Talk:Hinduism

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)

@ Joshua Jonathan

I have removed that content related to dravidian and tribal being the direct roots of the Hinduism. It would be better that you come with the quotations which directly support that content first. -Yoonadue (talk) 09:05, 11 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)

Thank you for offering. Even though I am far from being an expert on Hinduism, I know when a sentence sounds vague (and thus a bit unclear) to the average non-expert reader. I just pointed out just such a place in the article on Hinduism. If you know enough about Hinduism that you can add a few words after "openness" to increase the clarity of the sentence, why don't you? I read the entire article and did not see any other reference to Hinduism's openness, so I think this needs a little explaining. (There is a reference there, but even with a reference, I think all statements in an encyclopedic article should be clear.). Just a few words would suffice: "openness to.....". (All I did was to change "Hinduism's openness" to "its openness" to avoid repeating the word "Hinduism's" twice in the same sentence.)CorinneSD (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on my knowledge of Hinduism, and the connotation of the word "open" as per Merriam Webster's Third New International Dictionary, and the context, may I suggest "openness to new ideas". Kanchanamala (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, if you feel confident about it. After I posted my comment, above, I realized that the ideas expressed in this sentence probably came from the source indicated by the reference (small number) at the end of the sentence, so the words that are chosen to complete the phrase starting "openness" perhaps should be taken (either verbatim or as a paraphrase) from that source. Have you read that work? Perhaps there is someone who has read it, or, even better, has the work and can check the reference. It's up to you what you want to do.CorinneSD (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I have not read the cited book, but I did take the title into consideration. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I assume that you mean that you took into consideration the title of the reference cited at the end of the sentence when you suggested completing the phrase starting with "openness" as "openness to new ideas". I looked again at the title of the work cited. It is "Essays on the Sociology of Fate". I do not see how that title could help you complete that phrase. What in that title led you to write, "openness to new ideas"? I think whoever wrote this sentence took it either verbatim or as a paraphrase from that work, and the only way to complete the phrase correctly is to go back to that work and find out what the author wrote, or meant.CorinneSD (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"Sociology of Fate": Karma [Fate] is a unique article of faith in Hinduism. We believe that if the result of an act [as you sow] is not fully experienced [so shall you reap] in one's life, then the soul will have to be reborn (punar-janma) as many times as it takes to fully enjoy or suffer the result. Now, thinkers in other religions would have other ideas about this. I, therefore, suggested "new ideas". Kanchanamala (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It was very nice of you to explain what moved you to suggest "new ideas" (although that idea of reincarnation is not exactly a new idea, and hasn't been a new idea for a very long time, has it?). I still think that if any words are added after "openness" (to clarify it), they ought to come from the cited text.CorinneSD (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Not reincarnation, but rebirth, and that for the sake of Karma. Anyway, good luck, pal. Kanchanamala (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Why, "Good luck, pal?" This is a place for discussing improvements to articles. It is collaborative. Whoever can contribute is welcome, including you. I certainly was not dismissing your ideas. In fact, you can add the words you suggested after "openness" ("openness to new ideas") and see what happens.CorinneSD (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Avaagaa -- Excellent edit. The sentence is clearer now.CorinneSD (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! :] I meant to comment on the talk page about the edit, but I forgot. I figured the sentence was trying to comment on just how many ways to practice Hinduism there were, rather than Hinduism being accepting of new practices. AVAAGAA↪ 22:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

CorinneSD, my friend, no offense taken. On the contrary, you were interested in checking the cited source, and I wished you good luck. Kanchanamala (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, O.K. I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I'm glad you were not offended. I suppose what Avaagaa wrote was not directly from the source either, but it seems to make more sense than what was there before.CorinneSD (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It is still a good idea to check the cited source. Kanchanamala (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)