things that have been written in the book. Thus i will revert it back anytime, as i don't think any correct explanation is possible.Capitals00 (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's the problem. Our articles are meant to reflect what reliable sources (see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY say about a book. Word counts without a reliable source doing the counting and saying what the significance is are both trivial and original research/ The article should also make it clear, with sources, why the book is notable enough for inclusion - see WP:NBOOK. I apologise for chopping off part of the word 'religion'. I've added a fact tag about its significance as we don't have a source for that (or any sources showing it is notable). At the moment in fact there's not enough material in the article to justify it not being just a redirect to the author, merging the relevant text (not the chapter list, that doesn't belong in the article anyway). Dougweller (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]