|Indian religions was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|Current status: Former good article nominee|
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|Text from this version of Shramana was copied or moved into [] with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Shramana.|
- 1 Sanātana traditions
- 2 Unorganised
- 3 Shakta
- 4 Edit request on 14 January 2012
- 5 Dharmic religions and Zoroastrianism
- 6 Greenland map
- 7 Inconsistencies in the article
- 8 Vedic tradition or Vedic Hinduism?
- 9 Hindu history or Indian history?
- 10 Reverting of edits made by Rockin It Loud at 21 july 2013
- 11 Requested move
- 12 Rollback
- 13 Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2014
- 14 Dharmic religions
- 15 Dharmic religions again (moved from above)
I did find it after looking again (the link was wrong). It seems to be the personal creation of a Navjyoti Singh, not exactly notable. As IndianChronicles pointed out, Sanatana usually refers to Hinduism. So the material is confusing and misleading. Mitsube (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I was just reading this article and its very unorganised. If someone could try and seperate the information on each religion instead of clumping it into one timeline. Independent paragraphs/sections for each religion.126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I was very very Italic text confused — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Seconded. This article needs significant cleanup and reorganization. The text under the picture of the standing bodhisattva would be a good place to start. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 14 January 2012
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
Dharmic religions and Zoroastrianism
- It does not mean anything or change facts. Council of Dharmic Faiths, UK is not a reliable source. Tomorrow they may even add Islam.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Inconsistencies in the article
- The article claims that
Jainism and Buddhism belong to the sramana tradition, which arose in 700-500 BCE
. The next statement claims that
The Shramana tradition gave rise to Jainism, Buddhism, and Yoga
. This makes me ask question what exactly is shramana tradition. Was it a tradition which evolved into Jainism, Buddhism and Yoga, is it a term that is used to call them (Jain, Buddhist and Yogic practices) collectively, or is it something else entirely?
- Elsewhere in the article it is claimed that
Jainism was established by a lineage of 24 enlightened beings culminating with Parsva (9th century BCE) and Mahavira (6th century BCE)
. I find this contradictory with the earlier claim, if sramana tradition arose in 700-500 BCE, why does it mentioned that Jainism, which rose due to shramana tradtion, was established by a lineage of 24 people with Parshva belonging to 9th century BCE (before 700 BCE)?
- Multiple dates are attributed to Mahavira. Mahavira (c. 549–477 BCE) and Mahavira (599–527 BCE). Rahul Jain (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have made some minor changes that should hopefully take care of the inconsistencies.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Mahavira's date is to be taken as (599–527 BCE). Some scholars have taken date as (c. 549–477 BCE) in keeping with the redating of Buddha's date (since they were contemporaries).--Indian Chronicles (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Vedic tradition or Vedic Hinduism?
... to call this period Vedic Hinduism is a contradiction in terms since Vedic religion is very different from what we generally call Hindu religion - at least as much as Old Hebrew religion is from medieval and modern Christian religion. However, Vedic religion is treatable as a predecessor of Hinduism.(source:Jamison and Witzel)
It was replaced by the following sentence, and a lot of references:
While most believe the tradition was Hindu, a few believe it is a religion distinct from Hinduism.
The remark "while most believe the tradition was Hindu" is WP:OR; the sentence "a few believe" is misleading, and contradicted by the removed quote. I've therefor reinserted that quote.
I also question the way those source sare being used:
- P. 386 Transcultural Concepts in Nursing Care By Margaret M. Andrews, Joyceen S. Boyle - can't check this one by Google Books, but I wonder how much "Nursing Care" has got to do with The Vedic tardition. Which source suses this book?
- P. 484 Merriam-Webster's Encyclopaedia of World Religions By Wendy Doniger, M. Webster, Merriam-Webster, Inc - Iacchus, I Am MOvement, Iasion, Iblis - I don't see anything on this page on "Vedic".
