Talk:Religion in India/Archive 1

Arrangements
Isn't it good to arrange religions according to the alphabetical order. This is not an article deals with Chronology or time line of one particular group's history and culture. It was dealing with many diverse systems independent to each other. So as usual it is good to arrange alphabetically. - Paul 18:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ravidasi not included
While looking up more on the topic in wikipedia I came across, Ravidasi. Should this be included on the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kedar Borhade (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Proposal for structural reorganisation
Here is a proposal for structural reorganisation of the article. The article may be organised under the following sections:
 * History
 * Major religions
 * Pilgrimages
 * Religious holidays
 * Religious thinkers
 * Problems

At present, the article just describes the major religions in India. However, the scope of the article is far greater. A summarisation of the present article will fit in the section "Major religions" of the proposed structure. Please comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good Idea. Describing the religions should not be the actual purpose of this article. Instead how & in what forms people follow religions in India, their problems, their social issues etc should be the focus.

Also the following topics should be included: Also demographics section should be expanded to include statistics of various sects, if possible. --Shahab 18:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Religion & the media.
 * Religion & vote bank politics.
 * Secular traditions & religious (in)tolerance.

Automated Peer Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Shahab 18:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * is considered
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 13 additive terms, a bit too much.
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Percentages
The percentages in this article don't agree with each other. See these examples (found in this version): Another example: Shouldn't these percentages be uniform throughout the article? Happy editing, [ sd ] 11:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * From the lead: Christianity by 2.4%
 * From the table: Christians, 24,080,016, 2.34%
 * From the pie graph: Christianity — 2.3%
 * From the text: Christianity is the third largest religion of India making up 2–2.9% of the population
 * From the lead: Islam is practiced by 13.4% of all Indians
 * From the table: Muslims, 144,005,446, 14%
 * From the pie graph: Islam — 13.1%
 * From the text: 160 million Muslims in India (the second largest population in the world, after Indonesia), which is 16.4% of the population
 * Yes, and IMO it should follow 2001 census data. The pie chart should be made according to that data. Latest estimations may be mentioned, but census data should be adhered to.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The demographics table has been updated per the census results (source — one needs to download the zipped spreadsheet to see the data). The data elsewhere in the article has also been made uniform. (please check if I have omitted something leading to discrepancies). The pie chart (which did not corroborate with the data perfectly) has been removed. Someone please help to create a pie chart based on the demographics table. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Information needed to be added
This article needs to move away from being Religions in India to become Religion in India in the sense that it needs to focus more on religion from the Life in India angle. Cheers.--Shahab 06:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Notable places of worship (should include plgrimage sites).
 * Religious leaders.
 * Economic Social disparity (if exists) between religious communities.
 * Creation of Pakistan, Communal riots, Secular ethos of India.
 * Absolutely agree with Shahab. The title is Religion in India, not Religions in India! The section on pilgrimages would include notable places of worships; communal riots, socio-economic disparities may come under something in line of "problems". Creation of Pakistan would be covered in History. Please help make this article at least a GA (hopefully a FA!). It's nice to see many people visiting the article and editing. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Some more points that the article should address: Good to see this article get some (non-trollish) attention ! Abecedare 06:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How does the Indian constitution and civil/criminal law treat religion ?
 * How does Indian educational system treat religion ?
 * What are Indian populations attitude towards religion ? For this see for example, the following Pew Global Attitudes Project reports
 * Report 1 (Search for India on the page)
 * Report 2 (see page 49 and 73 of the PDF file; page 39 and 63 of report ... search does not work on document)


