Jump to content

Talk:Hinduism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 108.39.84.90 (talk) at 01:23, 15 February 2024 (→‎Arbitrary header #1: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleHinduism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 24, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 19, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
March 29, 2006Featured article reviewKept
June 26, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
December 4, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 4, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 10, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Former featured article

Hindu views vs. Scholarly views

Arbitrary header #1

Hi all, I am concerned about the dichotomy created on this page between Hindu views and scholarly views. By having different sections with those labels, these groups are framed as opposites rather than a spectrum. Where are the Hindu scholarly views on this page? Hemmingweigh (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are "Hindu scholarly views"? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joshua Jonathan, the separate sections "scholarly views" and "Hindu views" mean that these are two mutually exclusive categories. However, Hindus are also scholars in universities and there is also scholarship within Hinduism. Erring on the side of Western bias, if we take the modern Western university we will find Hindu scholars in every department, including history, archeology, anthropology, religion, and philosophy. To find out what "Hindu scholarly views" on Hinduism are, we would need to first be clear of the relevant aspect within Hinduism, and then look to the literature within the relevant fields. Hemmingweigh (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not completely "mutually exclusive," but there are distinctive differences. The distinction is made here, in order to be able to also include Hindu views, which otherwise might be rejected at Wikipedia as 'non-scholarly'. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joshua Jonathan, thanks for your quick response. The actual sections I am questioning are currently under the "Definitions" heading. Let me break down some of the issues with this section, and further explain how the false dichotomy between "Scholarly views" and "Hindu views" is neither actualized nor useful here.
1.) Throughout the "Sanatan Dharma" and "Vaidika Dharma" subsections under "Hindu Views", specific scholars are named and neither scholarship about Hindus by Hindu scholars or Hindu scholarship is cited here. This means that even within the "Hindu views" section, non-Hindu scholarly views are represented. I would be open to suggestions about how to best reconcile the false dichotomy created and then not sustained in this section.
2.) If you read the "Hindu modernism" subsection, under the "Hindu views" subheading, you will find that it includes only information about modern Hindu figures, globalizing trends, etc. and not a definition of Hinduism. Thus, I propose moving this section after the third paragraph of the "History" section.
3.) "Legal definitions" includes only one definition, and that is from the Indian constitution. This needs its own subheading since the Indian constitution is in not representative of specifically Hindu views.
There is a lot more that I could get into, but I would like to resolve these issues completely before moving on. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this. Hemmingweigh (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and did 2 and 3. Still open to feedback on 1 since this issue is really tangled up in that section. Hemmingweigh (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hindu views should be taken if scriptural evidence is given though correct? 108.39.84.90 (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • r1: we give Hindu views on Hinduism as described by scholarly authors. Wether those authors are Hindu or not is hardly relevant here; see WP:RS.
  • r2: the Hindu modernism section describes a contemporary Hindu-view on Hinduism which has been, and is, quite influential. That's why this subsectikn is at the Hindu views-subsection of the Definitions-section.
  • r3: the constitutional definition is quite relevant for Hindus (and Hindu-editors); that's why it is included here.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmingweigh, Wikipedia is written by summarising reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. We might include some limited amount of WP:PRIMARY source views (here, "Hindu views"), but they can never be the main part of the discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kautilya 3, thanks for your response. The information you have shared about primary and secondary sources brings the false (or as I'm sure we can at least agree, unrealized) dichotomy into greater relief. If we reimagine the dichotomy as being between primary sources (representing Hindu views) and secondary sources (representing scholarly views from scholars who may or may not be Hindu) then the information under Hindu views should contain information from for example, Hindu texts rather than secondary and tertiary sources such as the Encyclopedia Brittanica-- which is currently sourced under