Talk:Indian religions/Archive 3

Sanātana traditions
I did find it after looking again (the link was wrong). It seems to be the personal creation of a Navjyoti Singh, not exactly notable. As IndianChronicles pointed out, Sanatana usually refers to Hinduism. So the material is confusing and misleading. Mitsube (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Shakta
Does the Shakta sect (Tantra) not meet notability standards for inclusion in this article? AaronCarson (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 January 2012
Akshardham is one of the largest Hindu temple in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angkor_Wat being perhaps the largest

89.236.47.66 (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌, unclear what you're requesting-- Jac 16888 Talk 14:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Unorganised
I was just reading this article and its very unorganised. If someone could try and seperate the information on each religion instead of clumping it into one timeline. Independent paragraphs/sections for each religion.86.164.140.95 (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I was very very Italic text confused — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.40.36.234 (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. This article needs significant cleanup and reorganization. The text under the picture of the standing bodhisattva would be a good place to start. 114.143.120.212 (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Greenland map
Why is Greenland black in that map? Most Greenlanders are Lutheran these days.Ordinary Person (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in the article
. The next statement claims that "The Shramana tradition gave rise to Jainism, Buddhism, and Yoga" . This makes me ask question what exactly is shramana tradition. Was it a tradition which evolved into Jainism, Buddhism and Yoga, is it a term that is used to call them (Jain, Buddhist and Yogic practices) collectively, or is it something else entirely? . I find this contradictory with the earlier claim, if sramana tradition arose in 700-500 BCE, why does it mentioned that Jainism, which rose due to shramana tradtion, was established by a lineage of 24 people with Parshva belonging to 9th century BCE (before 700 BCE)?
 * The article claims that "Jainism and Buddhism belong to the sramana tradition, which arose in 700-500 BCE"
 * Elsewhere in the article it is claimed that "Jainism was established by a lineage of 24 enlightened beings culminating with Parsva (9th century BCE) and Mahavira (6th century BCE)"
 * Multiple dates are attributed to Mahavira. Mahavira (c. 549–477 BCE) and Mahavira (599–527 BCE). Rahul Jain (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have made some minor changes that should hopefully take care of the inconsistencies.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Mahavira's date is to be taken as (599–527 BCE). Some scholars have taken date as (c. 549–477 BCE) in keeping with the redating of Buddha's date (since they were contemporaries).--Indian Chronicles (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is better now, though still a lot of improvements can be done. Rahul Jain (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't perfect, but needs continues effort for improvements. Thanks to both of you!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   17:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Vedic tradition or Vedic Hinduism?
This edit by User:Rockin It Loud removed the following essential source and quote: "... to call this period Vedic Hinduism is a contradiction in terms since Vedic religion is very different from what we generally call Hindu religion - at least as much as Old Hebrew religion is from medieval and modern Christian religion. However, Vedic religion is treatable as a predecessor of Hinduism.(source:Jamison and Witzel)"

It was replaced by the following sentence, and a lot of references: "While most believe the tradition was Hindu, a few believe it is a religion distinct from Hinduism."

The remark "while most believe the tradition was Hindu" is WP:OR; the sentence "a few believe" is misleading, and contradicted by the removed quote. I've therefor reinserted that quote.

The same alterations were made to Vedic period diff1, Historical Vedic religion diff2 and Religion in India diff.

