Talk:Historical Vedic religion

Bullshit article hijacked by european nationalists

This article needs to mention

1) saraswati river drying up in 3800 BC which is archaeological/ geological evidence
2) fire altars in kalibangan, rakhigarhi and lothal
3) dates of vedic texts has been disputed by many scholars such as nicholas kazanas, shrikhant telegari, shubhash kak etc
4) it needs to mention that many scholars such as nicholas kazanas opine that zoroastrian religion is an off shoot of vedic religion
5) needs to mention mitanni vedic religion and kassites vedic gods, the pre zoroasterian religion of yazdanism present in iraq and syria and its relation to vedic religion
6) needs to mention the kali yuga and that prominent indian mathematician aryabhatta calculated kali yuga date as 3102 BC which predates the 1500 BC aryan migration notion
7) scholars who have established indus seals with the event of kali yuga.
8) mention that max muller who proposed aryan dating of 1500 BC was a christian evangelist who believed earth was created in 4000 BC

so far i see so many aryanists contribution and editing and this article seem to be exhibiting very aryanist and european nationalist views, it needs to accomodate the second view as well. This article seem to be deliberately destorting and presenting twited one sided european nationalist view of the indian history.

The entire article seems to be propagating aryanist author views, without any evidence of archaeological proofs, where are the views of Mark kenoyer etc on cemetry H culture, cultural and anthropological continuity? and the swat grave culture etc? seems like any contrary views are not being accomodated in this article. where is archaeological evidence that andronovo and sintashta cultures spoke an indo european language since zero inscriptions have been found from the sites? Mark kenoyer also argues that BMAC has no evidence of indo european language presence as well, so how do we conclude in the article that BMAC spoke indo european language?

the article fails to mention one single archaeological evidence which argue that there is cultural continuity, neither anthropological views, neither discovery of bronze chariots from sanauli and horse bones which was discovered by mortimer wheeler and later verified by german scholar who specialised in biological study of the horse who verified that the horse feet discovered from surkotada, the entire article is made on fantasy based contribution of few aryanists like david anthony, michael witzel who are repeatedly quoted every where which concerns indian history.

regardsRameezraja001 (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Two comments:

• Kazanas, Kak, etc. are definitely not WP:RS;
• Your comparison of Anthony and Witzel with Aryanists is unacceptable, amd need to stop.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Hothead: you're post could be edited 70% and it would say more, with less spittle getting on the reader. "Aryanist"? That's a big assumption. If you have something interesting, then add to the article, but "brevity is the soul of wit". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.69.174.194 (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Saraswati drying up 3800BCE is not conclusive. A 2017 studybby London’s Imperial College and the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur says In the paleo channel identified as Saraswati had an active mighty river as late as just 1600 years ago: Hindustan Times (Nov 29, 2017), New study challenges existence of Saraswati river, says it was Sutlej’s old course. ChandlerMinh (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Who on the Earth told you that "chariot" were vedic? Chariots were not vedic horse driven chariots with spoked wheel is Vedic. The Sanauli "chariot" were solid wheels not spoked. Bronze Chariot from Sanauli had no spoked wheels. If you don't know the difference between spoked wheel and solid wheel, please don't spend time here promoting speculations. Horses played an important role in vedic culture and their presence was widespread . There were no wild horse native to India 5000 years and there are no wild horses native to India now. ChandlerMinh (talk) 07:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hindustan Times:

“We showed that there was a mighty river in that channel in Haryana till at least 1600 years ago,” Rai said. “We cannot say that this is the same river that is mentioned in the Vedas.”

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent DNA studies and archeological finds 2018-2020 need to be included in "Historical Vedic religion"

This is my first comment regarding the accuracy of any Wikipedia article. My attention has been drawn to the popularizing of the Aryan Migration Theory as it stands in contrast to more recent scientific data.

The September 5, 2019 publication of "Largest-ever ancient-DNA study illuminates millennia of South and Central Asian prehistory"(1) by renowned genetic researcher David Reich indicates that Indus Valley culture and genetic populations are indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, quote: "We can rule out a large-scale spread of farmers with Anatolian roots into South Asia, the centerpiece of the 'Anatolian hypothesis' that such movement brought farming and Indo-European languages into the region," said Reich, who is also an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Broad Institute. "Since no substantial movements of people occurred, this is checkmate for the Anatolian hypothesis."