Hindu views. As I'm sure you will agree the Encyclopedia Brittanica is not a primary source. After re-reading the responses to my question I am going to deliberate a bit more before taking on the task of improving this section, but wonder if you can more immediately help make the "Hindu views" section more representative of "Hindu views," if this dichotomy is worth upholding? Hemmingweigh (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joshua Jonathan, after carefully considering your response I believe my question is too broad to illicit an exact response. I have looked into the link you have shared and still feel that there is a lot of stylistic and readability issues in the definitions section which I won't get into just yet. That being said, let me be more specific in what I am asking so we can be productive. After reading the Hindu modernism section again, do you disagree with its new placement in the history section? Additionally, do you disagree that legal definitions should have its own subsection? Please note that I have never contested the importance of legal definitions for "Hindus (and Hindu-editors)" but do firmly dissent to the idea that any legal definition is only or primarily relevant to "Hindus (and Hindu-editors)" which I hope is not what you meant to say. Furthermore, my questions were about the false dichotomy of "scholarly" vs. religious views posited here, and I certainly was not questioning or assuming anyone's religious views, as I'm sure you are not either. Hemmingweigh (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained that all three subsections belong in the Definitions-section. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the "legal definitions" remains in the definitions section and I have not suggested the "Sanatan Dharma" or "Vaidika Dharma" section should be placed anywhere else. The "Hindu modernism," section does not contain any definition of Hinduism. If you feel strongly it should be in the definitions section, can you elaborate on why it should not be in the history section? If you are fine either way, I am happy with leaving it there. Hemmingweigh (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I share some concern with this dichotomy. All our content should be based on reliable secondary sources, regardless of the authors' faiths. Certainly this article would be incomplete without explaining the faith's view(s) of itself; but pigeonholing scholarly sources into a dedicated section is hurting NPOV, not helping it. That content needs to be woven into the article thematically. I would suggest that dropping those two sub-section titles, and moving the content currently in "scholarly views" up into the first part of "definitions", would be a considerable improvement by itself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Vanamonde93, thank you so much for offering a solution and further explaining the problem. I also concur that the two section subheadings of "Hindu views" and "Scholarly views" should be dropped and the scholarly views section can be moved up. This will definitely be an improvement from what is here now. Hemmingweigh (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On how it's done on Judaeo-Christianity see Adam and Eve. The reason for such approach is explained at emic and etic. We do state which is the emic view about Adam and Eve, but Wikipedia sides with the etic view. If the question is "When will Wikipedia take Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Hindu mythology at face value?" then the answer is "Never!" Wikipedia does not cater to religious fundamentalists, but it is based upon mainstream Bible scholarship and mainstream religious studies. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good example of a page structured well, I'd say, with the caveats that a) scholarly views aren't pigeonholed into a section, and b) the whole page is related to a specific biblical narrative, rather than an entire religion/faith/philosophy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there is agreement here shall I go ahead and change the subheadings "Scholarly views" and "Hindu views" to etic and emic respectively and then we can all work on making sure that the content fits into these new headers over time? Hemmingweigh (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi tgeorgescu, thanks so much for your response. I was not asking the question about taking "mythology" at face value, but expressing a concern about the false and unrealized dichotomy between scholarly and Hindu views presented in the definitions section because readability, cohesion, and coherence are at stake. I also agree that if maintaining some sort of dichotomy is important to editors of this page, then an etic vs. emic views section is vastly more appropriate than what is here now. Thank you for this productive solution. Hemmingweigh (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Emic versus etic is even more a dichotomy, as if scholarly vkews are 'outsider'-views, which somehow are less authentic or authoritative. At Wikipedia, they're not; but they're presented here 'in contrast' because (presumably) Hindu-editors in the past have often objected to this scholarly approach, past the point of severe edit-warring and sock-puppetry. So, no, there is no consensus to use the terms etic and emic.
