Talk:Hinduism

a fusion of Arian and Dravidian cultures?

No word called ARYAN or ARIAN in vedic scriptures, the Correct term comes from the Indian Sanskrit word ARYA, Oxford dictionary also states this.

Also At the beginning of this page could you explain to the readers that the Text are & teachings are first passed down by oral tradition, Then in 1,200bc text starts to get written down and recorded down the history of time.

The writer of the The Buddhism page has written this, also Judaism page so i think the hindu page should by far have this added into the section as it is the very core of the start of Hinduism via The mantras82.38.161.217 (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Veda

I agree, we should instead add "fusion of different cultures", at least on lead. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thats more than acceptable thank you baldesmulti82.38.161.217 (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)veda

Added "multiple cultures", rest is described on article body anyway. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

And changed a direct quote. I've corrected the spelling. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Add "indo-aryan"? Bladesmulti (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I have expanded the note. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The misconception that "Aryans" came to India has long been debunked. Kanchanamala (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Get real, and read some descent books. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No, this is how everyone will act. The theory was made by 19th century, and today no one accepts it. So what is the point? You saw your talk page too, right? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The word 'fusion' is not used by Lockard (source) in the book. I think this is definitely unnecessary to describe that controversial Aryan-Dravidian theory in the lead. The word 'Fusion' indicates 50-50 share of Aryan and Dravidian cultures, but such kind of language is not used in the source. -Yoonadue (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, it seems like it has been only used for combining such thought, nothing else really. Sometimes we have to summarize ourselves though, but this seems huge claim. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply by JJ:

• Regarding the Aryan migration, the statement that "no one accepts it" is plain nonsense. It's not accepted by some people, who don't seem to care about modern scholarship.
• Regarding "that controversial Aryan-Dravidian theory", it's controversial for the same group of people. There is a broad scholarly concensus that Hinduism is the result of a fusion of various strands of Indian culture, and a relatively recent fusion. See note 4, which mentions more sources. See also User:Joshua Jonathan/Roots of Hinduism#Fusion for extensive quotes.
• Regarding the term "fusion", other terms being used are "synthesis" (Lockard 2007 p.52), "Hindu synthesis" (Hiltebeitel 2002), and "classical synthesis" (Samuel 2010).
• Hinduism being a "synthesis" or "fusion" of several strands of Indian culture, is such a basic and essential feature of Hinduism, and such a basic aspect of the scholarly understanding of Hinduism, that it's one of the essential facts to mention about Hinduism. Ask yourself a simple question: how do we explain the immense diversity of Hinduism? Rigth, here's the answer. If you think it's a "huge claim", you show a basic lack of knowledge about the history of Hinduism , and about modern scholarship on the history of Hinduism.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

So which one is it? Is Hinduism homogenized because of "Sanskrization" or is it diverse? The reason you are contradicting yourself, because you have never been to India, let alone travelled India. Secondly, I highly doubt "Aryan and Dravidian cultures" refers to Aryan migration theory. This is similar to Paul B's misunderstanding of genetic studies. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Onkar Karambe

Changes by Onkar Karambe are introducing barely coherent sentences and material cited to unreliable websites. For example we have "The word hindhu is first mentioned in the Rigveda as a Sindu". What does that even mean? Or "the theory says that 'Hindu' originated from the Persian practice of replacing 'S' with 'H'. This does not seem to be true is evident from the fact that Sindh has not become Hind and both Sindh and Hind exist in Persian as well as Arabic. The inscriptions of Darius and Xerexes which describe India as Hi(n)du, also use the term 'Sugd' for Sogdiana. This 'Sugd' should have become 'Hugd' as per this theory. The Pahlvi inscription of Shahpur II, uses 'S' in Shakastan and Tuxaristan" This is assertion, not summary of the views of reliable sources, and, of course, it is very badly written and difficult to follow. It is cited to an online Pdf file [3] by someone called "Dr. Murlidhar H. Pahoja" Who? Paul B (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Brittanica? Lack of page numbers?

Really? Encyclopedia Brittanica? There has to be a better reference than this anonymous source you cite 2 times. Also, why do half of your references lack page numbers?62.210.201.162 (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Write the sources down here, that requires page number. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Almost all of the over 300 references have page numbers. The "notes", which make general points, are different from the "references". As for the EB, it is a highly respected source, and two citations out of 327 is hardly excessive, so what is the problem? Paul B (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Who wrote that Encyclopedia Brittanica article? My understanding is that they went to an semi-open model, where the public has input. When making bold claims in the lead, shouldn't you use references that people can follow up on? Who the hell is the author? Also the King references in the lead lack page numbers. 62.210.201.162 (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The public does not write EB articles. They can make suggestions or point out errors, which are then vetted by the experts, who can then make changes if they think it appropriate. The criteria of WP:RS is that a source must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which the EB does. I've no idea what you mean by "follow up on". The EB can be accessed. Its criteria and fact-checking systems are public. Some articles are single-authored, others are not. Single authorship does not make something more likely to be accurate. Again, what exactly is the problem? Paul B (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, the EB webpage clearly identifies the article's author - Ann G. Gold. Paul B (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I've added the author's names to those two refrences. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, many of the books in the lead lack page numbers. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"The popular understanding of Hinduism has been dominated by this neo-Vedanta"

Most Hindus never have even heard of Advaita Vedanta or Adi Shankara. There are no Indian cinemas with Advaitic concepts. You guys are vastly overstating the importance of Advaita Vedanta.176.67.169.146 (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully, but strongly, disagree. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Misreporting references

The references say that Buddhism was outright dominant in royal circles before the eighth century, not merely coexisting. Buddhism was the dominant religion among royal circlees. Also Buddhism continued to be dominant in the Pala region past the eighth century, according to Inden. This is because of Nalanda, Vikramsila, Odantapuri etc. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think same way, they should also add jainism, which had been historically lowered by 8th century. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Jainism was ever dominant like Buddhism. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)