Jump to content

Talk:Hinduism/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31

R f c : Should we revert to a former version?

The discussion has been made in which I had raised issues with the article, Talk:Hinduism#Article issues. It is confirmed by the multiple editors that there are problems within the article. It looks like that these editors have seen problems with many parts of the article that were introduced during mid 2013-14, there was no consensus for them and still there isn't. To know what others think, this Rfc should run atleast for a week.

The main problems are:

(i) Neutrality issues, source misrepresentation.
(ii) Undue weight, These sections came to provide large opinions of individual authors, Other(section) discusses Indo Aryan Migration theory without mentioning the actual expressions of these authors and they are not really about Hinduism. Hinduism#Pre-history is also not about the religion.
(iii) Repetitions. After you have a well written section about history, why we would need sections such as Hinduism##Periodisation, Hinduism##Origins, and some others?
(iv) Quote farming.

These are somethings that one of the former version ultimately lacked and the newer versions would include above points. The former version was not perfect, yet easier to fix and it stood for a long time. Majority of these edits were done by a single editor. IMO, it is better to revert to the former version that I have linked. If you agree, vote with 'yes' or 'support'. Delibzr (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support It is more flexible when you are working on a well balanced version that is accurately supporting what sources say. నిజానికి (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose If there are "problems", they can be discussed at the talkpage, and solved by concencus. Fixing them then in the article is very easy. Only five concrete "issues" have been mentioned; three others lack concrete examples, let alone arguments:
  • If there is any problem with WP:NPOV or source representation, please provide concrete issues and diffs;
  • WP:UNDUE: please discuss, so we can try to shorten, if necessary:
  • Types of Hinduism: long indeed; may be summarized;
  • Vedic period: already shortened;
  • Pre-history: can be shortened easily;
  • Repetitions:
  • Periodisation: can be shortened easily;
  • Origins: based on WP:RS, and provides an accurate picture of an essential piece of information on Hinduism: it is not a straight continuation of the Vedic religion, as some belief, but a "synthesis" of many Indian traditions, which is not milennia-old, but appeared around the start of the common era;
  • Quote-farming: if this is a problem, this can be solved easily.
Only five concrete "issues" have been mentioned, of which one has already been solved, and one is based on solid WP:RS, and three can be solved easily. NPOV, source representation and quotefarm lack any concrete example, let alone explanation.
The fact that this info was added by "a single editor", me, is irrelevant for this discussion. What is relevant, is the goal of Wikipedia: providing a free encyclopedia. Wholesome removal of relevant info based on reliable, relevant sources, does not contribute to this goal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment Is there any policy for what you're proposing now, OZ? NB: the origins-section has been discussed extensively. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Making bold edits is not a bad habit, although if they are challenged then the issue has to be resolved first. If I had to make more than the minor edits to a popular article such as this, I would first propose my content on ATP and notify the active editors. Have you done that? Discussions are encouraged and it is as important to verify the consensus. It is generally required for contentious subjects. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Making bold edits is even standard Wiki-policy. Have a scroll through the talkpages for the amount of discussion on issues which were resolved. Many of my edits were supplemented with additional references and sources, because of these discussions, which were very helpfull in this regard, and improved the article in major ways. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Via Media Blanket reverts are too extreme a solution. If nothing else they are bad for the morale of the editors active on this page. I am sure not every edit since the older version is contested. Can we instead create a subpage with the older version and then only add those parts which are unanimously agreed upon as being an improvement? That way we'd have a better version to revert to and uninvolved editors would not need to play spot the difference before weighing in. Amitrochates (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Support Redtigerxyz's alternate suggestion of a partial revert of a few sections. It's a much better solution than voting for one's favourite version of the page. Amitrochates (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is only being proposed since some people here don't understand WP:VNT.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support - 5th point should include copyright infringement/close paraphrasing. [1] has closely copied [2] I also was unaware until this month that the article has misinterpreted so many of the citations. "Part of problem .." copies from [3] and other sentence says "it is synthesis of various traditions" then cites Hiltebeitel, p. 12, and p.16 of Flood in the same line.[4] You cannot find anything like that in those citation, same with Samuel, p. 193, it is included above. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    So you have read Flood, p. 16 and Samuel, p. 193 and found no ideas related to synthesis? Kautilya3 (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • When you said "related to synthesis" you already confirmed the misinterpretation. Yes they don't ever talk about any Hindu synthesis at all. Flood's book has not even mentioned synthesis if it matters to you. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
My question was whether you have read the pages cited? If they don't talk about synthesis, what else do they talk about? Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Blades, the claim that Hinduism is "is synthesis of various traditions" is as anti-WP:REDFLAG as it gets (in fact the article gets it wrong IMO in positioning this as a Western understanding), and also is supported, for example, by Flood p.16 "The many traditions that feed into contemporary Hinduism..." and, frankly, the rest of the book section. I don't think we should be complaining of close-paraphrasing (which, I agree is a concern), while simultaneously objecting to fair paraphrasing just because a single word ("synthesis") is not found in a particular source. Abecedare (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Note also that JJ cited Flood, p. 16 for "many traditions," not for synthesis. I have often complained to JJ about his over-citations. And, his response was that it was necessary to ward off silly comments. Blades proves his point. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep. This seems to be a point that's hard to swallow for many: "Hinduism" is not as old as many wish to believe. The Vedic religion goes far back in time, yes; but "Hinduism" is not the same as the Vedic religion. "Hinduism" emerged around the turn of the century, due to the incorporation of many "local" traditions into the Brahmnanical fold. This fact seems problematic for many; that's why I added so many references and quotes here. Why is it so important for many to present "Hinduism" as "the oldest religion in the world"? Why can't you be satisfied with the fact that your religion has an incredible wealth of traditions, and a fascinating complexity in it's history? When the "second urbanisation" started, my forefathers (if any such thing can be said) were still living in wooden cabins in the swamps... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't see any problem with the "age" of Hinduism. Hinduism is a continuous tradition for as long as we can see. At what point in time this tradition should be called "Hinduism" is up to individual choice. In my book, Hinduism predates the Vedic religion. The archaeologists have produced pretty convincing proof of Shiva worship during the Indus Valley civilisation and we have pretty direct evidence from Rig Veda itself disparaging the IVC people as "phallus-worshippers." The Vedic religion was a passing phase for Hinduism, which picked up whatever was worth saving from the Vedic religion and discarded everything else. So, yes, Hinduism is still the oldest religion in the world. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The proposer has raised these issues above in Talk:Hinduism#Article issues. Other than issues of style and presentation, I didn't find any merit in his substantive issues. This RfC is an effort to win by fiat what he couldn't win by debate, it seems. The majority of the content since the old version has been created by User:Joshua Jonathan who is a trained theologian and worked hard to bring out the depth and complexity of Hinduism. He deserves our thanks for all his efforts. There are no problems with the present version of the article that a serious round of copy editing can't cure. The opposing editors can contribute positively by doing some such copy-editing themselves. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blanket revert It is not only unfair to the "single editor", but all others who contributed to the article in small ways. However, I agree that the article has issues that need to be resolved. Alternate suggestion: Partial revert of few sections: if better shortened or neutral versions of the same exist in the version in question.Redtigerxyz Talk 17:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: From what I have seen here, I can say that the current version has lack of quality and standard. New edits are always welcome, but first we need to clean up this article. Previous version seemed to have provided better summaries about the events without touching the very doubtful parts or “inapt use” of sources. What I can suggest is that article clean-up to be done as a revert might zap some good reverts too. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The current version is way superior to the version being reverted too. See the direct quotes in the notes.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: No matter, how many editors contributed, it is still worth providing the diversed facts pertaining to the subject matter. In the light of above discussion, I must admit that we shall not be too rigid to what is individual opinion, instead and similarly we must consider efforts of the whole fact finding process.-- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 21:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blanket revert. As Redtiger says there may be case to temporarily replace particular sections of the current article with previous versions from article history, especially if there are issues of copyvio or close paraphrasing (although, I'd like to see that case discussed on the talk page), but the previous version is not clearly superior overall. Also, I'd highly recommend that this discussion not be personalized. Joshua has clearly edited in good faith, and IMO made many useful additions esp. with regards to improving the quality of sourcing in this and related article. If there are concerns with particular edits, discuss the concerned content on a case-by-case basis instead of trying to undo years of work of multiple editors in toto. Abecedare (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
There is no deadline and reverting to former version would allow others to express the problems with the version. I had discussed many of the sections that clearly differed from the former version, and they had no consensus from first. Do we introduce the material into the article and then reach to consensus? Or the process is completely opposite? If others had disagreed with me then I wouldn't be participating. And I didn't knew about the copyright problems and some other issues that have been highlighted by others. We also know that is the main Hinduism article and it will require more attention of experienced editors. Redtigerxyz's alternative proposal is also good, I would start reworking on the draft that I had created before. Delibzr (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Please refer to following points
  • Please refer to "Classical Hinduism (c. 200 BCE-1100 CE)" section refering to adaption of hinduism from buddhism because buddhism was getting popular! ? (please note the reference cited is a book from Buddhism!wp:NPOV and the other reference cites a 30 page read through !? ) and
  • perhaps the lead too is way biased tilted indirectly suggesting buddhism was elitist work and also why the heck there is a mention of ashoka following buddhistic rituals? what it has to do with Hinduism lead page ?,
  • section under Second Urbanisation (c. 500-200 BCE) suggests Jainisim and Buddhism removing orthodox effects in Hinduism!, I see this be suiting possible wiki article of history of India or religion in India something like this! , not pointing out that Hinduism was a monkey religion inside its main article itself and is a clearly a WIKI:NPOV

would suggest nominator to start from the lead to remove biased info, indirectly suggesting different information. I see there is no request for blanket reversion, I do not see point in why some editors feel the request is of blanket reversions.

note: A note to the nominator, please state specifically what are the problems I see that you will be thwarted with mass and ambigious one line answers!Shrikanthv (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I go with Redtigerxyz, VictoriaGrayson and Amitrochates' idea of partial revert. A partial revert is due. It can be done without much trouble, other editors may edit, and discuss any objection raised... the other way... instead of Joshua retaining his edits and having others to discuss each contribution. Other contributors make corrections (if needed make appropriate selective reverts) particular to those portions which did not have prior discussion/consensus and Joshua can bring discussion on talk page if he finds a mistake. This sounds like obvious yet I felt I should write it down. :-) --AmritasyaPutraT 07:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The only one of the issues raised that might justify a blanket revert would be copyright violations; however, I am highly doubtful that this claim has any merit, because it is being made by the people responsible for this. All of the other issues (and I find scant evidence that there are any issues) can be addressed here on the talk. Joshua is the most reasonable of people. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I see that some people favour "partial reverts." Any such partial reverts should again be discussed on a case by case basis. We are talking about sourced content, which can only be reverted on the grounds of WP:UNDUE. Please open new talk page sections for the parts for which partial reverts are being proposed. It is hard to keep track of jumble of complaints in a single RFC. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Delibzr:, can you enlist the sections you think that are better in the previous version? Redtigerxyz Talk 11:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Definition and History were better. Go to User:Delibzr/sandbox, that's where I am reworking. Delibzr (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I second that. Similar POV pushing in history section, as is found on this page, was addressed in a different context in an Rfc at Talk:India and at FTN. I don't see why we need to reinvent the wheel. Consensus there applies here too. Gratuitous references to Buddhism and Jainism in the article particularly in the context of origin many things Hindu is contradicted by the sources used in the article such as Thapar, Flood and Larson. Take for instance Flood who writes[6] "the idea that it was the Jainas, the local aboriginal people, who originated, etc. who "invented" these ideas is of course nothing more than an admission of ignorance, as there are no records of Jainas... later Vedic thought quite naturally led to this stage". Thapar in History of Early India adds to this, "Implicit in the Four Noble Truths is the concept of karma, causally connected to desire and suffering. The Buddha’s teaching was partially a response to the discourse of the early Upanishads, agreeing with some ideas and disagreeing with others. The disagreements were not insubstantial. But the teaching was a departure from that of the Vedic corpus and also a response to the historical changes of the time, among which were the emergence of the state and the growth of urban centres, posing questions that could not be answered by existing ideologies.". Compare this to how our section on Second Urbanisation is written. This is of course not to suggest that there was no interchange of ideas, but just that the section has to be written in a way that better reflects the current scholarly consensus on the issue. Amitrochates (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Disagree The formation of Hinduism, around the start of the Common Era, is missing here. This is described by my paragraph on "Hindu synthesis", which reflects the scholarly concencus. A sentemce like " Radhakrishnan, Oldenberg and Neumann believed that the Buddhist canon had been influenced by Upanishads", on the other hand, from the old version, is based on outdated sources and reflects a certain POV. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blanket revert. By far, the better thing to do would be to make a comprehensive listing of any issues the page might have, selectively revert sections if there is consensus to do so, and rewrite text, add (or subtract!) citations, etc. where there is consensus to do so. Wikipedia works better when discussions are targeted at specific content rather than by making blanket reverts of text that contains useful material. --regentspark (comment) 13:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blanket revert, because the older version suffers from the following:
(i) Poor sources (e.g. islam101.com, paganroots.net, bhagadvadgitasitis.com, and other WP:NOTRS sources were used in the 22 April 2011 version). Random checks suggest the older version had POV and misrepresentation. A misrepresentation example: "While the Vedas focus on rituals, the Upanishads focus on spiritual insight and philosophical teachings, and discuss Brahman and reincarnation." Truth: Upanishads are part of Vedas, and Vedas focussed on a lot more than rituals, (see Vedic literature by Jan Gonda, Otto Harrassowitz, 1975). A POV example from the old version: "The syllable Om (which represents the Parabrahman)..."
(ii) Undue and excessive weight to publications by a few modern movements - Arya Samaj, Ramakrishna Mission, ISKCON, Aurobindo, etc - each representing a small minority of Hinduism. These movements and their teachers deserve an appropriate mention, but not the emphasis it was given (or is being given in parts of the current article). Their publications typically have little to no scholarly review and must be used with caution in wikipedia.
(iii) Unsourced Synth and OR issues. Example from the old version: "It is thought that after several reincarnations, an atman eventually seeks unity with the cosmic spirit (Brahman/Paramatman)."
The current version is much better than the older version, but the new version too has issues. The old version may have stood for a long time - but, that means little. Many Hinduism-related articles, that have stood for a long time, have been or are in poor shape. Blanket revert will harm the constructive improvements made to this article after 22 April 2011. I can post a few suggestions on ways to improve this article, if that would be a constructive response to this RFC. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - reverting to a more balanced version is the best thing to do to maintain neutrality in this case. Any positive contributions made after the revert revision can be readded. This will probably be easier than partial reverts. --RaviC (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I just read the intro and the definitions section and was impressed. Then I saw that it was protected and so I checked the talk page and found this. A look at the former version confirms that the current one is an improvement. That doesn't mean it can't be improved further, but a major reversion like this is a step backwards. Srnec (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Alert: there is no way in which a closer could read this discussion and decide that this RfC has reached a decision. There is one huge revert being proposed (but the arguments and explanation suffer from grammatical failures and incomplete diffs, can't make heads or tails of it), and along the way a partial revert is proposed, which also receives some support. The matter is simply too big and complex for an RfC: it is malformed, and ill-conceived from the get-go. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


The history section is totally biased and only talk about the western view of Hinduism.Most of the Indians and Indian authors dont believe in the "just 5000 year old history of Hinduism" and "The Aryan invasion theory". CAN SOMEONE GO THROUGH THE LINKS I PROVIDED BELOW AND MAKE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ARTICLE??