- P. 285 Communication for Development in the Third World By Srinivas R. Melkote, H. Leslie Steeves - This page mentions Gandhi, but where's "Vedic"
- P. xvi The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hinduism By Linda Johnsen - can't check this one by Google Books
- P. 219 Faith, Religion & Theology By Brennan Hill, Paul F. Knitter, William Madges - "Of all the so-called "world religions" Hinduism is the oldest and most loosely organised, and, therefor, the most difficult to describe. Many scholars hold that Hinduism is really a multicolored collection of diverse religious tarditions, all of them tracing their origins to the Indis Valley in Northern India, way back around the second millennium BCE, and all of them still forming a scattered an diverse religious family on the subcontinent of India" (p.219-220) - "origins", not "the Vedic traditon was Hindusim"
- P. 72 Multicultural Clients By Sybil M. Lassiter - can't check this one by Google Books
- P. 15 Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation By Ian Stevenson (first edition 1966, reprint 1980) - 1966 is not exactly state-of-the-art scholarship. The page says "Hinduism is the oldest surviving religion of the world since its origins can be traced back to the fourth millennium BCE. Its doctrines and practices do not differ much today from what they were thousands of years ago". So, that's one source suggesting an inbroken continuation. Compare this with King (1999, p.182): "Despite all of these problems, one might argue that there are a number of reasons why one should retain the term "Hinduism". [...] Thirdly, one might wish to retain the term, as Lipner does, with the qualification that its radical polythetic nature be ubderstood. Such an approach would need to be thoroughly non-essentailist in approach and draw particular attention to the to the ruptures and discontinuities, the criss-crossing patterns and 'family-resemblances' which are usually subsumed by unreflective and essentialist usage of the term." also notice this remark by King (1999, p.176): "Richard King notes: "Consequently, it remains an anachronism to project the notion of "Hinduism" as it is commonly understood into pre-colonial history."
- P. 6 Hinduism By Sue Penney - can't check this one by Google Books
- P. 22 The Best Guide to Eastern Philosophy and Religion By Diane Morgan - can't check this one by Google Books
- P. 212 Alternative Religions By Stephen Hunt - can't check this one by Google Books
- P. 35 Common Spirit Common Ground By Michael Strange - "Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world" and "The sriptures of Hinduism are called Vedic literature". The source does not say "The Vedic tradition was Hinduism". Also, the statement "The sriptures of Hinduism are called Vedic literature" is gross generalisation. See Tantra and Agamas, and the influence of the brahman caste on the creation of the notion of Hinduism as a single, unified world religion (King 1999).
- P. 72 Canadian and World Politics By John Ruypers, Ruypers, Austin, Carter, Murphy - can't check this one by Google Books
- It seems pretty clear that these edits are in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:INTEGRITY, WP:RS/AC, and they were rightly reverted. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hindu history or Indian history?
I understand the wish to present Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism as separate from Hinduism (I also prefer to do so for Buddhism), yet, they are not totally separate from Hinduism or India. Separate histories can be found for each of those religions; the fun of this article is that it also shows simultaneous developments. For that reason, I reverted User:Rahuljain2307's re-ordening, and added other periodisations, to make clear(er) that Indian History is (fascinating) rich and complex. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- The periodisation that is presented here seems specifically for Hinduism and the rest of the section seems to have been built on top of it. Jainism and Buddhism is covered under "ascetic reform" and Sikkhism under "Islamic rule and sects of Hinduism". Would it be difficult to present simultaneous development without making it seem that the other three religion are a sect of Hinduism? What is the scope of the article? Should Indian religion cover only the history of the four religion or provide a summary of them? Rahul Jain (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's not my intention to present a history of Indian religions as a history of Hinduism; on the contrary. I've already had some discussions with editors who prefer that kind of view. The information I've found comes indeed from books about Hinduism; nevertheless, those schemes provide all the space to insert information on Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- - though it might even be better to use the Suemme-periodofication. Seems to be more neutral. Also, "Classical period" as Michaels uses it refers it to a "Golden Age" of Hinduism, while "Classical" as Suemme uses it refers to the period in which Jainism and Buddhism originated. But that's not the main argument; Flood's and Suemme's seems to be more widely used. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Reverting of edits made by Rockin It Loud at 21 july 2013
Here we go again...
