Talk:Hindus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hindus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hinduism C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Nepal C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Feb 2004 - Mar 2006 Mar 2006 - April 2008

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

Just like Jain redirects to Jainism and Buddhist redirects to Buddhism, I see no reason why Hindu should not redirect to Hinduism. They both cover the same material 9001%. One is just the name of the religion while the other is just the name of the people who follow that religion. Can anybody convince me that the two articles need to be separate? If not, I will merge them soon. Thanks Gizza^{Discuss ©} 05:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian and Christianity, also Muslim and Islam are different.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes also Jew is different from Judaism, except Jew talks about the race and Judaism talks about the religion. With Muslim and Islam, the Muslim article mainly talks about the usage of the term Muslim and its etymology. Muslim and Islam are different words and so their etymologies differ. Hindu and Hinduism both come from the same Sindhu word. And the Christian articles doesn't have much too. The Christianity article doesn't talk about etymology so the Christian page does. The only other thing the Christian page has is translations of "Christian" in other langauges.

But both Hindu and Sikh cover exactly the same stuff as Hinduism and Sikhism. The only difference is that Hindu and Sikh's information is unsourced, POV, long and messy when the main articles are in far better condition. It seems that the only logical reason to keep the Hindu article is to move the etymology section if Hinduism becomes too large. Other than that, it should redirect. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 13:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I don't think WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a good enough argument to prevent merging the two articles together (although I admit I also used it but I had other reasons too). After merging I would of course be very open to discussing this further and won't mind even somebody reverts as long as they have a good reason. For Hindu and Hinduism to exist separately, somebody has to explain the differences in content and purpose for each article.

Anybody can currently see that both articles at the moment almost talk about the same things, the main difference is just that Hindu is more POV, OR and unsourced than Hinduism. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 21:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No redirect - I strongly disagree. Please see Jew and Judaism, which provides a proper example for such articles as Hindu and Hinduism - one is an individual identity, the other consist of cultural, ethnic and religious phenomenom. This is the important difference between these two terms, and like Jew and Judaism, these two terms more than deserve their own articles. This is clear. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The main different is that Jew also refers to an ethnic group in addition to a follower of Judaism. The followers of Hinduism consist of a number of South Asian ethnic groups eg. Bengali people, Tamil people, Marathi people, Nepali people, Punjabi people, etc. Note that while articles like Secular Jewish culture and Jewish languages exist and are talked about in Jew, there are no Hindu languages or Hindu culture/Secular Hindu culture page since it is only a religion and not an ethnicity.

• Jain, Buddhist, Sikh, Taoist, Confucianist, Zoroastrian do not have separate articles about "identity." More importantly we don't have identity articles for Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakta and Smarta. If we were to have a Hindu identity page, it would be good outline what be discussed, and especially what topics will be discussed that are not common with Hinduism. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The above statements oversimplify Hindu identity - and Hinduism. As far as the term Hindu, this range of identity clearly includes modern identities such as Hindutva (a clear Hindu identity) and other diverse Hindu identies. There is clearly a difference between Hindu and Hinduism. Also, the above assertion that all Jews are members of one ethnic group is unfounded - as there are Beta Israel, Sephardic Jews, Mountain Jews, etc... The two, Hindu and Hinduism, are seperate subjects and deserve seperate articles. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, I won't mind if you revert me but the Hindu page just before merging was exactly the same as Hinduism except unsourced and POV. I hope it isn't reverted until a rewrite (at least a stub) is planned for it because there seemed to be nothing distinct between Hindu identity and Hinduism. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 23:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the discussion, I conclude that there is no consensus to redirect Hindu to Hinduism. I'm reverting. AdjustShift (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there does not appear to be any consensus to redirect, except it seems just the opposite. Moreover the material of this article does not appear in the other - not a merge. Hinduism article is quite large already. Wikid^{as ⇋ talk to me} 19:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone really understands what is trying to be said here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greventlv (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. The articles on Hindu and Hinduism have put the cart before the horse. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep you are both right. It was a silly section. I think it was meant to be about what languages the Hindu scriptures are in. But it is kind of obvious that originally they were all written in Sanskrit, then later in modern Indian tongues like Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, etc. and more recently in English. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 08:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Hindu scriptures were originially written in Sanskri(49.249.138.159 (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)arun1paladin)[reply]

I did about 3 hours of research and synthesized what I could understand about the Hindu ideas of creation into a small section of this article creationism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism, which user:Hrafn deleted as unsourced material. I am not a hindu and am hoping to find some help from here. If you agree with my edits, then I ask for your help to please revert to version 305397409 of the main page by finding appropriate source materials. If you can source it to existing hindu texts online it will be super. Books would be best.

Here is what I wrote. You can see the much smaller current version of creationism, which mostly talks only about the christian point of view. I feel it is very important to represent multiple views on creation on the creationism article. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thampran (talk • contribs) 06:27, 1 August 2009

- A variety of theories exist regarding the universe, but in general the Hindu view of the cosmos is both eternal and cyclic. An account is recorded in the scriptures according to which the universe, the Earth, along with humans and other creatures undergo repeated cycles of creation and destruction (pralaya) depending on whether it is the day or night for the creator god Brahma of the Hindu Trinity. Put simply, creation occurs when Brahma is awake as his lila (amusement) and the universe is destroyed when he sleeps. The time scales of the Hindu creation cycle correspond roughly to the modern cosmology. According to Carl Sagan, "A day of Brahma is 8.64 billion years long, longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang".^[1] + According to Carl Sagan, "A day of Brahma is 8.64 billion years long, longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang".^[2] - - In general, many Hindus also believe in evolution due to the serial progression of avatars, which are similar to the scientific concept of evolution.^[3] When Brahma is awake, in addition to all life, the god also creates "avatars" which are (manifestations) of the second god in the trinity, Vishnu. There are several stages and avatars of several gods, (25 in some texts, but the 10 attributed to Vishnu, called Dasavatara of Vishnu), are important in maintaining life. Among the ten major avatars, nine have already appeared and the final one will appear in the future (at the end of the Brahma's day when all time ends). The 8.4 billion years is divided into four epochs or yugas, named in reverse order (4 or Sathya, 3 or treta , 2 or dwapara and 1 or Kali) of progression in time. The avatars of Vishnu start with the non human: the first is a fish (Matsya), then a tortoise (Kurma), then a boar (Varaha) and finally a half-man/half-lion (Narasimha); all of which appeared in the Satya Yuga (or the "pure age or true age"). The first humanoid, a dwarf man (Vamana), then appears, followed by an axe bearing man (Parashurama), and then appears a fully human avatar (Ramachandra), all described in the Treta Yuga (third epoch). More human avatars appear in the next, Dwapara Yuga (or second epoch), with Krishna (meaning 'dark colored' or 'very attractive') avatar, along with his brother Balarama (or Buddha in other texts). When Krishna disappeared from the earth, the final epoch or Kali Yuga (the "foul" age or the "age of Anger") started. We are now living in the Kali Yuga. The only avatar expected in this epoch is the final avatar Kalki (in some texts Shiva), also called "the destroyer of foulness", or "Eternity", or simply "time"). This is the final of the god trinity, who will bring with him the end of the life and time cycles and all life will be released from Brahma's lila or maya (translates to play or farce or unreality) to rejoin the cosmic consciousness or Brahman to attain (moksha). Then Brahma will sleep until his next day comes, when he wakes up the life cycles and time cycles begin once again.