 * Please suggest some sections where these things can be added. While the treatment of religion by law can be put in a straight-forward way, am a bit hesitant about the education. What do you exactly want to state? That secular attitude is sometimes violated in education, with the government in power sometimes trying to introduce their point of views? News reports of such incidents should be available. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of even more basic information that may be obvious to Indians but not to wikipedia's larger audience. For example: I agree with DaGizza's comment below that we need to think about the sections needed in this article. I'll be happy to provide more input but have to rush off now ... will be back later ! Abecedare 13:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Law: I think we should start by mentioning that India's constitution declares it a secular country with no state-religion; grants right to practice any religion; has a uniform criminal code though the civil code (i.e. laws governing marriage, divorce etc) vary. Only once we have laid this background of the rule, can we sensibly talk about the controversies and exceptions (Shah Bano, Uniform Civil Code, religion in politics etc)
 * Education: Again we should first try to establish the background first, as to who sets the syllabus (non-religious organizations like NCERT etc ) and provide statistics, if available, about how many educational institutions are run by different sectarian organizations, and how many students get formal "religious" education (my guess is that this percentage would be minuscule). Only then, should we talk about how the system does not always work as it is ostensibly supposed to.
 * Hi! I went ahead and added a section "Constitution and law" in the very beginning. Please see. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice job, Dwaipayan! I'll try to look up more references for education and other sections of the article and add info. in the next day or two. Cheers. Abecedare 14:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Major religions"
What exactly is the purpose of this section. It is a mixture of history, geographic distribution and general info. I believe the structure of the article needs to be discussed before any changes are made to the content. We don't want the sections to overlap in what they say. Each section needs to flow with the one preceding it and the one following it. Personally, I believe we should remove this section and perhaps create a geographic distribution section. GizzaChat  &#169; 12:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Major religions" is supposedly a summary of Major religions in India. You are correct in pointing out the section has rather become a mixture of history, geographic distribution and general info. The primary goal was to give general information. It seems that general information (what are Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism etc) and geographic distribution should be covered here. Historical informations should not be in this section (that's dealt with/will be dealt with in "History"). Please comment.
 * However, I do not believe in one concern raised by you. The content of the article should also be enhanced besides deciding a stable structure. The article being this week's INCOTW has begun to attract some visits, and good edits. Both structure and content are important. For example, under "Pilgrimages", a thorough description of Buddhist pilgrimages were added. Hopefully pilgrimages of other religions will also be added soon. Then (or simultaneously) we can summarise the section, and create daughter articles as necessary. let the article enjoy whatever attention it is having, and the content increase; stabilisation of structure (which, I repeat, is equally important) can be achieved as the content is enhanced. Comments are welcome. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. We can rearrange the information after it is added. I said it because on the other religion related article I have worked on (mainly Hinduism), many editors look at each section independently and lose track of the article as a whole. This leads to the article to become 100kb+ and huge amounts of information are repeated two or three times unnecessarily throughout the page. I suppose since this article is not even 30kb yet, it would be alright to expand content and structure it accordingly later on. GizzaChat  &#169; 22:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

New section and subsection(s)
Hi all. Started a section named "Influence of religion on social life" (please suggest any better name if you think the name is not suitable). The first subsection of this section is "Daily activities"—highlighting the daily activities characteristic of different religions in India. Found out a good source for Hindu daily activities, and copied some stuffs from there. So, this subsection would need copyediting in order to avoid copyright violation (however, Library of Congress is a .gov site of US government, so copyright status is probably pretty flexible). Added some stuff of Islamic rituals which I was aware of. Please help adding stuffs on other religions.