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/introduction_to_hinduism.htm

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/index.htm

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/aryan_invasion_theory1.htm

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/aryan_invasion_theory2.htm

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/aryan_invasion_theory3.htm

Suryaputra Karna (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

History of Hinduism

The following discussion 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.

In this article the timeline or history of Hinduism is shown totally wrong.For a native Hindu this article seems like someone trying to prove that Hinduism was born just 5000 years ago.Most of the Indian scholars totally reject the claims of Aryan invasion theory.This article in wikipedia however seems to be completely filled up with references of foreign authors who are trying to prove Hinduism is just 5000 years old.Every Puranas in Hinduism,including the dates of epic like Mahabratha are scientifically proven by many authors and provided in many books.Why there is no references and data to show their claims?


This is just one reference trying to show that these are the version of Indian authors about the history of Hinduism & India


History of Hinduism from 3228 BC - 1947

(BC)


3139 The Mahabharat War,Start of Brihadrath dynasty of Magadh,Start of Yudhisthir dynasty of Hastinapur

3102 Start of kaliyug

2139 End of Brihadrath dynasty

2139-2001 Pradyot dynasty

2001-1641 Shishunag dynasty

1894-1814 Gautam Buddh

1641-1541 Nandas

1541-1241 Maurya dynasty

1541-1507 Chandragupt Maurya

1507-1479 Bindusar

1479-1443 Ashokvardhan

1241-784 Shung and Kanau dynasty

784-328 Andhra dynasty

509-477 Jagadguru Shankaracharya

328-83 Gupt dynasty

328-321 Chandragupt Vijayaditya

326 Alexander’s invasion

321-270 Samudragupt Ashokaditya Priyadarshin, or Ashok the Great

102BC-15AD Vikramaditya, established Vikram era in 57 BC


(AD)

25-85 Shalivahan, established Shalivahan Shak era in 78 AD

85-1192 There were several kingdoms of Rajpoot kings all over India. They ruled for 1,107 years.

1192-1757 In 1192, Mohammad Gori invaded Delhi (Hastinapur) the second time, defeated and killed Prithviraj Chauhan, and became the king. Since then several dynasties of Muslims ruled India for 565 years.

1757-1947 In 1757 English regime was established in Bengal.British ruled India for 190 years.

1947 India got Independence

Reference: Saraswati, Prakashanand (1 January 2001). The True History and the Religion of India: A Concise Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. ISBN 978-81-208-1789-0.

Suryaputra Karna (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Suryaputra Karna: This is not a difference between Indian vs. Western authors. Rather it is a difference between tradition vs. academic scholarship. Academic scholarship is based on evidence and reasoning. Tradition is based on belief. Please don't mix up the two. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya a western scholar writing a book on india will get his information by speaking to people about their "traditions" and "culture" and "Faith",So thats your first line in the bin, next You talk about how Indians use faith as their education, this just proves how racist you are!

Whats does Indian vs western authors got to do with the term "tradition"? A indian historian that wants to write about his history is just as qualified as a western historian, alot of people have noticed that many indian scholars have been rejected which should never of been rejected, while western "lingustic scholars" some how are rebranded as Historians on alot of wiki pages on the history of india, witzel and the rest have never set foot on a archaeological site yet they seem to be the main show stoppers on everything indian history page, how can a lingustic scholar lead a history page when you yourself claim indias traditions and text are nothing more then myths?92.236.96.38 (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)beesting

Whether an author is Indian or Western is totally irrelevant to the discussion. What matters is whether the author is scholarly and established their credentials in the scholarship by publishing in journals and academic books and whether they are accepted by other scholars. Editors need to follow the policies declared in WP:RS and WP:HISTRS. A professor at Harvard University has established his academic/scholarly credentials and counts as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2015 (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.

Classical and Modern Hinduism

Elizabeth De Michelis (2005), A History of Modern Yoga: Patanjali and Western Esotericism, gives an interesting scheme for the influence of the west on "Modern Hinduism" (p.36 ff). She distinguishes "Claisscial Hinduism" (before the second half of the 18th century), which may still be found nowadays; and "Modern Hinduism," which can be further subdivided in "Modern Hindu Traditionalism" and "Neo-Hinduism." She also notes that early British Orientalists were "deeply sympathetic" to Indian culture, and played a major role in the revitalisation of this culture (p.42). Interesting source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Time in Hinduism

In response to the above thread: it might be a good idea to include a section on time(lessness) in Hinduism, the timelessness of the Vedas, Brahman as motionless, etc. This section could also incude the Puranic chronology. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to include a separate section of Hindu philosophy and in the origin section we have to mention the similarities between Rigveda and Avesta of Indo-Iranians. There could be separate section for all the Puranas and puranic mythology. --Haccom  ✉ Talk to me 06:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
See also Hindu cosmology, Hindu views on evolution and Pralaya. Kenfyre (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

History of Hinduism - Sindhu Hindu

Is there anyone with knowledge about pre-Vedic history of Hinduism? The term Hinduism itself is a foreign concept i.e. from Muslims. Sanatana Dharma has come to refer to Hinduism with idol worship and later the inclusion of indigenous beliefs that were classified as Hinduism because they did not fit into any other religious denominations.

www.moresocialservicesplease.com has some articles that shows a different point of view. It is written satirically but may have some good info.

Anyone with expertise wants to write about the above?

Many new sects have formed that has effectively created a lot of confusion and some sects like Sai Baba were insipred by muslim philosophy and now mostly has Hindu followers. Buddhism has absorbed a lot of indigenous beliefs like chinese and I think the Theravada has only kept close to the original teachings of Buddha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.85.34 (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean with "pre-Vedic history of Hinduism"? There was no "Hinduism" at those times, unless you mean "Indian religions". And there's very little we know about it; even for the Harappan Civilisation it's a lot of guesswork, let alone pre-VC. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)---
I agree, however "Hinduism" must have a common core that all sects must adhere to to be inclusive to Hinduism. That is what I was referring to . And that common core cannot conflict with the sects doctrine i.e. idol worship of priests, caste system, inclusion of muslim elements (sai baba) , etc.
maybe the supreme court decision should be removed? see above. this decision was probably made by people with british education and with little understanding of hinduism?:
"Unlike other religions in the World, the Hindu religion does not claim any one Prophet, it does not worship any one God, it does not believe in any one philosophic concept, it does not follow any one act of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not satisfy the traditional features of a religion or creed. It is a way of life and nothing more".[59]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.40.191 (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
"Common core"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: There is a broken sentence in this section: "Other practices from the Indus religion that may have continued in the Vedic period include" and nothing after that. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

If anyone want to know about true hinduism/Sanatana dharma please go through the book & references below rather than reading all the lies in this wikipedia page about hinduism. This page in wikipedia is just a western propaganda against Hinduism in general.If you observe this page, a real hindu living in India/Bharat cannot agree to most of what it says,especially the History of Hinduism section!!!.If anyone observe this page 95% of the articles data are quoted from books of foreign authors. (like eg - wendy doniger!!! )

Why not put the truth about Hinduism here where it is most accessible and so that other religions do not spread bs about hinduism If anyone want to know what really hinduism is and its true history better go through the links below rather than reading all these lies by western authors.

Reference:

Realhindu99 (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I like H.D. Swami Prakashanand Saraswati; he provides a very informative point of view on Hinduism, which remains largely hidden when you only read academical works. The link already is in the "external links" section, isn't it? All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:NPOVFAQ#Religion has some useful suggestions, which would be good for us to follow here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Spelling and Grammatical Errors

This is a semi-protected page hence, normal users can't edit and fix trivial spelling and other grammatical errors. Can we keep this section to point these out so that confirmed users may fix it?

 Done BTW, users with an account that's at least four days old and with at least ten edits *can* edit semi-protected pages. Your account is several years old, but only has six edits. Rwessel (talk) 07:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Polytheism

Can Hinduism be called as an polytheistic religion, Since Each and every Hindu deity has some paternal, maternal or some kind of lineage with other Hindu deities, Its popularly said that 36 Crores of Hindu deities are worshipped Ankush 89 (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

See opening paragraph of Hinduism#Concept of God. Abecedare (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
You can expand the material on the same section, noted by Abecedare, but what you have told is already written there. Delibzr (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Missing references

I have fixed the harvard reference errors that I could. The following references are still missing:

  • Flood, 2008 (Flood, 2003?)
  • Nussbaum, 2009
  • Sweetman, 2013
  • King, 2001
  • Renou, 1961 (Renou, 1964?)
  • Harman, 2004
  • Gomez, 2002

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I've corrected them all, except for Harman; no idea. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2015

Add following tag: {{POV|talk=POV Neutrality}} Or create a permanent tag as this topic is very controversal. TimothyBaker2 (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done @TimothyBaker2: Before adding the tag, you should come up with specific text that you feel would solve the issue. Also, a topic being controversial is not a valid reason for a POV tag. --NeilN talk to me 13:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

POV Neutrality

I think this article needs a reboot. On top of the unresolved issues above, I think it needs to do more to avoid segregating Northern and Southern cultures. Someone should attempt to write the article without talking about 'aryans' or 'dravidians', and make a seperate section or article explaining the controversy behind the history of hinduism. TimothyBaker2 (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

All the mentions of "Aryans" and "Dravidians" are from scholarly sources. In fact, most of them direct quotes. I don't see any problem with them. If you have a specific issue, please mention it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I just think it could be done better. "Scholary" sources doesn't equal "Neutral" sources, and while I'm pro-india on this matter, I think the best way to solve this is to avoid talking about the aryan/dravidian divide as much as possible, and explain said divide in a seperate section or article, or just limit it to the historical section of Hinduism. I'm reading this article going "no" "no" "false" "ridiculous" and finding that google is my friend; it's not that this article's facts can't be sourced, it's that there are alternative sources too.
I also think the article fails to explain the alternative views behind the history of hinduism. Some would consider many of the artifacts found in Happaran to be a sign that Hinduism is of majority Dravidian origin, while evidence also exists that there was no migration.
But here the term 'Aryan' was just coined by the British Historians in order to divide and rule. The term 'Arya' exactly means- a noble one.
The Aryan migration theory is false. But there was a migration for sure. It was within the subcontinent. After the downfall of Indus valley civilization and the river Saraswati dried up, the river side civilizations in the West couldn't sustain. So people largely migrated from the West of India to the East side giving rise to a civilization on the banks of river Ganga.
That means 'aryans' are not a race. Also the word Dravida is derived from the word 'drava' meaning liquid. This was more prominently mentioned in Vedas. That is people who most significantly reside in the water bound regions of India.

TimothyBaker2 (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV will explain that neutrality comes from what reliable sources say. According to WP:RS, scholarly sources are generally considered the most reliable. 'Scholarly sources' are exactly equal to 'Neutral' sources.--regentspark (comment) 12:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Rajiv Malhotra as source

Rajiv Malhotra is not WP:RS; he's a polemicist, who has no scholarly credits; on the contrary. See the response on Being Different in the International Journal of Hindu Studies 16 (3). At best he can be cited as "According to Rajiv Malhotra"; which would be WP:UNDUE in the main article on Hinduism. Sorry.
Nevertheless, I've left one sentence which is sourced by RM:

"Dharma as derived from the Sanskrit root dhri means "that which upholds" or "that without which nothing can stand" or "that which maintains the stability and harmony of the universe." Malhotra, Rajiv (13 June 2011). "Dharma Is Not The Same As Religion". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 24 April 2015.

