Talk:History of Hinduism

Excessive pictures.
hello @Joshua Jonathan. I think a single photo, any of the three is more than enough to illustrate a point of the section, but three are just unnecessary and gratuitous. Also in the Gupta and Pallava Empires section could also use less gallery. 182.183.53.207 (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you also mention other sections; trimming only the Muslim-rule section, with NPOV as arguments sounds quite biased. That was the reason I reverted. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  13:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well some pictures are of high relevance for the article. But, for starters in Indus Valley Civilization section, the pic about "Swastika Seals" could be removed. An in the section I mentioned above in my reply, "The Descent of the Ganges" and "Trivikrama panel" could be removed. And In the Expansion in South-East Asia I think two pics appended to the side could be enough. Also in the Vijayanagara Empire "Market place at Hampi" and "An open mantapa" do not seem that useful for the article. Note I'am not necessarily advocating for all the pics to be removed but few could moved elsewhere maybe in related separate article as this whole article looks eccentric because of the crowded gallery.
 * So what do you think?? 182.183.53.207 (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Joshua Jonathan?? 182.183.53.207 (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, I guess; I'm not a big fa of galleries, actually. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  07:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright I have removed some of the pics, can you check the placement and dimensions of the remaining images, as I am not proficient in managing these aspects? Also I thought of making the photo of Ranganathaswamy Temple bit small as it makes the site seem like a blog but don't know how to do it. 182.183.53.207 (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Concerns related to the sourcing regarding religious tolerance under the Mughals
@Eucalyptusmint, I have observed your suggested sentence on the (OR) board (No original research/Noticeboard). I already removed that particular source [Amy Chua (2007)] after the complaint diff. Would you agree that the present sources in Medieval and early modern periods to be acceptable? StarkReport (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Sure, can take a look, though it might take a bit. But I'm going to start with the paragraph/sentence that was brought up at ORN. I see the sentence in question, The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature, was left intact but the original source Amy Chua (2007) was replaced with this source Kanwal (2020). I think @TryKid had brought up a valid concern at ORN: is a book published by Doubleday and written by a legal scholar (not historian) considered WP:HISTRS?
 * However, the journal source that it was replaced with seems even more questionable to me because this journal article is the authors' perspective based on research they have gathered, who also happen to be affiliated with the university through which the journal is published. So can this source be considered a better source over the original book source? I'm leaning towards no, and open to hearing everyone's thoughts.
 * Additionally, based on the info from the two sources above and from what @Kaalakaa and @JMWt seem to be saying, the original sentence "The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance..." is still problematic because it seems to be written in a way that's stating an opinion as fact. The statement should have appropriate attribution from WP:RS, if fully kept and even more so because later on in the same paragraph it says "...there were instances of religious conflicts between the Mughals and the Rajput over control of territories. Aurangzeb in particular was criticized for his policies of religious intolerance towards non-Muslims and destruction of temples." So, again, this seems contradictory of the generalized sentence that is in question. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, the following source of Whitney Howarth (BA in History/Social Studies), states that " the Mughal rulers were generally tolerant of all of the religions of the region. This tolerance helped ensure peace. In turn, peace in the region allowed business and trade to thrive " and later on in the Internal problems emerge section " The vast Mughal state had long had leaders who were tolerant and peaceful. Then came Emperor Aurangzeb ". Here is the source: [file:///C:/Users/hp123/Downloads/WHP-1750%201-3-5%20Read%20-%20Mughal%20Empire%20-%20940L.pdf].
 * Alternatively, if perhaps by historian Rajeev Kinra which states at the beggining " comparatively speaking, arguably the most tolerant and inclusive state in the entire early modern world ". Although I haven't completely absorbed this source of another historian Muzaffar Alam, but to me it appears that the paper argues that the Mughals, despite being Muslims, adopted a pragmatic and tolerant approach for practical reasons for the most part.


 * Maybe a work by the historian Mubarak Ali could be useful.


 * "So, again, this seems contradictory of the generalized sentence," Hmm regarding this, I think one way we can solve the problem is to slightly reword the first sentence "The Mughals were generally known for their religious tolerance, " as the word "generally" acknowledges both the general trend of religious tolerance and the instances of conflicts, providing a more nuanced view of the Mughal era. It suggests that while tolerance was a characteristic feature, exceptions and conflicts did exist.
 * For information like " patronized the arts and literature " and " Under the Mughals, India experienced a period of relative stability and prosperity " I don't think this should be deemed contentious as they are indeed noted by many historians and scholars. StarkReport (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @StarkReport Saw this discussion and suggestion "The Mughals were generally known for their religious tolerance," - just wondering - do we want to include "generally" because most of the sources are saying Mughals were generally tolerant? Or because the trend of the Mughal era was generally towards religious tolerance? or maybe both? Because as you mentioned "exceptions and conflicts did exist". Sorry, not an early modern era history person, but trying to be as positive I can while contributing on wiki, and this sentence really helped me see how to write positively. So, thanks. Asteramellus (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello @Asteramellus, I think it is both. The Mughals are commonly acknowledged for their relative tolerance considering the era, albeit far from perfect. StarkReport (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * If any mention is to be made of the "tolerance" of the Mughal Empire, I think it is imperative to explain that this "tolerance" did not occur at the time of the implementation of orthodox Islamic law, but began primarily during the reign of Akbar (the grandson of the founder Babur). Akbar created a new syncretic religion called "Din-i Ilahi" in which he himself functioned as the supreme divinely inspired authority in both secular and religious matters.
 * If any mention is to be made of the "tolerance" of the Mughal Empire, I think it is imperative to explain that this "tolerance" did not occur at the time of the implementation of orthodox Islamic law, but began primarily during the reign of Akbar (the grandson of the founder Babur). Akbar created a new syncretic religion called "Din-i Ilahi" in which he himself functioned as the supreme divinely inspired authority in both secular and religious matters.


 * And this other source seems to be saying about the same thing as Yale University law professor Amy Chua, whose statement we discussed earlier at WP:ORN.
 * This tolerance policy of the empire was later overturned by Aurangzeb (one of Akbar's great grandsons). Aurangzeb was:
 * Aurangzeb rebelled against his own father, Shah Jahan (ibid, pp. 159–160), and then had his own full brothers Dara and Murad killed. As for Dara:
 * Aurangzeb rebelled against his own father, Shah Jahan (ibid, pp. 159–160), and then had his own full brothers Dara and Murad killed. As for Dara:
 * Aurangzeb rebelled against his own father, Shah Jahan (ibid, pp. 159–160), and then had his own full brothers Dara and Murad killed. As for Dara:


 * As for Murad, Aurangzeb initially allied with him, promising territorial sharing. But tensions soon grew between the two. And when Murad met Aurangzeb at his camp for dinner, Aurangzeb arrested him (ibid, p. 160), and some time later killed him (ibid, p. 162). —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  04:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * An "authors' perspective based on research they have gathered" is called a tertiary source, which in itself is perfectly fine.
 * aren't there sources which directly state that " The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance"? See Google Books. thoughts?  Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  06:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the comment about tertiary source, I can agree to that. But I'm confused, are you referring to the book or the journal article? Because I was referring to the journal article and thought that journal articles are generally not considered tertiary sources since they include interpretations/analysis of info (which this article does). I suppose regardless of what kind of source it is, I was more so questioning the reliability of the source- the journal/article. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, they can also be considered secondary sources under certain conditions, but whether those sources meet our WP:SOURCE policy (which includes WP:IIS) is another matter. And context is important here. According to this Cambridge University Press publication, Akbar abolished several policies of his predecessors that don't seem very tolerant. Our WP:OR and WP:TIERS say that books published by university presses are among the most reliable sources. Now, these predecessors of Akbar, were they also Mughal rulers or not?  —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  11:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Eucalyptusmint @Joshua Jonathan, Regarding Kaalakaa's take on rulers other than Akbar, I think it is worth stating that even other Mughals, like Babur, Humayun, Shah Jahan and Bahadur Shah Zafar and Jahangir were also noted for their varying levels of religious tolerance.
 * Babur became more tolerant as he grew older, facilitating the peaceful coexistence of different religions within his empire and court. Bahadur Shah Zafar's philosophy was implemented by his court, embodying a multicultural composite Hindu-Islamic Mughal culture. He celebrated many Hindu festivals like Rakhi, Holi, Diwali, etc., in the court. Jahangir issued bans on cow slaughter and animal slaughter on certain days of the week, continuing his father's policy. Jahangir also issued many edicts admonishing his nobles not to convert the religion of anybody by force.    I'm sure there are more and better sources than those.
 * Its just that Akbar took more steps further than others, admirably so.
 * As for another statement from Kaalakaa, " Akbar abolished several policies of his predecessors that don't seem very tolerant ". When we talk about tolerance, we don't mean they were openly all-embracing liberals as we know nowadays. But the Mughals, for their times - times when intolerance and bigotry were the bread and butter - are generally held to be religiously tolerant. I could elucidate more on this matter, but let's just not turn this into a WP:Forum. StarkReport (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * StarkReport and @Asteramellus I agree, think that the suggestion of including generally would be acceptable and would help create less of a contradiction with the information mentioned at the end of the section, so I'm okay with that. In trying to resolve Kaalakaa's concerns, what if it says: The Mughals were generally known for their religious tolerance which was at its peak during the reign of Akbar? Just a suggestion. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Eucalyptusmint, Yeah, I think that could work too. However, regarding the sources of few historians I gave you above, are they all alright? StarkReport (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you quote which parts of the following two sources you cited that support your statement? I am not sure about the reliability of all of them or whether they are worth using instead of the two sources I cited above, though. This should probably also be brought to WP:RSN. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  18:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So where are the quotes? I've been waiting for about six days. Also, did you even bother to read the quote I provided in my comment before replying? What I meant by "not very tolerant" with regard to the policies of Akbar's predecessors was not that they were "moderately tolerant," but that they were the opposite of tolerant, i.e., intolerant. Here I quote it again:  —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  06:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kaalakaa, If you are referring to the aforementioned sources concerning other Mughals, then the sole unclickable source among them is that of William Dalrymple. So here it is clickable this time: on page 90. Also, I have no idea why you are asking about those sources, as I haven't advocated for putting them in the article either in terms of sources or content related to other Mughals. I was just making a point. Also, note that I stated, "I'm sure there are more and better sources than those."
 * If you are asking for the source regarding the particular line in the article, it already exists in the article which @Joshua Jonathan okayed. I have also provided sources from four historians, namely:  Whitney Howarth ,  Rajeev Kinra ,  Muzaffar Alam  and  Mubarak Ali  to support the particular line in the article, in my second reply. @Joshua Jonathan also suggested one in respone to your demands. As for the wording, both Eucalyptusmint and Asteramellus are fine with it.
 * If you still insist on WP:NOTGETTINGIT, causing drain on time for other editors regarding a single line, then I'm afraid I can't help you. No one is obligated to satisfy you. StarkReport (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You cited this source to support your statement, didn't you? Which part of it confirms what you are saying? Quote it. You know how to do that, don't you?
 * And how come some obscure, non-independent POV sources like Rajeev Kinra, Muzaffar Alam and Mubarak Ali are better than this ?
 * Also, you seem to have not addressed your misrepresentation of my comment above. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  12:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmmm seems I may have been to quick to copy/paste sources that I added a non-English source. Nonetheless, if you still want info about Babar then here you go:
 * And I'm sure its fine since according to you: "WP:TIERS say that books published by university presses are among the most reliable sources".
 * Also its odd to claim the sources of Rajeev Kinra, Muzaffar Alam, and Mubarak Ali as obscure, non-independent, etc., while giving an actual obscure source, that looks to me an Israeli author. StarkReport (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't you misrepresent my comment. What I asked was this French source, not that obscure Pakistani POV source.  —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  15:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not really very interested in the minute detail of debate on this page, but it seems like the tolerance of the Moghals may well be something which has exercised academics and which may be part of a page on Wikipedia. It seems quite a long way from a History of Hinduism page and a single line with dubious and contested sourcing based on throw-away lines in references doesn't mean it should be repeated here. Can I suggest that rather than trying to insert or reinsert the phrase here that efforts on this could be better directed elsewhere such as Religious policy of the Mughals after Akbar or possibly a wikilink could be added to this or some other relevant and expanded page where the complexities of the topic can be properly dealt with? Please don't ping me again on this. JMWt (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Responding to ping. The Mughals were more liberal/tolerant compared to the Turko-Afghans that preceded them, but perhaps not in absolute terms. For example, throughout the Turko-Afghan period, there seems to have been a ban on constructing new temples as well as repairing old temples. (Hans T. Bakker) This was probably the case for large temples worthy of long-distance pilgrimage, though neighbourhood temples were probably constructed through patronage from local nobles/traders. This policy was probably continued under Babur and Humayun. During Akbar's time, on the other hand, we have evidence of Man Singh having constructed the Kashi Vishweshara temple. I haven't checked, but perhaps Krishna Janmasthan temple in Mathura was also constructed during Akbar's rule. So this was a significant change in policy, which continued during Jahangir and Shahjahan's time. Both of these temples were demolished under Aurangzeb's rule, as well as the Somnath temple and several temples in Ayodhya including the one at the supposed Ramjanmabhumi spot. So, Aurangzeb has to be distinguished from "Mughals" in general.
 * More importantly, there appears to have been a ban on the use of public spaces for Hindu festivities throughout the Muslim rule, including Mughal rule. This became known only after the British took over, and allowed such usage. This gave rise to HIndu-Muslim riots, which continue till this day. Even liberals think Hindus do not have a right to pass through Muslim neighbourhoods chanting Hindu slogans. These tensions got exported to Britain as well, and got witnessed in Leicester in 2022. So, take that "tolerance" thing with a large dose of salt. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello @Kautilya3, thanks for the comment. Regarding "So, Aurangzeb has to be distinguished from "Mughals" in general", I believe we have indeed addressed this by explicitly stating in the same paragraph: "Aurangzeb in particular, was criticized for his policies of religious intolerance towards non-Muslims and destruction of temples." StarkReport (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "was criticized" is a needless softening of facts. He is in fact not criticised by most historians; he is rather defended through various excuses.
 * Most of the Muslim rule sections read more like "history of Islam" rather than "history of HInduism". Need a lot of reworking. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Concerns regarding @StarkReport's rewrite
On September 20, 2023, @StarkReport rewrote almost the entire "Muslim rule" section. In this rewrite of his, besides including his misrepresentation of a source (confirmed to be the case by other editors as well ), a number of sources from the previous version still seem to be used, one of which is this. The source says that historian Will Durant wrote:

The statement in this WP article of ours before @StarkReport's rewrite seems to be more or less in line with that :

The source used here, however, is Will Durant's own book.

But in @StarkReport's version, he rewrote it as follows :

This rewritten version by StarkReport, besides seeming to be not quite in line with the content of the source, also appears to be WP:CENSORSHIP. I also can't find in the source a passage that says anything similar to the text I've bolded above. — Kaalakaa  (talk)  14:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that it was a bad rewrite. But I don't think Will Durant should be cited at all, which is badly out of date, essentially colonial era scholarship.It is really pop history and has no validity whatsoever. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3, I agree.
 * As for my revision months ago, the section that was supposed to provide a broad overview of "Muslim rule" was written in an excessively critical way, leading to problematic NPOV issues that needed to be addressed. Consequently, I had to slightly expand it to include more comprehensive information, ensuring better WP:Balance. StarkReport (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misunderstanding our policies. Where does it say in WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE that we should not write critically about the subject if the sources say so? Are you aware of WP:YESBIAS? —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  16:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kaalakaa, Kindly read
 * Also read StarkReport (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can't you tell the difference between critical and criticism? An example of a biased source is your obscure Pakistani POV sources talking about the Mughal Empire. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  18:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No more biased than Will Durant. StarkReport (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So the reason you misrepresented Durant's saying was because you think he is biased? —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  18:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Will Durant matter aside, this behavior of @StarkReport misrepresenting the sources to push his POV seems chronic. This raises the question of whether his other contributions are actually in line with what the sources say, or again, simply his misrepresentation. Another editor also pointed out his misrepresentation of sources in another article previously . I also filed an ANI report before, but unfortunately it was auto-archived before it received a response from the admins. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  15:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kaalakaa, In actuality your edits have been questioned by others regarding neutrality and WP:WEIGHT issues including @Iskandar323, and here and by @DeCausa, and @Chxeese,[ 1 ], as well as by @Neutralhappy on ANI board
 * You persistently cherry-pick sources with the same bias to forcefully insert critique where it is not WP:Relevant, disregarding all others, and then WP:BLUDGEON the process to achieve it. StarkReport (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And what does that resolved issue have to do with your case? —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  17:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kaalakaa, "I also filed an ANI report before [10], but unfortunately it was auto-archived before it received a response from the admins" And what does that resolved issue have to do with your case? StarkReport (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That was not resolved but automatically archived because it had been inactive for some time. It can still be reopened and clearly has something to do with this case of your chronically misrepresenting sources, which has been pointed out not only by me but also by a number of other editors. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  17:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Simple, your accusations against me claims misrepresenting sources, while my objection against you pertains to your complete lack of neutrality and cherry-picking sources which has been pointed out not only by me but also by a number of other editors.
 * Now for the last time stop the WP:ICANTHEARYOU and refrain from time wastage. StarkReport (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you file a report already? —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  18:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see the problem., you cannot remove well-soured content and replace it with something else, without discussing it on the talk page and obtaining WP:CONSENSUS. If it is especially "negative", but other positive material exists, you can add the latter, and then start a discussion about how much WP:WEIGHT to give each. Otherwise, you just engaging in WP:CENSORSHIP, which Wikipedia does not support. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I also see that you have added content regarding the Mughal Empire, which wasn't here earlier. There is a separate section on the Mughal Empire down the line. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3, Allow me to clarify: before I edited the section, there were mentions of Mughal rulers such as Akbar and Aurangzeb. I simply expanded it slightly for comprehensiveness while not making it too verbose. "There is a separate section on the Mughal Empire down the line", hmm. In retrospect, I believe we could relocate the paragraph there. StarkReport (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Folks, this talk page is not meant for discussing editor conduct. You can do so on one of your talk pages, and, if issues persist, you can take it to administrator notice boards. This talk page is only meant for discussing the content of the main page.
 * Taking this discussion forward, I suggest that the "Muslim Rule" subsection be retitled as "Muslim Sultantes" (which would include Delhi Sultanate as well as the Deccan Sultanates). Their treatment of Hindus as well as Hinduism would need to be covered. We cannot go overboard in discussing slavery unless we have evidence that Hindus were randomly rounded up and enslaved (which I doubt). Taking captives during a war or conflict is a different phenomenon. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello @Kautilya3, If we were to expand the article further to include information about those aforementioned Sultanates, I fear we might unintentionally stray too far into WP:COATRACK territory. I believe that including a link to the Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent article, along with appropriate Wikilinks to the Sultanates, effectively fulfills the intended purpose.
 * I am considering combining the section on Muslim rule with the Mughal period section. Alternatively, I suggest that the paragraph "In the 16th century, the Mughal Empire was established---" could be moved to its pertinent Mughal section. Furthermore, I recommend omitting the third paragraph, which scrutinizes an era that seems more pertinent to articles such as Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent as the paragraph feels a bit WP:Undue here.
 * @Joshua Jonathan, @Eucalyptusmint, @Asteramellus, what do you think of this proposal, or do you think it is best to leave the article as it is?" StarkReport (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Muslim conquests are entirely irrelevant to this article, and the main article link to that page should be removed. This page is on the History of Hinduism, and how Hinduism was affected by the Muslim rule is of considerable interest. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Muslim conquests brought Islam to India, didn't they? So it seems to me that this is relevant.  Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  07:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but "conquests" are military history not religious history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, that there is a distinction between information about military history and religious history. But there also seems to be some overlap since military history can shape religious history, which is what the information under the Muslim rule section seems to be about (how Hinduism was affected by the Muslim rule). My knowledge of either type of history is not as vast as other editors here, but I did take a look at the Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent page and the information on that page is primarily about military history and there isn't much mention about the impact of Muslim conquests on religion in India. For that reason, I disagree with StarkReport and think that information about Muslim Sultantes and Hinduism, if included, would actually be undue on that page, not this. As far as the second point about combining the info or leaving it as it is, I will take a closer look and get back to give my thoughts. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced
The statement "The Mughals were generally known for their religious tolerance" is still unsourced. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  07:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello @Joshua Jonathan I thought we already included the source: . And when I discussed it suitability with Eucalyptusmint, you stated that "An "authors' perspective based on research they have gathered" is called a tertiary source, which in itself is perfectly fine.". Please let me know if I made a mistake.
 * I have added the additional sources of historian Rajeev Kinra that states in the beginning: as well as of historian Richard M. Eaton who states that  as well as of the historian Mubarak Ali. Can you check them so we can remove the tag. I may have done WP:OVERCITE. StarkReport (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for adding those sources. I have the impression, though, that Fariha Kanwal is not a suitable source. The author is unknown, the journal is recently established, and the article itself may be apologetic:
 * Sources by established authors would be preferable, I think, but I'll scroll through the article, and take a look at the other sources. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  12:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Joshua Jonathan that I don't think the Fariha Kanwal article is a reliable source. Which is why I had asked for clarification to your initial comment above with the following: "Regarding the comment about tertiary source, I can agree to that. But I'm confused, are you referring to the book or the journal article? Because I was referring to the journal article and thought that journal articles are generally not considered tertiary sources since they include interpretations/analysis of info (which this article does). I suppose regardless of what kind of source it is, I was more so questioning the reliability of the source- the journal/article."
 * Had a chance to look at the source again and this journal doesn't have an impact factor nor does it seem to be indexed in various journal databases. Moreover, the Kanwal journal article was used to replace this original source which was questioned by another editor. Also took a re-look and I see that the publisher Doubleday is part of Penguin Random House, which meets WP:RS criteria. And regarding the other sources that were added, Eaton and Kinra, they are point of view claims that would require appropriate attribution. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Eucalyptusmint and I agree with both of you regarding Fariha Kanwal's unreliability. Also, this Eaton source, which comes from the Scroll.in website, looks very dubious to me. If you read the web article, it says:
 * Firstly, it was clearly not peer-reviewed. Secondly, there's no telling whether this obscure website actually interviewed him or truthfully reported what he said. Also, if we really need to include the history of Mughal rule in this article, I think we should steer away from using Pakistani and Indian sources on it, especially those that have elements of apologia or promotion, as well as sources that appear to be religiously driven, because our WP:SOURCE policy requires us to use independent sources, i.e:
 * — Kaalakaa  (talk)  22:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Eucalyptusmint, Earlier, Joshua also suggested another source for consideration, It states that: StarkReport (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Joshua Jonathan, did you really suggest that particular source? —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  03:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm aware of. Could both of you please specify sources you're referring to? Author, title, not just a bare link. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  05:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ahh @Joshua Jonathan, Earlier you stated to Kaakakaa in the "Concerns related to the sourcing---" section that: @Kaalakaa: aren't there sources which directly state that " The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance"? See Google Books." And that led to the source of Khalid Bashir's History of the Architecture of Kashmir.
 * Nonetheless, there is one more source:
 * that states: StarkReport (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, there is one more source:
 * that states: StarkReport (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Nevertheless, a proper history book, with more than just one line, would be best. Who is the author of the journal-article above, and what is the title of the article? Regards, Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  06:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC) Gotcha: Arpitra Mitra (2019), Interreligious Education in a Post-Secular World: The Relevance of the Radhakrishnan Commission's Recommendations in the Indian Context. Two cites, one by Mitra herself. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  06:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Source-check
Personally I expect that the info is correct, but still, a solid historiographic study would be better: Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  06:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - 16 citations, that's good;
 * - one citation, but the journal seems to be an established journal (60 years);
 * - already commented on above;
 * - already commented on above, one citation; not impressive;
 * - three citations, recent journal.
 * John F. Richards (1993), The Mughal Empire, Deel 1,Volume 5, Cambridge Ubiversity Press, p.34


 * Thank you for checking and putting this together Joshua Jonathan and agree with you that the John Richards source or something similar would be better to use. In which case it looks like on p.34 it's directly referencing a specific time frame of the rule, as it says the "...religious climate of sixteenth century India was more open and tolerant of change." Eucalyptusmint (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is when the author is talking about Akbar, as you can see on the previous pages (i.e., p. 32–33). And further on p. 35, the author specifically says:
 * Also, on p. 38–39, Richards writes how Akbar abolished the intolerant policies of his predecessors.
 * — Kaalakaa  <sup style="color: #003366;">(talk)  05:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * — Kaalakaa  <sup style="color: #003366;">(talk)  05:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.quora.com/How-old-is-the-Kalpa-Vigraha-idol-of-Shiva https://www.scribd.com/document/11432103/KALPA-VIGRAHA-THE-OLDEST-HINDU-IDOL. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. NotAGenious (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Periodisation
your mass-removal of sourced info diff, edit-summary

is totally unwarranted. Smart, Michaels, Muesse and Flood all write about the history of Hinduism, not the history of India in general; and they all treat the roots of Hinduism, and the various religions from which Hinduism emerged. Reference is made to the periodisations of Indian history in general, since these authors seem to folloe these periodisations. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  17:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * They do talk about the history of Hinduism, but there's no reason for teh existence of a section called "periodisation" that mostly talks about the History of India, by talking about James Mill's History of British India and the "Hindu, Muslim and British" system of periodisation of Indian history not Hindu history. The entire article is divided into sections corresponding to periods and thus there's no reason for existence of such a section. PadFoot  (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the "pre-Hindu period" doesn't need its own section as it doesn't deal with Hinduism rather with local religions that significantly influenced Hinduism and were certainly not "Hinduism" themselves. PadFoot  (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The section is an explanation for the periodisation used in the article, and gives an overview of the differences in those periodisations. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  18:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But it talks not about Hinduism but about history of India and only a minority of it deals with actual "periodisation of Hinduism". Though, the small portion too talks about the pre-Hindu, prehistoric religions of South Asia which scholars don't call "Hinduism" but rather as influencing Hinduism in the post-Vedic period. The period makes the suggestion that Hinduism existed in the pre-Aryan, prehistoric times through those prehistoric beliefs, which is just blatant nonsense and in reality, these beliefs just influenced Hinduism much later on. PadFoot  (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense, I would greatly appreciate your opinion here as well. PadFoot  (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've only taken a surface-level survey of sources and the corresponding changes at present: I will comment once I take a closer look. Remsense  诉  18:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with @PadFoot2008.History of India, Pre-Hindu history, prehistoric religion history etc. should not be given such weight. No scholar has called these prehistoric practices ancient Hinduism; rather, many have termed the Vedic period as ancient Hinduism, in line with the Vedas being the first scriptures of Hinduism (whatever the actual dating may be) TipTap21 (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC) (Striking comments by block-evading sock. Abecedare (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC))

The main element of the section is the table which compares the periodisations four different authors use in their treatment of the history of Hinduism, not the history of India; those authors also include the pre-Hindu period in their treatments. The preceding section, "Roots of Hinduism," makes abundantly clear when "Hinduism" started. The term "ancient Hinduism" is a misnomer and should be avoided. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  19:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * My 2c: There is no justification that I can see for deleting the Periosation section in toto. That said, the existing section can be improved and considerably shortened. Suggestions:
 * Reduce the redundancy between the plain text and the notes accompanying the table. Ditto for the alternate periodisation presented in maintext ahead of the table.
 * Trim some of the details about approaches to periodisation to Indian history, and associated criticism. The details can be moved, and further developed, in a Periodisation of the history of India article, which can then be linked to.
 * Including Mark W. Muesse's periodisation in the table seems undue to me; neither the author nor his publishers are comparable to the other works that have been cited (at least the works of Gavin Flood and Axel Michaels; I am not familiar with, and haven't looked into, Ninian Smart)
 * (minor) The section/table needs some clean up to fill in the bibliographical details of the cited works, remove deadlinks etc. Also see MOS:DONTHIDE.
 * Abecedare (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * < This is what the beginning half of the section talks about:
 * James Mill (1773–1836), in his The History of British India (1817), distinguished three phases in the history of India, namely Hindu, Muslim and British civilisations. This periodisation has been criticised, for the misconceptions it has given rise to. Another periodisation is the division into "ancient, classical, medieval and modern periods", although this periodization has also received criticism. Romila Thapar notes that the division of Hindu-Muslim-British periods of Indian history gives too much weight to "ruling dynasties and foreign invasions", neglecting the social-economic history which often showed a strong continuity. The division in Ancient-Medieval-Modern overlooks the fact that the Muslim-conquests took place between the eighth and the fourteenth century, while the south was never completely conquered.