- Edit 1: Edit summary: ""Hinduism" was already in use by Hindus after the Arab invasion as the followers used the term Hindu Dharma to describe their religion." This info is sourced. It does not say when the term "Hindu" began to be first applied; it says that 19th century thinkers were influenced by these thinkers.
- Second edit: after the change the sentence suggests that some auhtors think that the Shramana movement gave rise to Jainism and Buddhism. So other authors don't think so?
- Third edit: Edit summary: "Dravidian ethnicities are irrelevant in this context". I think you're well aware that the Dravidian culture pre-dates the Vedic, and that the influence of the Vedic religion and language is a central element in the history of India, as reflected in Indo-Aryanization or Sanskritization.
- Fourth edit: inaccurate use of sources; WP:OR:
- "other sources, including Hindus recognize Vedism as a part of Hinduism":
- Bhattacharyya p.6: "The Vedas contain the fundamental truths about Hindu Dharma" - that's not the same as the sentence it's supposed to source
- Agarwal: "The present Hindu Dharma is the modern version of the ancient Vedic Dharma" - that's also not the same as the sentence it's supposed to source
- Sundararajan: can't check that one
- "Hindu priests and monks [...] particular Hindu sect.": this is about Vīrabhadra Gosāñi from a sectarian website. To make general statements about Hinduism based on this source is WP:OR
- "Some Vaishnavas [...] worshiping Vishnu.": idem.
- "Some modern Hindu scholars use the "Vedic religion" synonymously with "Hinduism." - not in source, at least not at page 18.
- "Radakrishnan [...] authority": not in source, and dubious. Roy's view on the Vedas as authoritative is unclear (Ranbachan 1994 "The Limits of Scripture" p.16); Vivekenanda gave his own interpretation.
- "other sources, including Hindus recognize Vedism as a part of Hinduism":
- I have been watching from afar and an becoming increasingly concerned with the amount of misrepresentation etc. Much more of this and I'll be thinking of asking for a topic ban from all pages relating to religion. I support JJ's reverts. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC
I've rolled back Jujhar.pannu's edits of 14 septmeber 2013 for the following reasons:
- Undue weight to the siddhas in the lead;
- WP:OR on "self-conformation"
- Break-up of the flow of the article, by highlighting the similarities at the start of the article. This is typical for a contemporary Hindu-understanding of Indisan religions, which is not necessarily shared by the other Indian religions. It laso leaves the article without a proper introduction on the subject.
- I disagree with all those subjective points. There is much more information in my edit and I revised it a bit I hope your fine with that but the Siddhas need to be mentioned feel free to cut a sentence but the Siddhas are always almost considered a region on their own from any of the Indian perspectives and their contributions to Indian philosophy is too tremendous to be weighted out of the lead.
- Primarily also I fail to understand what you have a problem with the 'Self-confomation' section. It is clear and object and also non neutral and non glorifying. Those people did actually preach self-conformation and it is actually a big theme in all of the 5 major Indian religions, right?
- Reply by JJ:
- Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2014
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
The term "dharmic religions" has been extensively discussed at Wikipedia, and is not accepted as WP:COMMONNAME. Had the editor who inserted this term read this talk page, he should have noticed. But to repeat the arguments:
- WP:COMMONNAME - Count of usage:
- Google Scholar gives 78 (seventy-eight) hits for "Dharmic religions", and 7.430 for "Indian religions".
- Google Books gives 73 hits for "Dharmic religions", and 93.000 hits for "Indian religions".