This research is supported by independent Indian geneticist Dr Gyaneswar Chaubey(2)(3), Delhi University, who in September 2019 cited the Aryan Migration Theory as now being erroneous and out-dated by recent scientific data.

Also in September 2019, Dr Sanjay Kumar Manjul(4)(5), renowned archaeologist from Archaeological Survey of India, lectured about his recent findings of the horse chariot at Sanauli, Haryana, India, which dated back before the "Vedic period" and who has discovered the oldest metal helmet in the world. The 4,000 year old horse-drawn war chariot and weapons were found in a ruling class burial site belonging to an advanced indigenous culture of the Mahabharata-War region of North India 7km from the Ganges River.

New scientific evidence calls for a re-investigation and update of this Wikipedia listing about the "Historical Vedic Religion".

(1) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190905145348.htm
(2) https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=VYn4LGsAAAAJ&hl=en
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH_eFmLSMb4
(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinauli
(5) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU5SMcKePp0

Soolaba (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read the sources you are citing. They do not contradict the Aryan migration theory at all. The Indus valley peoples are not held to have migrated from Anatolia, but the Indus valley peoples are not the ones among whom Vedic religion originated. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

No wonder IAmt keeps being "debunked" again and again: an epic misreading of sources.

• 1 - Narasimhan et al (2018/2019) explicitly confirms the IAmt; it rejects the Anatolian hypothesis, which argued that (proto-)IE spread with the advance of farming
• 2 - which study co-authored by Chaubey?
• 3 - Infinity Foundation, absolutely not WP:RS
• 4 - Sinauli says bronze helmets
• 5 - Bharat Patriot Foundation, need we say more?

Narasimhan is WP:RS; Chaubey seems to have contributed tp WP:RS; the rest is in the same category as alien sightings and the like. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Chaubey qualifies as a reliable source, but he has recently (2018) co-authored a peer-reviewed paper supporting the Steppe hypothesis, so he wouldn't be of great help to support the Out of India theory. Alcaios (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

These sentences in the lead section of the article is disputed for non-neutral point of view:

The Vedic religion developed during the early Vedic period (1500–1100 BCE), but has roots in the Eurasian steppe Sintashta culture (2200–1800 BCE) and the subsequent Central Asian Andronovo culture (2000–900 BCE), and possibly also the Indus Valley Civilisation (2600–1900 BCE). It was a composite of the religion of the Central Asian Indo-Aryans, itself "a syncretic mixture of old Central Asian and new Indo-European elements", which borrowed "distinctive religious beliefs and practices" from the Bactria–Margiana culture; and the remnants of the Harappan culture of the Indus Valley.

Max Muller who introduced the term "Indo-Aryan" mentioned:

I have declared again and again that if I say Aryas, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language. The same applies to Hindus, Greeks, Romans Germans, Celts and Slaves. When I speak of them I commit myself to no anatomical characteristics. The blue-eyed and fair-haired Scandinavians may have been conquerors or conquered, they may have adopted the language of their darker lords or their subjects, or vice versa. I assert nothing beyond their language when I call them Hindus, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Celts and Slaves; and in that sense, and in that sense only, do I say that even the blackest Hindus represent an earlier stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest Scandinavians. .. To me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar.

The Concept of Indo-European language family had been articulated by Sir William Jones in 1786 as a group of related languages consisting of Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, Gothic, Celtic and Old Persian, co-descended from a lost ancestral language, although he did not give this language family a name. The "original stock" that spoke the ancestral language he simply called the Indian or Hindu. Friedrich Max Muller who took the word Arya and applied it to the family of languages now called Indo-European and the peoples speaking them

They are called Indo-European because the language which they are supposed to have spoken was precursor of some of the main languages which are now spoken in India (Indo-) and Europe (-European). For reasons that are not too clear, these tribes started spilling over into areas on their borders along a wide arc extending from Asia Minor to Afghanistan. They moved into Greece, made an impact on the Middle East, moved into what is now Iran and Pakistan. When they moved into Indian subcontinent they did something they did not do elsewhere. They started keeping a record of their religious experience in India -- from 1500 BCE onwards, when they are generally believed to have entered India

The idea of mass migration from the north has fallen out of favour among scholars not only because it has become so politicized, but also because archaeologists have realized that major cultural shifts in the archaeological record do not always imply major migrations.