This seems to be common knowledge, though it may need to be checked. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I took that one out too, because there is a dedicated subsection for dharma. That and some new additions were out of place/undue or repetition. Etymology of the word dharma should go into its own article, if it isn't there. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@User:Joshua Jonathan It would be a sweeping statement to make when you say that we should be barred from including Rajiv's work in Wikipedia because he is a polemicist and thus his writings are not WP:RS. There is only one editor in the Being Different article who is calling him a polemicist - here is the excerpted text from the article:
"Robert A. Yelle is highly critical of Malhotra's approach. According to Yelle, 'there is little, if any, original scholarship in the book. It is the work of a polemicist"
Here Yelle is attempting to invalidate Rajiv's arguments, thus it would make sense to see why Yelle is desirous to buoy his points above Rajiv's and thus take recourse to label him as a polemicist. Thus, at best you can say "According to Yelle, Rajiv Malhotra is a polemicist" And here again for the sake of argument, it would equally be correct to say Yelle is also a polemicist. And thus to draw a conclusion on Yelle's stance, who is also a polemicist by the same logic, and claim that Rajiv is not WP:RS does not seem right to me. You see the flaw in your argument. As seen in my original edit, I did say that it was Rajiv who spelled out the contrast between "religion" and "dharma". Though, all said and done, I only submit to the WP:UNDUE argument. It makes sense that it falls under WP:UNDUE and thus doesn't make the cut in this article. Cheers and Happy-editing! Kapil.xerox (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't see the "flaw" in the argument, and it's not a "sweeping statement." I only see that Wikipedia has a policy to use reliable sources, and that Rajiv Malhotra is far from being a reliable source. Not only because he's "polemicist," which means that he's got a disregard for differing opinions, but basically because his presentation of the facts is incorrect. And that's because he's not aiming to give a neutral or scholarly overview, but to give a specific understanding of India, in which there is ample room for differences within India. He's got a political agenda, and that's what makes him an unreliable source. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Respectfully to both of you, it is sources that are labelled as reliable or not, not authors. Can somebody state which source is being talked about, and how it satisfies the criteria of WP:RS? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@User:Kautilya3 - The source that is being discussed here is the Huffington Post where Rajiv posted the article "Dharma is not the same as Religion" Here is the link to the article itself: click_here. Huffington Post, to my best knowledge, is one of the most reliable sources of information and is well known for its thorough fact-checking editorial review team. Authors like Ken Robinson, whose TED talk was one of the most viewed, regularly post on Huffington Post. (For instance his most recent article on "The Creative Classroom" was "primarily" posted on Huffington Post. See link: click_here ). I am not sure if there is a grey area in my knowledge of WP:RS policy whose wording could fall into a kind of Wikipedia policy along the lines of WP:UA meaning "Unreliable Author" regardless of whatever source is being used by "UA" that User:Joshua Jonathan is referring to that I am still unable to see. My main motivation for adding the difference between an English equivalent and a Sanskrit terminology is to elevate readers understanding that sometimes subtle and sometimes huge differences exist between the two. Thus, it is an injustice when a Sanskrit terminology is watered down with a non-translatable English equivalent and failing to explain the difference in my view does not merit an article. On the side-note, Western scholars/thinkers may be sensitive to view Rajiv as a polemicist but his work is essentially a Purva-Paksha which is another Sanskrit concept foreign to many of them and is in no way even near-polemic. User:Joshua Jonathan clarifies that it (the article) satisfies WP:RS since Rajiv Malhotra is a polemicist, as pointed out by scholars in the International Journal of Hindu Studies - hence a "UA" - Unreliable Author. Kapil.xerox (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, you're right, of course, that authors are not sources. Nevertheless, there are better sources than articles by Rajiv Malhotra. The criticisms of the authors of the IJHS go further than only "polemicism." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kapil.xerox: See WP:NEWSORG. Newspaper opinion columns are not reliable sources. However, if the author is an established scholar who has had plenty of publications in peer-reviewed journals, then we can accept their opinion columns as being RS. Rajiv Malhotra hasn't had any peer-reviewed publication in Hinduism as far as I know. So, his opinion columns can't be cited. I might add that David Frawley, Subhash Kak etc. also fall into the same category. They need to publish in peer-reviewed journals in order for us to take notice. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the big picture, I see that Rajiv Malhotra and his movement have been critiquing the Western scholarship of Hinduism as being wrong or missing the point. That is perfectly fine. They are entitled to their views and welcome to put them forward. If the scholars accept their criticism and change their views, then we can represent such changes on Wikipedia. If there is debate about those issues in scholarly sources, we can describe that too. But these things would be only minor footnotes in the main article. The right place to put those debates would be in the articles dedicated to those debates. Such debates might be "notable" even though they are not "reliable." Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
This review by Anantanand Rambachan of Malhotra's Indra's Net gives an impression of the structural distortions Malhotra incorporates in his works. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Quick comment: Malhotra may be an important enough voice to quote on contemporary Western scholarship on Hinduism (is there a relevant wikipedia article?), although even in that case it would be best to use secondary sources to cite what he has said, and his opinions will need to be attributed. However, Malhotra is certainly not a good source on Hinduism itself, and I don't see why we would need to cite him in this article given the numerous far superior sources that are available. Example, Patrick Olivelle and Alf Hiltebeitel have recently edited and written, respectively, whole books devoted to the concept of Dharma; why would we cite Malhotras column in Huffington Post for that?! Abecedare (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No, we don't have an article on Western scholarship on Hinduism. I don't think we need one either. But there is an article on Rajiv Malhotra and there are articles on each of his books. His critiques and counter-critiques can go there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Rajiv Malhotra is WP:RS, he just needs to be included with his name. Delibzr (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The book Breaking India is extensively sourced from western academic books and papers.VictoriaGraysonTalk 12:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Conversion

Do we really have to maintain an empty section called "Conversion"? and that too in an article on Hinduism? Nothing could be more oxymoronic. I have taken the liberty of removing the section and hopefully it will remain removed. There is only one god, everything and everyone is part of that god and vice versa. So there is no such thing as a conversion. This does not mean that one can not adopt Hindu practices. Anyone can as long as they don't think that they have "converted" to Hinduism as that will pretty much defeat the purpose of being a Hindu :-). The section titled "Spread of Hindu practices" seems relevant though and I hope it doesn't start talking about conversion in disguise. –unsigned insertion by User:Desione, 07:18, 24 January 2015

I have expanded it as conversion debate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs). That is quite excellent. I think a couple more ideas are needed, but I don't know the sources for them. So, I will just mention them and leave it in your expert hands.
  1. There is an idea that all ancestral Indians are automatically "Hindus," and if they happen to belong to other religions they were "Vratya Hindus" that just need to be "purified." Apparently, the shuddhi ceremony comes from the Yajurveda.
  2. All the foreign groups that came to India (Grees, Scythians, Huns, and possibly Gurjaras) were also probably converted to Hinduism through similar rituals. See Agnikula for example.
Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I added a note on Shuddhi movement with its history. Heliodorus pillar and other historical evidence suggest Greeks and others became Hindus in ancient times. Whether Heliodorus and others used rituals or Yajurveda during adoption ceremony, and if so which, is unknown. Such claims are unsubstantiated and tenuous. Its discussion may also be undue in this already long, overview article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Christianity and Hinduism and other religions

Christianity and recent trends in proselytizing

There should be a section where recent tactics by christians to start new sects in other religions with the intention to mislead is sprouting up across the globe. For instance BAPS was declared the largest hindu templeby guiness world records a western controlled organization while this sect has clear non hindu values with god lineages. There also should be some info on acting , where non hindus pretend to be hindus and give false statements of salvation by christ. Also use of medical equipment to scare people into thinking they are in the presence of god. Currently in Suriname christian sects are doing this as a form of racketeering, where people are induced into altered mental states and priests perform fake cleansing. There have been deaths as a result of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.175.65 (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done Wikipedia relies on published mainstream academic or journalistic sources instead of sensationalist and sectarian conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

See newspaper articles during 2007- 2010 period lots of articles to verify

Also :

Maybe all articles relating to Hinduism should be deleted as per this guideline if they don't give references to Vedas , etc or oher acceptable Hindu sources:

We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology. Other sources are all original eg Bahai, Baps, ISKCON, Sai baba, brahmrshi, etc.

Hindu sources are Vedas etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.175.65 (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I especially want BAPS to be declared another sect or religion as it is gaining prominence through fake recognition by guiness world book of records/ commercial interest and does not fit into mainstream hindu philosophy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.175.65 (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Just saying "newspaper articles" isn't actually citing them. You need to say which issues of which newspapers.
Repeating the names of groups you are making claims about is not a citation at all.
The Vedas are primary sources and should only be cited to summarize face value material or to confirm quotes from secondary sources -- they cannot be used to make any statements about doctrine. Even if the Vedas were an applicable citation, you would need to cite which book and which verse within the Vedas.
Citing the Vedas would be original research because they are open to interpretation, and do not cover the developments of the religion since they were written. This article cites mainstream academic sources, which avoids original research.
Ian.thomson (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

buddhism

There should be some mention of Buddhism having roots in pre vedic and vedic religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.157.227 (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources if you want this to be added to the article. --regentspark (comment) 12:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

indo - aryan

Article should clearly state that indo aryan migration is theory and is disputed by the OIT theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.157.227 (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. OIT is WP:FRINGE. See Talk:Indigenous Aryans/Archive 3#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

How is this a fringe theory. Take into consideration when the aryan migration theory was accepted , this was when mostly european scholars peer reviewed theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.157.227 (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

please add

http://www.thearyasamaj.org/home — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.157.227 (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hinduism -- original source

Any religion claiming to be Hindu, if not citing the Vedas as its source should be considered original work. Especially sai baba, iskcon,swaminarayan, etc. Buddhism has sources from the Vedas, and still is considered another religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.157.227 (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Major scriptures include the Vedas, Upanishads (both Śruti), Mahabharata, Ramayana, Bhagavad Gita, Puranas, Manusmṛti, and Agamas (all smriti).[15]

above should say

scriptures include only the Vedas, Upanishads (both Śruti), Mahabharata, Ramayana, Bhagavad Gita, Puranas, Manusmṛti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.157.227 (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Our article represents the scholarly consensus on Hinduism, not our own opinions. Your opinions have no value here unless you support them by citing reliable sources as defined by our policies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Revamp?

Looking at the template for the Hinduism series thing... it needs a lot of work... can we hold a discussion about how to revamp it? I have some ideas, I'd like to share, but I'm not sure who to share with... I don't want to make major changes by myself, obviously. Gndd108 (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

RNPOV?

@Abhinav Yd: I didn't understand the point of your edit today [7]. What does WP:RNPOV have to do with it? - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Point of my edit was to include a skeptical point of view. Use of phrases like "focus mind on holy thoughts" doesn't sound neutral. Abhinav Yd (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC) -
Well, it is bad English; that is all I would say. I might say instead, "focus one's mind on the divine." I don't see anything non-neutral about it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
"Mantras are invocations, praise and prayers that through their meaning, sound, and chanting style help a devotee focus the mind on holy thoughts or express devotion to God/the deities." - This sentence implies that there exists a phenomena, such that, when you speak certain words with a certain meaning in a certain kind of "style", then it causes you to have "holy thoughts" (whatever that might mean.) This is based on subjective experience and is not so obvious or majority viewpoint. No such phenomena is identified by scientific community. Abhinav Yd (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Probably best not to speak in sweeping generalizations about science, which has a long history of studying religious/spiritual experiences. For a very recent study, see HERE. --Presearch (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
A discussion on the existence or non-existence of such a phenomena is a completely different topic. In Hinduism, this existence is pre-supposed - and a lot more nuanced than simply "is," since "the" Absolute is nirguna and beyond conventional comprehension - and does not need to be questioned or discussed. It's simply a topic of this article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Meditation is not religious (related to God/gods) or spiritual (related to something non-natural, if that is what it means.) Many studies on meditation have been conducted. It can be explained scientifically without involving any paranormal entity. The point is whether you need to recite certain words in certain language (which is prayer of a certain deity.) You could recite the Great Hymn to the Aten or the Epic of Gilgamesh. Would that be any different? Abhinav Yd (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
No, "spiritual" does not mean "non-natural"; on the contrary. It means 'free from superstitions (of a solely "material" reality); free from the limited world/reality/representations that we/the brain create'. Maybe it becomes religious/spiritual when we combine it with karuna, compassion, embodying the Good (Good, not God, though they may be synonymous in a religious worldview) in this mortal world.
The point of reciting specific texts is that those texts also represent certain teachings, a frame of reference, a worldview, which incorporates hints of this 'seeing-through constructed reality' and of the need to act out of compassion. Joël André-Michel Dubois's The Hidden Lives of Brahman gives an extensive etnographic study of the use of texts to invoce a 'limits-transcending' understanding of Brahman (understanding, not "experience"; "experience" may be to limited a term to describe this) in traditional Advaita Vedanta. This is a respectfull study, which adds valuable information for those of us who are not trained in Advaita Vedanta (that's most of us, probably). It shows that Advaita vedanta is much more than "just" a philosophy; it's a thorough practice of approaching and understanding/incorporating the sacred texts, and incredibly sophisticated.
And meditation can indeed be explained in a "natural" way; frankly, I don't recall explanantions of meditation which point to a paranormal entity. On the contrary, it may help to deconstruct such notions. Maybe you should have a look at Madhyamaka; no "transcendent reality" whatsoever. The notion of sunyata has also been influential in Hinduism, in the understanding of Brahman as nirguna Brahman, beyond limited conventional concepts.
And for a phenomenological approach of Advaita Vedanta, see Eliott Deutsch, Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Reconstruction. Very insightfull, and also respectfull of the topic. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Addition to Further Reading

Hello! I have a suggested addition for 'Further Reading: Scholarly'

Flueckiger, Joyce Burkhalter (2015), Everyday Hinduism, Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN 978-1-4051-6021-6

Alaani (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Islam and sects of Hinduism (c. 1200-1700 CE)

This section does not look neutral - it does not even mention the revival of Hinduism in India under two powerful states - Vijayanagar[1] and Maratha[2] I am editing this section with absolute credible references

Amit20081980 (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.britannica.com/place/Vijayanagar
  2. ^ http://www.britannica.com/place/India/Political-and-economic-decentralization-during-the-Mughal-decline#toc46985
Good addition, I think. Interestingly, it seems that it was also the Vijayanagar Empire where Shankara was elevated to the status he still has today. This contrasts with the statement in the article "Followers of the Bhakti movement moved away from the abstract concept of Brahman, which Adi Shankara consolidated a few centuries before." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the first paragraph seems to have come from some Hindutva pamphlet. What "sects of Hinduism"? I don't see any. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Bhakti sects of Hinduism, makes more sense in the title. Bhakti movement gathered steam after 12th century, peaked between 15th-18th centuries in east/west/central/north regions of the subcontinent. See Karen Pechelis and Schomer & McLeod sources in the article. Also see: Christian Lee Novetzke (2013), Religion and Public Memory, Columbia University Press, ISBN 978-0231512565, pages 138-140. It includes a discussion of Islamic rule period and Bhakti movement in their Deccan region, on those pages. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sarah, I know. But I was pointing out that there is no mention of any of it in the section. In fact, the section is leaving religion behind and going off into politics. I am not sure how this happened. On the matter of "sects", as opposed to "movements", I expect there would be diversity in the scholarly sources. Calling them "sects" as if it were a fact seems to constitute POV. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Totally agree with Amit20081980. This section is written in an utter rubbish way.Ghatus (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Indeed. Bhakti movement needs to be mentioned in this article. Religion-related historical violence and its impact on the religion, its followers is relevant and due, for balance and completeness. Similar discussions are in Christianity and Islam articles. Let us focus on reliable sources, instead of puzzling perspectives of their anti-Hindu, pro-Hindu, anti-Islam, pro-Islam organizations. The section looks well sourced. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ghatus: I reverted you because your edits have issues and they weakened the article. You, for example, generalized Richard Eaton's book on Islam-Hindu interaction in Bengal region of India (The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier) to all of India, and your summary wasn't accurate either (FWIW, Maratha/Vijayanagara should be trimmed; this overview article is too big). Lets discuss per BRD, and reach consensus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you know about Sufism in India? Bengal and Punjab was the center of Suhrawardiyya.Ghatus (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Islam and Hinduism-1200-1750

1)Which renowned Historian wrote that Hindus became Muslim by just dint of Sword? It's a total rubbish statement. Even a person having some knowledge of mediaval History knows that there were several reasons for conversions. Read books of B. Chandra, Thapar, RS sharma, Eaton, D. Jha. Some of the reasons are:

  • Initially by violence, threat or other pressure against the person.
  • As a socio-cultural process of diffusion and integration over an extended period of time.
  • That conversions occurred for non-religious reasons of pragmatism and patronage such as social mobility among the Muslim ruling elite.
  • Some of Muslims were descendants of migrants from the Iranians or Arabs.
  • Majority Conversion was a result of the actions of Sufi saints.

