Talk:Hinduism

Note on Zimmer

With this edit Yoonadue removed this note: "Heinrich Zimmer: "[T]he history of Indian philosophy has been characterised largely by a series of crises of interaction between the invasic Vedic-Aryan and the non-Aryan, earlier, Dravidian styles of thought and spiritual experience."(Zimmer 1989, p=218-219)". He gave the following edit summary: "removed recently added note, it talks about Indian philosophy, not about Hinduism religion". This is an artificial distinction. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Joshua Jonathan, please re-read this note which you added in lead of the article 'Hinduism' :-

"The history of Indian philosophy has been characterised largely by a series of crises of interaction between the invasic Vedic-Aryan and the non-Aryan, earlier, Dravidian styles of thought and spiritual experience."

Do you think this is relevant for this content : "Among its (Hinduism's) direct roots are the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India and ancient Dravidian culture of Iron age India." Nowhere from this quote, we get to know anything about ancient dravidian culture being the direct roots of Hinduism. Its not relevant to the article and also to the content with which it was posted.

-Yoonadue (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Given the persistence of your responses it's quite clear that it's relevant. I think you're well aware of the implications: Hinduism is not only based on the ancient Vedic religion, as some people want to believe, but also on the indigenous cultures and religions of India.

Regarding the info given by this quote: it supports the main text, and tells you that the Dravidian culture is among the roots of Hinduism. You paraphrased it, so apparently the quote does contain information which makes sense.

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You say that this quote supports the main text. Can you explain how? Please re-read the quote. It tells about 'Indian philosophy', but not specifically about Hinduism. -Yoonadue (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits by Joshua Jonathan in the lead of the article

Before this edit by Joshua Jonathan, the lead of the article said: Among its direct roots are the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India[6]. That content was fine and well-sourced which talked about the roots of Hinduism religion.

But the present version of the article's lead after a series of edits by Joshua Jonathan says :-

Although in modern times India is portrayed predominantly as "Aryan, Sanskritic, Brahmanical"[5], among its direct roots are the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India[6] but also the Dravidian[7][8][note 1] and tribal[10] cultures of India.

Dear Joshua Jonathan, you are taking the article's lead to a wrong direction. The content added by you is totally irrelevant for this article as it talks about roots of India/Indian culture, not Hinduism. The article's title is Hinduism, not India or Indian culture. So, please be specific to the article's title. You may add this content in other articles like India, Indian culture or History of India, but not here. So I am reverting your edits. I hope you have got my point. -Yoonadue (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the mistake, I'll correct it. I guess you know enough about present-day India and it's history to be aware of the Dravidian share of it - also in it's religion - and the ignorance of this share in popular representations of Hinduism. Since Wikipedia aims to give an overview of relevant info, the Dravidian share needs to be mentioned. By the way, the part you delted was well-sourced. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Reading the present version-

Although in modern times India is portrayed predominantly as "Aryan, Sanskritic, Brahmanical"[5]- Again this sentence is India-specific, not relevant for this article's lead. The source still lacks inline citation/footnote/annotation which is very important for this content.

among the direct roots of Hinduism are the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India[6] but also the Dravidian[7][8][note 1] and tribal[10] cultures of India - What about the earlier version describing "the direct roots of India/Indian culture"? Very recently, you have changed direct roots of India to direct roots of Hinduism. Moreover, the content still lacks inline citations which support the newly added content that Dravidian and tribal culture are among the direct roots of Hinduism. The one footnote which is present there doesn't point to the newly added content to even a small extent. -Yoonadue (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ - I'm having serious trouble to follow your argumentation:

• "Again this sentence is India-specific, not relevant for this article's lead." - It's also about Hinduism; you're making artificial distinctions. It's up to you explain why this is not relevant.
• If you have a problem with this specific part of the sentence ("Although [...] Brahmanical"), then you've got to discuss this specific point, but not remove the whole sentence.
• "The source still lacks inline citation/footnote/annotation which is very important for this content." - Are you really not able to read references? They are given using the [[1]-system].
• "What about the earlier version describing "the direct roots of India/Indian culture"? Very recently, you have changed direct roots of India to direct roots of Hinduism." - What's your point here?

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no comment about the content itself, but I don't understand why Yoonadue is stating the claim is unreferenced, when I see the references right in the line. Are you saying that some part is not in the references given? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It does not seem proper for any user to remove a well-referenced statement. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Yoonadue : It's up to you explain why this is not relevant. The topic is Hinduism and the lead of this article (after recent edits by you) is saying Although India is portrayed as..... From where does India enter this topic? Why do you think that its relevant to mention how India is portrayed in modern times? Why such kind of focus on India in this article's lead. India is a diverse country, secular by law and is inhabited by sizable population of numerous other religious groups like Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Buddhists etc. As per me, it is totally irrelevant to mention how India is portrayed in modern times.

In the very next words, the article starts describing the direct roots of Hinduism which is very much apt for this title. But the very recent addition to that is "among direct roots of Hinduism are dravidian culure and tribal culture of India". Why don't you provide the inline citations/quotes/footnotes so that it can be verified that which words of the book mentioned by you as reference supports this statement. Reading WP:Verifiability:-

"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

After seeing that one quote provided by you, I have strong doubts that the sources really say that Hinduism's direct roots include dravidian culture and tribal cultures. Hence you must provide quotes from the book which support this statement. Otherwise, it is likely to be removed.

That one quote provided by you is : "The history of Indian philosophy has been characterised largely by a series of crises of interaction between the invasic Vedic-Aryan and the non-Aryan, earlier, Dravidian styles of thought and spiritual experience."