The discovery of Indus civilization challenged three major hasty conclusions of Western scholars namely, (1) the writing system was borrowed from the Iranians (2) the date of Rigveda is 1500 BCE and (3) the Aryans came from elsewhere in India

European racists, including Nazis, were drawn to the idea of an invasion of India in which the dark-skinned inhabitants were subdued by light-skinned warriors related to northern Europeans, who imposed on them a hierarchical caste system that forbade intermarriage across groups. [...] Some placed ancestral homeland of the Indo-Aryans in northeast Europe, including Germany. They also adopted features of Vedic mythology as their own, calling themselves Aryans after the term in the Rig Veda, and appropriating swastika, a traditional hindu symbol of good fortune.

The present classification of Indo-European Languages was carried out during 19th century. In the light of increased knowledge and awareness in hitherto unknown areas, post internet information explosion, there appears to be an urgent need to revisit the existing Indo-European language classification. I am of the view that the original classifications were carried out during an era of British colonial power’s dominion over a sizeable population of the globe.

Quoting Swami Vivekananda: According to some, they came from Central Tibet, others will have say that they came from Central Asia,... Of late there was an attempt made to prove that the Aryans lived on the Swiss lakes. I should not be sorry if they had been all drowned there, theory and all. Some say now that they lived at the North Pole. Lord bless the Aryans and their habitations! As for the truth of these theories, there is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the (so called) Aryan even came from anywhere outside India

Quoting Dr Ambedkar "The Theory of Aryan invasion is an invention.. [it] is a perversion of scientific imagination. It is not allowed to evolve out of facts, .. The Aryan race theory is so absurd that it ought to have been dead long ago. But far from being dead, the theory has a considerable hold upon people".

The most archaic Old Indo-Aryan is found in Hindu sacred texts called the Vedas

If the Indo-European tradition was as developed as Rgveda is said to testify, what happened to it in the Greek and Latin sources? Or even simpler, why is it that barring some remote similarities in a few god names, we do not find any similar personal names? I do not know of a single early Vedic name that resembles any Greek personal name. Further if Aryans were an Indo-European clan, how did they come to acquire this literature Rgveda? Since nothing comparable to Rgveda is found in any Indo-European dialects, it is obviously under the local Indian influence that this literature has grown

Western scholars first regarded the Indus Valley culture to be an offshoot from the Middle Eastern, probably Sumerian, though it was much larger in size and better organized. Recent excavations at Mehrgarh show that antecedents of the Indus Valley culture go back earlier than 6000 BCE in India itself, and that it did not develop from an outside influence. If the Indus Valley culture is late Vedic, as the Vedas suggest, such sites as Mehrgarh would reflect the earlier Vedic age of India. The date of Mehrgarh is quite in keeping with the astronomical references we have uncovered in the Vedas. Mehrgarh site also reveals the use of barley as a grain and extensive use of cattle as domesticated animals which is characteristic of Vedic culture

References

-- Updated Jaykul72 (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Jaykul72 (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

What's your point? WP:NPOV means that we don't give WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE theories. See also Indo-Aryan migrations#Indigenous Aryans and Indigenous Aryans#Criticism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Revert

@LearnIndology: please don't revert without explicating your objections; especially not when you demand consensus, without, starting a discussion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh! I am really sorry for the revert, I thought you removed the Kalash section. I apologize for my mistake. LearnIndology (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; glad it was a mistake. The Kalash are definitely relevant, as they have preserved the Vedic rituals. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus against the move as proposed. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Historical Vedic religion → Vedism – There are no sources describing the subject of this article as "Historical Vedic religion", but the majority of citations use "Vedism", as demonstrated here:

• "Vedic religion". Encyclopedia Britannica.

Vedic religion, also called Vedism, the religion of the ancient Indo-European-speaking peoples who entered India about 1500 BCE from the region of present-day Iran

• "Vedism and Brahmanism". www.encyclopedia.com.

Vedism, and Brahmanism refer to those forms of Hinduism that revolve primarily around the mythic vision and ritual ideologies presented by the Vedas

• "Vedism". doi:10.1093/oi/authority.20110803115342212. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Vedism refers to the schools of Hinduism that base their beliefs on Shruti, the sacred texts and rituals of the ancient Vedic tradition—that is, the Vedas and their offspring: the ...

• Stump, Roger W. (2008-04-04). The Geography of Religion: Faith, Place, and Space. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7425-8149-4.

