Talk:History of Hinduism

Concerns regarding @StarkReport's rewrite

On September 20, 2023, @StarkReport rewrote almost the entire "Muslim rule" section [1]. In this rewrite of his, besides including his misrepresentation of a source (confirmed to be the case by other editors as well [2]), a number of sources from the previous version still seem to be used, one of which is this . The source says that historian Will Durant wrote:

The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period.

The statement in this WP article of ours before @StarkReport's rewrite seems to be more or less in line with that [3]:

Will Durant calls the Muslim conquest of India "probably the bloodiest story in history".

The source used here, however, is Will Durant's own book.
But in @StarkReport's version, he rewrote it as follows [4]:

Will Durant characterizes the Muslim conquest of India as a particularly tumultuous chapter in history. He suggests that it was marked by significant violence and upheaval, which he attributes in part to factors such as internal divisions, the influence of religions like Buddhism and Jainism.

This rewritten version by StarkReport, besides seeming to be not quite in line with the content of the source, also appears to be WP:CENSORSHIP. I also can't find in the source a passage that says anything similar to the text I've bolded above. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 14:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it was a bad rewrite. But I don't think Will Durant should be cited at all, which is badly out of date, essentially colonial era scholarship.It is really pop history and has no validity whatsoever. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, I agree.

As for my revision months ago, the section that was supposed to provide a broad overview of "Muslim rule" was written in an excessively critical way, leading to problematic NPOV issues that needed to be addressed. Consequently, I had to slightly expand it to include more comprehensive information, ensuring better WP:Balance. StarkReport (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding our policies. Where does it say in WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE that we should not write critically about the subject if the sources say so? Are you aware of WP:YESBIAS? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 16:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa, Kindly read

"An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

Also read

"A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether."

StarkReport (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Can't you tell the difference between critical and criticism? An example of a biased source is your obscure Pakistani POV sources talking about the Mughal Empire. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 18:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

No more biased than Will Durant. StarkReport (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

So the reason you misrepresented Durant's saying was because you think he is biased? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 18:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Will Durant matter aside, this behavior of @StarkReport misrepresenting the sources to push his POV seems chronic. This raises the question of whether his other contributions are actually in line with what the sources say, or again, simply his misrepresentation. Another editor also pointed out his misrepresentation of sources in another article previously [5]. I also filed an ANI report before [6], but unfortunately it was auto-archived before it received a response from the admins. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 15:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa, In actuality your edits have been questioned by others regarding neutrality and WP:WEIGHT issues including @Iskandar323,[7] and here[8] and by @DeCausa,[9] and @Chxeese,[ 1 ], as well as by @Neutralhappy on ANI board [10]

You persistently cherry-pick sources with the same bias to forcefully insert critique where it is not WP:Relevant, disregarding all others, and then WP:BLUDGEON the process to achieve it. StarkReport (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

And what does that resolved issue have to do with your case? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa, "I also filed an ANI report before [10], but unfortunately it was auto-archived before it received a response from the admins" And what does that resolved issue have to do with your case? StarkReport (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That was not resolved but automatically archived because it had been inactive for some time. It can still be reopened and clearly has something to do with this case of your chronically misrepresenting sources, which has been pointed out not only by me but also by a number of other editors. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Simple, your accusations against me claims misrepresenting sources, while my objection against you pertains to your complete lack of neutrality and cherry-picking sources which has been pointed out not only by me but also by a number of other editors.

Now for the last time stop the WP:ICANTHEARYOU and refrain from time wastage. StarkReport (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Then why don't you file a report already? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 18:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see the problem. StarkReport, you cannot remove well-soured content and replace it with something else, without discussing it on the talk page and obtaining WP:CONSENSUS. If it is especially "negative", but other positive material exists, you can add the latter, and then start a discussion about how much WP:WEIGHT to give each. Otherwise, you just engaging in WP:CENSORSHIP, which Wikipedia does not support. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I also see that you have added content regarding the Mughal Empire, which wasn't here earlier. There is a separate section on the Mughal Empire down the line. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, Allow me to clarify: before I edited the section, there were mentions of Mughal rulers such as Akbar and Aurangzeb. I simply expanded it slightly for comprehensiveness while not making it too verbose. "There is a separate section on the Mughal Empire down the line", hmm. In retrospect, I believe we could relocate the paragraph there. StarkReport (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

References

• Folks, this talk page is not meant for discussing editor conduct. You can do so on one of your talk pages, and, if issues persist, you can take it to administrator notice boards. This talk page is only meant for discussing the content of the main page.

