Jump to content

Talk:Hinduism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleHinduism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 24, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 19, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
March 29, 2006Featured article reviewKept
June 26, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
December 4, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 4, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 10, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Former featured article


Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2024

[edit]

The religion should not be called a "Indian religion" as it promotes a false view of the religion belonging to India, when Hinduism is very much alive outside of India and even south asia followed natively by people in those countries. The concept of "India" is anachronistic to apply to the origin place of Hindu religion (or vedic religion) as modern India has only existed since 1947. If Hindu religion is Indian religion then islam is a Arab religion (Wikipedia only says there are 1.9 billion Muslims worldwide). Why can't it just mention the same thing for Hinduism? That there are this many Hindus worldwide and it's a collection of different traditions and philosophies traditionally based on the Vedas?

[1] [2] [3] 113.199.225.202 (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The using term 'Indian' refers to religion being originating from Indian subcontinent and has nothing to do with followers abroad. Edasf (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_in_Nepal
  2. ^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/India
  3. ^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2024

[edit]

X: The two major Hindu denominations are the Vaishnavism and Shaivism, with other demonions include the Shaktism and Smarta tradition.

Y: The two major Hindu denominations are the Vaishnavism and Shaivism, with other denominations including the Shaktism and Smarta tradition. 84.52.142.35 (talk) 08:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2024

[edit]

The word "territory" is incorrectly spelt as "terretory" in cite note 34.

"Réunion is not a country, but an independent French terretory." -> "Réunion is not a country, but an independent French territory." Sleet827 (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't get the story right

[edit]

The etymology section states: "The term Hinduism was first used by Raja Ram Mohan Roy in 1816–17."

Whereas the definition section states: "The term "Hinduism" was coined in Western ethnography in the 18th century." Note 13 states: "Hinduism is derived from Persian hindu- and the -ism suffix. It is first recorded in 1786, in the generic sense of "polytheism of India"."

So, which is it? 1816 or 1786? 100 years of "Indology" and they can't even figure out something this basic? 117.194.202.145 (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, with all it's imperfections. The great thing is, you can improve the article by checking the sources and editing the text. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't, the article is locked. The "sources" are the problem here. They are shite, written by people who don't seem to understand what they are doing. What's the point of tracking the history of an -ism formulation anyway? Wikipedia suggests -ism endings are themselves only a late 17th century invention. "religion of..." or "... religion" would have the common formulations before -ism words caught on. I don't see any discussion of the English word "Buddhism" on its Wikipedia page, and it would be supremely silly to suggest that it has any bearing on when the dharma of the Buddha came into being. But this stuff passes for "scholarship" in Indology. 117.194.202.145 (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could be that it isn't saying that Ram Mohan Roy coined the term, just that he started using it in 1816-17. Is it that the term was coined in western ethnography in the late 18th century and then started to be used by Indians such as Ram Mohan Roy in the 19th century? If this is what the sources indicate (I can't be sure because I can't access all of them) then it needs to be edited to make this clearer. Brunton (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've attributed the Roy-statement to Singh. 1786 is from etymonline; it does not give a specific rdference. Work in progress... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source likely does say he coined the word, and whoever inserted the claim here clearly also did so to claim that it was coined by him. It's a popular claim.
My edit suggestion: remove the part starting with "In the 18th century ...". The source given, Mapping Hinduism, doesn't support the claim that it started being used in the 18th century. It specifically argues against that, giving an example from 1616, talking about the wicked religion of Hindoos or whatever. The rest of it is similarly trite nonsense, having nothing to do with the etymology of the word Hindu or Hinduism, presumably what the section is supposed to be about. 117.194.202.145 (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the Etymology section. The "Definitions" section would do best to avoid discussing the term, but talk instead of the concept, using whatever term people might have used. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not fixed. "Apparently coined" is a misrepresentation of the source: Sweetman states that there's no indication that the word was a neologism. He also directly contradicts the claim that Europeans "began" calling a group of people "in the 18th century". They were already ranting against the religion of "Hindoos" by 1616! They've probably done so since as long they've been in contact with Hindus. None of the following content about 1840s belongs in the etymology section. 117.194.202.145 (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please propose the content you would like to see along with citations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is where that Sweetman citation comes from. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I understand from this huge page range, and also pages 56-58, is that "Hinduism" was a late entrant into the discussion. It was preceded by "heathenism", "Brahmanism" (in Portuguese), "Gentilism" (in French) and possibly "Gentooism" (in English). So the coinage of "Hinduism" or "HIndooism" was a non-event, except that it brought new scholarship to weigh in on the subject. It served the purpose of a buzzword. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have that exactly right. This is why the etymology section going into detail about the coinage of Hinduism and "in the 18th" century is silly. The European Encounter with Hinduism by Jan Peter Schouten talks about it. He's a Protestant minister and comes with some bias, but it is still informative. You can read the Introduction. There was no single point where Europeans "began" to call anyone Hindu, that word was already current in the subcontinent and they just followed it. Do I need to propose citations to get things removed too? Shouldn't it be enough to point out that the text is not supported by the citations and do not belong to the section they are in? You've already removed it from the definitions section. 117.195.141.121 (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The European encounter is only a small part of the Etymology section. You shouldn't overblow it. If you can come up with what to write for the happenings before the coinage of "Hinduism", we can certainly cover it.
Note that "Hindu" is a much older term than "Hinduism" and there is a separate page on it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're getting what I am saying. The etymology section currently contains all this:

In the 18th century, the European merchants and colonists began to refer to the followers of Indian religions collectively as Hindus.[45][46][note 11]

Nope. Not true. They weren't the ones to start it and certainly did not begin to do so in the 18th century. See Sweetman, and Schouten's Introduction.