Ummm … except for the Sagan quote, (and the pre-existing material) it is "unsourced". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding was in response to User:Thampran's original WP:CANVAS, to which I'd like to add the point that WP:Synthesis is specifically forbidden. In response to his alteration to it thereafter, I'd like to point out that the point of WP:V is to have sources before you write the material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Native thinkers in India have relied on the Vedas, the Mahabharata, the Puranas, and such ancient texts. Much imprecision and misrepresentation has prevailed in modern scholarship in English due to inaccurate translations. That has not affected the way the natives have been living their lives imbued with rich faith-based traditions. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many edits to this article were made by 59.160.106.1, who has vandalized several other articles. Most of the changes made to this article don't seem to be justified. I don't have the time to sort it all out due to the large number of intervening edits. I restored the notice box and disambig. reference at the top of the article that were removed without other edits by 59.160.106.1. Please remove the portions of the notice box that have actually been fixed more recently. UncleDouggie (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to specifically list your concerns with the article. Having a list of templates is not at all beneficial and as a matter of fact, degrades the article even further. Therefore, I'm removing your templates until you specifically list your concerns with the article here. --Nosedown (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't my concerns to start with; I'm not a regular contributor to this article. I'm only trying to help you in correcting vandalism. The templates had been in the article until 11 June 2009 when they were removed without any corresponding body edits by User:59.160.106.1. This user has vandalized a large number of pages. This user also removed numerous templates throughout the body of the article indicating exactly where citations were required (please see the 6 edits on 11 June 2009). I was unable to revert the body edits due to conflicts with intervening edits. If you believe that recent body edits correct the deficiencies that had been identified, then the header templates would no longer be required. However, there can be no doubt that the {{dablink}} is still required. I had restored this along with the header templates. It was lost again when you undid my edits. Please restore it as I don't want to get into an edit war on this article. UncleDouggie (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism should be stopped. It is an uphill task, and may be a thankless job, but I hope some fellow user will do us the favor. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page says Hinduism has over a billion adherents, according to Major_religious_groups, only 828 million. Is this a mistake? Or not clear enough? Maybe I'm missing something. I I K I I (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Hinduism is recognized as a comprehensive term, then the information in the article is quite accurate. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun, the word 'hindu' (directly or with suffixes) is altogether mentioned 22x in the whole CC, the main biography of Shri Chaitanya (see http://faculty.washington.edu/kpotter/ckeyt/txt4.htm under Visvanatha Cakravartin). It's a fact, not claim, and moreover an important one due to being one of the early ones. Jan 90.177.206.31 (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a secondary source (i.e., besides the text of CC itself) for the word Hindu being used in the text ? Also can you specify the exact edition of CC that you are referring to, and quote the relevant verse from it. Abecedare (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"While a Hindu identity (as we might understand it today) developed during the nineteenth century, the term “Hindu” does occur in earlier Sanskrit and Bengali hagiographic texts (such as the Caitanya-caritamrta) from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries." (Gavin Flood. Hinduism, Vaisnavism, and ISKCON: Authentic Traditions or Scholarly Constructions? http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/flood_gavin_hinduismvaisismandiskcon.htm)

Dimock and Stewart edition (Harvard Oriental Series, 56.) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674002857/ gives in Subject Index, p. 1123, these verse references: Hindu, 1.17.120,167,171,189,194-97,205; 2.16.160,176

Regarding primary quotes from religious texts, they're used extensively in Wikipedia (see e.g. Quran). Jan 90.177.206.31 (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Flood reference is right on the point.

As for use of primary sources: it is ok to use primary sources to supplement a point made by secondary sources; however trying to interpret a primary source by ourselves is frowned upon, since the provenance of the specific text, context, and language - all can require expert knowledge of the field. See WP:PSTS for the relevant wikipedia policy. (This is just for future refernce and no longer an issue in this instance). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded upon the discussion referencing the O'Connell article that Flood cites. It forms a nice bridge betwen the purely geographic use and use of the term to define a specific religious idenitity.

One note: Though Flood says that the term is found in both "Sanskrit and Bengali hagiographic texts", the O'Connell article limits its known occurrences to Bengali texts ("Nowhere in the three Sanskrit texts surveyed for this purpose, nor to the best of my recollection in other Sanskrit materials of the movement that I have read, does 'Hindu' occur."). I am following the O'Connell reference in my edit since Flood seems to have based his claim on that article, and does not provide any independent example of Sanskrit text. Feel free to tweak my edit, if you think of something appropriate. Abecedare (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit of Abecedare ;Is it necessary to add "(i.e., "foreigners" or "barbarians" respectively; terms used to refer to Muslims)". Isn't linking Yavana and Mleccha enough? . Arjun⁰²⁴ 13:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I somehow didn't think of checking if wikipedia has articles on the terms. I think we still need to clarify that the terms, as used in the Gaudiya texts, referred to Muslims, but instead of listing their meaning here, we can simply wikilink to Yavana#Later_meanings and Mleccha respectively. If that sounds ok to you, feel free to make the edits you recommended. Abecedare (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Arjun⁰²⁴ 15:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corroborative Source: From my firsthand knowledge as a scholar, I am strongly inclined to agree with Abecedare that another authoritative documentary source should be sought to support the information contained in the Potter document under reference regarding Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Kanchanamala (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discovered that this book:

• Gupta, Om. Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Gyan Publishing House, 2006. ISBN 8182053897, 9788182053892.

Contains significant amounts of material plagiarized from Wikipedia articles. (Some other books from the same publisher also have this problem). There is no practical way of determining which material came from Wikipedia, and which came from other sources. Further, widespread plagiarism is an indication of poor scholarship. For those reasons, and according to Wikipedia policy, WP:CIRCULAR, I will deleting all citations to the book. However I will not delete the material that cites it, as there's no indication that the material is inaccurate. For more background, see WP:RSN#Circular references: Gyan Publishing and ISHA Books, or the archive it goes there.   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wikipedia mirror, so Dhruvekhera's use of it to support a dubious claim is a circular argument. Om Gupta's "encyclopedia" cannot be used as a reference. --Ragib (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too. Kanchanamala (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Vedas are perhaps the oldest documented literature the Indian subcontinent has provided civilization. These literature are a result of generations of oration finally obtained by the Aryans who presumably found ancient Sanskrit. The diction of the modern texts presumes many things words were not yet coined for. Hence, understanding the Vedas ought to indulge "reading between the lines.'

Example: The Big Bird, "garur", in Hindu scriptures is literally defined in modern references as a genus but most certainly portrays an aviation craft or some solar-driven winged machine capable of aerial combat. This misrepresentation can only be accounted for by the absence of un-coined diction in the era the story was first documented.

The sciences of the Vedas have not been justly portrayed or presented in modern revisions of these great books. Much more non-philosophical, academic approach needs to be engaged to reveal the cultural sciences of a lot of these teachings.

It is not accurate to present Hinduism (Sind Culture)as religious. Hinduism (before Mohenjo/Daro)is an evolved culture that goes back some two thousand years. It is, as we see in Bollywood, a very aggressively changing culture.

Jodhan B. Heeraman at jodhanj@yahoo.com 190.80.59.15 (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over time the Vedic practice [karma-kaanda] has become obscure. In recent centuries we have some helpful sources such as the Nairuktas, the Saayana-bhaashya, and the commentaries of Uvata and Mahidhara. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is supposed to remain separate from Hinduism, it must make sure that it doesn't keep going off on tangents discussing the definition or history of Hinduism as a whole. It needs to focus on the term "Hindu", Hindu identity and its definition and history. This begins with the first application of the Persian exonym in the medieval period, and continues through the adoption of "Hindu" and "Hinduism" as a self-designation in colonial India, to the point of the formation of the hybrid compound "Hindutva" in the 20th century. --dab (𒁳) 13:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. The article was basically a duplicate of Hinduism rather than focussing on the term. Thanks for starting to fix it. Shreevatsa (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that Hindu is derived from word Sindhu. This cannot be considered totally correct. This is because the term is also meant "Ancient" or "Old" apart from word Sindhu. That is why all the ancient traditions can be incorporated into the term. Otherwise if it only meant Sindhu then tolerance among other practices could not have been there as it exists. This meaning can be seen in many Indian languages particularly Kannada and anyone can check this out. Therefore Hindu and Hinduism means ancient traditions of Indian region. This can be incorporated into the article after suitable verification. Thanks.27.57.127.110 (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} Swastika has been depicted in the page but its real meaning has not been explained. Essentially Swastika is the Brahmi script of the word Aum (Oom). It can be noted when we look at the brahmi alphabets and how 'O' and 'hm' is written in Brahmi script. Sekharnet (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That explanation disagrees with the one on Swastika, although that explanation is also uncited. In any event, I think the info is better added over there, not here, and even if we really do want to add it here, we need a citation. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

swastika is a sign which indicates swasti (well-being). - Apte's dictionary. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't those match when I search the article? What am I doing wrong. Someone removed the fact that pork is not allowed to the pork article. I'm trying to find out which is right. I am looking for mention of it here to swipe the reference. What gives? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaahhhhhh Hinduism. I get it. Oh well, I guess I'm keeping the old saying alive: "Fools rush in where fools have been before." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism merely says that what we eat affects our mind and body. The individual eater makes the choice for himself or herself. Beef and pork have not been on the menu in Hindu culture. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

<original> Originally, Hindu was a secular term which was used to describe all inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent (or Hindustan) irrespective of their religious affiliation. </original>

Originally, Hindu was A Persian distortion of the Sanskrit term Sindu i.e. the River Indus (one of the seven holy rivers in India) which denoted One Who Resides Along The River Sindhu. It is in fact a geographical statement and not a religious statement. The people who resided in what was then a continent i.e. Bharatha (भारत) named after the Great Emperor Bharatha (भारत) did not actually have a religion or secular religion but practiced a principle called Sanathana Dharma which means A Way Of Life. However, due to modern interpretation the term Sanathana Dharma is not used very often, as an alternative, Hindu is used.