Besides "Daily activities", this section includes "Pilgrimages" and "Religious festivals" (previously independent sections). One plan is to add information on life-cycle realted activities (birth, marriage, death rituals) of different religions. Hope this edits will give more "Life in India" angle to the article. Please comment and edit. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Right to divorce for Shia women
 Can't figure out where to put this or whether this belongs here at all. --Shahab 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummmm...probably it does not belong here, at least not in the present structure. It's too specific. May be somewhere in Islam in India?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Muharram and holi image
IMO, Muharram (or any other festival) does not merit so much space in the article as provided by this edit. This article should be summarised as far as possible. Only names of the festivals, and maximum one sentence on pan-Indian festivals (Diwali, Eid, Muharram, Christmas) would suffice. Please comment. The holi image is not taken in India. That does not preclude its inclusion, but it will be better if we can find out an image taken in India during a significant festival. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Only mentioned Muharram because it is unique in character as it is not celebratory in nature. Its procession has played its part in igniting unrest too sometimes. Also to an extent it is not a global feature. Summarisation is OK, but I feel that it is the Daily Activities section which should be shortened, if not removed. The info it gives is appplicable to same religion people throughout the world. For example even Muslims in US would observe the 5 daily prayers etc. What is unique about Muslims in India? A good idea would be to put any unique info on daily life activity as an intro in the Influence of religion on social life section. What do you think? Cheers.--Shahab 19:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the comments on "Daily activities", yes, anything unique should be there. I added those stuffs just because those were available with reference! If consensus is removal, no problems. However, I thought it would give that Life in India angle. After the addition, it read somewhat stale! Personally I know little about the rituals, and could not find out references either, so could not add much. Any idea about unique Indian rituals?
 * Regarding Muharram, my opinion is deletion of such long addition. I don't have any idea, but is Tazia relatively unique to India?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that it was only relatively unique (and practised maybe in Iran too), but this site says that it is restricted only to Indian Shiites. (Also the site raises an interesting point of it having been inspired by similar processions of Ganesh.) The Taziya should be kept, maybe in some other section, as it a ritual unique to India. Can't think of any other unique Indian rituals at present, but maybe can find out some Sufi ones. By the way can you take a look at the demographics. The data in the 2 tables don't match exactly. I don't know the source of the second table. Lifted it directly from Demographics of India. Cheers--Shahab 20:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Found a site about rituals :Hindu rituals,Muslim rituals. Also see Religion in India. Cheers.--Shahab 20:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Partially solved the problem of the second table of statistics. Still, some entries need references. Will see the links provided by you tomorrow. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh! The links uses the same data (and even the same language) as provided by the Library of Congress site (the reference that has been used so far in creating the "Daily activities" section). I have not gone through the links thoroughly though. But it seems there would be nothing new :( We'll have to try more.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Pilgrimages
To be pedantic, a pilgrimage is different from a Holy city. Many of the holy places mentioned are piligrimages as such. Some are but in many of them the "journey" isn't significant, just the place itself. So I think the name should be changed to holy cites or holy sites. We could therefore talk about both pilgrimages sites and general holy places. Does anybody have any objections? GizzaChat  &#169; 22:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the idea that the terms "pilgrimage sites" or "holy sites" would be more general. Not all holy sites are in cities, I suppose.  And perhaps not all holy sites attract pilgrims.  In some traditions the act of making the journey, and the way the journey is conducted is of greatest importance.  In these traditions the pilgrims do various types of penance on the way, preparing themselves spiritually for arrival.  I seem to recall some theological debate about this pertaining to the question of what happens to pilgrims who die on the way, never reaching the goal.  I cannot find the citation, but I think that the verdict was that their faithful effort was as good as reaching the goal. Don't put this into the article, of course, as I have no citation and may be mis-remembering the idea. Buddhipriya 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose what happens to a pilgrim dieing on the way differs on the religion. I know according to some traditions, death in Varanasi makes your soual attain Moksha just as Muslim dieing in Mecca makes them go to heaven. But even if we find citations, I think the information may be too specific for it to be added. Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 01:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Major Thinkers" section
The title is a little strange to me - it sounds almost like 'movers and shakers'. Maybe 'Religious reformers'? Does there even need to be a section about specific religious reformers? If so, then it seems like it should be in the History section. Also the word spiritualist (look it up) has a very different meaning than what must be intended here. &#2384; Priyanath talk 01:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Religious reformers or religious figures definitely sounds better. I also agree with your second statement that it tends to have similar information to the history section, because the major thinkers impacted on the religious history of India. "Religion and politics" is also a strange name. Maybe that should change to "religous conflict." We could then move the last paragraph of the history section into there as well. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 04:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As said by DaGizza Religious Figures is probably the best name. Not all of the people mentioned are reformers, for example the Sufi saints did not create new systems, the same is true for the Christian, Buddhist figures. Contemporary religious leaders should also be included in this section. Religious conflict won't probably be quite accurate because that section was aimed at describing the relationship between politics and religion as existing in India (vote bank, hindutva philosophy etc) and not only conflicts. Conflicts should be in differnt section titled Problems or something like that. The idea of the title was taken from Religion in the United Kingdom. Cheers.--Shahab 07:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think this section should contain a sentence or two about contemporary religious figures? Something along the lines, "Influential religious voices in contemporary India include the Shankaracharyas among Hindus, the Imam of Jama Masjid among Muslims and the Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso among Tibetan Buddhists ?" I realize that these persons (except possibly for the Dalai Lama) are not prominent enough to be mentioned in the respective religion's articles, but they may be relevant from the Life in India perspective (for example, the media typically interviews these persons to get the representative religious POV). Of course, we'll need some citations to back any claim. Abecedare 01:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Atheism
There has been a strong tradition of atheism in India. The dravidian movement is based on rationalism. We need to incorporate this in the article. sumal 14:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion map
Id be willing to make a map if someone can give me some reference material --Plane Mad 16:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for being here. I was planning to contact you :) Anyway, what do you plan to build? I mean how religions can be depicted? (I hardly have any idea on maps, so please excuse me if I sound foolish) --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I have got something. Please see this.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion in India and Carvark
Please, add something about Religion and Carvark. vkvora 18:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, but it will need skillful writing so that undue space is not given. Will try. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tried. Please see if it sounds ok.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I expanded it a bit and worked on the citation format. Ideally, books mentioned in footnotes should be listed in the References section, as they may come up multiple times. Then the authors can be cited just using author name and page number. I also fixed the date for the codification of philosphies, which was after 200 AD. :) Buddhipriya 01:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Used Template:Harvard reference for the book references.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Schools of thought
Shouldn't this article have data on various sects or schools of thought within the principle religions and their number of adherents. Another thing missing is a list of religious institutions. Also, can some experiencd wikipedian please make a todo list for coordinating efforts. That will help. Cheers.--Shahab 13:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Major school of thoughts within the religions and their number of adherents (if data is available) should first be added to the article Major religions in India. Then some of the significant sects (or school of thoughts) may be added in the "Major religions" sections in this article.
 * What do you exactly mean by religious institutions? Significant temples and mosques? Or missions like Ramakrishna Mission etc? IMO, if you mean the later, it should can be added here in this article.
 * Will try to make a to do box. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

By institutions I mean thought schools, like Sanatan Dharma etc in Hinduism (I really don't know the principal schools in Hinduism) and Deobandi, Barelvi etc in Islam. But I guess reliable data concerning them would be hard to obtain. The least we can do is just name them in the demographics section. Here is my proposal for the structure:

1. History


 * 1.1 Religious figures

2. Major religions

3. Demographics

4. Religion and the Indian state


 * 4.1 Legal position


 * 4.2 Interference by the state (Here we should have the Shah Bano

case, saffronisation allegations, Laws to check conversion etc.)