The use of the English term "Hinduism" to describe a collection of practices and beliefs is a fairly recent construction. It was apparently coined (with the original spelling "Hindooism") by Charles Grant in 1787, who used it along with "Hindu religion". The first Indian to use "Hinduism" may have been Raja Ram Mohan Roy in 1816–17.[50][36]

All this is technically true, but useless. The use of the term "Buddhism" to describe the teachings of the Buddha is also a recent construction. There were other terms, in other European and Indian languages, before this. Sweetman makes this clear, and you've already made the changes in the definition section. Remove it from here too.

By the 1840s, the term "Hinduism" was used by those Indians who opposed British colonialism, and who wanted to distinguish themselves from Muslims and Christians.[34][51][52][53] Before the British began to categorise communities strictly by religion, Indians generally did not define themselves exclusively through their religious beliefs; instead identities were largely segmented on the basis of locality, language, varna, jāti, occupation, and sect.[54][note 12]

This is dubious, at best "technically true". Note 12 is barely relevant to the text it's next to let alone the etymology section. In any case, none of this is relevant to the etymology of "Hinduism", but makes a definational point about the development of an identity around the term/category. Remove it, or move it down to the definition section. 117.195.141.121 (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One issue at a time please. Otherwise we won't get anywhere. Let us stick to the Etymology section for now.
The first objection you raise is a non-issue. The section doesn't say that the Europeans "started" it. There is a long discussion of the history of the term "hindus".
The second objection is also non-issue. The Etymology section needs to describe what is known about the history of the term "Hinduism" (which is what this page is about). If something is missing, you can suggest adding it. But you can't say it is "useless" and so it shoutd be gotten rid of.
The comparison with "Buddhism" also doesn't hold water. That term was already in use in Indian languages, such as Baudha dharma or Baudha mata. So, perhaps that term doesn't need any discussion. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It literally does say that. What else is "In the 18th century, the European merchants and colonists began to refer to the followers of Indian religions collectively as Hindus" supposed to mean there? That they didn't begin to do something in the 18th century? If it's meaningless drivel and isn't supposed to say anything, just remove it.
You state above: "It was preceded by "heathenism", "Brahmanism" (in Portuguese), "Gentilism" (in French) and possibly "Gentooism" (in English)". Add this statement, along with the various dates associated with the term into the two part I object to. It currently gives a false impression that the introduction of the term Hinduism was some special event.
And there was also Hindu dharma before Hinduism? You've surely read the Lorenzen paper and this section where this is mentioned. Are you trolling? 117.195.141.121 (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a mention of "Hindu dharma" in Chaitanya Charitamrita, (Adi 17.174). The work was composed circa 1557. Where does the notion that term "Hinduism" predates Hindu dharma come from? What reason is there to devote so much attention to the European term Hinduism when the principle reason cited is bunkum? 117.195.141.121 (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is on "Hinduism" and its etymology is what is being discussed. (I have said that already.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are also missing an important point. "Hindu religion" and "Hindu dharma" mean the religion of the "hindus", whoever they might be. You might also find terms like "Turaka dharma", "Yavana dharma", "China dharma" etc., without needing to think of any of them as names of religions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. There are two other points. 117.195.141.121 (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I finished all the clean-up I wanted to do. Please take a look. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This tendency to stonewall and minimise any concessions to editors with opposing viewpoints is frustrating. I don't have any complaints at this point Just an observation, one citation says: "Most passages identified a mix of religious and cultural norms. For instance, the texts refer to the “Hindu god” (hindura īśvara) and “Hindu treatise” (hindu-śāstre), on the one hand, and to “hindu clothes” (hindu-beśa), on the other."" Why does the author think that a "Hindu dress" is a cultural rather than religious norms? In India, dress is usually more of a religious norm than cultural: when Modi said that "you can identify them by their clothes", he wasn't referring to just a "cultural norm". Food, clothing, washing, housing, festivals, are all religious norms. The author imposes a binary that doesn't exist in India even in modern times, let alone when these texts were written. 117.195.142.30 (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It takes a while to fit your ideas into the Wikipedia framework. Off hand, if you come and start asking for well-sourced content to be removed because you don't agree with it, you would be sent off packing. Wikipedia summarises reliable sources, not our opinions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will Sweetman

[edit]

So I have been reading bits and pieces of Will Sweetman's book, because a helpful editor provided a meaningless page range for mundane stuff and so I ended up having to hunt for things. It seemed to me to be a pretty bold book, especially when I saw him say von Steitencron's understanding was "flawed", my jaw dropped.

So I went to check what reception the book got. I found that there was only book review, by Paul Zavos, but the review was pretty much content-free. It seemed as if Zavos didn't even understand what the book was about. Or maybe he did, but didn't want to upset his colleagues :-) Then I found an article co-authored by Zavos (doi:10.1080/09584930500194868) and multiple references have been made to Sweetman. So all is not lost. Google Scholar shows 80+ citations for the book, but that is apparently low in the Hinduism field. Lipner's book has 500+ citations. (I didn't know Hinduism was that hot!)

In any case, Sweetman made the entire book downloadable from his website [3]. So please read it and we can see what we can make out of it.

Happy holidays! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetman isn't the only one to criticise von Steitencron. Some of the recent works of Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Baghcee also talk of the "passions" of Paul Hacker and discuss von Steitencron's work. 117.195.142.30 (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Hacker seems to be the first Westerner who put out this "Hinduism was invented by the British" thing. It was picked by the likes of Vasudha Dalimia and von S. later, who used "subaltern" and "Orientalist critique" language to dress up Hacker's ideas. 117.195.142.30 (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hinduism&oldid=1265345363"