Taking this discussion forward, I suggest that the "Muslim Rule" subsection be retitled as "Muslim Sultantes" (which would include Delhi Sultanate as well as the Deccan Sultanates). Their treatment of Hindus as well as Hinduism would need to be covered. We cannot go overboard in discussing slavery unless we have evidence that Hindus were randomly rounded up and enslaved (which I doubt). Taking captives during a war or conflict is a different phenomenon. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Kautilya3, If we were to expand the article further to include information about those aforementioned Sultanates, I fear we might unintentionally stray too far into WP:COATRACK territory. I believe that including a link to the Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent article, along with appropriate Wikilinks to the Sultanates, effectively fulfills the intended purpose.

I am considering combining the section on Muslim rule with the Mughal period section. Alternatively, I suggest that the paragraph "In the 16th century, the Mughal Empire was established-------" could be moved to its pertinent Mughal section. Furthermore, I recommend omitting the third paragraph, which scrutinizes an era that seems more pertinent to articles such as Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent as the paragraph feels a bit WP:Undue here.

@Joshua Jonathan, @Eucalyptusmint, @Asteramellus, what do you think of this proposal, or do you think it is best to leave the article as it is?" StarkReport (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Muslim conquests are entirely irrelevant to this article, and the main article link to that page should be removed. This page is on the History of Hinduism, and how Hinduism was affected by the Muslim rule is of considerable interest. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The Muslim conquests brought Islam to India, didn't they? So it seems to me that this is relevant. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but "conquests" are military history not religious history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, that there is a distinction between information about military history and religious history. But there also seems to be some overlap since military history can shape religious history, which is what the information under the Muslim rule section seems to be about (how Hinduism was affected by the Muslim rule). My knowledge of either type of history is not as vast as other editors here, but I did take a look at the Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent page and the information on that page is primarily about military history and there isn't much mention about the impact of Muslim conquests on religion in India. For that reason, I disagree with StarkReport and think that information about Muslim Sultantes and Hinduism, if included, would actually be undue on that page, not this. As far as the second point about combining the info or leaving it as it is, I will take a closer look and get back to give my thoughts. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources required

Unsourced

The statement "The Mughals were generally known for their religious tolerance" is still unsourced. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Joshua Jonathan I thought we already included the source: Kanwal, Fariha. "Mughal Rulers' (1526-1707) Religious Tolerance Policy and its Impacts on the Society of Sub-Continent". ANNALS OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND PERSPECTIVE. Retrieved February 25, 2024.. And when I discussed it suitability with Eucalyptusmint, you stated that "An "authors' perspective based on research they have gathered" is called a tertiary source, which in itself is perfectly fine.". Please let me know if I made a mistake.

I have added the additional sources of historian Rajeev Kinra that states in the beginning:

"The concept of ṣulḥ-i kull is well known as a core feature of the mughal empire’s state ideology, one that made it, comparatively speaking, arguably the most tolerant and inclusive state in the entire early modern world."

as well as of historian Richard M. Eaton who states that

"But for the most part, the Mughals were scrupulously secular in outlook. They focused on stability, loyalty, and revenue, not on religious change among their subjects."

as well as of the historian Mubarak Ali. Can you check them so we can remove the tag. I may have done WP:OVERCITE. StarkReport (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for adding those sources. I have the impression, though, that Fariha Kanwal is not a suitable source. The author is unknown, the journal is recently established, and the article itself may be apologetic:

there is a lot of religious intolerance in the world which causes many chaos and conflicts, especially the image of Islam became negative due to some terrorist activities. But Islam is the greatest revolution in the world which gives rights to everyone to live their life according to their beliefs. In the sub-continent, after the war of independence of 1857, the Hindus and Sikhs were creating great chaos for the Muslims. They made Muslim’s life worst even the Muslims could not live according to their teaching of Islam. So, religious tolerance is compulsory for everyone to live in peace even they are Muslims or not.

Sources by established authors would be preferable, I think, but I'll scroll through the article, and take a look at the other sources. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you Joshua Jonathan that I don't think the Fariha Kanwal article is a reliable source. Which is why I had asked for clarification to your initial comment above with the following: "Regarding the comment about tertiary source, I can agree to that. But I'm confused, are you referring to the book or the journal article? Because I was referring to the journal article and thought that journal articles are generally not considered tertiary sources since they include interpretations/analysis of info (which this article does). I suppose regardless of what kind of source it is, I was more so questioning the reliability of the source- the journal/article."

Had a chance to look at the source again and this journal doesn't have an impact factor nor does it seem to be indexed in various journal databases. Moreover, the Kanwal journal article was used to replace this original [11] source which was questioned by another editor. Also took a re-look and I see that the publisher Doubleday is part of Penguin Random House, which meets WP:RS criteria. And regarding the other sources that were added, Eaton and Kinra, they are point of view claims that would require appropriate attribution. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Eucalyptusmint and @Joshua Jonathan: I agree with both of you regarding Fariha Kanwal's unreliability. Also, this Eaton source, which comes from the Scroll.in website, looks very dubious to me. If you read the web article, it says:

This interview was conducted through a series of email exchanges.