2)Islam was dominant in North India, but not in the South.

3)Bhakti started in the the South actually, but flourished in the north.

4)Vijaynagar and Maratha power show the revival of Hinduism.

These are historical facts. Theologians should keep a distance from History. Ghatus (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: & @Joshua Jonathan: Do look into the matter. Ms Sarah Welch is unfit for history writing. I do not have enough time at hand now, but this myth of "Hindu trauma at the hand of Muslim tyranny" was first spread by the British and it later became a main driving point of Hindu Nationalist movement.Ghatus (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ghatus: Avoid forum-y behavior, see WP:TALKNO. Try providing specific RS with page numbers, with sentences/proposal to improve the section. I am puzzled by your third revert on this article today, despite BRD reminder, and after I have already provided specific issues with your edits above. If you want another issue, you changed the Jizya repeal language, which was already in article before your edit. You changed it to, without source:
"The Delhi Sultanate of North India imposed Jizya tax on Hindus, later it was repealed by Akbar when the Mughal rule was formally established in India."
This made it misleadingly inaccurate and worse, because Akbar did not establish Mughal rule, and Jizya was brought back by Aurangzeb. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

1)Babur's Mughal rule on some parts of India was wiped out within some years. Akbar FORMALLY ESTABLISHED mughal rule in India in 1556. yes, Jizya was re-introduced by his great grand son Aurangzebe, but the Marathas are now already in the scene and it was the end of the empire. I was just presenting both sides.Ghatus (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear both, this is an article on religion. I suggest we steer clear of politics. What interests us in this article is what impact Islam/Muslim rule made on Hinduism. Nothing has been said about that in the article. Jizya and slavery etc. don't belong here. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Jizya were religion-related taxes. It belongs here, much like it belongs in the relevant Judaism section, as it already does. Same is true for slavery and other issues, if and where religion was an issue. This is well sourced, relevant and belongs. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Who wrote such lines like- "Typically enslaved Hindus converted to Islam to gain their freedom","Starting with 13th century, for a period of some 500 years, very few texts, from the numerous written by Muslim court historians, mention any "voluntary conversions of Hindus to Islam", suggesting its insignificance and perhaps rarity of such conversions".

I CHALLENGE TO PRESENT ANY SERIOUS HISTORIAN WRITING SUCH LINES ON INDIAN HISTORY. THESE ARE TOTAL RUBBISH WRITTEN BY SOME THIRD RATE PAMPHLETEERS. ALL BOGUS. Are these lines written by-B. Chandra? Thapar? RS sharma? Eaton? D. Jha? Ghatus (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Who is P Hardy? Who is Hari Sharma? What are their worth and accomplishment? Their opinion do not even count. Ghatus (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
BTW, I am not going to leave this matter. Wrong quote and selective cherry picking would be dealt with in the next few days till I get the desired result. I need some time. Ghatus (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Mass Conversion to Islam: Theories and Protagonists- Eaton

HERE EATON TALKING ABOUT ENTIRE INDIA.Ghatus (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please post more.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Entire book is given. He elaborately talks about all the theories of conversions. Ghatus (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

MISQUOTING OF SOURCE

THE ARTICLS CLAIMS THAT EATON WROTE - ""In 1562 Akbar abolished the practice of enslaving the families of war captives; his son Jahangir banned sending of slaves from Bengal as tribute in lieu of cash, which had been the custom since the 14th century. These measures notwithstanding, the Mughals actively participated in slave trade with Central Asia, deporting Hindu rebels and subjects who had defaulted on revenue payments, following precedents inherited from Delhi Sultanate"(P.11)

EATON DID NOT WRITE IT. HE DID NOT EVEN MENTION HINDU-MUSLIM ISSUE. I AM GIVING THE LINK OF P.11 [1]

  1. ^ Slavery and South Asian History edited by Indrani Chatterjee, Richard M. Eaton

LIES AND HYPOCRISIES ARE BEING SPREAD IN THE NAME OF OTHERS. SHAMELESS. Ghatus (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, it appears that this slavery issue doesn't have anything to do with the subject of this article. I am removing it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ghatus: You have slightly misquoted what is actually quoted in the article. I see it on page 11. It is in a chapter written by Richard M Eaton (see top of pages 10 and 12). The context is Hindu and Muslim, see page 10 and elsewhere, with footnotes. I don't think there is a need to quote more or the entire chapter by Eaton. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
WHAT MISQUOTE? You have given page number and the quote in the article. Both are false. There were Hindu slaves and there were Muslim slaves. You made it a communal matter. Where is the line you have given in the source??? I am a student of History and I know it very well how to quote and how to misquote.BTW, SEE above. Eaton has explained my position very well.Ghatus (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ghatus: The article's embedded quote is [Hindu], not Hindu. If you acknowledge there were Hindu slaves and Muslim slaves, just remember @Kautilya3's advice: the relevant part here is "anything to do with the subject of this article", that is Hindus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
What a logic! The source says that Sultan X killed Hindus and Muslims. And, you are writing that "The source says that Sultan X killed Hindus" totally omitting "Muslim" under a lame excuse of the article being on Hinduism fully knowing that it is both distortion and communalization of the source, hence,it is falsification. You have no idea on History. It seems that I wasted my time.Ghatus (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Sarah, slavery was an integral part of the way the Afghan/Turkic societies worked. The Sultans themselves were slaves originally, and they are called "slave kings" for that reason. Their invading armies were mostly made up of slaves. It is wrong to suggest that Hindus were being singled out for slavery. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: You are probably mentioning Mamluk dynasty. That doesn't belong in this article. Non-Muslim [Hindu, Buddhist, etc] war captives and tax defaulters were the source of slaves during Islamic rule, according to Eaton, Wink and many others. But, if you find any reliable source that states Hindus were never enslaved during the Islamic rule period, we should add a summary from that source with a page number in this section as well, for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
We have to be careful not to suggest that certain things were a special case if they were in fact the norm. While this article has to focus on Hinduism, it doesn't not have to do so slavishly (sorry!). In other words, it would probably be wrong to say that "X enslaved Hindus" if in fact "X enslaved Hindus and also Muslims". The first creates the erroneous impression to the reader that only one community suffered under X. Mentioning Muslims in this situation, and with not much greater verbiage, is a reasonable aside from the main focus of the article: it aids the reader in obtaining a full understanding of the situation in its context, and that is surely our goal. Alternatively, if the slavery issue as a whole is pretty much beyond the scope of the article then we say nothing at all. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: Indeed. In this case we have a lack of an RS that says, "X enslaved Hindus and Muslims", and an abundance of sources saying followers of Hinduism were enslaved during the Islamic period. Note: "enslaving Muslims is not same as Muslim slaves", because the process used to be: Hindu or Buddhist etc war captive / tax defaulter -> Hindu/Buddhist slave under a Muslim slave-owner -> slave converts to Islam becoming Muslim slave -> Muslim slave's manumission if the slave-owner so wishes (if I recall, there was an exception: if Hindu/non-Muslim slave girl became pregnant with her Muslim master's child, she became free upon her master's death, her child was deemed Muslim while she could remain non-Muslim). But this discussion doesn't belong in this article, IMHO. I encourage @Kautilya3 to add summary from any RS that says "followers of Hinduism and Islam were both enslaved" or "followers of Hinduism were never enslaved" during the Islamic rule period, along with page number and the RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. That is not exactly what I said. I said "slavery was integral part of Afghan/Turkic society." The Turks themselves were originally enslaved by the Persians and Arabs. I am sure you know this. (See for example, Avari, pp. 38-41, especially p. 41). It was the conquered people that were enslaved, probably without much concern for their religion. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Historians vs Pamphleteers

Can two cent Pamphleteers like P Hardy, Hari sharma etc be taken seriously when Giant historians like RS Sharma, Eaton, Thapar etc have given a totally counter point of view? - Ghatus (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I tagged Will Durant as unreliable source as per WP:HISTRS. A cursory look at the book indicates that it is indeed a "story" of civilization, not a history. - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Go past the folksy title of his series. Will Durant was a historian, significant enough to have articles in tertiary peer reviewed literature such as encyclopedias. The series cited in this article is notable, having sold millions of copies and in many languages. Reviews of his work, including the one cited in this article, were consistently positive. Scholarly criticism was missing or mild, the latter of the style that he did not go far and deep and aggressive enough, that Durants were "never uncomfortably realistic, never daring, never surprising. Theirs is the enlightenment that still enlightens, basically kindly, hopeful, progressive, reasonable, democratic," according to a NYTimes commentary. Will Durant's book meets the WP:HISTRS requirements. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Questionable claims

Sultanate-sponsored religious violence

Durant is already a questionable source. Gaborieau is also not a HISTRS, but the mention is of violence "during the Sultanate" (not sponsored by Sultanate) in just a single sentence with no details. I doubt if the Sultanate sponsored any religious violence (whatever that means). - Kautilya3 (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Gaborieau is a peer reviewed scholarly source, widely cited, thus meets WP:HISTRS. Will check and embed relevant quotes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wide-spread practice of raids

(along with siezure and enslavement). I don't find references to such in the citations. Can you give a page number or a quotation? - Kautilya3 (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Will check, and revise/quote appropriately. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Forcible conversion

Jamal Malik is actually saying there is no evidence of forcible conversion. Hardy's paper is a survey of old literature, and doesn't present any conclusions from the conflicting claims. So this claim is not verified. - Kautilya3 (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You missed the para. I will embed the quote from Jamal Malik. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wiil Durant & The Story of Civilisation

I've also my doubts and reservations with this source, and this quote:

""The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within. The Hindus had allowed their strength to be wasted in internal division and war; they had adopted religions like Buddhism and Jainism, which unnerved them for the tasks of life; they had failed to organize their forces for the protection of their frontiers and their capitals."

Let's see:

  • "the bloodiest story in history" - this was written before Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot? Read any book on the German conquest of Russia, and the Holocauast...
  • "civilization [...] barbarians invading from without" - so, Muslims are barbarians who lack civilisation?
  • "religions like Buddhism and Jainism, which unnerved them for the tasks of life" - thanks for this fine qualification - apart from the fact that Jainism is older than Hinduism.

May I suggest to remove this quote? It reminds me of "Tintin in Africa," and like-minded publications from another age in western history. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Durant writes "probably". The pages that follow, in his book, give examples with sources (tragic it is). Durant is not the only source, there are other recent WP:HISTRS which say the same, but without the barbarian or Buddhism/Jainism bits. If you want to replace Durant with a more recent reliable source, I am fine. My preference is to not suppress or hide such information, but include the opposite side from reliable sources which hopefully say "it wasn't bloody and Hinduism thrived under the Islamic rule period", or something like that. I favor presenting all sides, rather than hiding something that is out there in reliable sources. I tried, added the Akbar-related information a while ago. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
If there are other sources saying, that's fine (well, "fine" is not the best word in this context...). My point is, that this quote at this place is closer to POV than to objective writing, I think. It msy say more about the perception of the author, than it says about the events. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
It does jar. That is what happens when people write for the mass market - they have to dumb down and sensationalise. - Sitush (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@JJ: Per our discussion on your talk page, I have taken out one non-HISTRS you added. There are other recent HISTRS on the tragic "bloody history, persecution, Hindu scriptures burning under Islamic rule", but I want to read the chapters/journal papers and the context/references therein fully before I distill a few sentence summary into this section. I will give you and others some time to scrub the section further, and add anything else you want to help improve balance and objective writing. But, lets use the same HISTRS standards for both Muslim and Hindu sides. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ghatus & Ms Sarah Welch: now take a break

Ghatus & Ms Sarah Welch, I'm adressing the two of you here together, so it's clear that I'm adressing both of you: take a break, breath deep, and let it go for a while. The Persians/Afghans/Turk ruled northern India for half a millennium; I guess a few more days to figure out how they impacted Hinduism won't hurt that much, does it? What does hurt are the Wiki-policies, and the sanctions that may be imposed. So please, both of you, stop it, and don't template each others talkpages. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Technically you're both at 3RR now, I guess; that's enough for today. Regarding the interplay between Islam and Hinduism: for the moment, that sentence is gone. Let's find relevant sources, instead of re-re-reverting and throwing with templates. And accept that most of us does have a POV somewhere. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Has one lost reason?

The article claims: "Forced conversions occurred on an even larger scale at the end of the eighteenth century in the context of increased communal conflicts as well as during the Mappila Rebellion (1921/1922)"

Which incident? 18th century or 20th century? Under the nose of Hindu Zamindars and British rule?

Again says: "Starting with 13th century, for a period of some 500 years, very few texts, from the numerous written by Muslim court historians, mention any "voluntary conversions of Hindus to Islam", suggesting its insignificance and perhaps rarity of such conversions"

On the contrary there are only handful mentions of forced conversions. It's a lie being written.

Further says," There were occasional exceptions to religious violence against Hinduism"

Bogus. Show me the source. Historians like Eaton, RS Sharma(MI- I & II), B. Chandra, Thapar say the opposite. Show me the data or the Royal Charter or the official policy. If someone dies while fighting, you are calling it "religious violence". Ghatus (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. There is very little evidence of forced conversion (Avari, p. 72). From my memory, there were only a few instances of "forcing" conversion, but mostly for political reasons. They are overblown by some writers. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hindu temple destruction and desecration

In these two booklets, everything on this matter - list, locations, background and history - is talked about in detail.

I have given link to both Part-II & Part-I in PDF format.

1. http://ftp.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_eaton_temples2.pdf (Part=II)

2. http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_eaton_temples1.pdf (Part-I)Ghatus (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. See Avari, p. 72. He says that, according to Eaton, only about 80 temples were destroyed through the entire Islamic period, mostly for political reasons. The Sultanate also gave several grants for the construction of temples. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Where are Rajputs?