According to Vedism, the sacred knowledge of Vedas was eternal

• Even Sir Monier Monier-Williams nowhere used the term "Historical Vedic religion", instead he used the term "Vedism"
• Monier-Williams, Sir Monier (1887). Brāhmanism and Hindūism: Or, Religious Thought and Life in India, as Based on the Veda and Other Sacred Books of the Hindūs. J. Murray.

Vedism was the earliest form of religion of the Indian branch of great Aryan family

LearnIndology (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Vedism is ambigue, as implied by "Vedism refers to the schools of Hinduism that base their beliefs on.." The historical Vedic religion was not Hinduism. But Vedism, as a synonym, is mentioned in the lead, just like the EB does; clearly, that suffices. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

No, historical vedic religion is very uncommon tilte and isn't mentioned in any reliable source, while Vedism has been used since 18th century and is still in use. Please go through WP:COMMONNAME. LearnIndology (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The word "historical" refers to how this article was about the Vedic religion only during the Vedic period. Chariotrider555 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources using that term, and titles are kept per WP:COMMONNAME, not by our own choice and liking. LearnIndology (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@LearnIndology: at second thought, okay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I'm glad we've come to an agreement. I'll let you have the honors of performing the page move. LearnIndology (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawing my support as per this edit by LearnIndology, which changed

The historical Vedic religion (also known as Vedicism, Vedism or (anachronistically) ancient Hinduism), and subsequent Brahmanism (also called Brahminism), constituted the religious ideas and practices among some of the Indo-Aryan peoples of northwest India and the western Ganges plain of ancient India during the Vedic period (1500–500 BC).

into

Vedism or (anachronistically) ancient Hinduism), and subsequent Brahmanism (also called Brahminism), refers to the schools of Hinduism that base their beliefs on Śruti. Vedism has roots in the religious ideas and practices among some of the Indo-Aryan peoples of northwest India and the western Ganges plain of ancient India during the Vedic period (1500–500 BC).

References

A gross misrepresentation of the sources, and shameless pov-pushing, based on one single sentence from one source. You proposed to move the page; instead you change the topic of this page, based on one sentence from a single source. We're reminded once again where you stand: WP:NOTHERE. Hack, you didn't even read, or bother to change, what the first sentence says: "or (anachronistically) ancient Hinduism." Fuller quote: "This branch of Hinduism grows directly out of the religion brought by the Aryan Indo-Europeans." The topic is that religion of the Vedic Indo-Aryans; not present-day forms of Hinduism. Trying to present this as a form of Hinduism is all too obvious pov-pushing inappropriate, especially given the discussion going at the talkpage of the India-page. So, we stick to "Historical Vedic religion," to make it chrystal-clear what the topic is. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, I thought you were okay with it. This was a misunderstanding which I apologize for. We can keep the lead as it is for now and discuss it after some time. At least we can agree to move the page for now? LearnIndology (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your apologies; appreciated. But no, I don't agree to move the page for now. "Vedic religion" is also WP:COMMONNAME; "Historical" makes clear what period we're talking about. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Nuance: Bruce M. Sullivan (2001), The A to Z of Hinduism, p.9 explains that Vedism and Brahmninism differ from Hinduism, but that "Hinduism" can also be used as a convenient shorthand for the whole tradition starting with, or paying reverence to (is this correct English?):

Recently scholars have also begun to use the term "Vedism" [...] There is not absolute uniformity among scholars in this use of terminology, again relating to the definition of "Hinduism" with which this introduction began.

In that respect is it convenient to refer to Vedism and Brahmanism as "schools of Hinduism." But in this article, it's confusing. It explicitly treats the pre-Hindu Vedic religion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I just looked-up Monier-Williams: "I propose making use of the three words Vedism, Brahmanism, and Hinduism as convenient expressions for the three principal stages or phases in the development of that complicated system [...] Hinduism grew out of Brahmanism." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree! LearnIndology (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - I admit that "Vedism" is certainly in use among specialists but it is by no means a COMMONNAME. See the Google ngram viewer. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

These results are due to Wikipedia artifacts. LearnIndology (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I see a peak at Ngram (nice tool!) for "Vedic religion" there at 1998; Wikipedia didn't exist then yet. So, it would rather be the other way round: Wikipedia followed the common name when this article was created.

Wikipedia:Article titles gives five criteria: "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent." "Vedic religion" fits those criteria better than "Vedism," but Vedic religion is already in use as a disambiguation page; hence "Historical Vedic religion." It's a recognizable etc. delineation of the topic.