Firstly, it was clearly not peer-reviewed. Secondly, there's no telling whether this obscure website actually interviewed him or truthfully reported what he said. Also, if we really need to include the history of Mughal rule in this article, I think we should steer away from using Pakistani and Indian sources on it, especially those that have elements of apologia or promotion, as well as sources that appear to be religiously driven, because our WP:SOURCE policy requires us to use independent sources, i.e:

An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication).

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 22:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Eucalyptusmint, Earlier, Joshua also suggested another source for consideration, [12] It states that:

"The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance and incorporated many elements of Hindi architecture into their buildings and structure."

StarkReport (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, did you really suggest that particular source? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 03:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. Could both of you please specify sources you're referring to? Author, title, not just a bare link. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Ahh @Joshua Jonathan, Earlier you stated to Kaakakaa in the "Concerns related to the sourcing-------" section that: @Kaalakaa: aren't there sources which directly state that " The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance"? See Google Books." And that led to the source of Khalid Bashir's History of the Architecture of Kashmir.

Nonetheless, there is one more source: Giordan, Giuseppe (July 15, 2019). "Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion. Volume 10 (2019)". Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh. p. 278. Retrieved March 10, 2024.

that states:

"Finally, Muslim rulers invaded northern India in the 13th Century, thus, bringing Islamic rule to India and a series of violent conflicts between Muslims and Hindus. Mughals who succeeded the Delhi Sultans were better known for their religious tolerance, although their rule was also not completely free from controversies."

StarkReport (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

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

References

Source-check

The Mughals were generally known for their religious tolerance,

References

• Kinra, Rajeev (April 1, 2020). "Revisiting the History and Historiography of Mughal Pluralism". ReOrient. Retrieved March 2, 2024. - 16 citations, that's good;
• Ali, Mubarak (September 2012). "MUGHALS AND THE RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS". Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society. Retrieved March 2, 2024. - one citation, but the journal seems to be an established journal (60 years);
• Ashraf, Ajaz (20 November 2015). "'We will never know the number of temples desecrated through India's history': Richard Eaton". Scroll.in. Archived from the original on 26 May 2022. Retrieved 2022-05-17. - already commented on above;
• Kanwal, Fariha (2020). "Mughal Rulers' (1526-1707) Religious Tolerance Policy and its Impacts on the Society of Sub-Continent". ANNALS OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND PERSPECTIVE. Retrieved February 25, 2024. - already commented on above, one citation; not impressive;
• Akhtar, Awais (2018). "Religious Policy of Emperor Shahjahan (1627-1658AD)" (PDF). Journal of Indian Studies Vol. 4, No. 2,. Journal of Indian Studies.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) - three citations, recent journal.

Personally I expect that the info is correct, but still, a solid historiographic study would be better:

• John F. Richards (1993), The Mughal Empire, Deel 1,Volume 5, Cambridge Ubiversity Press, p.34

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for checking and putting this together Joshua Jonathan and agree with you that the John Richards source or something similar would be better to use. In which case it looks like on p.34 it's directly referencing a specific time frame of the rule, as it says the "...religious climate of sixteenth century India was more open and tolerant of change." Eucalyptusmint (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is when the author is talking about Akbar, as you can see on the previous pages (i.e., p. 32–33). And further on p. 35, the author specifically says:

Akbar moved away from his former devotion to Islam and toward a self-conceived eclectic form of worship focused on light and the sun. In so doing he became more tolerant of non-Muslim practices and less inclined to insist on rigorous enforcement of discriminatory practices aimed at non-Muslims.

Also, on p. 38–39, Richards writes how Akbar abolished the intolerant policies of his predecessors.

Akbar's conflicts on this question with the Muslim religious establishment began early. In 1563 the young emperor abolished the practice of collecting a heavy tax from Hindu pilgrims when they gathered on festival occasions. In contravention of the Sharia, the emperor also granted non-Muslims permission to repair aging temples or to build new structures. In another controversial measure orders were issued that former Hindus who had been forcibly converted to Islam should be allowed to apostasize and escape the death penalty of the Sharia. He prohibited enslavement of war captives and the common practice of involuntary conversion of non-Muslim slaves.

The most sweeping policy change, which had a direct impact on nearly all Hindus, occurred in 1579. Akbar abolished the graduated property tax levied exclusively on non-Muslims, the jiziya. This was an annual tax imposed on the property of individual non-Muslims, who were legally classified as dhimmis or client groups tolerated and protected by Muslim rulers. State officers, usually ulema, collected sums based upon the wealth or possessions of the individual rate-payer. Only the indigent were exempted from payment. The regressive scale placed a real burden on the poorest taxpayers who paid an annual sum equivalent to a month's wages for an unskilled urban laborer.