175.141.69.17 (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GaneshBhakt (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good decision, GaneshBhakt, good decision. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

here it should be brought to notice that sikhism is not part of hindusim but an independant religion and section of of constitution of india which is quoted is highly controversial so some other source should be used to define hinduism — Preceding unsigned comment added by MANNIKAHLON (talk • contribs) 09:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you regard Hinduism as a comprehensive term then it will include not only Sikhism but Jainism and Buddhism also. If not, Sikhism will stand independent of Hinduism. Kanchanamala (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good decision, GaneshBhakt, as some of the info given in this edit request was incorrect e.g. Sanatana Dharma does not mean 'A Way of Life'. It's literal translation, as given in the Hinduism article is Sanatana meaning eternal or everlasting and Dharma meaning (roughly - there is no exact English translation) duties, the truth or nature. GoldRock23^{(talk - my page - contribs)} 19:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hinduism is not 5000 yeas old, this is only concocted by Christian thinking as it would faulsify Christian concepts. Hinduism is older than History itself. Lord Ram roamed the earth 900000 years ago. According to legend Hinduism is 1960853112 years old. Undy999 (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good decision, Avenue X, as while Hinduism may be as old as Undy999 says it is, the earliest proof of Hinduism's existence we have is from roughly 5000 years ago - 900,000 years could be true but there is no evidence we have of this. And the second number is 'according to legend'. No sources. GoldRock23^{(talk - my page - contribs)} 19:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to quote some text from the article: 'Followers of the Bhakti movement moved away from the abstract concept of Brahman, which the philosopher Adi Shankara consolidated a few centuries before, with emotional, passionate devotion towards the more accessible Avatars, especially Krishna and Rama.^[13]' Isn't saying 'the more accessible Avatars' strictly a point of view, and not neutral information? I would be interested to hear other users' responses to this possible bias. I could be wrong! Thanks, GoldRock23^{(talk - my page - contribs)} 19:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"More accessible" definitely constitutes weasel wording. Would "personal avatars" or something similar not be better? JonC^Talk 19:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 'personal avatars' would make much difference in this context e.g. 'with emotional, passionate devotion towards the (more) personal Avatars' would still, in my view, be weasel wording, as you are calling the Avatars 'more personal', which is still strictly a matter of opinion, and not factual. Do you think 'towards what they believed as the more accessible Avatars' would cut it? GoldRock23^{(talk - my page - contribs)} 12:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will make the change to what I suggested as I think it will be better than the current use of weasel wording. Thanks, GoldRock23^{(talk - my page - contribs)} 10:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than 20 avatars listed in the Bhāgavata Purāņa. 10 of them have been traditionally cited as "Ten Avatars" [daśāvatāra]. I for one have no idea what an accessible avatar means. Kanchanamala (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that they moved towards what they believed as the more accessible avatars. I'm not saying that avatars are accessible, as this is strictly a point of view. What I mean is that followers of the Bhakti movement moved towards what they believed as the more accessible avatars (to gain 'access' to the ultimate reality (Brahman)). This means that avatars can be used to feel closer to God, as avatars are intended to be a form of a deity on earth, symbolising perfection within that form and the ideals that man should follow, therefore making it easier to follow these ideals rather than worshipping what the followers believed as the abstract, formless, and hard to visualise concept of Brahman. I hope I have cleared things up, and please feel free to add my explanation into the article in whatever words you wish to use. Thanks, GoldRock23^{(talk - my page - contribs)} 15:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is the corrected link for Note 18.

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5047

Please update the article accordingly. I am unable to update since its protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.235.247 (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hinduism in Fiji is vast as 30% of Fijians are Hindus, The Ramayan is vast as a scripture in Fiji.

Sanatandharma (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CTJF83 14:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can some one tell me is this title justified in the article? If yes can you please explain! The information in this subtitle contains various set of expressions of different kind of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krish rdkb (talk • contribs) 02:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that i ended up you in confusion! I mean this article is about Hindu not Hindu-ism, I think there is a difference in these both of the terms. There is one more article called "Hinduism". There we can have various ideas expressed by people.... Because already in the etymology we have defined the Term Hindu! Can we have one standard structure for the common articles like Hindu, Muslim, Christian etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krish rdkb (talk • contribs) 18:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Hindu should deal with all the different peoples who are Hindus. Kanchanamala (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request this thing ":The Hindu is also the name of an Indian daily newspaper. to be removed..The newspaper is something commercial although it uses the Hindu name.. Rest all is fine..

Vasant3d (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

added disambig link. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at [[Talk:Tirumala Venkateswara Temple]]. Pavan 04:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48
Please participate in the RFC discussion of whether Thondaiman has built the Tirumala Temple. Pavan 04:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The following text needs to be changed from "Ancient Hindu kingdoms arose and spread the religion and traditions across Southeast Asia, particularly Thailand, Nepal, Burma, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, Philippines, and what is now central Vietnam." to This should be replaced with "Ancient Hindu kingdoms arose and spread the religion and traditions across Southeast Asia, particularly Afghanistan, Pakistan, Thailand, Nepal, Burma, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, Philippines, and what is now central Vietnam."

Hindusim originated on the banks of the Indus river which is in present day Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Gandhar kingdom(known as Kandahar today" existed as early as 600 BC. This from wikipedia and several other reliable sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_in_Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_in_Pakistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara

Cosmic04 (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please see my comment below your second request. Rivertorch (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Sorry for the 2nd request however I wanted to provide additional reliable sources.Please change the following from "Ancient Hindu kingdoms arose and spread the religion and traditions across Southeast Asia, particularly Thailand, Nepal, Burma, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, Philippines, and what is now central Vietnam."

to

"Ancient Hindu kingdoms arose and spread the religion and traditions across Southeast Asia, particularly Afghanistan, Pakistan, Thailand, Nepal, Burma, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, Philippines, and what is now central Vietnam."

Hindusim has existed in Afghanistan and Pakistan over 4000 years where it actually originated. Below are some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_in_Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_in_Pakistan http://afghanhindu.wordpress.com/2006/09/27/the-ashamai-temple-in-kabul/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara

Cosmic04 (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Unfortunately, content cannot be sourced to other Wikipedia articles or to blogs; we need reliable, independent sources. Please review WP:RS and Wikipedia:CIRCULAR. If you find sources that meet the requirement, please reopen one of these requests. Otherwise, feel free to simply begin a new section on this page (without the edit request template), and make your case for the change. Rivertorch (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism is a complex religion mainly because it is the oldest religion of the world which is historically proven fact. With the efflux of time and as the religion spread, new ideas and thoughts were incorporated in the religion. However, the foundation of hindusm is still common which can be corroborated by these facts :

1) Every hindu household revers the sacred books Gita, Ramayana and Vedas. 2) AUM, SWASTIK and GANESHA is a necessity and common feature in every puja in all hindu households. 3) In Hindu religion The main GOD is PARMATMA and thereafer BRAHMA, VISHNU AND MAHESHA. different functions are attributed to different gods like for fire its AGNIDEV, for WIND its VARUNADEV, for RAIN its INDRADEV and like. 4) Festivals like HOLI, DIWALI, JANMASTAMI, RAKHI are mostly common in all HINDUS. 5) SURYA ARDH ( OFFERING WATER TO SUN ) IS COMMON DAILY ACTIVITY. 6) HINDUS DO NOT MARRY WITHIN THEIR IMMEDIATE RELATIONS.

There are many such customs and traditions which are identifiable with HINDU religion. In my view therefore to say that HINDUISM IS A WAY OF LIFE is not correct. It is a religion which has its own features. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.10.198 (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who follows a spiritual tradition native to India can be referred to as a Hindu. There is nothing like Hindu religion per se. When Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan was considering a title for his book on the so-called Hindu philosophy, he preferred the title Indian philosophy. Followers of some traditions do not like to accept the label Hindu, but they are all Indian. In all native Indian traditions God is referred to as Nārāyaņa. Kanchanamala (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"... oldest religion ... proven fact." That would mean that Adam and Eve were Hindu. OK with me. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The below statements are misleading and require clarifications / changes:
I) As used in the Constitution of India, the word "Hindu" is attributed to all persons professing any Indian religion (i.e. Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism or Sikhism).[1]

Citation [1] refers to Article 25:"Explanation II: In sub-Clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion". However, the sub-Clause (b) of clause (2) of Article 25 refers to a specific usage of the term Hindu to include Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists, i.e., when under the purview of providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. The usage does not imply the practitioners of Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism were Hindus originally. On the contrary, between 1955-1956, Hindu Law was amalgamated with the Personal Laws of Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs to create the modern Hindu Personal Law; and it was then that Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs came under the term ‘Hindu’ (Flugel, Studies in Jaina History and Culture: Doctrines and Dialogues, p.431-432). Ambedkar encouraged mass conversion of ‘low’ castes to Buddhism. However, in 1990, even Buddhists came to be included under Hindu Personal Law (Larson, Religion and Personal Law in Secular India: A Call to Judgment, p.112). It is improper to suggest the roots of all peoples of India is ‘Hindu’. Although SC/ST are classified ‘hindu’ for the purpose of Hindu Personal Law (due to colonial and post-colonial period politics), there remain a wide range of tribal and folk deities and spirits which have not been incorporated into ‘hinduism’ or described in terms of Vedic deities. This leaves the question open to debate whether Vedic Religion should be considered Hinduism Proper; and what is the locus standing of Tribal religions and different (and formerly opposing agamic religions of), Shaktism, Vaishnavism, Shavism, within such a Hinduism Proper. In addition, the Shramana religions of Jains and Buddhists remain in theological opposition to Vedic religion till date. Although politics brought Jains and Buddhists under the term ‘hindu’, it remains debatable whether the practitioners of these religions accept themselves as ‘hindus’. The term ‘hindu’ is contentious with its roots and origin open to debate. In view of this, I suggest changing the above sentence to: The word ‘Hindu’ came to include persons professing any Indian religion (i.e. Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism or Sikhism) after India became an independent country [cite: Larson][cite: Flugel].

II) The core beliefs of Hinduism that are generally accepted by many of its practitioners are Avatar Vada, Ekeshwaravada (One Supreme Divine Reality), Veda Praman (Authority of the Vedas), Atman, Karma, Yoga, Ahimsa, Four Puruṣārthas, Varnashrama dharma and Punarjanma (Reincarnation) [2].

Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Tribal religions do not accept the Veda Pramana (authority of vedas), and Varnashrama dharma (Varna system of social organization). Many tribal religions do not believe in Ekeshwaravada, Avatarvada, Purusharthas, Yoga and Ahimsa. In view of this, I suggest removal of the sentence.

III) The word Hindu is derived from the Sanskrit word Sindhu, first mentioned in the Rig Veda,[4] was the historic local appellation for the Indus River in the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent.[5]

The word Sindhu is mentioned in Rig but not the word Hindu. Citation [5] refers to Oxford Dictionary and purports ‘Hindu’ is derived from ‘Sindhu’. However, it is unclear if the appellation ‘hindu’ refers to any specific religion or does it refer in general to the peoples beyond the Sindhu / Indus River. I request wiki editors who contributed the sentence to this article to make it clear.

IV) "The land created by the gods which stretched from the Himalayas to the Indu (i.e. Southern) ocean is called Hindusthan, with the हिंदु (Hindu) mentioned in word हिंदुस्थानं (Hindusthan)."[6][7]

This is the translation of a verse from the Brihaspati Agama. Citation [6] is a paper by Murlidhar Pahoja which supposes Hidu used by the Persian emperor Darius (522-486 BC) refers to Hindu. However, it is debatable if the term Hidu or Hindu simply refer to the multitudes of people of different faiths beyond the Sindhu / Indus or to a specific religion called ‘hindusim’. Wiki editors who contributed the sentence, please make that clear. Please provide date when the Brihaspati Agama was composed.

Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]

A Response:

(IV): Irrespective of who says what, "Hindu" is not an ancient term, nor is "Hindustan" an ancient word, let alone an ancient term.

(III):"sindhu" is a Sanskrit word also mentioned in the Vedas. But it has nothing to do with the modern term "Hindu".

(II):There are traditions which accept Vedas as "pramāņa", and there are traditions which don't. Some followers of those traditions do not mind being referred to as Hindus, and some do not like to be labeled as Hindus. That was the reason why Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan chose the title Indian Philosophy for his work, and not Hindu Philosophy. On the other hand, Mahamana Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya chose the name Hindu University. "Hindu" is a lose and controversial term.

(I): I do not know how the word "Hindu" has been used in the Constitution of India, or what any justice of the Supreme Court of India opines. I would expect the article in Wikipedia to be based on scholarly sources. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Kanchanamala. To mods and others, since there are no other responses to this, am deleting the controversial sentences. Thanks, --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]

Thank you, Mayasutra, I appreciate. Thanks again. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please add this. I can't edit as yet.

In the Records of the Grand Historian, Zhang Qian (d. 113 BC) and Sima Qian (145-90 BC) make references to "Shendu", which may have been referring to the Indus Valley (the Sindh province in modern Pakistan), originally known as "Sindhu" in Sanskrit. When Yunnan was annexed by the Han Dynasty in the 1st century, Chinese authorities reported an Indian "Shendu" community living there.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.210.224 (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this piece of information will help the Wikipedia article. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Just before Etymology subtitle, one of the country example is Bali. Please note that Bali is not a country. It is a province/ an island in Indonesia. SenZ (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point, SenZ, well done indeed. I've fixed this.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not noted in the first paragraph that many of those religions mentioned object to, and reject their status of being called Hindus in the Indian Constitution. I can provide many sources, but knowing the editing on Wikipedia I doubt that the truth will be told. Here is one source. "Bill for separate status to Sikhism" today http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120824 . http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-882449/main2.htm Can Hindu law cover Sikhs, Jains, asks SC http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-11-13/india/35087031_1_hindu-marriage-act-hindu-religion-sikhs

VickSPaul (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraphs are supposed to summarize what's in the body of an article. Your edits removed pronunciation information and other content, and introduced problems of grammar. Rivertorch (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the lead paragraph is repeating one sentence found in the body again? Wikipedia is obviously supporting those pro-Hindu fascist groups (such as RSS, Shiv Sena), that wish to club everyone as Hindus. Why still does it not say that religions object to being called Hindus? This article should be placed in the category where it does not meet wikipedia standards.

VickSPaul (talk) VickSPaul (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Vick, whatever is said there is factual. Do not bring your POV here Snowcream (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Snowcream, and the fact that people object to that definition is also factual, and I have cited it. So the only one bringing their POV here is you. VickSPaul (talk) 01:124, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hinduism is a very controversial word. It is supposed to include everything Indian. But many Indian traditions [sampradāya] do not accept that name. Scholars shun that word, and so do I. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following text-

The Brihaspati Agama says:

हिमालयं समारभ्य यावदिंदुसरोवरम् ।
तं देवनिर्मितं देशं हिंदुस्थानं प्रचक्ष्यते ।।
"The land created by the gods which stretched from the Himalayas to the Indu (i.e. Southern) ocean is called Hindusthan, with the हिंदु (Hindu) mentioned in word हिंदुस्थानं (Hindusthan)."

is incorrect and misleading. It could be an attempt by some fringe right wing groups to create and perpetuate a myth. Brihaspati Agama is a part of the Rigveda. The above text could not have appeared in the Rigveda simply because the word 'Hindu' is not used in the Rigveda. The Sanskrit word was 'Sindhu'. If anything, Rigveda would have used 'Sindhusthan'.

The Rigveda is available online at WikiSource [1]. If this text actually appears, the chapter number and hymn number should be mentioned. Else, this text should be deleted.--Aayush18 (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited for the above verse is a high-sounding name and simply spurious. The verse itself is bad poetry. It should be removed from the article. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word Hindu is derived from Sindhu i.e. of Sindh (Indus). It was originally used by Persians and Arabs who arrived in India centuries before the British did. Related terms include Hindawi, Hindi, Hindustan etc. There seems to be some allergy on Wikipedia pages to attributing certain terms etc. to Muslim, Persian or Arab origins for obvious reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.9.41.55 (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Persians pronounced Sindh as Hind. By Hind they meant the entire Indian subcontinent. They called its people Hindi or Hindu. In the course of time India came to be known as Hindustan. These terms have nothing to with Sanskrit, Vedic or classical, or with the ancient writings of India. Kanchanamala (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

182.66.37.84 (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: No request was made. If you want to request that an edit be made to this article, please suggest it in the form of "Change X to Y". Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 16:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is not my article I have searched online,thanks

hindu word origin

Here is an eye-opening article about the antiquity of the word “Hindu.” The communist historians of India and the Western Indologists claim that the word “Hindu” was invented by the Arabs in the 8th century and its origins lay in the Persian practice of replacing “S” with “H”. However, many inscriptions over a thousand years older than this period have used the word ”Hindu” or its derivatives. Also, the origin of the word most certainly lies in the Saurashtra region of Gujarat in India, not in Persia.