I also question the way those source sare being used: Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   07:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * P. 386 Transcultural Concepts in Nursing Care By Margaret M. Andrews, Joyceen S. Boyle - can't check this one by Google Books, but I wonder how much "Nursing Care" has got to do with The Vedic tardition. Which source suses this book?
 * P. 484 Merriam-Webster's Encyclopaedia of World Religions By Wendy Doniger, M. Webster, Merriam-Webster, Inc - Iacchus, I Am MOvement, Iasion, Iblis - I don't see anything on this page on "Vedic".
 * P. 285 Communication for Development in the Third World By Srinivas R. Melkote, H. Leslie Steeves - This page mentions Gandhi, but where's "Vedic"
 * P. xvi The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hinduism By Linda Johnsen - can't check this one by Google Books
 * P. 219 Faith, Religion & Theology By Brennan Hill, Paul F. Knitter, William Madges - "Of all the so-called "world religions" Hinduism is the oldest and most loosely organised, and, therefor, the most difficult to describe. Many scholars hold that Hinduism is really a multicolored collection of diverse religious tarditions, all of them tracing their origins to the Indis Valley in Northern India, way back around the second millennium BCE, and all of them still forming a scattered an diverse religious family on the subcontinent of India" (p.219-220) - "origins", not "the Vedic traditon was Hindusim"
 * P. 72 Multicultural Clients By Sybil M. Lassiter - can't check this one by Google Books
 * P. 15 Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation By Ian Stevenson (first edition 1966, reprint 1980) - 1966 is not exactly state-of-the-art scholarship. The page says "Hinduism is the oldest surviving religion of the world since its origins can be traced back to the fourth millennium BCE. Its doctrines and practices do not differ much today from what they were thousands of years ago". So, that's one source suggesting an inbroken continuation. Compare this with King (1999, p.182): "Despite all of these problems, one might argue that there are a number of reasons why one should retain the term "Hinduism". [...] Thirdly, one might wish to retain the term, as Lipner does, with the qualification that its radical polythetic nature be ubderstood. Such an approach would need to be thoroughly non-essentailist in approach and draw particular attention to the to the ruptures and discontinuities, the criss-crossing patterns and 'family-resemblances' which are usually subsumed by unreflective and essentialist usage of the term." also notice this remark by King (1999, p.176): "Richard King notes: "Consequently, it remains an anachronism to project the notion of "Hinduism" as it is commonly understood into pre-colonial history."
 * P. 6 Hinduism By Sue Penney - can't check this one by Google Books
 * P. 22 The Best Guide to Eastern Philosophy and Religion By Diane Morgan - can't check this one by Google Books
 * P. 212 Alternative Religions By Stephen Hunt - can't check this one by Google Books
 * P. 35 Common Spirit Common Ground By Michael Strange - "Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world" and "The sriptures of Hinduism are called Vedic literature". The source does not say "The Vedic tradition was Hinduism". Also, the statement "The sriptures of Hinduism are called Vedic literature" is gross generalisation. See Tantra and Agamas, and the influence of the brahman caste on the creation of the notion of Hinduism as a single, unified world religion (King 1999).
 * P. 72 Canadian and World Politics By John Ruypers, Ruypers, Austin, Carter, Murphy - can't check this one by Google Books


 * It seems pretty clear that these edits are in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:INTEGRITY, WP:RS/AC, and they were rightly reverted. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hindu history or Indian history?
I understand the wish to present Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism as separate from Hinduism (I also prefer to do so for Buddhism), yet, they are not totally separate from Hinduism or India. Separate histories can be found for each of those religions; the fun of this article is that it also shows simultaneous developments. For that reason, I reverted User:Rahuljain2307's re-ordening, and added other periodisations, to make clear(er) that Indian History is (fascinating) rich and complex. Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The periodisation that is presented here seems specifically for Hinduism and the rest of the section seems to have been built on top of it. Jainism and Buddhism is covered under "ascetic reform" and Sikkhism under "Islamic rule and sects of Hinduism". Would it be difficult to present simultaneous development without making it seem that the other three religion are a sect of Hinduism? What is the scope of the article? Should Indian religion cover only the history of the four religion or provide a summary of them? Rahul Jain (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not my intention to present a history of Indian religions as a history of Hinduism; on the contrary. I've already had some discussions with editors who prefer that kind of view. The information I've found comes indeed from books about Hinduism; nevertheless, those schemes provide all the space to insert information on Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I made some changes to the headers eg "Classical Hinduism" is now "Classical Period" Jujhar.pannu (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Face-smile.svg - though it might even be better to use the Suemme-periodofication. Seems to be more neutral. Also, "Classical period" as Michaels uses it refers it to a "Golden Age" of Hinduism, while "Classical" as Suemme uses it refers to the period in which Jainism and Buddhism originated. But that's not the main argument; Flood's and Suemme's seems to be more widely used.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   03:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Can we use Flood's or Muesse's periodisation to base the history? They seem much more cleaner. Rahul Jain (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Done!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What should be the scope of this article? Rahul Jain (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Too much, too much, already... All because of this term "Dharmic religions"...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   17:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverting of edits made by Rockin It Loud at 21 july 2013
Here we go again... Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit 1: Edit summary: ""Hinduism" was already in use by Hindus after the Arab invasion as the followers used the term Hindu Dharma to describe their religion." This info is sourced. It does not say when the term "Hindu" began to be first applied; it says that 19th century thinkers were influenced by these thinkers.
 * Second edit: after the change the sentence suggests that some auhtors think that the Shramana movement gave rise to Jainism and Buddhism. So other authors don't think so?
 * Third edit: Edit summary: "Dravidian ethnicities are irrelevant in this context". I think you're well aware that the Dravidian culture pre-dates the Vedic, and that the influence of the Vedic religion and language is a central element in the history of India, as reflected in Indo-Aryanization or Sanskritization.
 * Fourth edit: inaccurate use of sources; WP:OR:
 * "other sources, including Hindus recognize Vedism as a part of Hinduism":
 * Bhattacharyya p.6: "The Vedas contain the fundamental truths about Hindu Dharma" - that's not the same as the sentence it's supposed to source
 * Agarwal: "The present Hindu Dharma is the modern version of the ancient Vedic Dharma" - that's also not the same as the sentence it's supposed to source
 * Sundararajan: can't check that one
 * "Hindu priests and monks [...] particular Hindu sect.": this is about Vīrabhadra Gosāñi from a sectarian website. To make general statements about Hinduism based on this source is WP:OR
 * "Some Vaishnavas [...] worshiping Vishnu.": idem.
 * "Some modern Hindu scholars use the "Vedic religion" synonymously with "Hinduism." - not in source, at least not at page 18.
 * "Radakrishnan [...] authority": not in source, and dubious. Roy's view on the Vedas as authoritative is unclear (Ranbachan 1994 "The Limits of Scripture" p.16); Vivekenanda gave his own interpretation.


 * I have been watching from afar and an becoming increasingly concerned with the amount of misrepresentation etc. Much more of this and I'll be thinking of asking for a topic ban from all pages relating to religion. I support JJ's reverts. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Indian religions → Dharmic religions – More correct Meclee (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ - There has been previous concencus for the deletion of "Dharmic" pages and categories: Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   03:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 2
 * Articles_for_deletion/Dharmic_religion
 * Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board/Archive 3
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 10
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 30

I am astonished that so many thought the term was "made up" for Wikipedia. It's been in use a long time. I just got 4,840,000 hits on Google for "examples of Dharmic religions", including even Yahoo answers. Meclee (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I got only five...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by 76.65.128.222 - South Asian religions ? (As "Indian" is used frequently to refer to Native Americans) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're kidding? Where do you think the name "Indians" for native Americans comes from? Columbus went west to find a western route to India, thought he'd arrived there, and called the people he met "Indians".  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What's your point? The Native American religions are frequently called "Indian religions" -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If you don't use quotes, Google hits can be huge, sure.  "Dharmic religions" alone in quotes gets a mere 48k hits on Google.  On Google Scholar, it's 86 hits.  The biggest complaint is that the dharmic term apparently has sectarian overtones - it's promoted by a specific group to promote themselves, basically.  Anyway, proposer hasn't really put forward a solid case for using the term as being accurate or common other than google hits, which isn't very much. SnowFire (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article is about the native religions of India. Dharma is only one of the things that they have in common and the article is about not about religions based on it.  Imc (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's a modern term, used by a specific group of Indians. Buddhists don't use it...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This last statement is incorrect. Buddhists do use the term "dharmic"; some examples:  1 2 3 4.  Th second is written by Bikkhu Bhodi,  It's hard to think of a more consummate communicator of Buddhism.
 * Nobody questions whether Buddhists can use the term "dharmic." The question is whether the best title for religions that started on the Indian subcontinent is Indian religions, or dharmic religions.  The "somebody used the term somewhere" metric would be an argument for hundreds of potential titles of this article. SnowFire (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rollback
I've rolled back Jujhar.pannu's edits of 14 septmeber 2013 for the following reasons: Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   11:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Undue weight to the siddhas in the lead;
 * WP:OR on "self-conformation"
 * Break-up of the flow of the article, by highlighting the similarities at the start of the article. This is typical for a contemporary Hindu-understanding of Indisan religions, which is not necessarily shared by the other Indian religions. It laso leaves the article without a proper introduction on the subject.
 * I disagree with all those subjective points. There is much more information in my edit and I revised it a bit I hope your fine with that but the Siddhas need to be mentioned feel free to cut a sentence but the Siddhas are always almost considered a region on their own from any of the Indian perspectives and their contributions to Indian philosophy is too tremendous to be weighted out of the lead.


 * Primarily also I fail to understand what you have a problem with the 'Self-confomation' section. It is clear and object and also non neutral and non glorifying. Those people did actually preach self-conformation and it is actually a big theme in all of the 5 major Indian religions, right?


 * If you want to make it easier for everyone I suggest you please not revert and instead just remove the things you feel are objecting the Wiki rules rather than personal opinions. Kindly, Jujhar.pannu (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply by JJ:
 * The lead summarises the article; adding the siddhas to the lead is WP:UNDUE. First add a paragraph on them to the article;
 * The "Self-conformation" (sic; what is is?) is based on WP:OR;
 * See WP:BRD; it's up to you to do some proper editing, conforming to Wiki-policy.
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   08:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2014
There is a spelling error. Please Ctrl+f 'ont' and change it to 'on'. Thanks.

Jdiv08 (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

✅ Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Dharmic religions
The term "dharmic religions" has been extensively discussed at Wikipedia, and is not accepted as WP:COMMONNAME. Had the editor who inserted this term read this talk page, he should have noticed. But to repeat the arguments:


 * WP:COMMONNAME - Count of usage:
 * Google Scholar gives 78 (seventy-eight) hits for "Dharmic religions", and 7.430 for "Indian religions".
 * Google Books gives 73 hits for "Dharmic religions", and 93.000 hits for "Indian religions".
 * When we exclude "Wikipedia, "Dharmic religions" gives 66, and "Indian religions" gives 236.000 - an amazing growth of numbers, which raises questions on this search-engine, but nevertheless, it's a ratio of 1:1208, or 1:3576.
 * Bing: Inidian Religions with 41,100,000 and Dharmic Religions with 121,000. Basically 340 to 1 in favor of Indian Religions.


 * WP:COMMONNAMES - Previous concensus:
 * "When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced."

There has been previous concencus for the deletion of "Dharmic" pages and categories:
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 2
 * Articles_for_deletion/Dharmic_religion
 * Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board/Archive 3
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 10
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 30

The issue has also been extensiveley discussed at Talk:Indian religions, previously "Dharmic religions":
 * Talk:Indian religions/Archive 4
 * Talk:Indian religions/Archive 3
 * Talk:Indian religions/Archive 3
 * Talk:Indian religions/Archive 3
 * Talk:Indian religions/Archive 3
 * Talk:Indian religions/Archive 2
 * Talk:Indian religions/Archive 1
 * Talk:Indian religions/Archive 1

The term is used by a small minority, most notably Malhotra and Frawley. They are being mentioned in the article, but they are definititely not WP:RS. To mention this term in the lead is WP:UNDUE. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   20:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Dharmic religions again (moved from above)
Why is this page entitled "Indian religions" rather than the more correct "Dharmic religions"? After all, there are also Muslims and Christians (and probably Pagans) in India. I propose this page be moved. Regards, Meclee (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. Unfortunately Wikipedia has become a tool of propaganda where some people tirelessly try to impose their views on others especially with the help of administrators who always shamelessly favor those users who push their agenda. Previously this article was named Dharmic religions and the user "Joshua Jonathan" moved it to this new page. I just tried to add the text "also known as Dharmic religions" along with references but still he had problems! The stupid reasons he mentioned were, Indian religions return more search results as if number of returns from an Internet search signify validity through raw numbers and as if quantity, not quality, is true scholarship. Then he said that the term Indian religion is older. Maybe he doesn't even know that the word Indian is itself new and Dharmic religions are thousands of years old. According to him any person who uses the term Dharmic religion is political and those who use word Indian religions are secular! According to his biased views and logic, Malhotra, Frawley and Elst are not scholars, but political/religious activists and are not reliable. Anyone supporting his views are neutral and secular and all other are biased. I've no doubt that he'll definitely revert that change of "also known as Dharmic religions" once he comes to know about it. Anyone who tries to say anything, his simple reply is to paste the template of links which you'll find largely useless if you go through them. Please refer to the conversation I had with him on this topic here to read it yourself.
 * So I request all the Wikipedians to collectively oppose such kind of users who largely discourage people to contribute to Wikipedia as I myself have restrained to further add anything to Wikipedia fearing such kind of people on other pages too. It is bad for Wikipedia to have pack of biased groups users and admins who push each others agenda as it will make Wikipedia just a medium of propaganda than a neutral source of information and which will also discourages users like me to contribute to it. Hrihr (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

See the last paragraph above: I don't know which Wiki-plicy is being violated hete, but I'm sure that such "requests" are deeply against the spirit of Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   17:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. I won't bother to paste any further examples of policies that the user will "find largely useless", but if people persistently show contempt for the site's rules and ethos, they will eventually be shown the door. Hrir has posted another long note on their own talkpage, addressed to me, and I have replied there. (Since this thread, started on 31 July, is again being edited today, I have moved it down to where other editors have a chance of finding it.) Bishonen &#124; talk 19:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC).

Indian religions
Indian scholars should make a clear distinction between indian religions and aveastean religion. Remember these were theories made by white scholars who didn't look favorably on to indians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.157.227 (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Shiva & Indus Valley Civilisation
According to Pebble101,
 * "Early iconography of Seyyon and Sivan    and their association with native flora and fauna goes back to Indus Valley Civilization.     "

I don't know about Murugan/Seyyon, but the association of Shiva with the IVC sounds like the Pashupati seal, which is most likely not associated with Shiva. I think some corrections may be necessary here. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Dravidian linguistic influence
The insertion of the following text at this particular place is misleading:
 * " Dravidian linguistic influence on early Vedic religion is evident, many of these features are already present in the oldest known Indo-Aryan language, the language of the Rigveda (c. 1500 BCE), which also includes over a dozen words borrowed from Dravidian. "

It is misleading, beacuse the next sentence says:
 * "This represents an early religious and cultural fusion"

This proces took centuries; the presence of a couple of Dravidian words in the Rig Veda does not mean that htere was "an early religious and cultural fusion," as is suggested now. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   19:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Daing of the Agamas
And the third problem with Pebble101's edits:
 * "[The Agamas have been dated] as pre-vedic oral compositions. "

Is that so? So, this is also problematic...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Agamas article does not give a further clue, except that it needs some cleaning-up.
 * Nagalingam's "The Religion of the Agamas" can't even be found at Google Books; "Siddhanta Publications" may be another clue that this is not a WP:RS.
 * Ah, Siddha.com. Hmmm, sounds like I'll love this source, since it gives an alternative to the dominant Veda-voice: "It may seem hard to believe but Hinduism as it is known and practised today has almost nothing to do with the vedas. Rather, Hinduism is entirely based on the Agamas. Not only that, the Agamas prevailed in India before the rise of vedic rites. The vedas came later." Nevertheless, it does not sound like WP:RS.
 * Some Google search: an earliest dating for the composition may be ca. 400 CE

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Indian religions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130515213735/http://www.ccrtindia.gov.in:80/literaryarts.htm to http://ccrtindia.gov.in/literaryarts.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311225548/http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=27962 to http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=27962
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070514045222/http://www.censusindia.gov.in/ to http://www.censusindia.gov.in/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Rename proposal
I propose that we rename the article back to its original and more suitable name Dharmic Religion. The term Indian religions is old and mainly used in the past but the term Dharmic religion is used more often recently and many scholars are of the view that the term Dharmic Religion does actually reflect the true meaning of the term as all these religions have Dharma at its core, especially in sharp contrast to Abrahimic Religions where those religions have a common root to Abraham. To provide proof of this fact, I searched both Dharmic Religion and Inidian Religions on Google Scholar to view the usage of the term in the scientific community and I found that the difference between the use of these two terms is marginal if you only consider papers etc. of recent years but the difference is substantial when we search it generally without any date range, which proves that the term Indian Religions was used mainly in the past and in recent years, scholars have moved to the newer term e.g. the number of queries returned are 18900 and 15300 for Indian Religions and Dharmic religions respectively, if we search it only for years since 2013 while the numbers are 395000 and 18600 for Indian religions and Dharmic religions respectively, if we search it without any date range. The numbers make the whole thing crystal clear and leaves no room for doubts. In fact, scholars started using a newer term Dharmism which according to them provides even better meaning to the actual entity. I also noticed that only few people are keen on keeping the newer term and most notably one user is rather adamant to keep the title which is no longer relevant title like if the said user is the owner of Wikipedia. There have been voting in the past too and many people were keen to keep the name and provided sound logic backed by substantial facts but still the change was made when clearly there was no consensus for the change and more people were in support of keeping the name. In fact the links and policies mentioned by you do provide a case for reverting it to its previous title. So I propose that we revert to the original title which describes the topic better and if anyone has any issues then we could re-conduct the poll.Hrihr (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You've got a peculiair understanding of numbers, and an odd entry into Google Scholar. According to your numbers, the term "Indian religions" is more often used than "Dharmic religions." And your numbers are incorrect. This is what I find:
 * "Indian religions": 9,880 (all time), 1,650 (since 2013)
 * "Dharmic religions": 167 (all time), 80 (since 2013)
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   12:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You'll have to use citation marks when doing a Google-search: "Dharmic religions".  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with the name change. This just looks like another usual lame attempt to shove "Indian" into every Wikipedia article by ultra-Indian nationalists who seem to have a hard time deciphering the difference between the Republic of India and the historic use of India. For example, "Indian subcontinent" is commonly used by Indian wiki contributors, even though the region is now referred to as South Asia. Never heard of the term "Indian religions" before. Dharmic would indeed be more suitable since there was no "India" when these religions were founded anyway. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm an Indian nationalist! But seriously: WP:COMMONNAME.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indian religions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060904034700/http://www.harappa.com/arrow/stone_celt_indus_signs.html to http://www.harappa.com/arrow/stone_celt_indus_signs.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080423014415/http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/Ibn_Battuta/Battuta%27s_Trip_Seven.html to http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/Ibn_Battuta/Battuta%27s_Trip_Seven.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Dharmic religions and Zoroastrianism
The Council of Dharmic Faiths, UK includes Zoroastrianism. Shouldn't we include Zoroastrianism too? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not mean anything or change facts. Council of Dharmic Faiths, UK is not a reliable source. Tomorrow they may even add Islam.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Council of Dharmic Faiths isn't a source, it is as its name suggests a council of different faiths. That it may include Islam is a hypothesis, and thus irrelevant.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made some reference to Zoroastriansm. The Zoroastrian concept of Daena is somewhat analogous to dharma. The Avesta and Rigveda have many lexical similarities, The Lament of the Cow (Gaush-Urva), in the Avesta- https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/aveol/10 is almost exactly the same as the incident in the Purana and Ramayana when Bhudevi takes the form of a cow to complain to Vishnu--Failosopher (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian religions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203001609/http://www.mahavidya.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Nippard-Andrea-The-Alvars-Yes.pdf to http://www.mahavidya.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Nippard-Andrea-The-Alvars-Yes.pdf
 * Added tag to http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache%3A-4pb9oO2u_YJ%3Awww.aiccindia.org%2Fnewsite%2F0804061910%2Fresources%2Fpdf%2FGujarat%2520Freedom%2520of%2520Religion%2520Act%2520-%2520text%2520only.pdf+Gujarat+Freedom+of+religions+bill&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Flagged as overly detailed (September 2017)
On a quick scan, only the section concerning pre-vedic religions seems overly bulky for this article. One possible remedy would be to spin off the pre-vedic history into its own page. But that is just a gut reaction after a 60-second scan. Otherwise, I'm not surprised that this is a long page, and I wouldn't be overly worried about this, myself. &mdash; MaxEnt 04:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sentence flagged as weasel words (August 2017)
The philosophical portions of the Vedas were summarized[weasel words] in upanishads, ...

I don't see the weasel. Is 'philosophical' too vague (but for a text like this, how could it be otherwise, without being too pedantic?) Is the passive voice the problem? (Do we really have all the names of the summarizers?) If another editor finds this equally confusing, I would just delete the flag and wait for a weasel that better explains itself. &mdash; MaxEnt 04:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Mislabeled graph
The top graph switches the labels for Hinduism and Buddhism. SacraConversazione (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

his article is about the religions that originated in the Indian subcontinent. For religious demographics of the Republic of India, see Religion in India. For the book, see The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism.

This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. Please help by spinning off or relocating any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia's inclusion policy. (September 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Indian religions as a percentage of world population

Hinduism (15%) Buddhism (7.1%) Sikhism (0.35%) Jainism (0.06%) Other (77.49%) Indian religions, sometimes also termed as Dharmic religions, are the religions that originated in the Indian subcontinent; namely Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism.[web 1][note 1] These religions are also all classified as Eastern religions. Although Indian religions are connected through the history of India, they constitute a wide range of religious communities, and are not confined to the Indian subcontinent.[web 1]

Evidence attesting to prehistoric religion in the Indian subcontinent derives from scattered Mesolithic rock paintings. The Harappan people of the Indus Valley Civilisation, which lasted from 3300 to 1300 BCE (mature period 2600–1900 BCE), had an early urbanized culture which predates the Vedic religion.[1][better source needed]

The documented history of Indian religions begins with the historical Vedic religion, the religious practices of the early Indo-Iranians, which were collected and later redacted into the Vedas. The period of the composition, redaction and commentary of these texts is known as the Vedic period, which lasted from roughly 1750 to 500 BCE.[2] The philosophical portions of the Vedas were summarized[weasel words] in Upanishads, which are commonly referred to as Vedānta, variously interpreted to mean either the "last chapters, parts of the Veda" or "the object, the highest purpose of the Veda".[3] The early Upanishads all predate the Common Era, five[note 2] of the eleven principal Upanishads were composed in all likelihood before 6th century BCE,[4][5] and contain the earliest mentions of Yoga and Moksha.[6]

The Reform or Shramanic Period between 800 and 200 BCE marks a "turning point between the Vedic Hinduism and Puranic Hinduism".[7] The Shramana movement, an ancient Indian religious movement parallel to but separate from Vedic tradition, often defied many of the Vedic and Upanishadic concepts of soul (Atman) and the ultimate reality (Brahman). In 6th century BCE, the Shramnic movement matured into Jainism[8] and Buddhism[9] and was responsible for the schism of Indian religions into two main philosophical branches of astika, which venerates Veda (e.g., six orthodox schools of Hinduism) and nastika (e.g., Buddhism, Jainism, Charvaka, etc.). However, both branches shared the related concepts of Yoga, saṃsāra (the cycle of birth and death) and moksha (liberation from that cycle).[note 3][note 4][12]

The Puranic Period (200 BCE – 500 CE) and Early Medieval period (500–1100 CE) gave rise to new configurations of Hinduism, especially bhakti and Shaivism, Shaktism, Vaishnavism, Smarta and much smaller groups like the conservative Shrauta.

The early Islamic period (1100–1500 CE) also gave rise to new movements. Sikhism was founded in the 15th century on the teachings of Guru Nanak and the nine successive Sikh Gurus in Northern India.[web 2] The vast majority of its adherents originate in the Punjab region.

With the colonial dominance of the British a reinterpretation and synthesis of Hinduism arose, which aided the Indian independence movement.

Major religious groups as a percentage of world population

Contents 1	History 1.1	Periodisation 1.2	Prevedic religions (before c. 1750 BCE) 1.2.1	Prehistory 1.2.2	Indus Valley civilisation 1.2.3	Dravidian culture 1.3	Vedic period (1750–800 BCE) 1.3.1	Early Vedic period – early Vedic compositions (c. 1750–1200 BCE) 1.3.2	Middle Vedic period (c. 1200–850 BCE) 1.3.3	Late Vedic period (from 850 BCE) 1.4	Sanskritization 1.5	Shramanic period (c. 800–200 BCE) 1.5.1	Late Vedic period – Brahmanas and Upanishads – Vedanta (850–500 BCE) 1.5.2	Rise of Shramanic tradition (7th to 5th centuries BCE) 1.5.2.1	Jainism 1.5.2.2	Buddhism 1.5.3	Spread of Jainism and Buddhism (500–200 BCE) 1.6	Epic and Early Puranic Period (200 BCE – 500 CE) 1.6.1	Smriti 1.6.2	Vedanta – Brahma sutras (200 BCE) 1.6.3	Indian philosophy 1.6.4	Hindu literature 1.6.5	Jainism and Buddhism 1.6.6	Tantra 1.7	Medieval and Late Puranic Period (500–1500 CE) 1.7.1	Late-Classical Period (c. 650–1100 CE) 1.7.1.1	Vedanta 1.7.1.2	Buddhism 1.7.1.3	Bhakti 1.7.2	Early Islamic rule (c. 1100–1500 CE) 1.7.2.1	Bhakti movement 1.7.2.2	Lingayatism 1.7.2.3	Unifying Hinduism 1.7.2.4	Sikhism (15th century) 1.8	Modern period (1500–present) 1.8.1	Early modern period 1.8.2	Modern India (after 1800) 1.8.2.1	Hinduism 1.8.2.2	Jainism 1.8.2.3	Buddhism 2	Similarities and differences 2.1	Similarities 2.1.1	Soteriology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.207.213.51 (talk • contribs)


 * Whose article? What is this? El_C 08:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Article name
The title or scope of this article needs fixing. Multiple editors have raised this in the archives, but discussion has not been wide enough.

I can’t see any other articles across our encyclopedia which group together a bunch of related religions under the title of the country in which they originated. That’s because “Chinese religions” would obviously include Buddhism and “European religions” would obviously include Christianity, despite both originating outside. Whereas this article excludes Islam, and even sects of Islam which were founded in India (e.g. Barelvi, Deobandi, Dawoodi Bohra, Chishti Order).

This subject must not be polluted by nationalism.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020
Pipe the term "Shramanic Period" in fourth para of lede to Śramaṇa. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Escape
I've already cleared myself. No proper reason for your revert. I've just change the language, earlier which was toning very harsh. I've told you earlier. Please don't revert, if you have no proper reason. What kind of reason, reverted, beacuse edit summary was wrong!! Don't see edit summaries, see edit. If the edit is wrong, then change, why looking for edit summaries. No distortion of fact or else, as you are saying, because I've just dropped the harsh language and used more polite language to state the ."same" factJaMongKut (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

there is wrong information.
Who ever is running this page, (I cannot edit for some reason) there is wrong information, specifically where it states that Rama is a holy figure to Sikhs. As a Sikh who has been reading the poems of Sikh gurus for about 20 years now, i will state that while Sikhs acknowledge Rama is a god for Hindus, Sikhs do not have any particular reverence for him, please update this. Faithm56892927 (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Cite error
There is an undefined refname "JDB" in the lede, as part of the Indian religions by number of followers (2020 survey) infobox. It was introduced by this edit, but never defined. The information is already well referenced, so this can be removed. The following should be removed from the article: ''  Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Dharmic not Indian.
Change head name. Hayashihouyi (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No. The Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * South Asia (orthographic projection) without national boundaries.svg

Change title from Indian religions to Dharmic religions
The most recent religion of the Dharmic religions is Sikhism and that was founded 500 years ago but India as a country was founded 200 years ago by the British and they were separate states before then so change the title name to Dharmic religions as none of them are “Indian religions”. KnownFactsChecker (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We use the most common name in English, which is by far "Indian religions". Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As with "German", "Italian" etc, the concept and adjective long predates the formation of a national state. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The article name was discussed pretty thoroughly at this 2007 AFD where it was established that the term "Dharmic religion" has no academic currency. If usage has changed since then, that will need to be established through a proper literature survey and not based on first principles. Abecedare (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I have had opportunity to discuss this outside Wikipedia at times and I saw that mainly 2 camps are opposed to the title "Indian religions"; 1) fans of Rajiv Malhotra, 2) anti-Indian or pseudohistory promoters wanting to claim that "No India existed before 1947 so how these older religions are Indian?". OP is clearly the latter and is being disruptive on another article too. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)