 * This doesn't talk about the history of Hinduism at all as of now. This needs to be fixed first and centred around Hinduism not about the history of India or history of Indic religions. The claims that Hinduism itself existed in Mesolithic period or had roots in the prehistory. Only Doniger says that it might have origins in the prehistory, while others only assert that it might have been influenced by these and not that they were Hinduism themselves. Unless the section is improved, they can't be included. Besides, there is consensus against the inclusion of Prehistory as Hinduism with 2 people (incl. me and @TipTap21) opposing it and earlier in the first discussion of this talk page, an editor opposed it as well. Besides @Abecedare said that the section periodisation should not be included in full. I also request his opinion on Joshua's claim that Hinduism has existed since the prehistoric Mesolithic era, 10,000 years ago, which is a ludicrous claim. Only Doniger claims such a thing while others say that those prehistoric religions simply influenced (Vedic) Hinduism later on, leading to modern day Hinduism. PadFoot  (talk)


 * Glad you understand that "Hinduism" didn't exist from times immemorial, as also explained in the preceding section. Regarding "per now," I'd already shortened the section, per Abecedare's helpfull comments. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  05:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Joshua Jonathan, wait then. I thought you were trying to claim that Hinduism has existed since the Mesolithic prehistoric era. So you are not trying to claim such a thing? Was this just a misunderstanding? PadFoot  (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess so; I'd never claim that "Hinduism" existed since mesolithic times. It's a synthesis of Brahmanical ideology and thousands of local tradition. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  05:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Joshua Jonathan, but you would agree that this Brahmanical religion is the backbone of modern day Hinduism, so in a way it was "the" predecessor of modern Hinduism and thus can be called ancient Hinduism (which it is called by many scholars) but incorporated many local beliefs and evolved many new beliefs, resulting in it being quite different from its successor, modern Hinduism. PadFoot  (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Joshuas view is sramana traditions(buddhism,jainism etc) are central to modern day hinduism instead of vedas and upanishads as mentioned by him in tallk page of vedic religion. Dont know what to say. I say Lets all accept buddha and be done with it TipTap21 (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC) (Striking comments by block-evading sock. Abecedare (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC))
 * @TipTap21 Hinduism related pages may have the views you have mentioned, but that doesn't mean it is particular editor's view. If you have sources with other view(s), you can include those with citation. Also, just want to note that sometimes I find that wiki has details with citations, but when you read the citation, the meaning is different - so it does help to read the citation in case you don't agree with what's written. Reading Neutral point of view will help. Asteramellus (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008: no, I wouldn't agree that this Brahmanical religion is the backbone of modern day Hinduism; Hinduism is a synthesis of Brahmanical ideology and mythology, local traditions, and sramana traditions. Brahmanism provided the ideology and the role of Brahmins, who could provide sacrifices; those Brahmins moved out from Aryavarta, and adapted themselves to local traditions, performing rituals for non-Vedic gods (kids are hungry, aren't they?); local traditions aligned with the Brahmanical narrative, syncretising their own gods with Vedic dieties (how many local incarnations of Visgnu are there?); and Brahmanism also had to compete with sramana-traditions. Brahmanism 'morphed' into Hinduism, together with local traditions, when it came into contact with those local traditions. I also wouldn't call Brahmanism "ancient Hinduism"; Brahmanism simply isn't Hinduism, though some use this term. @TipTap21: I think that those local traditions are central. I also think that this 'localisation' of Brahmanism, and this 'Sanskritisation' of those same local traditions, is a very complex process, which can't be siplified to 'Veda's and Upanishads are central to Hinduism' (they aren't, by the way). Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  08:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "Vedas and upanishads are not central to hinduism" but " buddhism and other thousands of local traditions definitely are"- by joshua jonathan;"synthesis with vedic gods but vedas arent important"- joshua.."brhamins doing their brhmanical duties for non vedic gods forming modern hinduism but brahmanism is not central"- joshua.. Oh wikipedia..lol TipTap21 (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC) (Striking comments by block-evading sock. Abecedare (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC))
 * Well, it is widely viewed that Vedas and Upanishads are central to Hinduism, and are the oldest Hindu texts, and that the Vedic religion evolved into Hinduism, adoption and integrating other local traditions. PadFoot  (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Michaels 2004, p.18: "most Indians today pay lip service to the Veda and have no regard for the contents of the text." Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  13:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)