Talk:History of Hinduism

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

Actual Period[edit]

Hello all! This article talks about everything except origins of Hinduism. As I was reading, I came to know about iron age, vedic culture and everything else but got confused about origins of Hinduism reading this. Can anyone please help me out here? I want to know origins of Hinduism (year and place) Rachnajainrj (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"After the Vedic period, between 500-200 BCE and c. 300 CE", northern India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on History of Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


Sources for "called the oldest religion in the world"[edit]

Note that I'm only challenging the sources. 1st is a "Religion for Dummies" by two authors well known in the media as the "God Squad", who also wrote Bad Stuff in the News: A Guide to Handling the Headlines. Nice guys I'm sure but not religion historians.

2nd is a book by Anthony Stevens (Jungian analyst), even less qualified for this.

3rd - D.S. Sarma - who has written quite a bit about Hinduism but history of religion isn't his field either.[1]

4th - Merriam Webster, seems to be the dictionary in the sources, not an RS.

5th Klaus Klostermaier - excellent source.

6th. Gary Laderman - religious historian but of American religion.[2]

and finally Turner's book 'Encyclopedia of relationships across the lifespan[3], not a reliable source for this subject either, he's not a religious historian and the book isn't about religious history.

I'd suggest dumping all but Klostermaier and finding sources by religious historians.

I only came here because at Timeline of religion an editor is using these sources and apparently dating Himduism to 9831 BC. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Clean up or blatant misrepresentation[edit]

My revision
"In the century from 1760 to 1860, India was divided into numerous kingdoms; the "lesser Mughals" following Bahadur Shah I, the Kingdom of Mysore, Hyderabad State, Maratha Confederacy, Rajput Kingdoms, Palaiyakkarar states, North-Eastern states, Himalayan states, as well as the territories held by the British East India Company. From 1799 to 1849 the only major stable and independent empire in India was the Sikh Empire, which had a secular character, with a large number of Hindu and Muslim subjects living in peace. The first Anglo-Sikh war and second Anglo-Sikh war marked the downfall of the Sikh Empire; making it among the last areas of the Indian subcontinent to be conquered by the British. The entire subcontinent fell under British rule (partly indirectly, via Princely states) following the Indian Rebellion of 1857."

Vs.

Original
"In the century from 1760 to 1860, India was once more divided into numerous petty and unstable kingdoms - most of them being subjects of the British Empire: the "lesser Mughals" following Bahadur Shah I; the Kingdom of Mysore; Hyderabad State;Maratha states;Rajput states,Polygar states,North-Eatern states,Himalayan states....and so on as well as the territories held by the British East India Company. From 1799 to 1849 the only major stable and independent empire in India was the non Hindu Sikh Empire although it had a secular character with a large number of Hindu and Muslim subjects living in peace. The Sikh Empire, unlike the other lesser Indian kingdoms and states was not under the paramountcy of the British Raj. The entire subcontinent fell under British rule (partly indirectly, via Princely states) following the Indian Rebellion of 1857."

Please explain which parts are "blatant misrepresentation"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.224.242 (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"Blatant misrepresentation" is what Doug Weller called your edit summary. We can see the changes made in your edit fine. No need to reproduce the text here. You need to explain why you want to make the changes you have made. Start from why remove "petty and unstable", "subject to the British Empire" etc. Justify each change. The current text is unsourced and by no means perfect. But I don't see your text being any improvement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Kautilya3, here are my reasonings:
petty and unstable
  1. I removed it because it is value-laden judgement without reference. Per my understanding of wiki policy, I do not believe the burden for citations fall on me; and unreferenced claims and judgements can be removed. Since you undid it, I did search for any peer reviewed source which verifies "petty and unstable", but I could not find any peer reviewed source or journal which makes this claim.
  2. If you do manage to find a source, I can easily rebuttal. Per acting Governor-General Charles Metcalfe after surveying and analyzing the conditions in India in 1806 wrote: "India contains no more than two great powers, British and Mahratta" - clearly there was still a local power which until 1806 was not "petty and unstable". Here is the source.
subject to the British Empire
  • Being in the lead, it is not chronologically accurate. British rule came in phases. Per the source above: 1758-1795, it was a rising power; 1795-1806-18, it was a major power along with the Marathas; 1818-1849, it was the dominant power (with regional Sikh Empire in the Northwest); and absolute power from there forward. My paragraph simply follows the chronology (but I welcome improvements): local kingdoms along with the British --> British rule of almost all of India except Sikh Empire --> And total British rule from the defeat of the Sikhs. It follows an accurate chronology. (68.194.224.242 (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC))
If you want to improve the text, please use a recent history text, or even other Wikipedia pages, e.g., History of India, and summarise them. "Petty" means small (when applied to states), and we know that 560 of them were still there when India got independence. Granted that some of them weren't petty. But the fact that the gradually came under the paramountcy of the British is important. Given that this is History of Hinduism, some more space spent on the Maratha Empire would be appropriate. As for the Sikh Empire, one look at the infobox make it clear that it became unstable after the death of Ranjit Singh. Neither was it "secular," being under the control of the Sikh Khalsa and having killed all its Hindu Wazirs and alienating Gulab Singh, whose consequences we are still living with. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  1. Again, "petty" is a generalized term, it does not meet modern scholarship. It is a value laden term you are trying to defend, and you will not find a reference that backs it; again this adjective/word does not meet modern scholarship. As such, it is your POV. (Unless you find a reference).
  2. Who is trying to degrade British paramountcy? It is mentioned on 3 of the sentences. More mentions, just becomes unscholarly embellishment. My paragraph clearly mentions their rise in phases.
  3. Ranjit Singh died in 1839, his rule is almost as long as his empire. He ruled for 40 years, and the remaining 10 saw its decline. I don't know where you are going with this.
  4. As you can see above, I did not put "secular", it was already there. It is a false accusation. I did not remove it, because the main article mentioned it.
  5. Now, instead of going in circles, give me a paragraph you find satisfactory or let me put back my content. I clearly answered the reason why I removed those unreferenced judgments. The current content can't stay, since it has spacing, red link, grammar unreferenced judgements and spelling errors. (68.194.224.242 (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC))
I have said above how to rewrite the paragraph to make it an improvement. Alternatively, you need state what your concerns are with the existing text, and we can discuss what is to be done about them. The only concern you have expressed so far is that you don't like the term "petty" when applied to states. But "petty kingdom" is quite standard terminology in the scholarly literature [4]. So I think this is a non-issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Early colonialism[edit]