5. Influence on the people


 * 5.1 Daily activites


 * 5.2 Special occasions


 * 5.3 Rituals and pilgrimages

6. Problems


 * 6.1 Communal strife


 * 6.2 Vote bank politics

Please comment. Cheers.--Shahab 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Pretty neat. Comments— (1) "Special occasions" - what would this encompass besides festivals? (2) Problems may or may not need subsections. However, that can be considered later. (3) Interference by the state - Ummm...Ok! Unless someone suggest a better alternative name, we can go with it. (4) Personally I would like to either have "Religious figures" as a separate section or not having it at all. Because, "History" is very important, and rather not have an apparently unrelated subsection. If needed, "religious figures" in its present form (just mentions the names of the figures) can be deleted. Some sentences describing the significance and influence of major religious figures may be added to some other sections such as History itself, or, Influence on the people. IMO, "religious figures" is not a very important section. What do others think?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding "schools of thought" take care not to confuse Indian philosophy with Religion in India, as philosophical schools are only one part of much larger picture that also includes ritual practices, devotional trends, etc. I would avoid putting much detail about the philosophical schools here because it will be easier to maintain it if it is in the detail articles for Indian philosophy or Hindu philosophy, which have overlaps already. Buddhipriya 19:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Special Occassion can include festivals, marriage and other religious ceremonies. Maybe a line about the tragic outcomes which blind dogma sometimes leads to. I agree with your view religious figure names should be included into history section (with a link to the main article). Contemporary religious leader names can be put in the intro to Influence on the people. Let's see what others think. Cheers.--Shahab 19:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Aren't many "rituals" also daily (or weekly, yearly :-)) activities? I prefer the rituals be discussed in that sub-section. And an obvious point I would like to make is to not give undue weight to the last ten years in say, the communal strife section. Daily needs to be changed to a broader word, so weekly and months prayers/fasts can be added. Yearly events can go in special occasions. The only word I can think of at the moment is periodic, but there must be a better word. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 05:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

History
Currently it is weak on Jainism and Sikhism, both of which originated and have most of their followers in India. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 07:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