The Hindu modernism section is relevant because it presents a popular view on Hinduism, which stresses unity, both in the tradition itself and in the aim for experiencing, or realizing Atman-Brahman. This stands in contrast to the scholarly views, which see Hinduism as a 'conglomerate' of often contradictory traditions - and that's also why this scholarly stress om diversity was the last part in this section, because it unravels these popular views. But alas, I've moved this part to the start of the definitions-sections.
And note that the intro of the definitions-sections stresses that there is not a single definition of Hinduism. This may be awkward for people who prefer straight borders, but it's the way it is, es explained by scholars: Hinduism defies neat definitions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joshua Jonathan, After reading through the Wikipedia page on etic and emic I haven't found anything to support your statement that etic views are "somehow less authentic and authoritative" than emic perspectives. On the contrary, the page says that "An 'etic' account is a description of a behavior or belief by a social analyst or scientific observer (a student or scholar of anthropology or sociology, for example), in terms that can be applied across cultures; that is, an etic account attempts to be 'culturally neutral', limiting any ethnocentric, political or cultural bias or alienation by the observer."
Can you provide literature that summarizes social sciences scholarship to reflect your view that etic views are "somehow less authentic and authoritative" (and thus the term etic or emic should not be used here?) Additionally, if you have this literature available to you, will you be updating the emic and etic page as well as the Christianity page to reflect the views you have presented here? If so, would you then be willing to do the work to make sure specifically scholarly views are presented in the "scholarly views" section and specifically Hindu views are presented in the "Hindu views" section, which is not currently the case? Lots of questions-- looking forward to your answers. Hemmingweigh (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote as if scholarly vkews are 'outsider'-views, which somehow are less authentic or authoritative, not that "etic views are..." etc. Etic-emic isn't applicable here anyway; they're both scholarly perspectives, with most scholarship taking an emic perspective view. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit late to join, and there are a lot of details in the discussion, so please excuse me if I have overlooked something. I agree with @Joshua Jonathan that Hinduism defies neat definitions. I also think that any attempt to dividing the section into two supposedly binary categories will generate problems. If the sources fit the WP:RS, how we think they should be characterized, whether by way of the emic/etic, scholarly/Hindu, insider/outside binaries, is frankly beside the point. As I think both @Joshua Jonathan and @Hemmingweigh agree here that we should not be imposing categories onto sources. Perhaps I am missing something, but can't we just remove the categorization of "Hindu views" unless it is necessary? That seems a fair resolution, but I am joining late to this discussion and open to other suggestions and reasons why the removal of such categories may not address the actual issues people have in mind. Asteramellus (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Asteramellus, thanks for sharing your solution. It is very welcome. I want to quickly note that no one is contesting the neatness of definitions of Hinduism, so that is a strawman argument which distracts from the real issues at hand. The issue I have raised is that 1.) There is a false dichotomy between "Scholarly views" and "Hindu views in the definitions section, and 2.) That this dichotomy (which many acknowledge is unproductive,) has not been actualized. For example, specifically Hindu views are not presented in the "Hindu views" section but the Encyclopedia Brittanica is specifically named. I agree that imposing etic/emic categories onto sources could be potentially problematic, however this is also the problem with the current dichotomy. Simply deleting the header "Hindu views" is another welcome solution, which at least moves us forward into the realm of coherence.
Does anyone know how we should proceed if a majority of us are looking for collaboration and productive solutions and there is also simultaneously unilateral decisions/edits being made that ignore this talk page conversation? Hemmingweigh (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemmingweigh I don't think recent edits are unilateral. There is just 1 edit based on conversation here (other edit is to remove a confusing subsection title from that edit)? Asteramellus (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Asteramellus, I think I am missing something. Could you explain to me the process of discussion here if you don't mind, and at what point we should make edits on the very section we are discussing? If the edits are the opposite of what someone has proposed, what is the purpose of discussing them on the talk page? Appreciate your time. Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary header #2