Antiquity and Origin of the Term ‘Hindu’

---

The anti-Hindu historians like Romila Thapar and D.N. Jha have opined that the word ‘Hindu’ was given currency by the Arabs in the 8th century. They however, do not explain the basis of their conclusion nor do they cite any evidence in support of their claim. Even Arab Muslim writers do not make such an extravagant claim. Another theory propounded by European writers is that the word ‘Hindu’ is a Persian corruption of ‘Sindhu’ resulting from the Persian practice of replacing ‘S’ with ‘H’. Even here, no evidence is cited. In fact the word Persia itself contains ‘S’ which should have become ‘Perhia’ if this theory was correct.

The present paper examines the above two theories in the light of epigraphic and literary evidence available from Persian, Indian, Greek, Chinese and Arabic sources. The evidence appears to support the conclusion that ‘Hindu’ like ‘Sindhu’, has been in use since the Vedic age and that although ‘Hindu’ is a modified form of ‘Sindhu’, its origin lies in the Saurashtran practice of pronouncing ‘H’ in place of ‘S’.

Epigraphic Evidence

---

The Hamadan, Persepolis and Naqsh-I-Rustam Inscriptions of Persian monarch Darius mention a people ‘Hidu’ as included in his empire. These inscriptions are dated between 520-485 B.C. This fact establishes that the term ‘Hi(n)du’ was current more than 500 years before Christ.

Xerexes, successor of Darius, in his inscriptions at Persepolis, gives names of countries under his rule. The list includes ‘Hidu’. Xerexes was ruling between 485-465 B.C. On a tomb in Persepolis, in another inscription assigned to Artaxerexes (404-395 B.C.), there are three figures above which are inscribed ‘iyam Qataguviya’ (this is Satygidian), ‘iyam Ga(n)dariya’ (this is Gandhara) and ‘iyam Hi(n)duviya’ (this is Hi(n)du). The Asokan inscriptions (3rd century B.C.) repeatedly use expressions like ‘Hida’ for ‘India’ and ‘Hida loka’ for ‘Indian nation’.

‘Hida’ and its derivative forms are used more than 70 times in the Ashokan inscriptions. For instance in the Jaugadha, separate rock edict II, the lines 3 & 4, read:

All men are my people. I desire for my people that they may be provided with all welfare and happiness. I desire for my people, including the people of Hind and beyond and I desire for all men. The Edict further, says in lines 7 & 8 Dhamma may be followed and the people of Hind and beyond may be served.

The Ashokan inscriptions establish the antiquity of the name ‘Hind’ for India to at least third century B.C.

In Persepolis Pahlvi inscriptions of Shahpur II (310 A.D.) the king has the titles shakanshah hind shakastan u tuxaristan dabiran dabir, “king of Shakastan, minister of ministers of Hind Shakastan and Tukharistan.”

The epigraphic evidence from the Achaemenid, Ashokan and Sasanian Pahlvi records puts a question mark on the theory about the term ‘Hindu’ having originated in Arab usage in the 8th century A.D. Literary evidence takes the antiquity of the word ‘Hindu’ back to at least 1000 B.C. and possibly 5000 B.C.

Evidence from Pahlvi Avesta

---

In the Avesta, Hapta-Hindu is used for Sanskrit Sapta-Sindhu, the Avesta being dated variously between 5000-1000 B.C. This indicates that the term ‘Hindu’ is as old as the word ‘Sindhu.’ Sindhu is a Vedik term used in the Rigveda. And therefore, ‘Hindu’ is as ancient as the Rigveda.

In the Avestan Gatha ‘Shatir’, 163rd Verse speaks of the visit of Veda Vyas to the court of Gustashp and in the presence of Zorashtra, Veda Vyas introduces himself saying ‘man marde am Hind jijad.’ (I am man born in ‘Hind.’) Veda Vyas was an elder contemporary of Shri Krishna (3100 B.C.).

Greek Usage

---

The Greek term ‘Indoi’ is a softened form of ‘Hindu’ where the initial ‘H’ was dropped as the Greek alphabet has no aspirate. This term ‘Indoi’ was used in Greek literature by Hekataeus (late 6th century B.C.) and Herodotus (early 5th century B.C.), thus establishing that the Greeks were using this derivative of ‘Hindu’ as early as 6th century B.C.

The Hebrew Bible

---

The Hebrew bible uses ‘Hodu’ for India, which is a Judaic form of ‘Hindu’. The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is considered earlier than 300 B.C. Today’s Hebrew spoken in Israel also uses Hodu for India.

The Chinese Testimony

---

The Chinese used the term ‘Hien-tu’ for ‘Hindu’ about 100 B.C.11 While describing movements of the Sai-Wang (100 B.C.), the Chinese annals state that the Sai-Wang went towards the South and passing Hien-tu reached Ki-Pin.

Later Chinese travellers Fa-Hien (5th century A.D.) and Huen-Tsang (7th century A.D.) use a slightly modified term ‘Yintu’ but the affinity to ‘Hindu’ is still retained. This term ‘Yintu’ continues to be used till today

Pre-Islamic Arabic Literature

---

Sair-ul-Okul is an anthology of ancient Arabic poetry available in the Turkish library Makhtab-e-Sultania in Istanbul. In this anthology is included a poem by Prophet Mohammed’s uncle Omar-bin-e-Hassham. The poem is in praise of Mahadev (Shiva), and uses ‘Hind’ for India and ‘Hindu’ for Indians. Some verses are quoted below:

Wa Abaloha ajabu armeeman Mahadevo Manojail ilamuddin minhum wa sayattaru If but once one worships Mahadev with devotion, One will attain the ultimate salvation.

Wa sahabi Kay yam feema Kamil Hinda e Yauman, Wa Yakulam na latabahan foeennak Tawajjaru. (Oh Lord grant me but one day’s sojourn in Hind, Where one can attain spiritual bliss.)

Massayare akhalakan hasanan Kullahum, Najumam aja at Summa gabul Hindu. (But one pilgrimage there gets one all merit, And the company of great Hindu saints.)

The same anthology has another poem by Labi-bin-e Akhtab bin-e Turfa who is dated 2300 years before Mohammed i.e. 1700 B.C. This poem also uses ‘Hind’ for India and ‘Hindu’ for Indian. The poem also mentions the four Vedas Sama, Yajur, Rig and Athar. This poem is quoted on columns in the Laxmi Narayan Mandir in New Delhi, popularly known as Birla Mandir (Temple) Some verses are as follows:

Aya muwarekal araj yushaiya noha minar Hinda e, wa aradakallha manyonaifail jikaratun. (Oh the Divine land of Hind, blessed art thou, thou art chosen land showered with divine knowledge.)

Wahalatjali Yatun ainana sahabi akhatun jikra, Wahajayahi yonajjalur rasu minal Hindatun. (That celetial knowledge shines with such brilliance, Through the words of Hindu saints in fourfold abundance.)

Yakuloonallaha ya ahlal araf alameen kullahum, fattabe-u jikaratul Veda bukkun malam yonajjaylatun. (God enjoins on all, follow with devotion, path shown by Veda with divine percept.)

Wahowa alamus Sama wal Yajur minallahay Tanajeelan, Fa e noma ya akhigo mutibayan Yobasshariyona jatun. (Overflowing with knowledge are Sama and Yajur for Man, Brothers, follow the path which guides you to salvation.)

Wa isa nain huma Rig Athar nasahin ka Khuwatun, Wa asanat Ala-udan wabowa masha e ratun (Also the two Rig and Athar(va) teach us fraternity, taking shelter under their lusture, dispels darkness.)

‘Hindu’ in Sanskrit Literature

---

Another doubt created by the modern day anglicized historian is that the term ‘Hindu’ is not found used in Sanskrit literature. This misconception can be dispelled by quoting from Sanskrit works15 : Meru tantra (es#rU=) (4th to 6th century A.D.), a Shaiva text, comments on ‘Hindu’.

Hindu is one who discards the mean and the ignoble.

The same idea is expressed in Shabda Kalpadruma. Brihaspati Agam says,

Starting from Himalaya up to Indu waters is this God-created country Hindustan

Parijat Haran Natak describes Hindu as, Hindu is one who with penance washes one’s sins and evil thoughts and with arms destroys one’s enemies.

Madhava Digvijaya states, One who meditates on Omkar as the primeal sound, believes in karma & reincarnation, has reverence for the cow, who is devoted to Bharat, and abhors evil, is deserving of being called Hindu.

Vriddha Smriti defines Hindu as, One who abhors the mean and the ignoble, and is of noblebearing, who reveres the Veda, the cow, and the deity, is a Hindu. Similarly other Sanskrit works which use the term ‘Hindu’ are, Kalika Puran, Bhavishya Puran, Adbhut Kosh, Medini Kosh, Ram Kosh etc. Even Kalidas has used a derivative form ‘Haindava.’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.77.48.225 (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"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

This edit request to Hindu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hindu (About this sound pronunciation (help·info)) refers to an identity associated with the philosophical, religious and cultural systems that are indigenous to the Indian subcontinent. As used in the Constitution of India, the word "Hindu" is attributed to all persons professing any Indian religion (i.e. Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism).[1] In common use today, it refers to an adherent of Hinduism. Sydney.bedi (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: It looks like you have just copied the lead here. Please make your request clear as to what has to be changed if required like: change sentence X to sentence Y. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 04:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Hindu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The name Swami Vivekananda under the picture can be hyperlinked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivekananda Supreet 05:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Abecedare (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Hindu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The word Hindu is a abbreviated form of Hinathva Dushitha from sanskrit , which means Hinathva- weakness , bad , evil . Dushana - condemn , Dushitha - one who condemns. Avinashzoom (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the citation? Bladesmulti (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Hindu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

term "hindu" means hinathva dushitha , which means condemn the bad Avinashzoom (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No source given. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Hindu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

term "hindu" tracked form sanskrit as an abbreviation of hinathva dushitha , which means condemn the bad Avinashzoom (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provide some citation for your information. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Hindu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The image of Swami Vivekananda should be removed. Because according to supreme court 1995 verdict Ramakrishna Religion is different from Hindu Religion. ^[1][2] Moreover, Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet.

I do not know why the prophet of other religion is given in Hindu religion page. It is hurting my religion sentiment. As a Hindu I am feeling bad about it. Please remove the image from this page.

I think the images of Hindu God or Goddess like, Vishnu, Shiva etc. should be more appropriate for the page.

Please change the image to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu#mediaviewer/File:Vishnu.jpg

RssubbaRao (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone through the judgement, but numerous scholars have called Vivekananda (read the well-referenced article) as a Hindu leader and reformist. [2]. He is also one of the well-known faces of Hinduism in the West. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna and Rama are more widely accepted Hindu avatars. Their images will be more appropriate. Please go through the judgment. Judgment is just for reference. More than that specific judgment, Vivekananda represent just a small set of Ramakrishna Religion. It has no connection with the core Hindu religion of the mass. I think Vivekananda's image is given just for publicity. If we are really interested about an unbiased page on Hindu, it should be removed. RssubbaRao (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done

@RssubbaRao: this article is about the people who follow Hinduism, so images of some prominent (human) figures, and cultural practices, seems more appropriate than a repetition of images better placed on the Hinduism page, and in articles about the deities. I am not claiming that the present mix of images in the article is ideal (for example, having images of Kali and Shakti; or temples/celebrations/idols from Indonesia, Singapore and North America; is arguably an overkill), but I hope the different focus of the Hindu article versus the Hinduism article helps explain why an image of Vishnu would not be preferable to the image of Vievekananda here. Abecedare (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recently removed the following extended sentence from the lede:

This usage [ie, the Constitution of India using the word "Hindu" as a synonymn for Indian religions] , however does not have the approval of the Sikhs, and has been vehemently protested right from the time of drafting of the Indian Constitution. Hukam Singh, a Sikh representative to the Constituent Assembly declarred: " ... the Sikhs feel utterly disappointed and frustrated (by this Constitution). They feel that they have been discriminated against. Let it not be misunderstood that the Sikh community has agreed to this Indian Constitution. I wish to record an emphatic protest here. My community cannot subscribe its assent to this historic document." ^[1]

because it was undue in the lede where the focus should be on describing how the term is used and not on commenting on such use, which can be mentioned later, albeit with better sourcing and context, and less grandstanding than above. Comments welcome. Abecedare (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely disagree. At whatever place you are going to mention the Indian Constitution's grandstanding fake and deceiving definition, the vehement Sikh opposition to it must certainly be posted right alongside, rather than "somewhere else later". There can be no compromise on this whatsover. - Js82 (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The right place to include the view would be the Definition section, where the Jain community's views and the related court cases are already mentioned. But before we do so, we would need to determine the best sources on the subject and represent them fairly. For example from the quote above, it is not at all clear what aspect of the Indian constitution Hukam Singh was protesting against. Can you provide the context from the source, by quoting the adjoining text? Abecedare (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I completely disagree. As I said, the Sikh opposition (which has lead to decades of turmoil and genocides) must be mentioned alongside. If you don't want that to be in the lead, then even the Indian Constitution's definition should be moved to the Definition section. That would only be fair. I would provide the exact context for the quote. I have taken it out right now, and reverted to the pre-dispute version, mentioning that Sikhs don't approve this constitution of India, which is a sourced fact. Js82 (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your latest edit, since as I said above, it is undue in the lede and furthermore the citation does not support the statement it was appended to. The source does not even mention the Constitution's use of the terms Hindu/Hinduism. It instead says that Hukam Singh and Akali Dal's opposition to the constitution was based upon it not providing any special safeguards for Sikhs, which is not a relevant issue for this article. FWIW, the source would not qualify as a reliable source for wikipedia IMO, but we can set that aside for talk-page discussions. Abecedare (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The July 19th version is the last uncontested version of the lead. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NeilN. I had just looked at the edit and source till now, and not realized that that original text had been added by Js82 himself. That makes it worse since the original edit (and the readd) misrepresents the source. To spell it out, here is what the added text said:

This [ie, the Constitution of India using the word "Hindu" as a synonymn for Indian religions], however does not have the approval of the Sikhs from the very beginning, as the Sikh representatives in the constituent assembly refused to append their approval to this Constitution of India

and this is what the source that Js82 himself cited, actually says:

On 27th August 1947, the Constituent Assembly of India had passed a resolution that the question of minority rights in Eastern Punjab will be considered separately but subsequently minorities subcommittee recommended that no special safeguards will be provided to the Sikhs... Sikh representative Sardar Hukam Singh and Bhupinder Singh Mann had refused to append their signatures to the Constitution of India and Sardar Hukam Singh on 21st November, 1949 declared in the Constituent Assembly : “Let it not be misunderstood that the Sikh community has agreed to this Constitution. I wish to record an emphatic protest here. My community cannot subscribe its assent to this historic document.”

Selectively citing sources to push ones POV is bad. Misrepresenting them is unacceptable. Abecedare (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare: Neither am I misrepresenting, nor pushing my POV. Read below. It is rather you who is pushing your own POV.

Couple of points: "Not providing safegaurds for Sikhs" is nothing else but trying to dubiously absorb them as Hindus. While you are hung up on this one resource, I can find you numerous resources wherein this (and similar related) statements of Hukam Singh, or otherwise, can be explicitly put in relation to the definition of Hindu in the constitution. Let me know if you want them. Further, I would also bring in 10s of other references that point out the vehement Sikh opposition to this definition. The whole point is to register the opposition of Sikhs to these dubious attempts by Hindus and the Indian Constitution, which right now has been very conveniently put up in the lead, in a nonchalant way, as if it has no implications.

Lastly, to reiterate, given the gravity of this issue (that lead to genocides), the Sikh opposition must be stated right where the constitution is referred. I have no issues with where this is actually stated. IMO, this should all be stated in the "Definition Section".

Neil, please chime in with your comments as well. Js82 (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is best to move the Constitution's mention to somewhere down into the body. The Constitution wasn't actually trying to define religious identities. At the time of the writing of the Constitution (and throughout the British period), "Hindu" had two meanings, one as the followers of Hinduism and the other as the followers of all Indian religions. The latter meaning is older, dating back to entry of the Arabs into Sindh. For certain legal contexts, it is convenient to use that meaning (e.g., Hindu Code Bills). That is all the Constitution was trying to do. There is no point losing one's head over it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, I think we are agreeing on moving the constitution part out of the lead section. Wherever it is moved, the Sikh (and possibly other religions' as well) objections should be directly pointed out at the same place. As I said, I can provide 10s of references for that.

Next, coming to the points raise above by Kautilya, while for you it could be a simple matter of terminology, for the people who profess the other religions, it is a matter of their identity. So, please do not try to trivialize the issue (which is the impression I got from your message). We can spend more time on this issue later, and I would come back actually to even challenge all else that has been written in the very first paragraph (without worrying about the Constitution part as well). Even all that seems focused on trying to assimilate everyone into Hindu category, which is completely dishonest and again contrary to the expectations of the other faiths. In short, even that piece must be classified with information on the objections from other religions. To be discussed further ..