GAN review comments

 * First sentence - "Religion in India comprises beliefs and traditions that rank among the world's most ancient and varied." - can be rewritten to bring the message better. If nothing works, leave it as it currently is.
 * what does "is the most important minority religion" mean? Sounds like POV to me.
 * Suggestion: Use timelines to introduce various religions that exists in India. That would seem to have a better flow
 * "have long had a worldwide presence" - once again, POV material. Either be precise or give reference to this phrase
 * please put the "secular" declaration by constitutoin in context. If i am not too mistaken, the same was introduced through amendment in 1976. however the same is not evident with the statement here.
 * What happens in a few months/years from now when Sonia Gandhi, Manmohan Singh and Abdul Kalam retire from the picture? Do we stop having religious diversity. It is better to use a historic reference i.e., Muslims (Egs for Indian president/PM); Christian (Presidents/Prime Ministers); Sikh (Presidents & PMs) and other religion. Please avoid the use of Sonia as neither she nor her post as Chairperson, UPA has no constitutional powers. If anyone needs to be added, it is BR Ambedkar who coverted to Buddhism.
 * "Evidence of prehistoric religion in India is sparse." - Violates Show, don't tell policy. Remove it as the para allows the person to come to a conclusion rather than forcing him into one.
 * "After 200 CE, several schools of thought were formally codified in Indian philosophy, including Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Purva-Mimamsa and Vedanta.[9] " - doesn't this sentence skip time (200 CE material mentioned during 500BCE data) or the article's timelines needs to be modified to be kept around in that timeframe.
 * Copyedits required to the History section. (Eg: The para on Islam starts with a sentence on the decline of Buddhism. The same could have been the last sentence in the previous para)
 * "Sufism (a mystic tradition of Islam)." - the wikilink for sufism starts with "mystic tradition of islam". then why do we need the info in brackets. please remove them
 * Need to expand on this - "Although historical evidence suggests the presence of Christianity in India since the first century, it became popular following European colonisation and missionary efforts.". A single sentence is no just way of explaining 2% of Indian population
 * When discussing about the history of religions of India, why is this para turning up "Communalism has played a key role in shaping the religious history of modern India ..." If anywhere, it should be a subsection in "Sectarianism". It can be titled - "Communal partition"
 * Move the "See Also" in the Demographics section to the end of the section.
 * "Islam is a monotheistic religion centred around the belief in one ..." - make it into a seperate para
 * As of 2007, India was home to 147 " - change "was" to "is"
 * "..147 million Muslims, the world's third-largest Muslim population after Indonesia and Pakistan" - provide numbers for Indonesia and Pakistan
 * "Buddhists form majority populations in the Indian states of Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, and the Ladakh region of Jammu and Kashmir" make it into a seperate para
 * " Jainism is a nontheistic, dharmic religion and philosophy originating in Iron Age India." - make it the first sentence of the next para
 * "The preamble to the Constitution of India proclaimed India a "sovereign socialist secular democratic republic". - remove the term "secular" and pur the sentence in context (original constituion). The next sentence on secular/1976/const. amendment completes the overall picture
 * The law section needs to be expanded to include the various laws specific to religious practices and various struggles for reforms in these laws. The Hindu marraige act, Shah Bano Case, Muslim Personal Law.
 * The image of buddhist dancer in the section on RITUALS is not appropriate
 * The ceremonies section is pretty weak as it lacks depth of information. There is no coverage of weddings - differences in weddings across various parts of India; burial ceremonies - muslims bury their loved ones; Hindus cremate etc; the practice of SATI in earlier days and the current constitutional ban on the practice
 * Pilgrimage sites looks more like a list. It will be better to make it into a table with the following columns - Name of temple; main deity(s); Religion; Description of the Lord. Eg: Tirumala Venkateswara Temple; Lord Venkateswara (Believed to be a form of Lord Vishnu); Hinduism; Vishnu is worshipped as Venkateswara in Tirumala, Andhra Pradesh. The temple is situated on a hill and the regular darshan lasts 5 seconds. The temple is believed to be the most visited pilgrimage in India and second to Vatican City across the globe.
 * Festivals can also be timelined as per the occurance in the annual calendar (range can be given where possible. For eg: Diwali is Early Oct - Mid Nov)
 * Why is the article mum on the subject of "Religious conversions". The same needs to be covered here as well
 * The politics section needs clean-up as issues whose roots lie elsewhere is described here. For eg: Shah Bano case needs to be discussed in Law section; the 2002 Gujarat riots in the communal violence section; Ram Temple and Babri Masjid in communal violence. They all had political impact but the main identity of these issues is not communal but they were reflected in politics
 * "During an election campaign in Uttar Pradesh, the BJP released an inflammatory CD targeting Muslims.[54] This was condemned by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) as playing the worst kind of vote bank politics.[55] " - reeks of WP:Recentism. This sentence can be done away with.
 * Consolidating all "Need references"
 * Either here or somewhere in main article, i would need reference for both these phrases - "India is one of the most religiously diverse nations in the world; religion plays a central role in the lives of most Indians"
 * Though inter-religious marriages are generally taboo, Indians are generally tolerant of other religions and retain a secular outlook. Inter-community clashes have never found widespread support in the social mainstream, and it is generally perceived that its causes are political rather than ideological in nature.

In summary, the article has a great start and is a potential FA topic. However the coverage of the various topics in the article is very shallow and needs more data/content as well as copyedit. --Kalyan 11:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Though inter-religious marriages are generally taboo, I disagree. Most Indians don't mind now. I know many people (even in my neighborhood) who marry members outside their own faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.156.156 (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism bars beef consumption. It does not bar consumption of beef, Hindus are advised not to eat it but it isn't some compulsory norm. 220.227.156.156 11:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

British Empire
I wonder if someone could compose a section in the article that describes how the British colonists failed to properly Christianize India. What efforts were undertaken? Which efforts succeeded and which failed? What effect on the religious landscape of India did people like Mother Teresa have on the country's religions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.251.55 (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC) india is a morden state.IN MEANING ITS ALSO A COUNTRY