This quote doesn't hit the mark as it doesn't talk about dravidian/tribal culture being the direct roots of Hinduism. Please note that Indian philosophy and Hinduism are not synonymous. -Yoonadue (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ -

• What exactly "Hinduism" is, is a matter of heated debate. See for example Richard King's Orientalism and religion, for an academic treatise, or Malhotra's Being different and Breaking India for non-academic treatises. See also Hindu studies and Hindu politics. It may be irrelevant to you (or so you say), but it's a central issue: who defines what is "true" or "reality"? Who's got the power?
• The references are given; you can check them out. This is the fourth time you say there are no references; try to understand Wiki-make-up, or just stay away if you're not able to understand it. You're persistent remarks on this are WP:DISRUPTIVE.
• The quote from Zimmer is clear: Indian philosophy (which is indistinguishable from Hinduism) is the result of the interaction between various cultures.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Yoonadue:

The references are given; you can check them out. This is the fourth time you say there are no references; try to understand Wiki-make-up, or just stay away if you're not able to understand it.

I have never said that there are no references. The point is that references are poor and lack full quotes for important content (dravidian and tribal roots). You must give exact wordings which according to you support the content. The pages of books are too lengthy, but we are unable to know which quote from the book you are referring to.

You're persistent remarks on this are WP:DISRUPTIVE.

Yes, there is disruptive editing going on, but thats not from my side. You definitely understand what I am asking for again and again but you are ignoring it saying that references are there. I know that references are there, but which which quote supports the added content?

The quote from Zimmer is clear: Indian philosophy (which is indistinguishable from Hinduism) is the result of the interaction between various cultures.

Read it again :- "The history of Indian philosophy has been characterised largely by a series of crises of interaction between the invasic Vedic-Aryan and the non-Aryan, earlier, Dravidian styles of thought and experience."

It talks about crises of interaction between Aryan and Dravidian thought. It nowhere directs to any dravidian roots of Hinduism, what you are claiming from this quote.

Indian philosophy (which is indistinguishable from Hinduism)

Now,you should provide reliable source to support Indian philosophy and Hinduism are synonymous. As far as we know, Indian philosophy comprise of Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, Sikh, Carvaka, Shramana and other traditions. And hence both terms are not synonymous. Why do u think 'India' and 'Hindu' are same despite of the fact that major religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism are born in India and they form important part of Indian history? -Yoonadue (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

To remind you: WP:VERIFY says "Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

There are references, no need to give full quotes; please stick to Wiki-policies, instead of creating your own rules. You can search them up. And yes, you did say four times that there are no references. Stop removing resourced info. Regarding the note, it underscores the info on the various origins. You've got a point on Buddhism; yet, this is not a good reason to remove the other info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Now I understand the concern. Joshua Jonathan, here's the problem: one of the quotations which you either added or reverted back to, explicitly talked about the roots of "Indian philosophy". By simple definition, that quotation cannot be used to support a claim about "Hinduism", because Indian philosophy and Hinduism are overlapping but non-identical topics. Because of this very obvious error, Yoonadue is now concerned that the other sources you are using/reverting to are also similarly misrepresented. As such, it is reasonable for him to request more specific details about the source, requesting at the bare minimum a quotation, and, even better a copy of the relevant page. Now, rather than remove the material, Yoonadue, it would be better if you first tag the sentences in question with {{verification needed}}. In some cases, it's better to remove first, and discuss later, but that's usually only with highly controversial points, or with BLP info, or with other "problem" situations. So, I guess that leaves the task as:

• Yoonadue should tag the article appropriately, rather than deleting, and allow time for discussion (there's no hurry to change this particular point).
• Joshua Jonathan should provide more information about specifically what those sources say, to verify that they in fact talk about Hinduism, not the more general topic of Indian philosophy.

Meanwhile, let's everyone stop edit warring, okay? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll provide the qoutations within a few days (busy renovating our new house; only time to edit early in the morning). Apologies to Yoonadue if I caused concerns. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I will do as suggested. Thanks Qwyrxian & JJ. -Yoonadue (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

On Indian philosophy I recommend Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's work "Indian Philosophy" published by George, Allen & Unwin. Kanchanamala (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a note to Joshua Jonathan. I have read this discussion; it's interesting, and you all know more about India and Hinduism than I do. I have no opinion one way or another on the issues you have been debating here. I mostly edit articles for syntax, word usage, spelling and punctuation, and I noticed a common spelling error in your comment, above, that begins, "Thanks for noticing the mistake, I'll correct it. I guess you know enough about present-day India and it's history to be aware of the Dravidian share of it - also in it's religion ...." Twice, you wrote "it's" when it should be "its". "It's", with an apostrophe, is the contraction of "It is". "Its", with no apostrophe, is one of the three third-person singular possessive adjectives (along with "his" and "her") used for things, animals, ideas, etc. Your comment should read "its history" and "its religion", meaning "belonging to India". If you are actively editing articles, you need to use the right word. It will save someone else having to correct it. Just thought I'd mention it. Cheers.CorinneSD (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Colonial influences

I have been editing this article and correcting errors in syntax, word usage, spelling and punctuation, and improving the writing style where needed, while making an effort not to change meaning. I have come across a sentence that I think is unclear and poorly written, but I hesitate to correct it because I am not sure what the original writer intended. If someone knows the subject matter or the reference, could he or she take a look at this sentence and try to improve it? It is the second sentence in the first paragraph.CorinneSD (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Western influences

Regarding the first sentence in this section: I edited the sentence to improve the sentence structure, but I still think the sentence is vague. Hinduism's openness? (Now "its openness") Openness to what?CorinneSD (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

If I can be of any help about Hinduism, feel free to ask me. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)