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan/History of Hinduism

  1. Isn't the History of India and history of Hinduism intertwined?
  2. Can you improve that paragraph, which has red links, spelling errors, grammar and unreferenced judgement? (68.194.224.242 (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

End of copied part

@68.194.224.242: regarding my revert: I don't doubt the accuracy of your edit, and the intrinsicate value of it, but it's really WP:UNDUE for an article on the history of Hinduism. I also don't see the connection with the hisopry of Hinduism; it's only about the history of states, not about social or religious history. How did these states influence the development of Hinduism? Did they? Information like this should be very short, not an issue on its own. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I will contribute a section on the impact on Hinduism. But I agree that the section that was deleted was overweight and so is the current expanded section on the Maratha Empire. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The section itself is about colonialism. That is why the Portuguese and British were mentioned. (68.194.224.242 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC))
Sorry, that doesn't address the points that JJ raised. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Can you guys propose something? At least try to improve that paragraph, instead of keeping a paragraph that has red links, spelling errors, grammar and unreferenced judgement. (68.194.224.242 (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC))
Removing red links and spelling errors shouldn't be a problem; the "unreferenced judgement" is unclear to me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
"India was once more divided into numerous petty and unstable kingdoms"
  1. India was always divided, so "once more divided" is unreferenced judgement.
  2. "petty and unstable kingdoms" is a generalized term - As mentioned above, the Maratha Empire was not petty. Per acting Governor-General Charles Metcalfe after surveying and analyzing the conditions in India in 1806 wrote: "India contains no more than two great powers, British and Mahratta" - clearly there was still a local power which until 1806 was not "petty and unstable". Here is the source.
(68.194.224.242 (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC))
No, India wasn't always divided. The Moghul Empire was clearly a paramount power that integrated India.
As for the Maratha Empire, it had plenty of internal divisions of its own and we often call it a "confederacy." Nevertheless, one exception does not break the rule. I have mentioned earlier the humongous number of states that resulted from the disintegration of the Mughal Empire. So "petty and unstable" is an acceptable description as far as historical gneralities go. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  1. The Mughal rule was mainly in Northern India, even in its core areas, the Sikhs, Hindu Jatts, Hindu Bengali Rajas, Sutlej river and Himalayan area (present day Himachal or Uttarakhand) and Rajputs maintained nominal control to full independence. The Mughals ruled only parts of Central and Southern India, but even that was very brief under Aurangzeb, with Marathas and South Indian states giving resistance.
  2. Marathas became a confederacy only after 1760s to effectively manage the large empire. A confederacy does not make a state any less weaker. I think you failed to understand the definition, in this case, as mentioned, it was done to be more effective. Confederacy's still have uniformity of power.
  3. Regardless, I have no problem with "In the century from 1760 to 1860, India was once more divided into numerous petty and unstable kingdoms" - if a valid reference is provided, as of now, the dates and adjectives are just your point of view. Please provide a reference for those adjectives and dates, and lets fix that paragraph with that reference. (68.194.224.242 (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC))
  1. I said that the Mughal Empire was a "paramount power", which is not the same as saying that it ruled the entire country.
  2. So, you are agreeing that there was no "Maratha Empire" after 1760, but you think the "Maratha confederacy" amounts to an empire. Modern scholars don't even believe that they formed a confederacy. For example, Burton Stein,[1] p.193:

    then Maratha supremacy over the subcontinent had passed. During the next forty years, the polity briefl y centralized by the peshwas dissolved into a set of states united in one objective: they would no longer brook the arrogant rule of Chitpavan ministers [i.e., the peshwas]... It was this set of fissiparous Maratha states, fragments of the great expansion of the middle decades of the eighteenth century, that confronted a British power...

  3. When we have to summarise a large amount of material in a short paragraph, we have to use our own words. You may not find the same sentences in any other source. Your concern is basically whether "petty kingdoms" is applicable to the states in this period. See this book[2] for example. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Stein, Burton; Arnold, David (2010), A History of India (Second ed.), John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 978-1-4051-9509-6 
  2. ^ Bayly, Christopher Alan (1990), Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-38650-0 
Now, how about presenting a paragraph. I still have my reservations, but I will concede for the greater good. Provide a paragraph that is free of grammar errors, spelling errors, red link, and spacing errors; and add it. (I am not going to be the one who does it, my work has already been reverted.) (68.194.224.242 (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC))

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Hinduism. 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) 04:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)