Atheists
I removed that sentence since the source cited is not "reliable"-Bharatveer (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added cn tag to monotheism in Christianity. The sentence should be suitably amended to reflect the fact that Not every body except themselves recognises it as monotheist.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been earlier discussed in Christianity talk page. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 06:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That it was discussed in that article will not solve the issue here, Please modify the sentence to reflect that issue or else re-add that tag.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have now modified the wikilink to christian view of theism.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, arbitration ruling currently prohibits User:Bharatveer to make more than one reverts per page per week. I see he has already reverted this page, so any further reverts will result in a block, according to the arbitration ruling. --Ragib (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ceremonies
Practices like Thugee and others have no relevance in Ceremonies section. Plus also historically inaccurate patronising statements regarding British rule.Please remove them .-Bharatveer (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for sounding daft, but I don't see why Sati and Thugee doesn't fit there. Can you please explain? Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 12:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not daft at all. Thugee was mostly a criminal practice though the practitioners (of all religions) did worship Kali. It would be a stretch to call it a practice of Hinduism (see the linked article) and is certainly not a ceremony. Sati, on the other hand, was a practice in some parts of North India and can be called a practice of Hinduism but I doubt if it would qualify as a ceremony. There have been instances of Sati in modern India but these are rare and the degree to which coercion was involved is not clear. Neither Sati nor Thugee fit in a description of Hindu ceremonies today and the British reference is, at best, gratuitous (see below).--RegentsPark (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A bigger question is the dubious nature of the sentence 'the introduction of British morals foreshadowed future social legislation that substantially reconfigured Indian religious practices'. British morals, substantially reconfigured, in the words of Bertie Wooster, "well, I say, what?" At best the part of the sentence dealing with the outlawing of Sati could be inserted in the politics section along with other oddities (from the opposite side) like "Many of the elements underlying India's casteism and communalism originated during the rule of the British Raj, particularly after the late 19th century; the authorities and others often politicised religion". --RegentsPark (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha, sounds like even if you can put an end to colonialism, the so called moral ascendency of the colonial masters never wither. Can’t we just state it as religious practices in India? Not to mention that is self denial. At least that is what I think. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 06:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mentioning that Sati was abolished by colonial rulers is fine with me. It just doesn't fit with a discussion on ceremonies or even practices of Hinduism today. Sati was confined to the North and was not a generally accepted practice in Hinduism and it is a bit odd to include it in that section. And I don't even disagree with a statement that indicates that it was reforms by the British colonial rulers that started a process of reformation in Hinduism with specific mention of Sati because that is historically correct. Perhaps that should go in the History section and be connected to the Reform movements of the Arya Samaj and Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the like (without stuff like British morals and the like). Thugee is a different matter. Mentioning Thugee as a practice is a bit like highlighting the worship of Coca Cola in Chamula as a practice of Christianity!--RegentsPark (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, my point was to move those to a section under religious practices in India. But on second thought we can call it Antiquated religious practices as well. One of the foremost points to remember in a wiki entry is that people who will be reading this are not looking for usual things found in every society. Yes, this practice was not too common (but not confined to one or two incidents either) but both unique as well as abolished practice. My point: we should be mentioning about both Sati and Thuggee, but not in its current form. Ciao <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 14:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This article badly needs a haircut
Just some stray thoughts. Such a wonderful topic "Religion in India", it could have brought out the richness of India's religious diversity. Instead we have reams of statistics and demographics, all kinds of dubious newspaper sources being referenced, an over-emphasis on religious ceremonies and gory details of Religion X genociding Religion Y. The subtle distinctions between "Religion in India" vis-a-vis, say, "Religions of India" is still to emerge from this article. Priyakanth (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect terminology and numbers
The below refering to Hinduism:

"(an umbrella term which includes in law every citizen who does not subscribe to Abrahamic religions and Buddhism[1]) as accounting for 80% of the population[2]. Tribals (comprising about 8% of the population) are excluded from this computation by law[3]. The second largest religion is Islam (13%)."

This does not appear to be very well worded and is misleading. Why is Buddhism excluded from the apparent law and not Sikhism and Jainism? Also it claims Tribals are 36% of the population, this is contrary to the 2001 census where they are around 8% of the population. Also quite clearly Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains and indiginous relgions like Sanmahi, Sarna, Donyipolo recorded as 'others' in the 2001 population census do not conform to the above description. Many tribals, infact described themselves/are described as adherants of Hinduism according to the 2001 census. Otherwise the statement that 80% of India is hindu cannot be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samk108 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Go ahead and fix the Abrahamic religion part. I wonder if there is something in the Indian constitution that groups Hindu, Sikh, Buddhists etc. For example, does the Hindu marriage act or the Hindu Joint Family definition thing apply to these other religions as well? That may be why the distinction crept into the paragraph.--Regents Park (count the magpies) 16:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe the Hindu Marrigae act groups all dharmic religions (Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism)under Hindu. Although this is explicit to marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samk108 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nehru signing Indian Constitution.jpg
The image Image:Nehru signing Indian Constitution.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Religious population numbers
Hello, i had a message to say that my updated figure for the number of hindus was reverted because of the source data being to another wiki article. I accept this, but can I suggest that some uniformity is used. For example there is religious population for hindus based on 2001 census data and then data for the muslim population based on an estmate for 2007. This is not consistant reporting, it should im ny view be for the same year across the board when talkign numbers. Only the census is the most reliable figure. if populations are to be extrapolated then it has to to be consistant across all religions. I beleive in the context of accurate data all numbers should be based on the 2001 census and this should be stated as such.--Samk108 (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead and implement this. Regards--Shahab (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the numbers according to the 2001 census. These numbers should only really be updated after the next census results. Unless of course the population is extrapolated according to the same percentages used in 2001. I have also changed the Buddhist numbers, for some reason somebody inflated the numbers to more than double (17 million) when there is no factual evidence to suggest this is remotely the case. The actual in 2001 was 0.8% or about 8 million. Thanks. --Samk108 (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

attack and Invitation.

