Talk:Hindu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archived[edit]

Old material has been archived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogress (talkcontribs) 16:41, 22 July 2008

Hindu term first used in Avestan language[edit]

"Hindus" is derived from a Sanskrit word "sindhus" that means "dwellers by the Indus River." The term Hindus is first used in Nations of Vendidad in "Avesta"-the holly book of Zorastrians. The term Hindus is used to refer to people living alongside river Indus. As one of the 16 Aryan Nations of that time,Hindus are numbered at 15 among 16 nations,this is the first use of the term "Hindus" ever.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vendidadnations.jpg

Hindu as a cultural, ethnic or religious identifier[edit]

@NadirAli: The sources and the main article state Hindu to be "cultural, ethnic or religious identifier". Per WP:Lead, "or" is more appropriate, not "rather than" as lead summary. Please do not edit war, and explain your concerns and sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

To Ms Sarah Welch: there was no such religion "Hinduism" before the 18th century, but I will edit in compromise.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
NadirAli: you are free to believe in whatever you wish to, but your opinion / prejudice / wisdom is no basis for this article. We need to stick to RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
(ps: I added another WP:RS and some text; On Hinduism being a recent English word, that makes no difference, just nature of English language history; add cut-paste from Talk:Hinduism) Christianity is a 14th-century word, while the word Islam came to mean a religion in the 19th-century (it meant 'submission'), it was called Mahometry (15th century), Muhammadism (17th century), Islamism (18th century)... according to Douglas Harper. The term Boudhism (later revised to current Buddhism) was coined in 1801, Tauism (now Taoism) in 1839, Confucianism in 1862, according to Lionel Jensen, a professor in East Asian Studies; (fwiw, Yong Chen agrees). It is not mainstream scholarship, and rather fringe, to suggest or imply that just because these English words were coined then, therefore Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, or etc did not exist before 19th or another century, or what existed prior was rather this or that. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added a source.[edit]

To Kautilya3: and others, please check the source I have added. There was no such title as "Islamic state of Pakistan" in 1947, not ever. It was Dominion of Pakistan and later Islamic Republic of Pakistan, but no such title as "Islamic state of Pakistan" was used before. Understand that this contradicts all other articles that discuss the country's history from 1947 to 1956 and 1971--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

NadirAli: Kautilya3 may have additional comments. I see the old version as sort of ok, because page 99 of Peter van der Veer source states, "Nevertheless, when Pakistan emerged from the independence struggle, it was declared to be an Islamic state". "Sort of ok", but not "completely ok", because "Islamic state of Pakistan" may inadvertently imply more than what the source is stating (ISIL-like?). I have reworded it to merge in the Kautilya3 version, but the sentence reads a bit clumsy now. Kautilya3: please check and revert to old version or another better version. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@NadirAli: whether Pakistan was a Dominion (pseudo-colonial entity) or not is completely irrelevant for the purposes of this article. Scholars regard Pakistan as a "Muslim state" from its inception till Zia ul-Haq's time, after which it became an "Islamic state". These terms are used to describe the ideological underpinnings of the state, and they have nothing to do with the official names. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
But User:Kautilya3, it's not factually correct. You can say that from 1956 onward, but anything before that is just not true. I am okay with putting "Muslim majority state" if that works for you. "Islamic state" is incorrect and misleading.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
NadirAli: We need to stick with the phrasing in the WP:RS. What you feel is "not factually correct" is irrelevant, what matters is what the source(s) are stating. For additional sources, see 1 (pages 49-50), 2 (pages 28-37, Introduction chapter), etc Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
But the source I put in does not say that/ The Dominion of Pakistan existed in 1947, the Islamic republic of Pakistan came later.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see the cited WP:RS. I am removing the Epitome Books source you added, as it is not a reputable publisher. Do you have any evidence of it being peer reviewed, non-WP:QUESTIONABLE? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The sources are not exactly the problem. NadirAli is talking about what it was called, whereas the sources you have cited describe what it was. He doesn't seem to understand the difference. This might be an instance of WP:CIR.
NadirAli, you need to stop WP:edit warring, read the sources that have been provided, and achieve consensus before you start modifying the content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
To Kautilya3:, I did not edit war. I started the discussion for a reason. Pakistan was not an "Islamic state" it had no state religion at the time of independence, that's why I support "Muslim majority state" instead.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Any deviation from the recommended procedure of WP:BRD constitutes edit warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

@Ms Sarah Welch and Joshua Jonathan: recently I ended up researching for the Hindustan article and consulted new HISTRS that weren't known to me earlier. It appears that "Hindu" as an ethonym is just as old as "Hidustan" (like "India") was a geonym. The geonyms arose from the ethonym, not the other way around. Or, put more plainly "Hindustan", "Hind" were the lands inhabited by "Hindus", not the other way around. Originally, the Persians faithfully called "Hindu" whatever the Indians called "Sindhu". We know two instances, Saptha Sindhava and the Sindhu country. (The later day Sanskrit meaning of "Sindhu" as a large body of water was probably unknown to the Persians. The original meaning of "Sindhu" had nothing to do with water. The Persians had their own name for the Sindhu river, Mihran.) So the idea that "Hindustan" meant the land beyond the Indus is not evidenced.

From the Sindhu country, the term got extended to the Indian subcontinent and southeast Asia because these lands were inhabited by "Hindus". We don't know when this ethnic meaning arose, but clearly between 262 CE (when Hindustan meant Sindh) and 700 CE (when we see "Hindu" being cultrual Indian). Here is a source that verbalises this well:

For the Muslims, the notion of 'Hind' and 'Hindustan' initially signified an entity, not in a geographical or political meaning, but in the religious sense of a land where idolatrous Hindus lived (Wink 1999:319-20).[1]

I think we need to revise this article as well as Hinduism in the light of this information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Vanina, Eugenia (2012), Medieval Indian Mindscapes: Space, Time, Society, Man, Primus Books, p. 46, ISBN 978-93-80607-19-1 

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Indeed! Please go ahead and update, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)