And by the way, I am not the first minority voice here expressing these opinions. A quick look above on this page would make it clear that others have strongly protested earlier as well. But, unfortunately, as always, their voice seems to have been subdued by a slew of swift action from the Hindu lobby that seems to have complete control here on Wikipedia. I would however regard Kautilya differently, based on my interactions with him so far. Js82 (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. You show an overwhelming sense of political activism, which is unbecoming of a Wikipedian. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only have an overwhelming sense of asking for a fair representation of facts. Nothing more, nothing less. Construing it (pointing out the objections of other religions to present a neutral POV) as political activism is your own viewpoint. And it would be appreciated if the discussion does not digress into personality tussle, but remains on track. I can also argue endlessly on the political activism that is behind the way the first paragraph of this article has been written. Thanks. Js82 (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: (in reply to your 1:46 comment) I think the broad use of the term in the constitution is worth mentioning in the lede, not because it is "right", but because it is notable and because the lede is supposed to summarize the article (and this article is dominated by the definitions of Hindu issue, in any case). That said, we can expand the sentence along the lines "In the Constitution of India, the word "Hindu" .., which adherents of those faiths have objected to".

But before we do so, we should briefly document such objections in the article body, which currently only talks about the Jainism-related cases. For this we'll need secondary sources on the topic, and represent them accurately; also, recent sources would be preferable since there have been legal developments over the last decade or so with respect to Jainism and IIRC Brahmoism. I would expect there to be law review articles on the subject, but am not too familiar with Indian legal literature. Any help? Abecedare (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence for the Constitution's notion of "Hindu" as including Buddhists, Jains etc. as being notable. Nobody uses the term that way (save the Hindu nationalists) and the scholarly sources take no notice of it either. It only comes up in the context of the Sikhs' objection to it.^[1][2][3][4] So I think it is best left out of the lead. It is pointless controversy. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing the references. As I said before, I certainly admire your honesty. If only we had more people like you here (who actually spend time trying to understand, rather than bombarding others with hollow scare warnings to satisfy their own egos), it would be such a great platform to share and learn.

I concur that the constitutional reference should be moved down. The references you shared can be used to point out the Sikh opposition.

(On a more personal note, just to clarify/emphasize again, please do note that this is not a trivial issue for other faiths, irrespective of the actual reasoning behind it. I do however realize your own unbiased stance on this issue, which certainly would make it a pointless controversy to you.) Js82 (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: I agree with you that religious scholars ignore the CoI's definition, or rather use of, of the term Hindu just as language scholars ignore what languages the GoI deems to "schedule" or declares to be "Classical". However, as the references you cite show, the CoI's use of the terms is notable in legal, political, and current affairs literature (and not just due to opposition by Sikhs; more sources are surely available about Jain, and possily Buddhist, views). So I still think that it is worth mentioning in the lede with the additional note I suggested above; and the sources you found can be used to provide adequate coverage in the article body. I'll drop a note at WT:INB to invite further input. Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, I have just noted the Sikh and Jain opposition to the constitution definition. I think we can move the definition down soon, as the consensus here seems to suggest so far. I believe the fact that the Sikhs did not even provide their approval to the Constitution of India is of absolute relevance here, and must be mentioned. I would do that sometime. Js82 (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine for the time being. This article needs considerable work anyway. (Even thought it looks nice because of the pictures, the content is pretty disorganized and haphazard.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ^ Martin E. Marty (1 July 1996). Fundamentalisms and the State: Remaking Polities, Economies, and Militance. University of Chicago Press. pp. 270–. ISBN 978-0-226-50884-9.
2. ^ Tanweer Fazal (1 August 2014). "Nation-state" and Minority Rights in India: Comparative Perspectives on Muslim and Sikh Identities. Routledge. pp. 136–. ISBN 978-1-317-75179-3.
3. ^ Kevin Boyle; Juliet Sheen (7 March 2013). Freedom of Religion and Belief: A World Report. Routledge. pp. 191–. ISBN 978-1-134-72229-7.
4. ^ Alvin William Wolfe; Honggang Yang (1996). Anthropological Contributions to Conflict Resolution. University of Georgia Press. pp. 19–. ISBN 978-0-8203-1765-6.

First paragraph, Controversial Definitions Up front ?

I find the first paragraph of the article to be rather strange. It gives the controversial definitions (one coming from a RSS mouthpiece, and another coming from some Greek literature) upfront. The more commonly used and most logical definition (a follower of Hinduism), is provided at the end. In a neutral, "disinterested tone" article, the controversial parts should not be provided so much prominence. If anything, they should be included in the "disputes" section, no ?

On a related note, I think it is time Hindus should come forward and clearly define who they are. If you want to keep referring to the "outsider's" definitions (anyone living beyond the Indus river), then that's just a geographical definition. Why do you then define Hindu-ism as a religion, the "oldest religion"? The "ism" starts to define a set of religious beliefs, which clearly are not common amongst the different religions practiced by people on the other side of Indus. So, basically, if you want to say Hindu=Indian, then defining Hinduism as a "religion" makes no sense. And please do not give the "way of life, rather than a religion" argument. Every religion is a way of life. The point is : why go beyond the geographical definition and define Hindu"ism" as a religion or a way of life ? Js82 (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Js82: Are you referring to the Etymology section? Wikipedia is not the place to do original research or "invite their Hindus to come forward and....". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch, no, I am referring to the very first paragraph of the article's lead section. All of the information there, except the last sentence, is unnecessary and not deserving to be the in the lead section, let alone form the first few sentences of the article (that usage is highly controversial, as it tends to subsume any person on the other side of Indus as Hindu, which is not accepted by practitioners of every other religion than Hinduism; and even with Hindus, perhaps by only a fraction.) The first paragraph should just state that Hindu is a follower of the religion Hinduism, and perhaps state some of the concrete aspects of Hindu life and religion. This would be the rational lead, given that it is the same with articles on Christian (follower of Christianity), Buddhist (follower of Buddhism), etc. The controversial and confusing material (including the definitions given by Greeks and Persians) should come in later Sections.

I understand it is not the forum to invite discussions, I guess what I mentioned above would make some people think though. Js82 (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Js82: The lead summarizes the important aspects of the main article, see WP:LEAD. Historical meaning of the term is an important aspect. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be historical and important, but is highly controversial also, and does not deserve to be part of the first paragraph of the lead. As I said, first paragraph should state the obvious and most common interpretation: Hindu is a follower of Hinduism; just like the other similar pages: Christian (follower of Christianity), Buddhist (follower of Buddhism), etc. Js82 (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the change you suggest, see reasons above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Js82: Please state clearly what is controversial about it, and provide reliable sources if you can. Also, please avoid turning Wikipedia into a platform. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of Sikh opposition to Indian Constitution in this article

@Js82: You reinstated this sentence: "The Sikh representatives in the Indian constituent assembly actually did not provide their approval to the Constitution of India, citing discrimination and deceit." How is that relevant to this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare:, @Kautilya3: What are your thoughts on that reinstated sentence? FWIW, indeed, a sentence about Sikh and Jain objections to being included in the definition of Hindu, is due and notable in this article, for reasons discussed above on this talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are citing the Constitutions definition, it is of fundamental relevance to state that Sikhs did not accept the Constitution itself. The reason they did not accept it is because minority rights were not protected (because the Constitution did not even recognize the minorities to be separate from Hindus.)

"On 27th August 1947, the Constituent Assembly of India had passed a resolution that the question of minority rights in Eastern Punjab will be considered separately but subsequently minorities subcommittee recommended that no special safeguards will be provided to the Sikhs... Sikh representative Sardar Hukam Singh and Bhupinder Singh Mann had refused to append their signatures to the Constitution of India and Sardar Hukam Singh on 21st November, 1949 declared in the Constituent Assembly : “Let it not be misunderstood that the Sikh community has agreed to this Constitution. I wish to record an emphatic protest here. My community cannot subscribe its assent to this historic document.”"