 * Many Hindus and Jains who do not belive in Idol worships invited Muslims to attack and distroy the Hindu, Buddha and Jain Temples. Muhammad Gazanavi was invited to distroy Somnath Temple. Many encloypedias say that Jains were more interested to distroy Hindu and Jain Temples. Will any reader of this discussion give some fact on this subject?
 * vkvora 15:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have any proof for your claims??? Muhammad Gazanavi.et.al destroyed the Hindu temples just because they wanted to loot wealth from the temples.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsathya4 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

protected due to edit war
I have protected the article as a consequence of the edit war. Please resolve your disagreements in the talk page. --Ragib (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * NB MajorActor= Maleabroad -> banned user.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 03:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Then a sock of a banned user should aslo be banned. He is creating a havoc.--Anish (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I already did.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model! ) 01:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Vedic Religion (change internal link)
The third paragraph of the present text of this wikipedia refers to the vedic religion. This is a page which in turn refers to severalrelateed topics amongs them Historical Vedic religion. I would suggest making a direct link to this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.113.242.14 (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

New addition
This was recently added as the first paragraph:


 * Throughout the history of India, religion has been an important part of the country's culture. The vast majority of Indians associate themselves with a religion, and religious tolerance is reflected by the wide variety and numbers of different religions practiced in the nation.

While the quality of the writing is excellent, I have two concerns:
 * 1) It currently lacks any sources or references. While refs are not always required in an intro, that exception usually applies when the information is expanded (and sourced) in the article's body; this currently doesn't do that either.
 * 2) The last half of the sentence ...religious tolerance is reflected by the wide variety and numbers... seems to me a bit simplistic and POV. While religous tolerance is established in both law and custom, religously motivated violence is undeniably and unfortunately common. Perhaps if it is kept, that might be rephrased? In fact, it could even be phrased this way if refs are available:
 * Throughout the history of India, religion has been an important part of the country's culture. The vast majority of Indians associate themselves with a religion, and religious tolerance is established in both Law and custom.

Just a thought....Doc  Tropics  21:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely, and I like the revision. The original addition was simply a cursory attempt to add an actual introduction rather than jumping straight into the subject material. --Shruti14 talk • sign 04:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

India on Blacklist of States for religion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8198770.stm This is vital information as it states:A US congressional body has put India on a list of countries which have failed to protect its religious minorities adequately. This should be included asap 86.153.132.244 (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That should be on Religious violence in India or something. The Indian government also blocked them from entering, so that makes the dynamic more interesting.Pectoretalk 23:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pectore that the information is more appropriate to the Religious violence in India article since it is much more closely related to that specific topic than this one. Thanks for posting the information though, no question that it's interesting and probably merits inclusion somehwere. Doc  Tropics  01:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Terrible Link
This link is horribly biased! I don't think this is fit to be an external reference. "History of Religions in India". www.indohistory.com. http://www.indohistory.com/religions.html. Retrieved 2008-01-01.

JasonDomination (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency in pilgrimage section, char dham
The article mentions that "Badrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri, and Yamunotri compose the Char Dham (four abodes)" however, as the Char Dham article itself lists the real char dham are Badrinath, Rameshwaram, Dwarika and Puri. Please edit this.

Also the caption for the Akshardham image is inappropriate as the status of 'biggest hindu temple in the world' is disputed(as mentioned in the article on Akshardham). Also the link on Akshardham leads to the disambiguation page instead of the link to the temple. Please change the link to Akshardham (Delhi). I would request it be changed appropriately.Myaoon (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Akshardham (Delhi) article covers the dispute well. As the Guinness World Record is held by Akshardham, I think the caption would become clumsy if it became "Akshardham Guinness World Record holder as largest Hindu temple in the world."  Disambiguation done. Josh Parris 01:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hindu pilgrimage sites in India doesn't list Rameshwaram or Puri, conflicting with the information in Char Dham. Given the two articles and the list hold conflicting information, and the lack of citations I can refer to, I don't have the expertise to progress from here. Josh Parris 10:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Welcome to the ranks of autoconfirmed users. You reached four days earlier today and you have many more than the ten required edits. You could make these changes now yourself, but if you would accept advice from a fellow editor, it would be a good idea to find some references and reach a consensus for the change first. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

jane doe
my name is jane doe and i need 2 write a reasearch paper for school and i need all the help i can get —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.22.253 (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

undue weight?
The Baha'i faith in India has the largest population of Baha'is on earth according to most sources. http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_bahai.html I don't know where you get your undue weight ideas from. Bahá'í Faith in India has a long history as this page clearly demonstrates. In my opinion this was very much a neutral paragraph. If you will, you can off course remove 1 sentence to give equal validity. I will now undo your revert until further notice. Thanks for reviewing my considerationIwanttoeditthissh (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Needs mention of government bodies
Vinay84 (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this article needs a section/sub section where Religious bodies of the government like wakf /muzrai etc are mentioned. AFAIK, this is unique about India.
 * It also needs a section for Religion based media like Baba Ramdev

