Talk:Historical Vedic religion

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


Soma is actually god. It is the Moon goddess or the Mother Goddess. Father is the Sun. Soma is derived from saumya. Moonlight is soft and cool (saumya) in contrast to sunlight harsh. Whether Soma is a plant or drink no one knows. Sun and Moon are fundamental to religion. Sun is the father. Moon is the mother. Father the creator or provider, mother love. Dgdcw (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Soma in the Rigveda is different from the Moon-god. It is in fact a drink, but it has also been deified. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Brahminism VS Historic Vedic religion[edit]

Historic vedic religion is different from Brahminism. Historic vedic religion is the fore runner of modern Hinduism. But Brahminism is a practise within the Hindu religion. So both are different topic and the redirect needs to be removed. A seperate article on Brahminism should be created.We cant restrict the entire Hindu religion only to Brahmin caste. Hinduism existed before the Aryan invasion itself. But after Aryan Invasion the Character of Hinduism changed a lot due to the inter mixing of Aryans and Dravidians.So Brahminism or Aryanism is a different concept from Vedic religion/Hinduism. Brahminism is just a practise inside Hinduism.So redirect needs to be removed. --SanManuDharma (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Agree. Brahminism is a set of rituals or practises within Hinduism. Hinduism is not only belongs to Brahmins. So seperate article needs to be created for Brahminism. Brahminism means influence of Brahmins in Hindu religion.--DanielZinker (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • A fork has been started at Brahminsm. Is this fork warranted, and is that even a valid spelling for the subject? —C.Fred (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Brahmanism developed out of the Vedic religion. To use it for contemporary Srautas is incorrect, I think, so the current developments at "Brahminsm" should not be encouraged. @Ms Sarah Welch and VictoriaGrayson: any thoughts here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @C.Fred:, @Joshua Jonathan: This is WP:POVFORK indeed. The title is spelled wrong, and it reads like a casual POV-y essay. Yes, there are sources that use the word Brahminism, but such sources can be readily summarized in sections of the appropriate Project:Hinduism articles, such as a section within the article Brahmin. I agree with @JJ, just delete this fork, or move into the sandbox of one of these new wiki accounts with a link to the discussion here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, there is no actual religion called "Brahminism." Scholars use the term to just to allude to what is described in Brahminincal texts. I have never seen a proper definition of it. The POVFORK is obviously all WP:OR. What is the procedure here? Does one have to AfD it? - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I've prodded it for deletion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
This person seems to have multiple accounts - DanielZinker, IrumudiChozhan, JohnPhilipsDM all seem to be the same person, someone needs to report them to the mods. Mywikicommons (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed edits[edit]

"and existed in northern India", cites Michaels, who talks about the creation of Vedic religion from 1750 - 500 BCE, rather than "existence". Witzel is not mentioning any end date of Vedic religion, nor other sources (that have cited 1750 BCE) as starting period,[1][2] they don't mention any end date, because there was no end. Sentence should be:- "and developed in northern India from c. 1750 BCE to 500 BCE" or "and existed in northern India from c. 1750 BCE."

"Main articles: Indo-Aryans, Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis and Vedic period" should be changed to "Further information: Vedic period, Indo-Aryans, Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis". None of these articles offer a bigger portion of Vedic religion, they include same or smaller part of this article. To make this change {{Main| needs to be changed to {{Further| Lorstaking (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

POV-check: Eurocentric bias[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Historical Vedic religion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Almost all citations are from Western scholars. A lot of these scholars suffer from a eurocentric bias, a lot of it a hangover of the colonial times. South Asia has plenty of modern day scholars, the article needs to cite them in equal measure if not more in order to bring reasonable neutrality and quality to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demystifiersf (talkcontribs) 20:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

What scholars do you think need to be added? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, how the content "eurocentric"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the template. There's no discussion added to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Also, the reason given above is making a false distinction between western and South Asian scholars, and making an unsubstantiated and polemical accusation: "A lot of these scholars suffer from a eurocentric bias, a lot of it a hangover of the colonial times." See Template:POV:
"An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant."
That's what this article does: using high-quality sources. In the absence of any reliable source for the accusation of eurocentric biases of specific auhtors, which seems to be a personal judgment from Demystifiersf, and the absence of concrete examples of reliable south Asian sources, tagging this section with a POV-tag is misplaced and disruptive. By the way, Singh seems to be a south Asian scholar, just like B. S. Ahloowalia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
And Panikkar 2001. Why is that reference missing? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Demystifiersf: please explain and substantiate concretely how David Anthony has an eurocentric bias, has a hangover from colonial times, and which south Asian autjors are on a par with him. Same for Gavin Flood, Geoffrey Samuel and Alf Hiltebeitel. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Historical Vedic religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)