You are writing history of medieval Hinduism and no mention of Rajputs??? Are we idiots???Ghatus (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Hindu" slave/war captives and Timur

Historian Irfan Habib writes in "Timur in the Political Tradition and Historiography of Mughal India" that in the 14th century, the word "Hindu" (people of "Al-Hind", "Hind" being "India") included "both Hindus and Muslims" in religious connotations.[1]

When Timur entered Delhi after defeating Mahmud Toghloq’s forces, he granted an amnesty in return for protection money (mâl-e amâni). But on the fourth day he ordered that all the people of the city be enslaved; and so they were. Thus reports Yahya, who here inserts a pious prayer in Arabic for the victims’ consolation ("To God we return, and everything happens by His will"). Yazdi, on the other hand, does not have any sympathy to waste on these wretches. He records that Timur had granted protection to the people of Delhi on the 18th of December 1398, and the collectors had begun collecting the protection money. But large groups of Timur’s soldiers began to enter the city and, like birds of prey, attacked its citizens. The "pagan Hindus" (Henduân-e gabr) having had the temerity to begin immolating their women and themselves, the three cities of Delhi were put to sack by Timur’s soldiers. "Faithless Hindus", he adds, had gathered in the Congregation Mosque of Old Delhi and Timur’s officers put them ruthlessly to slaughter there on the 29th of December. Clearly, Yazdi’s "Hindus" included Muslims as well.[2]

  1. ^ http://asiecentrale.revues.org/500
  2. ^ Timur in the Political Tradition and Historiography of Mughal India, Irfan Habib,p. 295-312

Selective cherry picking by Ms Sarah Welch to save face

Sarah has now come down to quote diaries of a traveller of an incident of burning of books in Varanasi. On the contrary, I can give hundred of examples of Sanskrit books being translated to Persian with ROYAL PATRONAGE. The MUGHAL PAINTINGS are full Hindu mythology. Many of the most famous temples of North India of today were established with ROYAL MUGHAL PATRONAGE. This is not history writing, but fraud. - Ghatus (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ghatus: I am puzzled by your comments and personal attacks.
Are you trying to dispute André Wink's reliability as source? On your talk page, where @Kautilya3 and you recently discussed your giving your high school, college or some exams, it appears at least @Kautilya3 is okay with André Wink. But even if you two disagree, the fact remains André Wink is a professor of history and his work is widely cited. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am a post Graduate student of History. Hence, I am interested in history sections and know better. You are cherry picking quotes. It is not my matter of liking or disliking someone. If you stick to one source, I have multiple sources that oppose your source. That's all. You may believe in Wink. But, truly speaking , he is a pygmy on Indian History before RS Sharma, Eaton, Thapar, B. Chandra, D.N. Jha, Irfan Habib. They dedicated their entire life researching on Indian History.Please qoute a single line from these eminent historians saying such communal nonsense you are cherry picking.Ghatus (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Andre Wink is certainly a superior scholar, having written 3 volumes of Al-Hind. We can definitely use him. But, when other scholars disagree, we are required to cover all view points as per WP:NPOV. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

One-sided editing

Although I do think that it would be wise for Ghatus to calm down, and try another tone in his posts here, it seems to me that he does have a point. The section on the Islamic period contained a very "selective" portrayal of the Islamic rule, and a selective reading of sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful if @Ghatus / @Kautilya3 identify specific HISTRS-compliant sources and page numbers that can help make the section not "very selective portrayal of the Islamic rule". Such an effort would be most welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Yup, JJ has correctly identified the problem. @Ghatus: please do calm down. The problem has been recognized! I suggest that we use Burjor Avari's book as the main source. He is an accomplished history teacher who knows all the sources, and an extremely level-headed writer that doesn't have an axe to grind. We don't need anything more complicated than that for this article. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I am now relaxed. I do not know why I get excited too much sometimes. LoL, I need to go to anger management centres. :-) BTW, have you read the link of Eaton I have given? I have not come across more clear headed guy than him writing on the spread of Islam in India before, He is logical and factual.Ghatus (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Revisit the Islamic period

I think the situation has become very confused. We can't fix it by checking sources and cleaning text, because the basic problem is of due weight. Each of us has our own idea of what should be mentioned. I also feel that the whole idea of Hinduism has gotten lost, which should be our real focus. So, can I ask each involved editor to list here the 5 most important points to be mentioned regarding Hinduism during the "Islamic period"? Please make a separate subsection for each editor. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • JJ:
    1. a balanced intro;
    2. islamic dominance & violence;
    3. Islamic interest in Hinduism;
    4. Bhakti;
    5. "integration/consolidation" of Hinduism (appraisal of Shankara; searching for commonalities (Nicholson)).
- Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ghatus:
    1. Internal weakness of Hinduism just before the advent of of the Turks.
    2. Initial confrontations and hatred for each other.(Here Rajput vs Turks could be mentioned.)
    3. Synthesis of ideas and Rise of Bhakti movement.
    4. A social upward movement of non-privileged Hindus.
    5. Revival of Hinduism along with the rise of Hindu polity with Vijayanagara and Marathas.Ghatus (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Kautilya:
    1. Recognition of Hindus as dhimmi (protected people).
    2. discrimination and persecution (of Hindus, but focusing on religious aspects).
    3. Sufism and its interaction with Bhakti.
    4. Kabir and Nanak.
    5. Vijayanagara & Unifying Hinduism ideas. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ms Sarah Welch:
    1. How was Hinduism and how were followers of Hinduism affected by the pressures of Islam in the Islamic period? – violence, persecution, confrontation, ideas, sharing, cooperation.
    2. What internal changes/evolution within Hinduism and among followers of Hinduism happened during the Islamic period? – bhakti movement.
    3. In what ways did the diverse groups within Hinduism re-group, re-invent, consolidate themselves during this period? – include a mention of numerous Sampradayas of Hinduism and Hinduism's warrior/military monks.
    4. Which texts and scriptures of Hinduism emerged or were lost? with a few distilled sentences on the emergence of and the interaction of Sikhism and Hinduism in and after the 15th-century.
    5. A few sentences on how this period transitioned into the next stage of Hinduism history (Modern Hinduism (from c.1800)).
Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
(ps) I have listed these because there are many recent HISTRS to create summary answers for these questions. In question 3 in my list, I am particularly referring to the many new Sampradaya of Hinduism that were founded during the Islamic rule period, which are now among the largest monk communities in Asia. Similarly, the warrior monks were a new, notable and influential phenomena of Hinduism that emerged in the Islamic rule period. See sources such as: William Pinch (2012), Warrior Ascetics and Indian Empires, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1107406377. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Wow, that is quite a diverse list. Pooling all of them together, we get about 12-15 points. So if each of us prepares a couple of sentences about each point, along with sources, we can probably put together quite a balanced section. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Mutual synthesis of Sufism and Bhaktism

Here I am adding only the sufism and bhaktism part. For synthesis in the mughal period/ society,many books are available. This writing is a part of my exam note (one can verify any data with a simple google search, if needed) taken and prepared by me from various books.


"The interaction between the two is clear from the remarkable similarities between the two. These similarities included emphasis on monotheism, on the role of the spiritual guide (pir or guru), and on mystical union with God. Moreover, both the Bhakti saints and many Sufi orders were critical of the orthodox elements in Hinduism and Islam respectively. One prominent example of the influence of the Bhakti movement on Sufism is offered by the "Rishi order of the Sufis" in Kashmir. Here, the non-conformist ideas of the famous 14th century women , bhakti-preacher, Lal Ded or Lalleshwari, exercised profound influence on the founder of the order Shaikh Nuruddin Wali. And, so is the case in the worship of Satya Pir by Eastern Indian Hindus. Same issues are with Qalandar Keshava (Krishna) of the North and Sai baba of the South – revered by both Hindus and Muslims.

The interaction between the Chishti sufis and the Nathpanthis during the Sultanate period is also well established fact. The movement of the Nathpanthis had attained considerable popularity in Northern India, in particular among the lower sections of the society, during the 13th and 14th centuries. The Nathpanthi yogis frequently visited the Khanqahs of the leading Chishti sheikh and had discussions with them on the nature of mysticism. The translation of the Yoga – treatise Amrit-Kund into Persian from Sanskrit even before the advent of sufism in India led to the adoption of may meditative practices by the Sufis. The early Chishtis approved some of the ethical values of the Nathpanthi yogis and their corporate way of life. Like the Chishtis, the Nathpanthis had opened their doors to all sections of society, irrespective of caste distinctions. The common outlook of the two popular movements provided a basis for mutual understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims.

The adaptability of the Chishti in the non-Muslirn environment of India released syncretic forces and add to cultural synthesis. Many early Chishtis spoke in Hindawi and composed versed in it. Many khanqahs inspired the composition of mystical poetry in regional languages. Some early Hindi works such as Chandayan by Mulla Daud (second half of the 14th century) combined mysticism with Hindu mythology and philosophy. The sufi folk literature of the later times was a mix of the simplest precepts of Islam and sufi terminology and the existing popular imagery and idiom and, thus, contributed to the growth of eclectic religious life, particularly in the rural areas. The Chishti practice of “Sama” provided the basis for a syncretic musical tradition such as the repertoire of religious songs called “qawwali” which is said to have begun with Amir Khusrau."Ghatus (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Further Reading

Hindu-Muslim Syncretism in India - JStorGhatus (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Verification help with @Ghatus' source substitution

@Ghatus: Consider the source change you have made here to Chaurasia previously added by @JJ:

The Islamic rule period witnessed Hindu-Muslim confrontation and violence, but also mutual synthesis[1] and the influence of the concept of monotheism.[2]

References

  1. ^ The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204–1760, SUB SECTION:"Four Conventional Theories of Islamization in India"
  2. ^ The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204–1760, SUB SECTION:"Four Conventional Theories of Islamization in India 1.5.11"

I am unable to find support for "mutual synthesis", nor for "the influence of the concept of monotheism". Kautilya3: do you see support for either in this, for which @Ghatus is edit warring? If you do, please embed the quote. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

May I ask politely, what ideas did you get after reading the sub-section - Islamization had ever been a function of military ( "Religion of the Sword thesis") and political force or it's opposite? If opposite, your question is answered. Thank you.

BTW, Monotheism is mentioned-" In fact, however, in thinking about Islam in relation to Indian religions, pre modern Muslim intellectuals did not stress their religion’s ideal of social equality as opposed to Hindu inequality, but rather Islamic monotheism as opposed to Hindu polytheism."

And also, this important line-"Those regions where the most dramatic Islamization occurred, such as eastern Bengal or western Punjab, lay on the fringes of Indo-Muslim rule, where the “sword” was weakest, and where brute force could have exerted the least influence." What does that mean??? Synthesis of Cultures. This synthesis of caltures is happening in India from time immemorial. Neither the Aryans, nor the Huns, nor the Turks could escape from this synthesis. Ghatus (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Ghatus (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

In response to the latest edits at the article, and the latest comments at the talkpage: I'm sure there are good sources available, which make it possible to give a balanced presentation. Let's not forget that Islam is still a sensitive topic in India - maybe even more than British rule, and the dominance of western culture. Am I correct, when I think so? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Otherwise, it may be wise to have this page fully protected for a couple of days. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

PS: thanks for the Eaton-links; starting to read them now. There's not a Wiki-article on him? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting:
"in the subcontinent as a whole there is an inverse relationship between the degree of Muslim political penetration and the degree of Islamization." Eaton, "Mass Conversion to Islam: Theories and Protagonists"
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: Are you able to verify "Islamic rule period witnessed ...mutual synthesis" and "Islamic rule period witnessed ...the influence of the concept of monotheism", that @Ghatus alleges is supported by Eaton? @Ghatus: I saw that sentence, but that sentence does not support the conclusion/idea what your are alleging it does. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I've just started reading; I don't know. To be honest, I think it might be best to remove this piece of info/text completely at this moment, including the Eaton-source, or to keep the text, but with a "failed verification"/"source needed" tag. And then we'll hve to look for further info/sources. Don't focus too much, I'd say. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Ok, I will delete it. @Ghatus: Please don't delete your comments, or change another editor's comment, once another editor had replied. You did this here, after I had already replied here, where you also made one of your numerous personal attacks within the last 24 hours, "Ms Sarah Welch is unfit for history writing."

Your earlier post: As a socio-cultural process of diffusion and integration over an extended period of time into the sphere of the dominant Muslim civilization and global polity at large.
You changed it to: As a socio-cultural process of diffusion and integration over an extended period of time.

See WP:REDACT on acceptable methods to make such corrections/changes, as we discuss improvements to this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added some nuances, with thanks to Larson and eaton. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Great job Joshua. It is a sunny day today! - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Mutual synthesis sources

I have the memory of seeing the beautiful term "mutual synthesis" in quite a few places. But Google Books brings up only these two sources.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Long, Jeffrey D. (2013). "Hinduism and the Religious Other". In David Cheetham; Douglas Pratt; David Thomas (eds.). Understanding Interreligious Relations. Oxford University Press. pp. 37–63. ISBN 0191509655.
  2. ^ Annie Christine Lau (2000). South Asian Children and Adolescents in Britain: Ethno-cultural Studies. Whurr. p. 84. ISBN 978-1-86156-127-5. So whereas Islam's relationship with Christianity has been marked by clear confrontation, as is evident in Europe and some parts of the Middle East, the encounter with Hinduism led to mutual synthesis, adaptation and accommodation.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 August 2015

@JJ Kautilya3: Annie Lau book may not be the right source to assert unqualified "mutual synthesis". She describes the confrontation and clash between Islam and Christianity in Europe and the Middle East on pages 83-84, then writes, "In South Asia the clash remains inconclusive. So whereas Islam's relationship with Christianity has been marked by clear confrontation, as is evident in Europe and some parts of the Middle East, the encounter with Hinduism led to mutual synthesis, adaptation and accommodation." Without the inconclusive qualifier, we would be misrepresenting Annie Lau.
Jeffrey Long source similarly needs qualification for an accurate summary. Page 53 states, "But there were also reactions against this widespread spirit of mutual synthesis and accomodation. The Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, reigning from 1658 to 1707, aggressively sought forcible conversion of both Hindus and Sikhs to Islam, ..." Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch that wasn't me! It was Kautilya3 diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the so-called "clash" remaining inconclusive is precisely the point. But it wasn't all clash. There was plenty of mutual synthesis, adaptation and accommodation. As for Jeffrey D. Long, he has a page and half worth coverage of the mutual synthesis and then moves on to talk about Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb's forcible conversions are besides the point, but there are plenty of sources that say that Aurangzeb's orthodox puritanism was a reaction to the "mutual synthesis" which was viewed as a corruption of Islam. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Since you like Jeffrey Long source, we can use it as one of the sources for the summary on forced conversion of followers of Hinduism during the 17th/18th-century. BTW, I am also getting the above 2 sources for "mutual synthesis Islam Hinduism", but 83 sources for "mutual confrontation Islam Hinduism" when filtered per HISTRS guidelines. @JJ: pardonne moi monsieur, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, no. Jeffrey Long is a Religious Studies scholar, not a historian. I don't think he has the final say on the conversion issues. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Do you know Annie Christine Lau's qualifications? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: no problem, of course! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, I couldn't find any information about Annie Lau. Judging from the title of the paper, I would take it to be ethno-cultural studies. Is she a HISTRS? Not in general. But I would take her to be well-versed in the issues of Hindu-Muslim relations, which seems to be her speciality. By the way, it appears that "mutual synthesis" is a semi-technical term among these kinds of cultural scholars, which hasn't yet been picked up by historians. It describes the Hindu-Muslim relations of the Islamic period quite perfectly. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk)
@Kautilya3: If Annie Lau is not HISTRS, ignore her for this article. You are free to have your opinion, but if by your acknowledgement, it "hasn't yet been picked up by historians", drop it. Our concern ought to be to avoid cherry picking sources that leads to, in your choice of words on August 5, to "what seems to have come from some Hindutva" pamphlet, or to extend your choice of words, we should avoid cherry picking sources that lead to "what seems to have come from some Islam-championing or global Muslim-dominance polity or Islamist or Taliban" pamphlet/approval-process to present a distorted history. Please apply HISTRS standards with equal rigor to your own sources, as you do to others and to sources provided by @JJ or me or anyone else. BTW, Jeffrey Long is a professor of Religious and Asian studies, religious studies include history, and "Journal of Asian Studies" is a history journal (see this). We should judiciously use Jeffrey Long's publications for building a summary of history of Hinduism in the Islamic rule period. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggested sources