NB: "Vedic religion" ca. 78,000 hits at Google Books, 6,290 hits at Google Scholar; "Vedism" ca. 14,000 hits at Google Books, 1,820 hits at Google Scholar. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the first edit on this page[1]. This article was supposed to be what Indian religions is today. But anyway I still prefer "Vedism" over "Vedic religion". There are many technicalities related to the word "religion". Religion is a very controversial word here, that's why I avoided it. Scholars avoid using it even with modern Hinduism. Even Sir Monier Monier-Williams used the term "Vedism". Some sources describe "Vedism" as the oldest stratum and school of Hinduism while some consider it as a separate religion. Thus the term "Vedism" gives a wide overview of this school/religion controversy. Whether it is a school of Hinduism or a separate religion can be explained in great detail in the body of the article, but giving the judgment of "religion" in the very title of this article is misleading. The term "Vedism" sounds neither "religion" nor a "school", thus best to use keeping in view WP:NPOV. LearnIndology (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Please read Google Ngram Viewer before trying to construct theories about what it says.

And WP:TITLE tells you how article titles are decided. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Funny, I also looked-up that one! Indian religions, indeed. But I don't see how "Scholars avoid using it [the term "religion"] even with modern Hinduism." The term "religion" does indeed have it's problems, as it is a western construct; it is for this reason that Hinduism starts with "Hinduism is an Indian religion and dharma, or way of life." Nevertheless, it's the term we usually use. And anyway, "Vedism" is given as a synonym. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

We have to evaluate each aspect of the title. If the title is not neutral, then we need to make it neutral. How do you justify the WP:OR terms like "Historical". Regarding the use of the word "religion", it is a violation of WP:NPOV, emphasizing just one aspect of the subject. LearnIndology (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Why the term "historical" is being used has already been explained, multiple times. Don't drag in any policy that seems to suit your needs. We're talking about a historical period, not the present times. NPOV refers to a neutral overview, c.q. presentation, of various points of view. I'm not aware of any scholarly source objecting against using the term "religion" for the, well, religion, of the Vedic people. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You were free to label Vedism as "historic", had people had stopped practising Vedism, but there are more than 8 million adherents practising pure Vedism. So, there is no way Vedism can be labelled as something "historic" and only limited to "early Indo Aryans" when it is still being practised. This article needs to be re-written. LearnIndology (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I like "Historical Vedic religion" as it makes very clear that the article is only about pre-Hinduism history, and does not go into modern ramifications. It brings much needed clarification to the issues at hand, and avoids confusing everything. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  The term "Historical" is pure WP:OR. LearnIndology (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

No, it's just a segmentation, a way of defining the limits of the article. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

What limits? Isn't Vedism being practised even today? Isn't Hinduism based on Vedas? How is this Historical? LearnIndology (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is primarily about the religion of the historical Vedic people. Period. The survival of the orthodox srauta-ritual is mentioned at Historical Vedic religion#Continuation of orthodox ritual. See WP:DONTGETIT for your refusal to get the point. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why to define it as "religion of Vedic people" when it is still being practiced? I see a strong bias here. LearnIndology (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

No, you don't understand indeed, that's obvious. We're talking about the topic of the article, to delineate it from other topics. The surviving srauta-ritual is also mentioned, as stated above, with a hatnote to Śrauta. That article treats the srauta-ritual in more detail, this article treats the religion of the Vedic people from ca. 1200 BCE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I agree with LearnIndology, Vedism sounds more neutral and precise. Given the complexities of these terms, it is best to avoid the word "religion" in the title, but can be explained in the body. Dinesh (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - In complete support of points raised by Joshua Jonathan. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Scope is too restricted for proposed title. The term "Historical Vedic religion" is very rare, however. I wonder if (1) this article should not be renamed to an even clearer title and (2) Vedism should be redirected somewhere else. Vedic religion is a dab page. Srnec (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutrality

@LearnIndology: what are you trying to accomplish with tagging this article diff for an alleged lack of neutrality? What exactly is not neutral about it? WP:NPOV says:

Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

Which side is neglected, or presented in a biased way, given which source? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The nature of this article is mainly bais and has been kept deliberately limited to so-called "early Indo Aryans", ignoring the fact that it is still being practised by more than 8 million people. Although I can see sections giving space to it[2], still that changes nothing, as lead doesn't summarise that and "declare" Vedism as "religion" and ignores the fact that it can also be described as "school" of Hinduism. Apart from that, we are already discussing the title. This article is full of POV, so I am placing NPOV tag. LearnIndology (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• The topic of this article is the religion of the historical Vedic people. Wiki-policies encourage delineating precise topics. We already have articles on Hinduism and the History of Hinduism. Those are braod overview articles. This article, on the Vedic religion, provides more detail on a subtopic, just like for example Vedanta provides more detail on a subtopic, and Advaita Vedanta provides more detail on a subtopic of Vedanta.
• The article does not ignore the fact that Vedic rituals are still being practiced, as you acknowledge yourself, and which is also mentioned in the lead:

These ideas and practices are found in the Vedic texts, and some Vedic rituals are still practiced today,[7][8][9] though present-day Hinduism is markedly different from the historical Vedic religion.[5][10][note 1]

• "Religion" is a common term, and the phrase "Vedic religion" is the common name, as explained before. "Hinduism" is also regarded as a religion; this point of discussion is actually pointless.
• This article is called "Historical Vedic religion" and not "vedic religion," beceause Vedic religion is a disambiguation page.
• Describing Vedism and Brahmanism as "schools of Hinduism" is hardly relevant here, as the topic is the religion of the historical Vedic people, not Hinduism or the history of Hinduism. Sullivan explains that "Hinduism" is significantly different from "Brahmanism," but that "it is also convenient to have a single term for the whole complex of interrelated traditions. So, if you insist, we mention the ambiguity of the term "Hinduism":

Brahmanism evolved into Hinduism, which is significantly different from the preceding Brahmanism, though "it is also convenient to have a single term for the whole complex of interrelated traditions.[5][note 1]

The transformation from "Brahmanism" into "Hinduism" is also explained in the article:

The transition from ancient Brahmanism into schools of Hinduism was a form of evolution in interaction with non-Vedic traditions, one that preserved many of the central ideas and theosophy in the Vedas, and synergistically integrated non-Vedic ideas.[139][2][1][16][note 2]

• Regarding "full of POV," Template:POV:

Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies.

An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant.

Please provide specific examples, and suggest possible improvements, with WP:RS. Otherwise, the template will be removed again, as being baseless.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I propose this new lead:

Vedism is the oldest stratum of religious activity in India. Vedism is one of the major traditions that shaped Hinduism. It constituted the religious ideas and practices among some of the Indo-Aryan peoples of northwest India and the western Ganges plain of ancient India during the Vedic period (1500–500 BC). These ideas and practices are found in the Vedic texts, and some Vedic rituals are still practiced today, though present-day Hinduism is markedly different from the historical Vedic religion.

References

This lead as compared with the current one is more neutral and gives a wider view of Vedism.

LearnIndology (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It's less neutral, and incorrect. "Vedism is the oldest stratum of religious activity in India" is bullshit. Almost every author agrees that the Vedic religion, and certainly Hinduism, incorporated Harappan and animistic influences, which predate the Vedic religion. Also, you removed "Brahmanism," so you made scope smaller, instead of broader. Vedism evolved into Brahmanism during the Vedic period. At best, you can add "Brahmanism is one of the major traditions that shaped Hinduism" before "though present-day." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I have updated the lead as per your request.

Vedism (also known as Vedicism, or (anachronistically) ancient Hinduism[a]), and subsequent Brahmanism (also called Brahminism) is one of the major traditions that shaped Hinduism. It constituted the religious ideas and practices among some of the Indo-Aryan peoples of northwest India and the western Ganges plain of ancient India during the Vedic period (1500–500 BC). These ideas and practices are found in the Vedic texts, and some Vedic rituals are still practiced today, though present-day Hinduism is markedly different from the historical Vedic religion.

References

LearnIndology (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You forgot "Brahmanism is one of the major traditions that shaped Hinduism." You probably mean

The historical Vedic religion (also known as Vedicism, Vedism or (anachronistically) ancient Hinduism), and subsequent Brahmanism (also called Brahminism), constituted the religious ideas and practices among some of the Indo-Aryan peoples of northwest India and the western Ganges plain of ancient India during the Vedic period (1500–500 BC). These ideas and practices are found in the Vedic texts, and some Vedic rituals are still practiced today. Brahmanism is one of the major traditions that shaped Hinduism, though present-day Hinduism is markedly different from the historical Vedic religion.