The header "scholarly views" has already been removed, and "sanatana dharma" and "vaidika dharma" are specific Hindu views. "Hindu views" does not mean 'Hindu views as expressed by Hindu authors'; it means 'Hindu views on what 'Hinduism' is, as described by WP:RS'. These RS of course may have been written by Hindus (Arvind Sharma, for example), but are expressions of an academic discourse, not of an indigenous, religious discourse. For such an 'insiders view', see Hindupedia, for 3xample Origins (it will show you the difference between 'Hindu views' and 'scholarly views', in several respects). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The real difference, from Wikipedia point of view, is between WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources. (Please see those policy page sections.) Hindu practitioners, preachers etc. are PRIMARY sources. They can be used with caution, to a limited extent, if there is consensus about their use. The majority of Wikipedia content is based on SECONDARY sources, even if it is to discuss the so-called "Hindu views about Hinduism". If the SECONDARY sources are inadequate for that purpose, only then would we go to the PRIMARY sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kautilya 3, thanks for your response. I don't think anyone has contested the use of primary sources. The question is, rather, why there is a "Hindu views" section on a page about Hinduism, as if scholarship on Hindu views are not presented throughout the article. There have been various solutions presented, including a few that remove the "Hindu views" header altogether and another that includes having "etic" and "emic" categories. Are you a proponent of keeping the "Hindu views" section in a Hinduism article? If so, should this framework be used in all other sections of this article? I don't see this mirrored in any other world religion article, but look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thank you, Hemmingweigh (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am in favour of keepin the "Hindu views" section. The reason for the section is not any overarching framework like "emic/etic" that you keep stating. It is merely a byproduct of how Wikipedia summarises the sources. If the source says "HIndus state" or "Hindus believe" etc., attributing those positions to "Hindus", we are obliged to do the same. If Hindus take positions that are not viable from a scholarly point of view (i.e., they are basically bogus), but they are still notable positions that everybody should know about, then we treat them in this way. Note that these are Hindu views on Hinduism, not Hindu views on God, or religion, or modes of worship etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kautilya 3, thank you for clearly stating your views and answering my first question. I really appreciate it. I do agree that Hindu perspectives should be attributed to Hindus. I also agree that notable scholarly positions should be included. I do not agree that scholarly points of view are basically bogus, and perhaps you do not either. My second question to you remains, "If so, should this framework be used in all other sections of this article? I don't see this mirrored in any other world religion article, but look forward to hearing your thoughts." Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joshua Jonathan, you have stated that etic and emic terms should not be used here. Do you still agree with this view you have presented? If so, I continue to await a response to my questions trying to get at the heart of why you feel "etic" and "emic" should not be used here.
1.) Can you provide literature that summarizes social sciences scholarship to reflect your view that etic views [OR scholarly views] are "somehow less authentic and authoritative" (and thus the term etic or emic should not be used here?)
2.) Additionally, if you have this literature available to you, will you be updating the emic and etic page as well as the Christianity page to reflect the views you have presented here?
3.) If so, would you then be willing to do the work to make sure specifically scholarly views are presented in the "scholarly views" section and specifically Hindu views are presented in the "Hindu views" section, which is not currently the case?
Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hemmingweigh, the question for you to answer is: why should Hindu views on what Hinduism is, not be called Hindu views? And if Hindu views are not to be called what they are, then what should they be called? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Hemmingweigh, but FWIW I would say the issue isn't with calling them Hindu views - certainly we should - but with segregating them from scholarly views on history or theology. Having read the emic perspective on a given subtopic, I don't believe the reader is well-served by needing to scroll up or down to find the etic perspective, even when both are written with scholarly sources. That's my view, anyhow. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vanamonde93, I agree and am fine with simply removing the unnecessary header "Hindu views." Hemmingweigh (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joshua Jonathan, certainly Hindu views should be called Hindu views. This can be done in the sentence itself "Hindus believe..." which is the stylistic standard in Encyclopedias generally and in Wikipedia itself outside of this page. I haven't received a response to any of my questions from you. But I trust you will respond soon, allowing us to move forward productively. Best, Hemmingweigh (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your questions are not "productive," nor related to the question why Hindu views shouldn't be called Hindu views. I already told you that I didn't state that etic views are less authoritative; I stated (implicitly) that presenting scholarly views as outsider views (a mistaken understanding of what emic and etic mean) somehow makes them seem less authoritative. I also noted that etic and emic are both scholarly approaches, and can't be applied to distinguish Hindu views from scholarly views. Asking me to update other pages with a misunderstanding or misrepresentation is inappropriate, of course. And your third request is unclear, but making a distinction between scholarly views and 'indigenous'/religious/insider/non-scholarly views depends on the context; see Christ myth theory. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joshua Jonathan, thank you for finally addressing my questions. I am not clear on why you believe scholarly views are outsider views. Additionally, I would be grateful if you could state in one sentence why you want the "Hindu views" subheader to remain after all of the conversation that has supported deleting it. Please note that my questions were based on your reasoning for rejecting various solutions proposed by different editors here. For definitions of etic and emic, please see the hyperlinked page under the definitions section. Regards, Hemmingweigh (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's close this discussion