  • Burjor Avari (2013), Islamic Civilization in South Asia: A History of Muslim Power and Presence in the Indian Subcontinent, Routledge
  • A.L. Basham (1999), A Cultural History of India, Oxford University Press
  • Richard M. Eaton (), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204–1760], University of California Press
  • Wink, Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World, BRILL
  • Gerald James Larson (1995), India's Agony Over Religion: Confronting Diversity in Teacher Education, SUNY, chapter 3; especially pp.109-112 (and ff?)
  • Burton Stein (2010), A History of India, John Wiley & Sons, chapter fur, Early Modern India

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Vinay's blog

@Joshua Jonathan:: Is this a blog? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep. It was used as a reference for the claim that "may Islamic rulers" destroyed Hindu-temples; that's not what this page says. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@JJ, I have two suggestions: 1) Rajputs should be mentioned. 2) Bhakti movement should be mentioned before going to Vijayanagar and Marathas, because cause comes before effect. Or, at least some more details on Bhakti and it's origin.Also, effect of Islamic monotheism on Hinduism.
BTW, you have salvaged that part quite well.Ghatus (talk) 07:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
It is not a blog. Vinay Lal is a Professor of History specializing in Historiography at UCLA. You might call this his lecture notes made available for a public audience. He cites his sources, and the information is authentic. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: It seems to be. Do you have a link or something that can confirm it is lecture notes or from a book by Lal? Something that has gone through peer review or editorial process at a good publisher would better qualify as HISTRS. Perhaps we should check, then refer to the sources he cites or his publications. Alternatively, I am sure we can find books or peer reviewed journal articles or other HISTRS for widely accepted themes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know whether he created it to be lecture notes, but it is used as such by plenty of lecturers around the world [8]. Note that our policies allow us to use self-published sources by widely published scholars [WP:UGC]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: I see the blog link was added to the email discussion list, in 2002, by the author himself. I don't see evidence for "plenty of lectures around the world". The discussion list has zillions of such links. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Tantric Body by Gavin Flood

Page 34 of the book Tantric Body describes how Islam devastated Hinduism. He also cites other scholars you can look at.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Current version of the Islamic rule period

@JJ: are you okay if we expand "several hundred thousands of Indian slaves [...] were traced to other parts" to include Delhi slave market and Timur's last massive haul of Hindu slaves? It makes it more clearly relevant to Hinduism and its followers. It is in the embedded quote from the Andre Wink source, and @Kautilya3 approves of Andre Wink as a source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I prefer it in the footnote. I have already demonstrated, through the Avari source, that slavery was the established practice of the Turkic society. It wasn't religious persecution. Harping on it would be WP:UNDUE. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
At second thought, Kautilya3 has got a point here. The full quote already is in the note; the most relevant part is that there was a slave-trade. How i it relevant to Hinduism specifically? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The more relevant part is the "last massive slave haul of Hindu slaves." Indeed, we should leave most in the note. @JJ, I will do some wordsmithing, but feel free to refine it further. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

"Hindu" slave/war captives and Timur

@Joshua Jonathan:

Historian Irfan Habib writes in "Timur in the Political Tradition and Historiography of Mughal India" that in the 14th century, the word "Hindu" (people of "Al-Hind", "Hind" being "India") included "both Hindus and Muslims" in religious connotations.[1]

When Timur entered Delhi after defeating Mahmud Toghloq’s forces, he granted an amnesty in return for protection money (mâl-e amâni). But on the fourth day he ordered that all the people of the city be enslaved; and so they were. Thus reports Yahya, who here inserts a pious prayer in Arabic for the victims’ consolation ("To God we return, and everything happens by His will"). Yazdi, on the other hand, does not have any sympathy to waste on these wretches. He records that Timur had granted protection to the people of Delhi on the 18th of December 1398, and the collectors had begun collecting the protection money. But large groups of Timur’s soldiers began to enter the city and, like birds of prey, attacked its citizens. The "pagan Hindus" (Henduân-e gabr) having had the temerity to begin immolating their women and themselves, the three cities of Delhi were put to sack by Timur’s soldiers. "Faithless Hindus", he adds, had gathered in the Congregation Mosque of Old Delhi and Timur’s officers put them ruthlessly to slaughter there on the 29th of December. Clearly, Yazdi’s "Hindus" included Muslims as well.[2]

Ghatus (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://asiecentrale.revues.org/500
  2. ^ Timur in the Political Tradition and Historiography of Mughal India, Irfan Habib,p. 295-312
I just read here in Eaton's essay on temple desecration that that the period of 1000-1200 CE the muslim invasions were merely for material reasons, that their armies also contained slaves (p.63), and that also territoy in Iran was plundered. Only with the establishment of the Delhi sultanate the aims changed. It reminds me of the Normans in Europe, who are regarded as barbarians in the Lowlands (and as traiders and settlers in England...). Adding your quoye to it, it seems that a lot of this Muslim-violence may have had little to do with the 'Hinduness' of India, and a lot with the economical base & logic of these invaders. But... that's my conclusion, and maybe your suggestion, and interesting and relevant for our own understanding and for a direction the article may take, but it's not suited for inclusion, since these are our thoughts. So, more is needed. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan:, my point is the article says "Enslavement of Hindus was part of the Muslim conquests."(Sarah added "of Hindus" later) What does that mean? Enslavement of war captives was a medieval policy. It did not see which religion one belonged as slave trade was a profitable business at that time. Even many Muslim rulers of Delhi sultanate and their top generals were Slaves. Again, this is not my word, Irfan Habib says that even in the 14th century the word "Hindu" did not have religious connotations, but geographical meaning. Timur's "Hindus" were actually Indians (both Hindus and Muslims). So the word "Hindu" in Persian text has totally different meaning and wrong interpretation is being done here. BTW, read both the booklets of Eaton and you will get a clearer picture.Ghatus (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@JJ: I left your revised wording and the note intact, on slavery of followers of Hinduism. The notes/text already includes slavery of the families of war captives and for unpaid revenue (jizya tax revenue were always for Hinduness, or Henduân - a term in their historical texts that included Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs and anyone not officially Muslim). We can't do synthesis of Eaton and Habib. While Habib does write that, in Yazdi's text, slaughtered Hindus included Muslims, he neither writes enslaved Hindus included Muslims, nor anything about the relative ratios. Later Habib writes, "Delhi was laid waste (kharâb shod) ... in punishment for its inhabitants’ evil beliefs and vile deeds and conduct" - a reference to non-Islamic beliefs. I wouldn't recommend that you add Habib quote on slaughter into the slavery note.
If you wish to learn more about slavery of non-Muslims during the Mughal Empire, dig into Aurangzeb's Fatawa Alamgiri related HISTRS. That is where you will find more neutral solid information on the Islamic theory and practice of enslavement of Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, etc. in India. Dirk Kolff's PhD thesis at Leiden had sections on enslavement of Hindus during the Mughal rule. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Lol! We have Slave Dynasty of Muslims in India. BTW, are you interested to know about the History of Muslims slaves in India and worldwide? Should I name the slave sultans and their top slave generals. Truly speaking, Muslim rule started in the North India by Muslim slaves themselves. It was a worldwide profitable business. From Ghaznavi to Timur to Nadir Shah- all enslaved people irrespective of religions. Again,If you read little bit more History, you will know that Timur slaughter the enslaved ones- hence you difference between enslaved and slaughtered ones do not hold water. Timur got thousands of slaves from Iran and central Asian counties. And, you are making it a issue as if it was a deliberate policy to enslave only Hindus or like minded religions. I do not know which Fatwa of enslaving Hindus you are referring to, but 1/3 (31% ) of Mughal nobles were Hindu during the time of Aurangzeb. (1679-1707)

Table 1 . . Akbar Shah Jahan Aurangzeb (1595) (1628-58) (1658-78) (1679-17017) Total mansabdars 98 437 486 575 Hindus 22 98 105 182 Ghatus (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ghatus: See WP:NOTFORUM. @JJ: I would not recommend expanding the section to include Mamluk dynasty and slavery of Hindus, Buddhists in each dynasty of the Islamic rule - it will be distracting and undue. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hence, I think the line "Enslavement of Hindus was part of the Muslim conquests" should be changed to "Enslavement was part of the Muslim conquests" as it was before. The reason is you were making a general incident into a special incident. Again, not slave dynasty alone, from Aibak(12th century) to Malik Ambar (17th century), the Islamic slaves also have a great History. So, needless communalization is not desired.Ghatus (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Read the cited sources. We must stick to summarizing what the sources are stating, not your views derived from, "Lol! We have Slave Dynasty of Muslims in India. BTW, are you interested to know about the History of Muslims slaves in India and worldwide?." Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
(ec) We can't do synthesis of Eaton and Habib, says Ms Sarah Welch. Of course we can! We are writing an Encyclopedia, not reproducing cherry-picked sentences from our favourite books. We are supposed to describe what is available to us as scholarly consensus. It seems to me that Ms Sarah Welch is trying to use Wikipedia policies to push her own programme without understanding, or perhaps ignoring, the purpose of those policies. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The WP:Synthesis policy says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Synthesis of Eaton and Habib for creating content in this article will be a violation of that policy and its purpose. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

After digging into the sources a bit, what I gather is the following: Islam allowed their invaders to enslave the non-Muslim war captives. Even though Muslims were also enslaved on occasion (e.g., Ghurids enslaved Ghaznavids after conquering them), this wasn't the norm. Secondly, it appears that the availability of lots of war captives (along with booty) was one of the attractions of invading India, because Hindus were expected to resist and not convert to Islam. So I don't think we can brush aside the slavery issues. I have tweaked the text a little so that it doesn't appear that enslavement was unique to Hindus. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Suhrawardi Tariqah

The following line was added, as evidence for forced conversions:

"and orthodox Sufi Islam groups such as the Suhrawardiyya supporting the forced conversion of Hindus and Buddhists." (source: John Esposito (2003), Suhrawardi Tariqah, in The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0195125597, page 303)

The source, which altogether only counts 114 words, only says:

"Supported the forced conversion of Hindus and Buddhists."

No context, no mention of other Sufi groups. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: How about "and orthodox Sufi Islam group Suhrawardi Tariqah supporting the forced conversion of Hindus and Buddhists"? For context, see the "Sufi missionary" and the "warrior Sufi" theories discussed in Jamal Malik's 2008 book you have already included in this article, at pages 184-185 of the Conversion to Islam in South Asia section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@JJ: That phrase is not for "as evidence for forced conversions", but for "as evidence of support for forced conversions". It clarifies whether enslavement of the followers of Hinduism and Buddhism was merely an incidental consequence, or with a theory and intent behind? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. yet, this "theory and intend behind" is not clear, nor the number of converts involved. You refer to Malik, Jamal (2008), Islam in South Asia: A Short History, Brill Academic, ISBN 978-9004168596; I'll have to look it up. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... Malik summarizes Eaton, starting witht he "religion of the sword thesis," and repeating Eaton by stating that there is little support for this thesis, and that mass conversions were usually not forced, though there were exceptions (p.183). The Sufi-section says that "Sifis did not set out to convert Hindus" (p.184). He does say, though, repeating eaton, that the Sufis suported the raids in India (p.185), but there's nothing about support by Sufis for forced conversions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@JJ: The section is on Conversion to Islam in South Asia, and eight theories of conversions, nothing else. The raids discussion must be read in that section's context (isn't that why you wanted context with John Esposito source?). But if you prefer to interpret Jamal Malik is somehow discussing raids in a random fashion, I will not insist that you add the above to this article. I will accept your call on this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Aurangzeb from Burjor Avari

Few days ago, @Sitush had made a good suggestion that, "While this article has to focus on Hinduism, it doesn't not have to do so slavishly (sorry!). In other words, it would probably be wrong to say that "X enslaved Hindus" if in fact "X enslaved Hindus and also Muslims". The first creates the erroneous impression to the reader that only one community suffered under X."

In Aurangzeb's case, a note on him is already in this article, Burjor Avari source provides such a clarification on page 155. It mentions that not only Hindus, Aurangzeb's confrontation targeted the Sikhs as well. He writes, "Aurangzeb's religious policy caused friction between him and the ninth Sikh guru, Tegh Bahadur. In both Punjab and Kashmir the Sikh leader was roused to action by Aurangzeb's excessively zealous Islamic policies. Seized and taken to Delhi, he was called upon by Aurangzeb to embrace Islam and, on refusal, was tortured for five days and then beheaded in November 1675. Two of the ten Sikh gurus thus died as martyrs at the hands of the Mughals."