References

NB: the lead summarizes the article; you're still trying to change the scope of this article, and ignoring it's contents. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am not trying to change the scope of the article, but widen the scope. The lead below summarises the whole article and gives the reader an idea that [Vedism was the religion of "early Indo-Aryans", as well as, it is a tradition that shaped Hinduism]. In my opinion, there can be no better lead than this to summarise the article:

Vedism (also known as Vedicism, or (anachronistically) ancient Hinduism[a]), and subsequent Brahmanism (also called Brahminism) is one of the major traditions that shaped Hinduism. It constituted the religious ideas and practices among some of the Indo-Aryan peoples of northwest India and the western Ganges plain of ancient India during the Vedic period (1500–500 BC). These ideas and practices are found in the Vedic texts, and some Vedic rituals are still practiced today, though present-day Hinduism is markedly different from the historical Vedic religion.

Note: Brahminism has not been ignored here as you were pointing out above. It is there in the very first line, that too in bold words:)

References

LearnIndology (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

We first define what the topic is; eventually we describe it's relation to other topics. You're turning things upside down: "Vedism [...] is one of the major traditions that shaped Hinduism" is not a defintion. The full sentence is grammatically incorrect: itmentions two traditiins, but refers to them in the singular. And it is historically incorrect: Vedism evolved into Brahmanism, and Brahmanism is one of the main constituents of Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Defining the topic makes sense. But "Brahmanism" needs to replaced by "Vedism" here [3] as per sources.[4][5]. LearnIndology (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The sources say that Vedism evolved into Brahmanism, and that this Brahmanical ideology was subsequently synthesized with non-Vedic religions, when Brahmanism lost influence (that is, income). So, I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Source clearly says "Vedism was one of the major traditions that shaped Hinduism.". See[6]

Where's the confusion? LearnIndology (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I just read it:

Vedism is the oldest stratum of religious activity in India for which there exist written materials. It was one of the major traditions that shaped Hinduism.

Now I also understand what you meant with "Vedism is the oldest stratum of religious activity in India"; you omitted "written materials." I've changed "Brahmanism" into "it" (no, not the killer clown); I hope that suffices.
By the way, this is interesting info from the EB:

Though it is impossible to say when Vedism eventually gave way to classical Hinduism, a decrease in literary activity among the Vedic schools from the 5th century bce onward can be observed, and about that time a more Hindu character began to appear.

500-300 BCE is also given by other sources as the onset of the Hindu synthesis. Really fascinating: how a religious tradition "disappeared," and yet survived, as some sorf of archaeological layer in a present-day religion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
PS: in the sentence "Vedism [...] is one of the major traditions that shaped Hinduism," the main topic is not Vedism, but Hinduism, if you understand what I mean. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Some more from EB:

When Vedic religion gradually evolved into Hinduism between the 6th and 2nd centuries bce, the texts, taken collectively, became the most sacred literature of Hinduism. They are known as Shruti (“What Is Heard”), the divinely revealed section of Hindu literature—in contrast to the later strata of religious literature known as Smriti (“What Is Remembered”), traditional texts attributed to human authors. But in modern Hinduism the Shruti, with the exception of the Upanishads and a few hymns of the Rigveda, is now little known, while some of the Smriti texts remain extremely influential.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this[7], and indeed it is fascinating to see how these traditions have survived till date, especially in Indian weddings. I was reading about Hindu weddings the other day and I was quite surprised to see that Rigvedic deities are primarily worshipped during Hindu weddings.

• The Vara Prekshanam ritual takes place after the couple has seen one another for the first time on their wedding day. The groom prays to gods Brihaspati, Varuna, Indra, and Surya to erase any doshas (defects) that the bride has. He prays for a long marriage blessed with happiness and children.

• The groom invokes the gods Soma, Gandharva, and Agni for strength and his bride's youth.

• ...Oh, Lord Indra, cleanse this girl of all her illnesses and make her shine in splendor..."

• I hold your hand to keep you with me to raise good children and till you become old. Devatas including Indra have offered you to me to become the Lady in charge of the house.

• The groom also recites mantras in praise of Bhaga, Aryaman, Savita, Indra, Agni, Surya, Vayu and Saraswati, while holding the bride’s hand.

and so on...

I am still learning about it, so pardon me if I am wrong anywhere:) LearnIndology (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well let's shake hands here; nice to solve it this way. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)