Hi @Joshua Jonathan, @Kautilya3, @Vanamonde93 , @tgeorgescu, and @Asteramellus, hope you are all well. Let's close this discussion. The issue raised was about the dichotomy between "Hindu views" and "scholarly views" in the Definitions section. The specific edits that have been proposed is simply deleting the "Hindu views" subheader and moving the "Hindu modernism" subsection to the history section, since it does not contain any definitions. It seems that most of you are fine with these two discrete edits, can you please confirm here? Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with those specific edits, yes. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not, as already explained. There's no header with "Scholarly views," so you're arguing against a dichotomy which is not there. The Hindu-views section contains three subsection with specific Hindu-views on what "Hinduism" is; it's completely reasonable to contain three topics with the same subject under one header.
The Modernism-subsection explains how Hindu modernist view Hinduism; their view has strongly shaped modern views, c.q. definitions, of Hinduism. This section does not belong in the History-section, which only provides a very concise overview; it was specifically written for the Definitions-section. If to be moved (to which I object), it should be under the Unity versus diversity section, where the Hindu modernist views are also mentioned.
You are focusing on one subheader, but miss the overall structure and coherence of the article, repeating yourself, while ignoring the repeatedly raised issues with your arguments and point of view. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemmingweigh: Let me be frank: I don't know much about Hinduism. But I know perfectly well how to write about religion (Judaism, Christianity, New Age cults) at Wikipedia.
Anyway, my two cents are that you want to ghettoize highbrow research about Hinduism and fill the rest with lowbrow research about it. So, my take is not that we should make a difference about the religion or the ethnicity of the scholars, but it is very much a class issue: enlightened intellectuals (in the meaning of The Enlightenment) vs. nationalist pseudohistory which panders to resentment and prejudice. Myself, I am a capitalist internationalist ("And the world will be as one"). tgeorgescu (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemmingweigh I am ok with removing the Hindu views subheader, but I am not sure about moving the Hindu modernism to History section. There is a section for "Main traditions", maybe a section can be created for Hindu modernism? I feel Hindu modernism (Hindu reform movements) is an important part of modern hinduism and is redefining or attempting to integrate (or relate) various philosophical, social, cultural, and so on - concepts with the traditional teachings of Hinduism. But it doesn't quite fit in the definition section. Asteramellus (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained that the Hindu modernism-section does not belong in the History-section, which only gives a concise overview. The Hindu modernism-section explains how Hindu-modernists viewed, and portrayed, "Hinduism" as a broad religious tradition with an underlyng unity. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan yes thanks. And sorry, I had meant "doesn't quite fit...if we remove Hindu views subheader." Asteramellus (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Asteramellus, thank you so much for your response. So *yes* to removing "Hindu views" from the definitions section, and a *not sure* for moving the "Hindu modernism" subsection to the "History" section. That is much appreciated! User Joshua Jonathan proposed moving the "Hindu modernism" subsection to the "Unity and Diversity" section, which already has a "Hindu modernism and neo-Vedanta" subsection. Is that alright with you? Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi tgeorgescu, thank you for your response. I'm afraid I don't understand your message. In your view, should we keep the "Hindu views" subheader in the Definitions section? Are you alright with moving the "Hindu modernism" subsection about a specific period of time into the appropriate place in the"History" section? Please let me know if you are a yes or no for these edits. Thanks in advance, Hemmingweigh (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joshua Jonathan, at the time I raised the issue of the "Hindu vs. Scholarly views" there was a "Scholarly views" subheader which someone removed. Was that you? What I have written is an overview of the conversation and the proposed edits. If you insist on keeping the "Hindu modernism" section, can you please explain what you imagine the Definitions section is for, if not to provide definitions of Hinduism? Certainly it is not to provide information on what has influenced the definitions of Hinduism, which could easily become an entirely separate page on its own. The first proposed edit focuses on one subheader because that is what my proposed edit is about. Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vanamonde93, thank you for clearly stating your view. It is much appreciated. Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed

Hi @Asteramellus, @Kautilya3, @Vanamonde93 , @tgeorgescu, and @Joshua Jonathan just wanted to update you that this conversation is over. Thank you for your time and patience! Fortunately or unfortunately someone went in and made the changes before this conversation came to a close, so there is nothing more to do in terms of this conversation. Take care, Hemmingweigh (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the discussion can be "closed" only when a CONSENSUS is reached, which is not the case here. If edits have been made that were to your liking, that does not guarantee that the content can't be changed back. Joshua Jonathan, did you mean to agree to the requested changes? I myself don't. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the Hindu modernism-section to the Unity and diversity-section, since some editors didn't seem to understand that it does not belong in the history-section, as they suggested; this left only two Hindu-views in the definitions-section. Since Sanatana-dharma and Vadhyika-darma are mentioned separately in the lead, I removed the Hindu views subheader - and not because I agreed with the arguments provided here. So, I don't object to insering that subheader again. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest ?

If it's oldest religion then why it's lesser than the other religions or why it is only in india why not in other countries..? 2409:4055:4E8A:5E2D:0:0:B20B:850E (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a useless pov-statement; a recent edit changed that sentence. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2024

Remove "Indian religion" in the first line. It perverts in western-ly fashion. Hinduism is Dharma only, exclusively. 132.147.145.6 (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Shadow311 (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "INFOBOX RELIGION"

What's the point of an infobox?

Articles for all major religions, such as Islam, Christianity and Sikhism have it. Why cant this page have one too? I have attempted to add, but it gets removed for being "unnecessary". Whats the point of an infobox then? Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, what's the point of an infobox? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point of an Help:Infobox is to provide a summary. Your point is illogical. Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. We already have this infobox on Hinduism, which covers all the topics mentioned in the infobox religion. The latter was originally an infobox for Christian denominatins, and is too simple (simplistic) for the complexities ofHinduism; it's simplicity also attracts pov-edits. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats abot articles. No examples on Infoboxes at all.
We make one, add categories applicable, and not add those not applicable. Its simple.
It will take a few score edits to get it right, and then no one will touch it; when it simply has nothing else to be added!
who goes around vandalising random wikiboxes? This should have been a very obvious addition to the article a long time ago anyways Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its an infobox mate. its not a random fact-list or a random laundry list. Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and then no one will touch it -welcome to reality. We already went, for a long period, through a long "score of edits to get it right," including the categories you expect to be added. No need to duplicate an infobox with either incomplete information or simplistic summaries, or a fully developed infobox which will be a replica of the infobox we already have. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nuh-uh. What you have here is a series sidebar; with a function to connect various articles. Thats no infobox mate. And theres a limit to what an infobox can have, when you complete it, no one is bothered about it. This is really a full-pro-no-con situation if you add an infobox similar to what other religion articles have. Its not duplicate info, we can shorten it from the main body. Im not saying its a fifteen minute task, but it is one worth taking on Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will start on the infobox tomorrow, please dont revert and if you want to, do contribute. At the atmost maximum, im giving it 10-12 days, after which it will be settled and not subject to pov-edits. Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can use your sandbox to brew a draft; succes. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Infobox makes abundantly clear what's the problem with Infobox religion:

  • Shared aspects:
  • "consistently present a summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share"
  • "If a lot of different subjects all share a common attribute (for instance, all people have a name and a date of birth), then it is useful to be able to compare these across different pages."
  • "Infobox templates contain important facts and statistics of a type which are common to related articles. For instance, all animals have a scientific classification"
  • Information from the article:
  • "the information should still be present in the main text"
  • "Infoboxes, like the introduction to the article, should primarily contain material that is expanded on and supported by citations to reliable sources elsewhere in the article."
Hinduism
Om, a stylized letter of Devanagari script, used as a religious symbol in Hinduism
TypeUniversal religion
TerritoryIndian Subcontinent
Origin
India

From Template:Infobox religion and your first attempt (diff) to create an infobox (duplicated at the right):

  • Type: unspecified parameter; is there any place at Wikipedia where this is explained? You gave here Universal religion; where does the Hinduism-article say so?
  • Territory: unspecified parameter. You gave "Indian subcontinent," but Hindus can be found worldwide.
  • Founded place: "location of founding." You gave "India"; is that a "location"? And: the infobox presumes that religions are founded by a founder, but that's not a shared characteristic; Hinduism does not have a single "founder," nor a single "location of founding." For Christianity, it's also a questionable parameter. Infobox religion fails here a basic requirement of infoboxes, namely comparable shared aspects.
  • Orientation: "Hinduism" does not have one "orientation"
  • Scripture: Hinduism does not have just one single authoritative scripture
  • Theology: "main theology" - Hinduism includes a wide range of "theologies"

I could go on here, but the problem is clear: this infobox presumes comparable pieces of information, and is orientated on denominations within a religion, with clear-cut boundaries. Religions do not share the basics presumed here, and are not comparable in such a way, especially not Hinduism, which is a conglomerate of widely diverse religious traditions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first attempt was a very bad one at making an infobox. I am doing one in my sandbox, and I will surely get back to you. Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look, thanks. Keep in mind, though, that religions are not comparable the way bugs or planes are comparable. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

There are some refs on the side, we can discuss what to do with them. I request that you try not to give a dismissive review. Others can join on constructive inputs Pharaoh496 (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look:!