@JJ: do you want to add this to the embedded quote, to help avoid "the erroneous impression to the reader that only one community suffered under X"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it clear that Aurangzeb thought of Sikhs as a separate community different from Hindus? - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Neither obvious nor implied in Burjor Avari source in my reading. The closest relevant sentence is on page 114 last para, which starts with and later reads,
"Aurangzeb was essentially an Islamic puritan. (...) The creation of an Islamic India was his goal; and for this he promulgated laws and ordinances that increasingly became unnerving for Hindus, other non-Muslims and for many Muslims too."
This sentence refers to non-Muslims other than Hindus, but this could be sloppy writing by Avari - he may mean non-Hindus and non-Muslims under modern era definition, not necessarily in Aurangzeb's view; or Avari could mean those Aurangzeb considered as neither Hindu nor Muslims. Either way, it is interesting. If Tegh Bahadur was tortured and beheaded because Aurangzeb considered him a Hindu sect leader, it is relevant; if Tegh Bahadur was tortured and beheaded because Aurangzeb considered him a non-Hindu leader, it may be relevant from @Sitush-suggestion perspective. BTW, I have read a lot about Islam history in India and outside India, in recent decades, including on Aurangzeb - but allow me silence and let me stick with no-WP:Synthesis policy for this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
There isn't really a Synthesis-policy. There is only an OR-policy. Trying reading this essay: WP:SYNTHNOT.
My feeling is that it was only after Guru Gobind Singh that Sikhism asserted a distinct identity separate from Hinduism. Prior to that they were essentially thought of as Nanak-Panthis. (The Sikhs will probably deny that.) So I don't doubt its relevance to this article. My worry is only how far we should go with narrating history. Perhaps we shouldn't worry about it for the time being, because the excess text can always be moved to the History of Hinduism article. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Indeed. Balance is the key. I am fine with whatever @JJ decides, given the difficult balance he is trying to craft, here or the other article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"different yet similar"

This seems like an unnecessary "weasel" phrase. What does it really mean?

"While there are different yet similar pilgrimage routes in different parts of India..."

--23.119.204.117 (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

three Hindu religions

Michaels distinguishes three Hindu religions and four forms of Hindu religiosity.[79] The three Hindu religions are "Brahmanic-Sanskritic Hinduism,", "folk religions and tribal religions," and "founded religions," such as Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Sikhism,[80] but also new religious movements such as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Transcendental Meditation.[80] The four forms of Hindu religiosity are the classical "karma-marga",[81] jnana-marga,[82] bhakti-marga,[82] and "heroism," which is "rooted in militaristic traditions," such as Ramaism and parts of political Hinduism.[81] This is also called virya-marga.[82]

This piece is mentioned in the article, from which I had removed the reference to Sikhism, which was reverted on the pretext of being "sourced".

I object to this piece. Being a Sikh, I am amazed reading all the Hindu/India pages here on Wikipedia which keep propping up the Sikh religion in one way or the other. Sikhism is an independent, organized, and major world religion, with 30 million adherents. Sikhs do not want to be clubbed with Hinduism (no offence to Hinduism), then why do we keep seeing all these incredible references still ?

Just being "sourced" does not mean the content must be included, especially when it is contrary to ground realities. Any Tom Dick and Harry can write up whatever they deem fit, with whatever motives. Should all of that be acknowledged, especially on such issues ? I would like to have this amended. Thank you. Js82 (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you specify what policy of Wikipedia is the basis of your objection? - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I have not had the time to read all Wikipedia policies, but a quick look suggests these could apply:
While removing sourced material is not always recommended, "Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage". This piece is an ideal candidate that "misleads and misinforms", and should therefore be deleted. Any notion of clubbing Sikhism with Hinduism (on whatever pretext) misinforms and confuses the uninformed reader.
Also, the view being discussed here (which is such a hodgepodge that, it again just confuses the reader; but at a broader level is nothing but a dubious attempt to subsume Sikhism within Hinduism, which is tantamount to completely destroying the identity of 30 million people) is not even accepted by the Sikhs. Sikhism is a Universal, independent, organized religion, that condemns and rejects hundreds of practices associated with Hinduism (again, I stress I do not mean any offence to Hinduism). We can find hundreds of Sikh references rejecting any notion of being clubbed with Hinduism.
And while we are at it, I would like to ask all the editors who man these pages and beat the trumpet of neutrality of wikipedia, how come the neutral point of view has never been represented here ? I'm certain a majority of you are aware that Sikhs fume at the idea of being clubbed with Hinduism, yet this has never been represented here on this page (and many other similar Hindu/India pages)? Any new interested reader who reads this page, as of now, would likely get the impression that Sikhism is part of Hinduism, which is absurd. I recently read some news of Wikipedia editors being sued for misrepresenting facts, and it is not hard to believe why this can happen. Js82 (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Js82 (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to remove that para. It incorrectly quotes Michaels (his 'founded religions' are Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism - not Shaivasim, Vaishnasism and Sikhism) and he goes on to say that these three were 'able to mold an identity as separate religions'. The current text is misleading. --regentspark (comment) 17:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I have re-inserted it, but corrected: without "Sikhism." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. Michael's distinguishes between religions that evolved from founded religions (Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism) and sects (Saivites and vasihnavites). I guess this is clearer. --regentspark (comment) 20:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

My fault, I guess. I guess I overread the nuance at that page, when I wrote that section, or abbreviated it. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not read the text myself. But from the above comments, I find it strange that one can misread "Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism" for "Shaivasim, Vaishnasism and Sikhism". And while it may be a "nuance" for some, it is a matter of identity for others (that has actually lead to decades of turmoil). I am not surprised at such immaturity though, as pseudo religious scholars abound here at Wikipedia. I hope people are more careful here, for their own sake. Js82 (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
It's two pages with very compact text. It may also have happened when the text was abbreviated, due to copy-right issues. Please refrain from comments like "immaturity" and "pseudo religious scholars"; they are a mischaracterization, as experienced editors can tell you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, here it is; when I abbreviated it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I must object to the way this discussion is going. Js82 does not have a correct understanding of WP:NPOV. Neutral does not mean protecting everybody's "identities" whatever they might be. It means representing the reliable sources faithfully. As far as I can see, that has been done here. Michaels does include Sikhism among "Hindu religions." Js82 doesn't seem to be interested in why that is. His approach seems to be that he knows better than the scholars, and if they say something different from him, they are wrong. This is the same kind of POV-pushing we see everywhere on Wikipedia. I can see a case for the "misinforming" claim in that a possibly subtle and complicated issue has been mentioned without any elaboration and thus there is a potential for misleading. But his claim that neutrality has been violated has no basis. The information as presented originally is reliably sourced. If he wants to know why it has been said, he needs to go to the source. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya, I am surprised to read the post above (since I believe you have been on Wikipedia for a long time), unless I myself have a terribly messed up understanding. On NPOV, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Your assertion that "Neutral means representing the reliable sources faithfully" appears flawed and incomplete. While representing reliable sources faithfully is essential, what appears more fundamental to neutrality is to present all viewpoints. Otherwise (from your perspective) for any topic, take some sources, be careful to write them faithfully, and therefore the article is neutral ?? Js82 (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
See WP:VNT.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You are welcome to bring additional sources to the table and we can think about how to represent all of them fairly. But you can't ask for certain sources to be removed or their views to be censored because your disagree with them. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hinduism -- original source

The article should clearly state that other religions or their literature are not accepted as acceptable sources. Any branch claiming this like Sai baba, Iskcon, Bahai, BAPS etc should be classified as non hindu religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.209.165 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 10 September 2015‎

Not accepted by whom? And what are "other religions," when your definition of definition of Hinduism appears to be 'Hinduism is a religion which is not another religion'? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hindu sources are the Vedas etc, and they do not accept the bible , quran etc as acceptable sources for Hinduism as religions mentioned above claim. Hinduism does claim that there are many paths to salvation but that was before it came in contact with other religions so Hinduism is not inclusive of other religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.209.165 (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Etymology

@Ms Sarah Welch: According to Arvind Sharma,[1] the term "Hindu" in the religious sense appeared soon after the Arab invasion of Sindh, long before the sources you mention. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sharma, Arvind (2002). "On Hindu, Hindustan, Hinduism and Hindutva". Numen. 49 (1): 1–36. JSTOR 3270470.
@Kautilya3: Arab invasion of Sindh is discussed on pages 4-6, but I don't see the conclusion "the term Hindu in the religious sense appeared soon after..." therein. I see another mention of Sindh on page 20, but nothing there supports that conclusion either. Which page and para are you looking at? Thanks for the source though, it is a good one, and I will shortly add a sentence or two on the term In-tu (Hindu) as mentioned in the 7th century Chinese texts by Xanzuang, after I have cross checked for any updates in more recent publications by Arvind Sharma. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
On page 5, we find "The Hindus now were a people who followed a religion other than Islam." This is an extremely satisfactory explanation of how "Hindu" came to acquire a religious meaning even though it was originally an ethnonym. The Muslims needed a word to refer to Indian non-Muslims, and "Hindu" fit the bill. Page 8 contains several quotations and bits of quotations from Albiruni, which are of course from later, but they show that "Hindu" had acquired a well-established religious meaning by then. It is not clear that Xuanzhang associated a religious meaning to In-tu. (But interesting that Shin-tu had become In-tu by then!) - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: The context suggests that Hindus in that sentence is the generic term for non-Muslim people, zimmi, and not "religion of the non-Muslim people". Sharma notes that the term would have included all non-Muslims such as Buddhists. The same issue applies to Al Biruni text. I will add an acknowledgment of the ambiguity of the word Hindu in these and subsequent texts (supported by page 9). On Xuanzang, see Sharma's mention of Beal reference on page 3. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: Hmm, tricky territory again. If you are saying that Xuanzhang used the term In-tu to mean Hindus, I am pretty sure he didn't. His common term for Hindus was "heretics." See for example [9]. He was using In-tu to mean the country, possibly picked up in Central Asia on his way to India, which might have been still using Greek terminology. The idea of "meaning overflowing into religion" is merely a reference to the religious explanation that Xuanzang was trying to construct for why a country should be named after the moon (which it wasn't). But there is no more religion than that on pp. 3-4. Secondly, I don't believe that Hindus saw Buddhists and Jains as "non-Hindu" until modern times and the development of Indology. So the fact that bin Kasim or Albiruni clubbed them all together doesn't detract from the religious sense they attached to the term. In fact, the Arabs and Turks were forced to coin a new term "Hindi" to mean Indian because "Hindu" got used up for religion. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: The In-tu reference is for the etymology of the word 'Hindu' and its historical development, both in religious and non-religious meanings, which is within the scope of etymology. The word which Beal translates as heretic may be for "Brahmins + Buddhist-heretics" or Buddhist-heretics?, - see third para last page of your Book V link and elsewhere, for example, where it reads "the Brahmins and heretics have frequently come together and.....". I should add here, in support of your comment, that some scholars interpret the I-tao (heretics) phrase of Xuanzang to indeed be referring to Hindus.

Regardless of these specifics, the Xuanzang account is far deeper, explicit discussion of "Buddhist, heretics and Brahmins", "Deva-temples and Hindu deities", "Shramanic and Brahmanic religion" in 7th-century India, than anything in Qasim-related etc. The Xuanzang record ties in with "Brahmanic-Sanskritic Hinduism" and other discussions later in the article. The multiple sources I added on Xuanzang, state the same thing. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2015

The proper word to use for those people who follow the Scriptures of The Vedas is "Sanatana Dharma", not "Hinduism" as is commonly used. The word Hindu is very much misunderstood and misused. Many people have no idea how the word originated. In India, some politicians use the the words Hindu and Hindutva with communal overtones either to promote or oppose some ideology or party. To the rest of the world, Hindu and Hinduism refer to a set of people belonging to definite religious system. The fact is that the BOTH the words "Hindu" and "India" have foreign origin. The word "Hindu" is neither a Sanskrit word nor is this word found in any of the native dialects and languages of India. It should be noted that "Hindu" is NOT a religious word at all. There is no reference of the word "hindu" in the Ancient Vedic Scriptures. It is said that the Persians used to refer to the Indus river as Sindhu. Indus is a major river which flows partly in India and partly in Pakistan. However, the Persians could not pronounce the letter "S" correctly in their native tongue and mispronounced it as "H." Thus, for the ancient Persians, the word "Sindhu" became "Hindu." The ancient Persian Cuneiform inscriptions and the Zend Avesta refer to the word "Hindu" as a geographic name rather than a religious name. When the Persian King Darious 1 extended his empire up to the borders of the Indian subcontinent in 517 BC, some people of the Indian subcontinent became part of his empire and army. Thus for a very long time the ancient Persians referred to these people as "Hindus". The ancient Greeks and Armenians followed the same pronunciation, and thus, gradually the name stuck. The word "India" also has a similar foreign origin. Originally, the native Indians used to address the Indian subcontinent as "Bharat". As a matter of fact in Mahabharat,which is one of the two "Itihasa", we find reference of the word "Bharat". As per legend, the land ruled by the great King "Bharata" was called Bharat. The ancient Greeks used to mispronounce the river Sindhu as Indos. When Alexander invaded India, the Macedonian army referred to the river as Indus and the land east of the river as India. The Greek writers who wrote about Alexander preferred to use the same name. For the Arabs the land became Al-Hind. The Muslim rulers and travelers who came to India during the medieval period referred the Indian subcontinent as "Hindustan" and the people who lived there as Hindus. Thus, if we go by the original definition of the word Hindu, any person living in the land beyond the river Indus is a Hindu and whatever religion he or she practices is Hinduism, the word Hindu is a secular word. Hinduism denotes any religion or religions that are practiced by the people living in the Indian subcontinent. Omkar.devdas (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This is misinformation, Satana Dharma is not Hinduism, it's a sect that worships idols and it is different from the origin of Hinduism which initially started with fire offerings absent of idols. The initial Hindu pantheon is similar to the gods that the Romans, Greeks, and other Indo-European religions worshipped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.209.165 (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that all new information and claims be verified by citing professionally published mainstream academic sources. We do not use or accept original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

3,888,000 years old

I took out the unsourced paragraph with, "According to one version of the Vedic-Puranic chronology, the Hindu Dharma is 3,888,000 years old...". The word "Dharma" appears in Vedic texts, but "Hindu Dharma" does not. Not even the Puranas. There are numerous cosmology speculations in ancient and medieval Indic texts, and cherry picking one, then claiming it to be "traditional view" for Hinduism, is fringe. All this needs a recent WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It was added shortly before, in a clumsy way, by another editor. I edit-copied it, since it does provide some insight into the mindset of some "traditionalists. But indeed, no source. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

What does it mean that Shaivism, Vaishnavism and Shaktism are denominations?