- When we exclude "Wikipedia, "Dharmic religions" gives 66, and "Indian religions" gives 236.000 - an amazing growth of numbers, which raises questions on this search-engine, but nevertheless, it's a ratio of 1:1208, or 1:3576.
- Bing: Inidian Religions with 41,100,000 and Dharmic Religions with 121,000. Basically 340 to 1 in favor of Indian Religions.
- WP:COMMONNAMES - Previous concensus:
- "When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced."
There has been previous concencus for the deletion of "Dharmic" pages and categories:
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 2#Category:Dharmic_religions
- Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board/Archive 3#Dharmic Religions
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 10#Category:Dharmic writers
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 30#Category:Eastern religions writers
The issue has also been extensiveley discussed at Talk:Indian religions, previously "Dharmic religions":
- Talk:Indian religions/Archive 4#Indian-based Religions are 'Dharmic Religions'
- Talk:Indian religions/Archive 3#The term "Religion" applied to Dharmic Traditions is culturally insensitive and engenders an insidious cultural bias
- Talk:Indian religions/Archive 3#Better cite sources for your unencyclopedic edits
- Talk:Indian religions/Archive 3#The democracy of Truth
- Talk:Indian religions/Archive 3#Dharmic vs Indian religious tradition
- Talk:Indian religions/Archive 2#Dharmic traditions
- Talk:Indian religions/Archive 1#Basic Question
- Talk:Indian religions/Archive 1##merge
The term is used by a small minority, most notably Malhotra and Frawley. They are being mentioned in the article, but they are definititely not WP:RS. To mention this term in the lead is WP:UNDUE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Dharmic religions again (moved from above)
Why is this page entitled "Indian religions" rather than the more correct "Dharmic religions"? After all, there are also Muslims and Christians (and probably Pagans) in India. I propose this page be moved. Regards, Meclee (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you. Unfortunately Wikipedia has become a tool of propaganda where some people tirelessly try to impose their views on others especially with the help of administrators who always shamelessly favor those users who push their agenda. Previously this article was named Dharmic religions and the user "Joshua Jonathan" moved it to this new page. I just tried to add the text "also known as Dharmic religions" along with references but still he had problems! The stupid reasons he mentioned were, Indian religions return more search results as if number of returns from an Internet search signify validity through raw numbers and as if quantity, not quality, is true scholarship. Then he said that the term Indian religion is older. Maybe he doesn't even know that the word Indian is itself new and Dharmic religions are thousands of years old. According to him any person who uses the term Dharmic religion is political and those who use word Indian religions are secular! According to his biased views and logic, Malhotra, Frawley and Elst are not scholars, but political/religious activists and are not reliable. Anyone supporting his views are neutral and secular and all other are biased. I've no doubt that he'll definitely revert that change of "also known as Dharmic religions" once he comes to know about it. Anyone who tries to say anything, his simple reply is to paste the template of links which you'll find largely useless if you go through them. Please refer to the conversation I had with him on this topic here to read it yourself.
- So I request all the Wikipedians to collectively oppose such kind of users who largely discourage people to contribute to Wikipedia as I myself have restrained to further add anything to Wikipedia fearing such kind of people on other pages too. It is bad for Wikipedia to have pack of biased groups users and admins who push each others agenda as it will make Wikipedia just a medium of propaganda than a neutral source of information and which will also discourages users like me to contribute to it. Hrihr (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
@Bishonen: See the last paragraph above: I don't know which Wiki-plicy is being violated hete, but I'm sure that such "requests" are deeply against the spirit of Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Right. I won't bother to paste any further examples of policies that the user will "find largely useless", but if people persistently show contempt for the site's rules and ethos, they will eventually be shown the door. Hrir has posted another long note on their own talkpage, addressed to me, and I have replied there. (Since this thread, started on 31 July, is again being edited today, I have moved it down to where other editors have a chance of finding it.) Bishonen | talk 19:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC).