Talk:Religion in India

Buddhism And Hinduism
the oldest religion of India is Buddhism and Hinduism came about 1200 years after Buddhism. Rajendraumale673 (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please provide sources for your suggested changes. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ok Rajendraumale673 (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * One of the main pieces of evidence that is often cited in support of the claim that Buddhism is the oldest religion in India is the Indus Valley Civilization. The Indus Valley Civilization was a Bronze Age civilization that flourished in the northwestern part of India from around 3300 to 1300 BCE. There is evidence to suggest that the Indus Valley people may have practiced a form of Buddhism, or at least a religion that was very similar to Buddhism. For example, some Indus Valley seals have been found that depict symbols that are similar to Buddhist symbols, such as the Bodhi tree and the wheel of Dharma. Rajendraumale673 (talk) 06:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * you need more proofs? Rajendraumale673 (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * the Indus Valley Civilization and Buddhism, such as the use of the swastika symbol. Rajendraumale673 (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The earliest known Buddhist texts, such as the Pali Canon, predate the earliest known Hindu texts by several centuries. Rajendraumale673 (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is archaeological evidence of Buddhist settlements in India dating back to the 6th century BCE, while there is no archaeological evidence of Hindu settlements in India dating back that far. Rajendraumale673 (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Buddhism started at ca. 500 BCE; Hinduism is a synthesis of Brahmanic ideology, sramanic tenets, and local religions; this synthesis developed between 500-300 BCE and 500 CE. So, yes, Buddhism is older, but not in the way you imagine. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  07:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * You can check this video https://youtube.com/watch?v=Cm_xqKLzrng Rajendraumale673 (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

identified with the Hindu god Shiva Is not Real
identified with the Hindu god Shiva Is not Real The Pashupati seal is buddha i have proof

real image :- https://indiahosty.in/real_image.jpg fake image :- https://indiahosty.in/fake_image.jpg pls update it i will request you Rajendraumale673 (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No. It's nonsense. Please start reading WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  08:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ok thank you Rajendraumale673 (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Sourced content removal - Sufi's and the spread of Islam in India
has removed sourced content and I request you to help add it back.-Haani40 (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Page number was not added and looking through the reference given it doesn't state what was given by you. Aziyyat (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Haani40 added (in bold) diff


 * Yet, what the source says is
 * "The theory" refers to the idea that oppressed castes converted to Islam to escape oppression; the sufi's are a subset of this theory, but not what the author's rejection is refering to. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  07:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * it is just one page which says,
 * Haani40 (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Haani40 (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Haani40 (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * you've certainly got a point here, worth exploring and incorporating, but you presented it incorrect. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  07:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But the text said sufis aided with spreading islam it didn't claim it was due to the caste system that these conversions took place which this reference says that wasn't the case. Aziyyat (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This theory doesn't state anything about sufis not converting people but about the caste system being the main cause of the conversion. Aziyyat (talk) 07:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks for reading all that. Now, can you propose a better sentence? -Haani40 (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Its not relevant to what was given as the text said sufis greatly aided the spread of islam while the reference you have given states it wasn't due to the caste system which wasn't mentioned at all. Aziyyat (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The gist of this is  Lower down, it says that there is no evidence for it. -Haani40 (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But the text just stated that they were greatly aided by the sufis it did not claim the conversions was due to caste based discriminations Aziyyat (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So, can we add, "There is no evidence that oppressed castes converted to Islam, greatly aided by the sufis. "?-Haani40 (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Caste was not mentioned at all in the paragraph why mention it at all here? Aziyyat (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So it can be, "There is no evidence that conversion to Islam was greatly aided by the sufis."-Haani40 (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The reference you gave claimed that it wasn't due to the caste system while in the original paragraph it states sufis aided with the spread of islam it makes no sense to add that in the text or add anything about caste which was not mentioned at all in the paragraph. Aziyyat (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ￼ So skip that. Please see my last edit. -Haani40 (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your last edit raises the same point's I already responded to. Aziyyat (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * has removed this sourced content again. A warning may be issued.-Haani40 (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You need to gain a consensus your edit is being disputed and you have stopped answering the replies I have left. Aziyyat (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , removed some text with this edit and you reverted it. Now, it is you who needs to explain why what he removed should be added back or why what I added was removed by you.-Haani40 (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I explained before the reference you used doesn't say islam was not greatly aided by sufis your reference says it wasn't based on the caste system that lead to people converting to islam. Aziyyat (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * With this edit you removed sourced content which was condensed from the source.-Haani40 (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But the reference used doesn't say sufis didn't play a part in spreading islam so why add that they didn't? Aziyyat (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , removed the text, ".......greatly aided by the mystic Sufi tradition." I let that remain and added, "However, there is no evidence for the same." with a source. You are wasting our time by reverting our edits repeatedly.-Haani40 (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But the reference you gave doesn't state that the sufis didn't either you can't add things without a reference. Aziyyat (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The source I cited does say that and feels the same.-Haani40 (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Joshua hasn't stated the same and the referance you gave doesn't state sufis didn't help spread islam. Aziyyat (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This feels like a Monty Python scetch... The social liberation theory says Indians converted to Islam to gain freedom; the Wiki-text says nothing about that theory. Maybe you're right that Sufi's didn't have a role as large as thought, but in that case additional should be available. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  09:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I could find this online but is it a reliable source we can cite?-Haani40 (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No its a blog site and even in that website it doesn't claim sufis didnt spread islam you need to back this claim up. Aziyyat (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The reference I used first does say that there is no evidence that Sufis spread Islam in India. There are numerous sources for the atrocities and forced conversions in the Indian subcontinent but I guess we can't put that in one sentence.-Haani40 (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The new referance you gave from the blog doesn't state that anyway it doesn't say islams growth wasn't aided by sufis while the old referance you gave doesn't state that anywhere either. Aziyyat (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * has said that, "...that Sufi's didn't have a role as large as thought". I am tired of repeatedly saying the same thing.-Haani40 (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thats not what he said he has called you out on it as being disruptive. Aziyyat (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I wrote

Either you're incompetent, or you intentionally try to mislead your fellow editors. In both you're WP:DISRUPTIVE. Take that as a warning. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  10:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have seen Eaton cited for these kind of claims before, but it should really be used as a summary for the "four conventional theories", each of which is indadequate (in Eaton's words). That doesn't mean they were "false". All four of them did play some role, especially the caste system. Eaton's critique of it has to do with his topic, Bengal frontier, where a completely different factor was at play, viz., that those populations didn't have much Hinduism to start with. On the other hand, when you look at central parts of India, where Muslim proportions range between 10-20 percent of the populations, you would see all four factors at play. By the way, I don't see why removed the "aided by Sufi mystics" phrase. It is not at all controversial. I will add a better source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe you are right. I will leave it to you to do the needful. By the way, the source I used first, this does mention all 4 "theories".-Haani40 (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I want to change, to, .-Haani40 (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * However, someone may object about the 4th theory because it also says, -Haani40 (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need or point the reference was about the bengal region as @Kautilya3 pointed out and that all three may have played a role in spreading it into bengal. Aziyyat (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike. —  Kaalakaa  <sup style="color: #003366;">(talk)  19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This was about bengal not of south asia as a whole. Aziyyat (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike. —  Kaalakaa  <sup style="color: #003366;">(talk)  19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * please read up both the references cited - it is not limited to Bengal.-Haani40 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The blog one is not crediable enough for wiki standards while the first one does mention bengal. Aziyyat (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike. —  Kaalakaa  <sup style="color: #003366;">(talk)  19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the source says, So it it is not limited to Bengal. However, I would prefer  to comment about that.-Haani40 (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The article about Persecution of Hindus has references about how Islamisation happened in India.-Haani40 (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The theories, as stated by Eaton, are crudely described because he is basically wanting to shoot them down, and I don't see them fit for encyclopedia. If any of those theories are worth stating, we would need to find sources that treat them sympathetically rather than being set up to be shot down. Take the caste issue for example. Avari states that conversion was an attractive option for lower-caste Hindus and there is no reason to doubt that. "Religion by Social Liberation theory" is a crude description for it, People may not have been after "liberation", but some kind of improvement in their social position. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Iranian religions in lead
The lead currently reads, regarding Zoroastrianism and the Bahá'í Faith:
 * these religions are otherwise largely exclusive to their native Persia where they originated from.

I'm not sure that this phrase is really justified, particularly the word "exclusive". I can sort of see why this could be said of Zoroastrianism due to historical and demographic factors, but it doesn't seem at all justified for the Bahá'í Faith. All the same, both List of countries by Zoroastrian population and Baháʼí Faith by country show a fairly even spread across the globe outside of India. Thoughts? dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 06:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)