There are Vaishnava and Saiva Brahmin priests, however the difference is merely lineage. Both do rituals for all deities.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Lipner, in his book Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, over pages 371-375, states Hindu denominations are not like denominations in Islam or Christianity. Hindu affiliations to denominations are fuzzy, overlaps are common. He calls this as "Hindu polycentrism", the tradition of embracing everything and all sorts of ideas. Should we clarify this in this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe use another term than "denominations"? It's a western term, with western connotations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Technically, a think "denomination" is more accurate than "sect". I agree that it has western connotations. But calling them "sects" would be a backwards move. In any case, the infobox is presumably by WP:WikiProject Hinduism. We would need an RfC to change it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The term "denominations" has been and remains in regular use for Shaivism, etc. in published literature. Instead of using another term, I urge leaving it in, but with added clarification about the term. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Where are these denominations or sects that exclusively worship Vishnu or Shiva? Where are Hindu denominations at all? They don't exist, unless you are talking about cults like Hare Krishnas.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: which sentence or section of this article are you referring to? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The lede.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Either taking the word or the sentence out from the lead, are possible ways to fix this. I took the "denominations" word out, for now. Would deleting that whole sentence be better? If yes, go ahead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Puranas

Am I correct when I think that the Puranas are the central texts of Hinduism, not the Vedas? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

And maybe we should make clearer that the Agama-traditions give less weight to the Vedas; the Scriptures-section is quite "orthodox" in this respect. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if anything can be called a "central text" of Hinduism. Puranas document particular belief systems of sects, which were probably built up over a few hundred years, by adherents in order to propagate their beliefs. Their sheer multiplicity itself is an argument against their centrality.
However, woven into the Puranas are a number of long theological dialogues or dharmic discourses, some of which are widely cited and followed. Bhagavadgita is the best known example. The dharma vyadha discourse is another widely known one. There are hundreds of other such discourses peppered throughout the Puranas. Their currency varies. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@JJ: No, see Lorenzen's 2006 book, and how tentative his wording is, how he adds "..., I think, ...." to the last paragraph on page 36. Indeed, Agama-traditions need to be mentioned and the language clarified. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: I think I was needlessly stuck on the term "central text." But you are right that the Puranas mark the beginning of recognizable "Hinduism," which was a synthesis of the Vedic religion and folk religions. Sacrifices were gone, image worship begins. Vedas themselves lost their importance. It didn't matter any more that Sudras couldn't hear the Vedas because they could go to temples and worship. They could even worship deities at home, which they were probably doing already anyway. We might imagine that the Hindu gods were the Sudra gods, about whom the Brahmins knew nothing earlier. Thus the varna order was broken. The Vaishyas dwindle to insignificant numbers because being a Sudra was perfectly fine. In short, this was a religious and social revolution for India. It is a pity that we know so little about it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent addition to the lead

I have removed the recent addition to the lead. Earlier was better. Sources are not supporting the current wording and they go indepth. At page 20,[10] it says that the "consolidation of Hinduism takes place under the sign of Bhakti", Bhakti movement started after Vedic. I think this is just a part of development of Hinduism, and undue for the lead. Although I would support anything that would mention that Hinduism reformed time to time and it is consisted of many philosophies, but that is already covered in the previous sentence which says that Hinduism is consisted of many traditions, read - [11] there are no central text or major period of development when it comes to Hinduism. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@D4iNa4: It is a challenge to summarize this large overview main article into the lead. Kitagawa's section "Classical Bhakti Hinduism" may be setting the context for the term Hinduism in the phrase "consolidation of Hinduism" that follows. In the third para of that section, on page 20, Kitagawa writes, "The achievement is a universal Hinduism that, (...), we may designate as Smarta." That "Smartaism is Universal Hinduism" is an interesting theory, but is it widely accepted? Universal Hinduism is a contested topic, see the main article. Per WP:LEAD, we should try to summarize the main article. Which specific wording of the sentence you removed, were you not able to find support for? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
As Kautilya3 noticed, D4iNa4 undid two edits to the lead: my edit:
"This "synthesis" developed after Vedic times,(Hiltebeitel 2007 p.12)({Larson 2009) and took a recognisable form with the composition of the early Puranas (Lorenzen 1999 p.655) at circa 300-600 CE.(Lorenzen 1999 655)(Hiltebeitel 2007 p.12)"
and the subsequent edit by Ms Sarah Welch:
"This "synthesis" developed after Vedic times,(Hiltebeitel 2007 p.12)(Larson 2009) with influences from Buddhism and Jainism, foreign invasions of South Asia, the emergence of diverse schools of Hindu philosophies and classical Bhakti.(Hiltebeitel 2007 pp.12-14, 17-20)(Jessica Frazier (2014), The Bloomsbury Companion to Hindu studies, Bloomsbury Academic, ISBN 978-1472511515, pages 334-335, 321-337)"
Kautilya 3 reinserted my edit, whereafter Ms Sarah Welch removed it again, with the edit-summary:
"let us take that sentence out for now till talk page consensus is reached, Lorenzen's WP:PRIMARY should not be emphasized, this lead sentence is not a good summary of the main article."
Her objection is to Lorenzen, which she has explained. I have re-inserted, though, "which developed after Vedic times.(Hiltebeitel 2007 p.12)(Larson 2009)", since this is sourced by Hiltebeitel and Larson, not by Lorenzen. Note that the part that says "took a recognisable form [...] at circa 300-600 CE.(Lorenzen 1999 655)(Hiltebeitel 2007 p.12)" was also sourced by Hiltebeitel. So, that's a lot of removal while referring to just one source. The point here is the dating of a 'recognisable' form of what we today call Hinduism; according to these sources that was only after the start of the CE. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the sentence "the consolidation of Hinduism takes place under the sign of Bhakti"; it's indeed confusing to add ~the sentence "influences from [...] classical Bhakti]]", since this was a later development - later than the development of this "synthesis." I hadn't noticed this before. But this is also implied in this sentence, which speaks of "the consolidation of Hinduism," the consolidation of a development that took place before that time. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Correction: Hiltebeitel refers to the Bhakti-movement at p.20. But at p.13 he refers to early bkati-influences, which are already present in the Mahabharata. So, only the term "classical" may have been an inconsistency. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"This "synthesis" started to develop" should be "The "Hindu synthesis" started to develop". D4iNa4 (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I've changed it into "This "Hindu synthesis"". "The" somehow sounds too 'explicit' or 'definitive', but that may be my personal perception. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please find my research publications

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sujay_Rao_Mandavilli/contributions

Sujay Rao Mandavilli 106.216.162.217 (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The Indo-Europeanization of the World from a Central Asian Homeland: New Approaches, Paradigms and Insights from Our Research Publications on Ancient India looks very interesting; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
... however the "journal" and the paper are unlikely to qualify as reliable sources for use on wikipedia; see Jeffrey Beall, Andrew Gelman and Retraction Watch's notes about the vanity/predatory publisher, Macrothink Institute, here, here and here. Also, the author has no (recognized) qualifications in the area; see bio on page 4 here. Abecedare (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

I am suggesting an edit with regards to a spelling mistake in the "Hindu modernism" paragraph.Its last sentence says that ---> //This globalization of Hindu culture boought "to the West teachings // "boought" should be written as "brought". Vishavjeet Singh Thakur (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing out. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Image by Mingling2

Illustration of Hindu temples

@Mingling2: please get a consensus per WP:BRD. The Singapore temple image is interesting, but misleads because while a few Hindu temple look like that, most Hindu temples do not look like that. This is not an article on Hindu temples, rather an overview article on Hinduism, and we need to be prudent and thoughtful in the images we use. If you offer persuasive reasons, I will reconsider. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Should probably remove the Swaminarayan temple for the same reason.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
@Vic: Indeed. Or, try a grid instead to show the diversity? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please lobby to have BAPS removed as the largest Hindu temple in the world? It does not meet the requirements of Hinduism just the glamorization of some Gujrati family (possibly wealthy)

jainism - chasing idealism not possible for humans

Jainism has influenced Hinduism negatively. The Vedas still have a very pragmatic view on life as reflected in its religious practices, as time passed Jainism and other ahimsa religions have negatively influenced Hinduism to the extreme non practical way of life with ascetism and penance. This may have given rise to Buddhism which dominated India, somehow radical Jainism took hold and drove Hinduism to it's current state, millions of Gods and disenfranchised believers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.34.248 (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. This talk page is only meant for discussing the content of the article. Please refrain from other discussions. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Replace Krishna pic with female deity

Anthromorphic icons (murti) for gods and goddesses in Hinduism

Entire page is male oriented.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Gentle Saraswati or fierce Kali? - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I replaced the image with Durga.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Vic: how about a 2x2 grid, of Krishna, Shiva, Shakti (Durga) and Laksmi - that should show the diversity and cover their major 'denominations'? Or we can make it 2x3, with pre-7th century images of Harihara and Ardhanarishvara too to show that they have long nurtured the idea in all their gods and goddesses are alternate aspects and representations of Brahman. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
But why are males on top?VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Vic: We can put them side by side. Shiva, Shakti; Laksmi, Krishna? The last row could be Harihara, Ardhanarishvara - if the consensus develops to include them. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Category name

Category:Category name has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. AusLondonder (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead - Buddha royal circles

There seems to be potential edit war on the lead. With these edits,[12][13] I would say that these edits are not required on the lead because similar source[14] says that Buddha was not venerated anymore. And along with that, Buddha is not a deity of Hinduism, his adoption is similar to Mahavir Jain of Jainism. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I find that there was similar recent dispute with the lead on Brahma, pinging @Kautilya3:, @Iṣṭa Devatā:, @Redtigerxyz: to look this one. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
It was removed in c. March 2015 after Talk:Hinduism/Archive_29#buddhism_in_lead_section. A consensus needs to be built first for the statement to be readded in the lead, following the WP:BRD cycle. Also, it was agreed in Talk:Hinduism/Archive_29#Discussion_of_history_para_in_lead that history be left out entirely, until a consensus is built on the talk first about the contents of the history para in the lead. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding history in the lead, I don't see any agreement to remove it, only a suggestion from you. I do remember, though, repeated campaigns by an army of sock-puppeteers to remove this info from the lead and the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Joshua Jonathan.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

BOLD edit by Vic

Bold edit: fine with me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok good.VictoriaGraysonTalk 05:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Vic: Not ok with me. Again, as in above RfC, the context is Nepal and Kashmir, more specifically Shaivism. This article should remain primarily about Hinduism, not history of Hinduism, it should not ignore the context of the source nor extrapolate. I have moved the text to history section and clarification. Let us discuss. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the paper is vast in scope. Continuum Companion to Hindu Studies specifically recommends "Saiva Age" by Sanderson:

page 136:.......an even longer and more recent one, ‘The Śaiva Age: The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism During the Early Medieval Period’ (2009) is far wider in scope yet (more so than the title might at first suggest) and can be recommended as perhaps the best single starting place for a student wishing to familiarize himself with the Tantric traditions.

VictoriaGraysonTalk 05:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Indeed, but it needs to be summarized where WP:DUE, carefully and faithfully, not with a cite that just says pages 41-350. We should not convert this article from Hinduism to a repeat of History of Hinduism article. The details of history are more appropriate in the latter main article, a summary left here in order to improve this article. What are your suggestions? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Using history to explain Hinduism concepts is a common approach.VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Vic: That is a good approach when done with balance and per WP:DUE. History of Hinduism is important and a summary is needed in this article, but we should not presume the reader knows what is Hinduism and focus primarily on its history in this article, or in the lead in particular. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with introducing Srauta, Shaivism, Vaishavism and Saktism in a historical way.VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: "Vedic (Shrauta)" support in the Sanderson source is in footnote 634 on pages 268-269. Why remove Sanderson's note that temples that enshrined Vishnu, sometimes included Buddha or Sun-god; this is discussed on pages 60-62 and elsewhere? or continued Buddhism patronage after 7th century through 13th century? Should we summarize Sanderson on the regional beliefs that Shiva and Sun-god are the same, and Smartism ideas thriving. @JJ: Sanderson's long section about royal patronage of Buddhism in India is worth a read, it starts on page 70, ends at page 117. The situation was far more complex than what the summary in this article's history section implies. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: The name given to the body of rituals described in Rig, Sama and Yajur Vedas is called Shrauta (Frederick Smith, in Hinduism in the Modern World, 2015). The word is derived from Shruti. Indeed, you are right @Vic, the canonical sources of these rituals are the Shrauta Sutras. On patronization of Buddhism, thanks for adding in the note on Vajrayana. Yet, other Buddhist sects were co-patronized along the Hindu gods/goddesses by their rulers. Mahayana is mentioned on pages 72-73, others in Kashmir, Nepal, Bengal, Orissa and south India are mentioned throughout the section, particularly the joint worship of Buddha and Shiva. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not yet sure what the issue is, but I agree that this is an article on "Hinduism," i.e., what we call Hinduism today, not historical Hinduism whatever it might be. Hinduism today does include the former Shaiva, Vaishnava, Shakta traditions. So, I am not sure why the lead sentence was removed, or what the source has to do with it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vic/@Kautilya3: The additions to "Late-Classical Hinduism - Puranic Hinduism (c. 650–1100 CE)" section are interesting, but overweight on Buddhism. Same is the issue with the section before. The discussion would be more balanced by trimming towards a bit less of Buddhism, and the addition of a bit more of reliably sourced summary about Alvars, Nayanars, Adi Shankara, Maṇḍana Miśra, Puranic Hinduism and other influential developments that had longer term impact on Hinduism. The trimmed material should be moved into notes or the main article on History of Hinduism or History of Buddhism or some other. What are your thoughts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I already say Buddhism and Saivism were cosponsored together. My edit literally says "royal courts sponsoring both Buddhism and Saivism". Furthermore, all the historical details Sanderson provides earlier in the paper are merely background for his main thesis on page 124 where he says:

Now, this co-existence of Buddhism and Saivism under royal patronage was surely facilitated by the fact that the form of Buddhism adopted and developed was one that had equipped itself not only with a pantheon of ordered sets of deities that permitted such subsumptive equations but also with a repertoire of Tantric ceremonies that parallelled that of the Saivas....

-- VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@MSW, I agree. It looks like a whole bunch of stuff has been added this month [15]. I suggest that we move all the new material to History of Hinduism, and resummarise what is in that article. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
You can copy info to the other article. But there is no reason to delete from this article. See WP:SIZERULE.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vic/@Kautilya3: Thank you. The summary in those two sections needs rebalancing to focus more on major developments, during the 1st millennium CE, in Hinduism. I like @Vic's summary and it needs to be properly weighed in. I will try to work on it this weekend, or next week, if @JJ or you or someone doesn't by then. There are plenty of good recent sources to summarize. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

But before you do that, read beginning of Kiss of Yogini which explains certain biases in scholarship which promote bhakti.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hinduism/Archive_30&oldid=1224635906"