"no special safeguards will be provided to the Sikhs" is equal in part to Sikhs not being regarded as a distinct minority. In the following 65 years, this issue has come up many times, and Sikhs have always objected to the Constitutional definition, and have always cited not having agreed to it. Js82 (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since we are citing the Constitution's controversial definition, it is of fundamental relevance to state that Sikhs did not even accept the Constitution. I think even this much is a valid reasoning for it to be included (Without even going into the nitty-gritty details of who said what and why. That all would be needed if we really want to delve into the topic.) Js82 (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Js82: This is not an article about their constitution, nor a place for Sikh/Jain/etc issues advocacy, see WP:WWIN. Do you have a non-website/non-SPS reference, such as a peer reviewed journal article or a book that went through editorial process or another WP:HISTRS on this subject? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: I agree that "a sentence about Sikh and Jain objections to being included in the definition of Hindu, is due and notable in this article". Criticism of the constitution does not belong here. If Js82 wants to make a positive contribution, I would encourage him to find good sources that talk about all the issues surrounding the inclusion of the Indian minority religions in the "Hindu" umbrella and what problems that might have caused. That would be relevant to the article. But "issues" does not mean protests. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu view of Hindus

No doubt we have various foreigners viewing "Hindus" as encompassing Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism, and scholars mocking them. But we don't have anything in the article that establishes how the Hindus saw themselves (and Jains and Buddhists) historically. Did the Indians think of India as having 3 separate religions, or were they all fused together? - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dharma or dhamma is the word one reads in historic Indian literature. The phrase Hindu dharma, appears in Indian literature during the Islamic era. Their texts refer to Islam as "Turk dharma" (identified by presumed geographical origin). There is some discussion of how Indian religions (Hinduism / Buddhism / Jainism) viewed each other, in ancient and medieval era, but does this belong in this article on 'Hindu'? @Joshua Jonathan: what do you think? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's relevant for contemporary 'Hindus', since there is a lot of debate on what constitutes a ("real") Hindu, and a lot of people (Hindu's) don't like to be categorized by the whims of some other people (Hindus') who have completely other views on who's a Hindu, and what it means to be a 'Hindu'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They married each other, feasted together, built temples together or near each other's, debated philosophy (sometimes intensely), and taught their next generation each other's dharma texts. In cultural sense, this may be interesting to contemporary Hindus / Buddhists / Jains. I will meditate on which recent scholarly sources may be best for a summary. If you know some, please share. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ms Sarah Welch: Well, yes, but did the "Hindu dharma" of those times include or exclude Buddhism and Jainism? We can't assume that they meant by the term what we tend to understand today. The Gauri Vishwanathan quote says "The application of laws derived from Sanskrit classical texts leveled the community of Hindus." But the question remains whether these laws "leveled" them or whether they were already leveled to start with. The article is taking it as axiomatic that there were three religions in India. It is not obvious to me at all. If there were three religions, how come one of them was unnamed? - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Joshua Jonathan: It does not seem to me that there is a strong identity of "Hindu," outside of the Hindu nationalist circles. For most people, they are "Hindu" just because they follow Hinduism and that is what the followers of Hinduism are supposed to be called. It is not an identity in that sense. On the other hand, it is an identity in the sense of carrying Indian cultural heritage. Whenever anybody says "I am a Hindu," that is what they mean. That sets them apart from Muslims and Christians. But it does not set them apart from Jains, Buddhists or Sikhs. This ambiguity of meaning has always existed and will possibly exist for ever. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is fine with me. But hey, who am I? An atheist liberal christian cum "Buddhist." Talking about "inclusivism"... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it is apparently not fine with Sikhs, and at least some Buddhists. Frictions arise as a result. It is possible that a lot of the Hindu-Muslim friction is also a result of clash of identities. So, explaining what the Hindu identity means in this article would be quite useful. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of Hindus

@Joshua Jonathan: With your experience and contributions to History of Hinduism, would you like to make an attempt or at least share some ideas on how to improve the last two sections of this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove them per WP:FORK? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. The scope of this article should be the use of the term and possibly demographics, with the discussion of the religion, beliefs, practices, and history of Hinduism (not Hindus) etc covered by Hinduism and its sub-articles. Abecedare (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely sure of that. The point made by Redtigerxyz on 28 September 2008 above is that there is need for an article on "Hindus" as a people as opposed to "Hinduism," a religion. I will have to mull over this a bit before I can decide. I suggest everybody involved read this intriguing article.^[1] -- unsigned comment by Kautilya3

@JJ:, @Abecedare: Indeed, that was my instinct too, to remove those two sections. A summary demographics is a good idea, and Pew reports on Hindus should suffice as an RS. @Kautilya3: I interpret @Redtigerxyz's 2008 comment in response to @Gizza's proposal as, "keep this article and not redirect it to Hinduism article". I don't believe "delete this article and redirect Hindu to Hinduism" is what @JJ/@A or I are suggesting. The concern is whether "History of Hindus" section in this article should be retained? if yes, then what should go in there, from which HISTRS sources, and how will it be different from "History of Hinduism"? Will appreciate and await your thoughts. Thanks all. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: If the Pollock 1993 article on 'Hindu identity - Ramayana epic' formed with Islamic invasion and continuing into modern politics intrigues you, see the extended criticism of the 1993 Pollock paper published in 1998 by Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya, Representing the other?: Sanskrit sources and the Muslims (eighth to fourteenth century), ISBN 978-8173042522 (reviewed here).

more details on Pollock, Chattopadhyaya, etc

Chattopadhyaya extensively quotes Sanskrit texts such as the 14th-century Madhuravijayam showing that different parts of medieval India conceptualized the Islamic invasion, wars, violence and persecution with not just Ramayana epic as Pollock suggests, but with other figures and ancient mythologies, increasingly refining the identity of 'Muslim as other, violent and barbarian' and their own [Hindu] identity as a contrasting opposite there of.

Over the last 15 years, scholars such as Lorenzen have sided with Chattopadhyaya, but note that both Pollock and Chattopadhyaya are asserting the same premise, with Pollock emphasizing Ramayana to support that premise, while Chattopadhyaya presenting a flood of evidence beyond Ramayana. And if these intrigue you, see related Hindu identity related publications each by Heinrich von Stietencron, Lawrence Babb, Peter van der Veer, Gabriella Ferro-Luzzi, Thomas Trautman, Alf Hltebeitel and Cynthia Talbot. They don't agree in everything, but a rough summary from their various publications: [1] Hindu identity was not invented by British, [2] Hindu identity existed in pre-Islamic times, but was fuzzy, inclusive, plural; [3] the arrival of Islam, followed by the rivalry between Muslims and Hindus between 1200-1600 triggered a sharper self-conscious of Hindu identity. According to von Stietencron, this happened because Muslim rulers maintained their foreign and Islamic identity, while rebelling natives established an indigenous and Hindu identity. That is, the 'whom they are not' helped refine the identity question 'who they are'. This happened by 16th century, long before the colonial era started.

Should we summarize from Pollock, Chattopadhyaya, von Stietencron, etc and mention Madhuravijayam and such texts as "History of Hindu identity" in this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. Pretty much everything we said in Talk:Hinduism/Archive 30#Revisit the Islamic period belongs here, not there, as I said earlier [3]. "Hindus" came first and "Hinduism" later. The history of "Hindus" as a people should be covered here. In fact, it can be our answer to the Hindu nationalists. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lutgendorf^[2] says "I propose that the author of Kirtilata was not unique in his perceptions of a new and disturbingly alien urban environment, only in recording them. A more characteristic response was withdrawal into other themes, leaving the royal city behind." So the silences themselves form a code for trauma, which the scholars are now beginning to understand. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ^ Pollock, Sheldon (1993). "Rāmāyaṇa and political imagination in India". The journal of Asian studies. 52 (02): 261–297. JSTOR 2059648.
2. ^ Lutgendorf, Philip (1997). "Imagining Ayodhya: Utopia and its Shadows in a Hindu Landscape". International Journal of Hindu Studies. 1 (1): 19–54. JSTOR 20106448."

@Kautilya3: is our consensus then to remove offtopic and WP:FORK text, add summary demographics and History of Hindu identity? That may fit it with @JJ's earlier suggestion. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the title History of Hindus, but if Hindu identity gives you a better focus, let us go with it. We will need to end it leading into Hindu renaissance and Hindu nationalism (summarising the main articles). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some thought/expansion of my post above

• "History of Hinduism" deals with how the rituals, beliefs, and philosophy encompassed by the term "Hinduism" have changed and that is best dealt under Hinduism and its sub-articles.
• On the other hand the history of of people who happen to be (or, are thought of as) Hindu is inseparable from the history of India (or Indian subcontinent, if you wish) and is best dealt with under those articles
• The title, "History of Hindus" on the other hand suggests that we are talking of history of Hindu people qua their being Hindu people. Now, while there are certainly scholarly works dealing with how Hindus fared under say the rule of the Mughals, the British etc (and that can be discussed in the respective article), I am not aware of any literature that deals with the subject comprehensively (contrast with history of Jewish people, on which there are thousands of books), and attempts to write up such a history will turn into an exercise of either, (a) on-wikipedia synthesis in which accounts of different eras are stitched together, or more likely, (b) POV pushing that, say, ahistorically projects wars between rulers who happen to be Hindu/Muslim/Christian etc as wars between Hindus/Muslims/Christains etc (cf, the POV batteles at Hemu, Shivaji etc).

For these reason I don't think this article, or any other on wikipedia, needs to cover "History of Hindus". The article should cover the question of Hindu identity, of course; and it already does so in the Terminology section, which can be expanded and improved, and even renamed, if needed. Abecedare (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good points. Let us stick to "Hindu identity." - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]