Hinduism
Sanātana Dharma
File:Trimurti1940s.jpg
Shiva (left), Vishnu (middle), and Brahma (right) are the three major deities in Hinduism
ClassificationDharmic
ScriptureShruti
Smriti
TheologyDarshana
Krishnology
Vaishnavism[1]
PolityHindutva
VishnuVaishnavism
ShivaShaivism
ShaktiShaktism
PanchadevataSmartism
RegionIndian subcontinent
LanguageSanskrit
LiturgyPuja
OriginHindu synthesis:
500[2]–200[3] BCE
Indus Valley Civilisation
Number of followers1.2 billion[4]

References

  1. ^ King, Anna S. 2006. "For Love of Krishna: Forty Years of Chanting." pp. 134–67 in The Hare Krishna Movement: Forty Years of Chant and Change, edited by G. Dwyer and R. J. Cole. London: I.B. Tauris. p. 163: Describes developments in both institutions, and speaks of Hare Krishna devotees "studying Vaishnava theology and practice in mainstream universities."
  2. ^ Hiltebeitel 2007, p. 12.
  3. ^ Larson 2009.
  4. ^ "Hindu Countries 2023". World Population Review. 2023. Retrieved 31 December 2023.
Pharaoh496 (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Native name: correct, though more names nmay be applicable
  • Founding: Hindu synthesis is correct, IVC is widely off the mark
  • Region: worldwide
  • Dharmic: should be "Indian religions"
  • Liturgy: Puja - too limited
  • Scripture: shruti and smriti - too limited- - or too general
  • Theology - forget it; see alone "Philosophical schools" in the sidebar
  • Polity: Hindutva - augh!
  • Division: correct, akin to the sidebar - where it is clear that these various traditions; the infobox does this not make clear
  • Number of followers: obvious

As I said, Hinduism is so complex, an infobox created for comparing bugs and planes doesn't work. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Region - with that sense in Islam it should be too but it is Muslim world. Thing is this shows the most concentrated place.
  • Polity - yea lets bin this
  • Scripture - thats the basic type divide
  • Liturgy - ill add more
we just skit the sidebar below this Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pharaoh496 Thanks for taking on the effort to do this. As Joshua has said, there are lot of complexities that can come up when doing infobox for Hinduism. Hinduism has "widely diverse religious traditions", as mentioned by Joshua earlier, and I am simply not sure how the infobox will depict that. As we know, within Hinduism, each tradition (and even the same tradition in different region) have their own scriptures (other than the main sacred texts) based on which their tradition differ from others, deities, who they consider as their supreme god, and so on. I feel an Infobox will add lot of confusion to the reader if not done right. But don't want to discourage you here and hope we don't end up with a long infobox. Asteramellus (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion, yes, good phrase. Simple can be too simple; the word "Hinduism" itself is already problematic, since it implies an unity. PS: at second thought, "liturgy" also seems to be a problematic category. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so we can remove all the problematic things… and keep it a very simple one and skid the sidebar below it.
Ill look more for liturgy as well. Pharaoh496 (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Division_type should be Vaishnavism (for example), with division name ISKCON etc. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ill just remove the time period also. till then see the remainder Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism
Sanātana Dharma
File:Trimurti1940s.jpg
Shiva (left), Vishnu (middle), and Brahma (right) are the three major deities in Hinduism
ClassificationIndian religions
ScriptureShruti
Smriti
TheologyDarshana
Krishnology
Vaishnavism[1]
VaishnavismNimbarka Sampradaya, Sri Vaishnavism, Sadh Vaishnavism, Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Warkari tradition, Ramanandi tradition, Sant Mat,
ShaivismPashupata, Śaivasiddhānta, Nayanars, Kashmir Shaivism, Nath, Lingayatism
RegionIndian subcontinent
LanguageSanskrit, English, Indo-Aryan languages, Dravidian languages
LiturgyPuja
Arti
OriginHindu synthesis:
500[2]–200[3] BCE
Number of followers1.2 billion[4]

References

  1. ^ King, Anna S. 2006. "For Love of Krishna: Forty Years of Chanting." pp. 134–67 in The Hare Krishna Movement: Forty Years of Chant and Change, edited by G. Dwyer and R. J. Cole. London: I.B. Tauris. p. 163: Describes developments in both institutions, and speaks of Hare Krishna devotees "studying Vaishnava theology and practice in mainstream universities."
  2. ^ Hiltebeitel 2007, p. 12.
  3. ^ Larson 2009.
  4. ^ "Hindu Countries 2023". World Population Review. 2023. Retrieved 31 December 2023.

Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the inclusion of an infobox as it will either be too simplistic or constantly changed by POV edits. The side bar is already more than enough information needed. Most of the information you can put in the infobox is redundant or overly simplified information from the side bar. There is simply no need for an infobox when the side bar is perfectly adequate. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear. I've added some info, to show how complicated this infobox will become. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I experienced how complex it can get when I was on Hindu denominations page and that too seems to be missing a lot! I really appreciate the effort, and I also initially thought it's good to have an infobox, but I think it's just way too complex to fit in an infobox. Its really hard to decide what to include and what not to. I read Joshua said earlier - Hinduism... "implies unity" - I guess it's unity in complex web of diversity. Asteramellus (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A sidebar is a complex thing to view at face value. Many of WikiPedia's users are used to have infobox as its there on many pages.
  • Currently when you hover on the link of the page you cant see a picture, this solves that.
  • I agree there will be POV edits but thats cuz its a new thing and it will die down soon enough. In Long run like all other pages it will only be as bothered as the rest of the page is.
  • You can always just put the sidebar below this.
  • In the sidebar you basically put the three most important / biggest / significant divisions to make it less complicated. It does not have to be fixed to three, if four are needed we put four.
Its not as complicated Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the sidebar you basically put the three most important / biggest / significant divisions to make it less complicated - there you go... As I wrote before, Infoboxes exist to compare shared aspects of similar subjects; that's not the case here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can just remove the divisions then for now wait Pharaoh496 (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism
Sanātana Dharma
File:Trimurti1940s.jpg
Shiva (left), Vishnu (middle), and Brahma (right) are the three major deities in Hinduism
ClassificationIndian religions
ScriptureShruti
Smriti
TheologyDarshana
Krishnology
Vaishnavism[1]
DenominationsSampradayas
RegionIndian subcontinent
LanguageSanskrit
Indo-Aryan languages
Dravidian languages
LiturgyPuja
Arti
OriginHindu synthesis
Number of followers1.2 billion[2]

Pharaoh496 (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of an infobox for this page is a good one, and some productive suggestions have been made. Hang in there! Hemmingweigh (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers mate! Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And why is it a good idea? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cuz the suggestions are good man. Check the updated infobox ive shared up Pharaoh496 (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does not seem like a strong argument. The infobox above presents no new information that isn't already in the sidebar, and is an overly-simplistic (and inaccurate) one at that. Chariotrider555 (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Humour me on whats inaccurate. In the meanwhile there is nothing wrong with a short summary, the infobox literally doing what it exists for, and im not asking you to remove the sidebar Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brahmā is definitely not one of the main deities of Hinduism. Additionly the image itself is a modern print and is not an image that would pertain to Hinduism of every era (Compare it to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, where there are images or symbols that are applicable to the entire history of the religion). You have darshana listed as a theology, but that is not really a theology. You have both Krishnology and Vaishnavism listed as theologies, but both redirect to the same page, but why should only those two theologies be mentioned? Hinduism also does not really have "liturgy", and there is no mention of a Hindu liturgy either on this page or liturgy. Overall the infobox doesn't really fit the structure of Hinduism and any attempts to force it into such a box wouldn't do justice. Note that other Indian religions like Buddhism or Jainism do not have infoboxes. Sikhism does, but it is a more modern and tighly knit faith. Chariotrider555 (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ King, Anna S. 2006. "For Love of Krishna: Forty Years of Chanting." pp. 134–67 in The Hare Krishna Movement: Forty Years of Chant and Change, edited by G. Dwyer and R. J. Cole. London: I.B. Tauris. p. 163: Describes developments in both institutions, and speaks of Hare Krishna devotees "studying Vaishnava theology and practice in mainstream universities."
  2. ^ "Hindu Countries 2023". World Population Review. 2023. Retrieved 31 December 2023.

Sanatana dharma

This section used to be buried under "Hindu views", and has now been elevated to a real section on "Definitions". But I don't see any definitions here, just propaganda. Ironically, the section even claims that Hinduism is not "dogma", while propagating precisely dogma. The last paragraph is the only one that makes any sense, and it has nothing to do with "definitions". I think this section should be removed altogether. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hinduism&oldid=1207517218"