Sex ratio
Does for example Hindu sex ratio 931 mean 931 woman per 1 man? Or 931 man per 1 woman? There is something amiss, I would say. And no year either... -- Tomdo08 (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hinduism is Monotheistic?
The artcle claims that Hinduism is monotheistic, which is not entirely accurate. According to the wikipedia artcile on Hinduism, Hindu texts span the whole spectrum from atheism to agnosticism to polytheism and monotheism. Should we change this? 75.18.220.186 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Dharmic/SC/ST hinduism
An IP is repeatedly splitting the Hindu demographic data into "dharmic" SC and ST. This is not accurate. "Dharmic hindus" is not a recognised religion or a relgious grouping. The SC/ST enumeration is not according to religion, they include people from all religions. Splitting the Hindu demographic data is erroneous and is subtle POV pushing.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ravidassia
I might be reading it wrong, but the statement "Today their population stood at around 16.2% of India's total population" (which should be made either all present or all past) does not seem right. One, it is far too large, and with the other statistics in the page causes the population of India to be above 100%. Furthermore, such a high statistic for that religion, which I didn't know existed before today, seems absurd. More Ravidassia followers than Muslims, Sikhs, and Buddhists combined in India? It has no source as well. Thus it should either be removed or changed to be factually accurate (maybe that statistic is for some specific region, or some specific time period). Thunderstone99 (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Shia Population in India
It seems suspect that the links that are put to substantiate Shia population of 40 crore or 25% of Muslim population of India don't talk about their numbers at all but about Model Nikahnama and Divorce rights for Shia women. Most sources that i have searched talk about 10-15%.

Samastigan (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Added a few Punctuation Marks
I know that the spelling and grammar banner no longer remains for this article, but I thought some areas still needed a few punctuation marks. I added things such as commas to help fix this. I edited this page and found a few minor mistakes which I fixed. Please someone edit this page again, because there might be some mistakes that I missed. Thank you.--Shravanb24 (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistent use of BC and BCE
I see inconsistent use of BC and BCE for before christ and before christian era. I expect they are supposed to be the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.174.2.183 (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Original Research
See Talk:Indian religions. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   14:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Buddhist majorities - dubious
Hallo,

This article currently says:
 * Buddhists form majority populations in the Indian states of Arunachal Pradesh, and the Ladakh region of Jammu and Kashmir and a large minority (40%) in Sikkim.

The current Wikipedia articles about Arunachal Pradesh, Ladakh and Sikkim say that Buddhism is not the majority religion in any of them.

What is right? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The claim in this article was inaccurate, as can be verified through this 2001 Census page. Thanks for pointing out the error. Abecedare (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Teaching Comparative Religions in India Through Heritage
India is the home and birthplace of four major religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism," and also the home to Judaism and Christianity. All of these religions were passed down over time, not with the help of immigrants.  Most people see India as being strongly based upon Hinduism, however Hinduism cannot be characterized as a religion.  Millions of people in India have been taught through heritages, that Hinduism is a philosophy.  "Hindu" for many Persians and Arabs was not considered a religious word but as a geographical and cultural one, used to describe the land next to the Indus River. --Kennis716 (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

2011 census expectations
Citation is from 2011. Not that it can be disputed, but the author provides no statistics and firmly believes on the basic social issues, such as Infant mortality, Gender discrimination. Such problems were never categorized under religious affiliation. Shall we find another good citation for confirming the higher birth rate? Or maybe just attribute it as according to... Bladesmulti (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the Firstpost article is fine for the broad and reasonable claim being made in this wikipedia article, and serves as a useful secondary source since it summarizes a range of expert opinion (those of Ashish Bose, S.C. Gultai, and this EPW paper). Note that I have avoided citing the exact fertility, life-expectancy and child-mortality numbers because those seem undue in this article, and including them would require specifying the years the numbers correspond to, and differing opinions of whether the past trend is expected to continue etc. Some of those numbers, and that discussion, may however be relevant to articles such as Demographics of India, Female foeticide in India etc where we have the room to provide better context, and to cite a wider range of academic sources instead of summary piece that should suffice here (although again we have to keep in mind that just as demographic details are only a small part of Religion in India, population differences by religion are only one small aspect of Demographics of India). Pinging who may be interested in this discussion. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I had a doubt, that's why instead of reverting I thought of discussing. It sounds reasonable as Hindu population is about 8 times larger compared to Muslims in India. Nothing wrong with the citation. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism
Hinduism is nothing but Casteism, a covert mask for Racism;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325502/Map-shows-worlds-racist-countries-answers-surprise-you.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4thaugust1932 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)