The symbolic value of this measure was very great. The jiziya defined the status and public obligations of non-Muslims protected by the Islamic community. Payment entitled dhimmis to a peaceful existence under state protection and exempted them from military service. Terminating this tax implied that the unequal compact between Muslims and non-Muslims was also abolished — hence Akbar's action was bitterly resented by orthodox Muslims.

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 05:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

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

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

Periodisation

@PadFoot2008: your mass-removal of sourced info diff, edit-summary

The entire section periodisation talks about the periodisation of Indian history not about history of Hinduism. Additionally, none of the sources mention prehistoric practices as "Hinduism" but rather what influenced Hinduism and led to the mixing.

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

They do talk about the history of Hinduism, but there's no reason for teh existence of a section called "periodisation" that mostly talks about the History of India, by talking about James Mill's History of British India and the "Hindu, Muslim and British" system of periodisation of Indian history not Hindu history. The entire article is divided into sections corresponding to periods and thus there's no reason for existence of such a section. PadFoot (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, the "pre-Hindu period" doesn't need its own section as it doesn't deal with Hinduism rather with local religions that significantly influenced Hinduism and were certainly not "Hinduism" themselves. PadFoot (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The section is an explanation for the periodisation used in the article, and gives an overview of the differences in those periodisations. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

But it talks not about Hinduism but about history of India and only a minority of it deals with actual "periodisation of Hinduism". Though, the small portion too talks about the pre-Hindu, prehistoric religions of South Asia which scholars don't call "Hinduism" but rather as influencing Hinduism in the post-Vedic period. The period makes the suggestion that Hinduism existed in the pre-Aryan, prehistoric times through those prehistoric beliefs, which is just blatant nonsense and in reality, these beliefs just influenced Hinduism much later on. PadFoot (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense, I would greatly appreciate your opinion here as well. PadFoot (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I've only taken a surface-level survey of sources and the corresponding changes at present: I will comment once I take a closer look. Remsense诉 18:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @PadFoot2008.History of India, Pre-Hindu history, prehistoric religion history etc. should not be given such weight. No scholar has called these prehistoric practices ancient Hinduism; rather, many have termed the Vedic period as ancient Hinduism, in line with the Vedas being the first scriptures of Hinduism (whatever the actual dating may be) TipTap21 (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC) (Striking comments by block-evading sock. Abecedare (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC))

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

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

Abecedare (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• < This is what the beginning half of the section talks about:

James Mill (1773–1836), in his The History of British India (1817), distinguished three phases in the history of India, namely Hindu, Muslim and British civilisations. This periodisation has been criticised, for the misconceptions it has given rise to. Another periodisation is the division into "ancient, classical, medieval and modern periods", although this periodization has also received criticism.

Romila Thapar notes that the division of Hindu-Muslim-British periods of Indian history gives too much weight to "ruling dynasties and foreign invasions", neglecting the social-economic history which often showed a strong continuity. The division in Ancient-Medieval-Modern overlooks the fact that the Muslim-conquests took place between the eighth and the fourteenth century, while the south was never completely conquered.

This doesn't talk about the history of Hinduism at all as of now. This needs to be fixed first and centred around Hinduism not about the history of India or history of Indic religions. The claims that Hinduism itself existed in Mesolithic period or had roots in the prehistory. Only Doniger says that it might have origins in the prehistory, while others only assert that it might have been influenced by these and not that they were Hinduism themselves. Unless the section is improved, they can't be included. Besides, there is consensus against the inclusion of Prehistory as Hinduism with 2 people (incl. me and @TipTap21) opposing it and earlier in the first discussion of this talk page, an editor opposed it as well. Besides @Abecedare said that the section periodisation should not be included in full. I also request his opinion on Joshua's claim that Hinduism has existed since the prehistoric Mesolithic era, 10,000 years ago, which is a ludicrous claim. Only Doniger claims such a thing while others say that those prehistoric religions simply influenced (Vedic) Hinduism later on, leading to modern day Hinduism. PadFoot (talk)

Glad you understand that "Hinduism" didn't exist from times immemorial, as also explained in the preceding section. Regarding "per now," I'd already shortened the section, per Abecedare's helpfull comments. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, wait then. I thought you were trying to claim that Hinduism has existed since the Mesolithic prehistoric era. So you are not trying to claim such a thing? Was this just a misunderstanding? PadFoot (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess so; I'd never claim that "Hinduism" existed since mesolithic times. It's a synthesis of Brahmanical ideology and thousands of local tradition. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, but you would agree that this Brahmanical religion is the backbone of modern day Hinduism, so in a way it was "the" predecessor of modern Hinduism and thus can be called ancient Hinduism (which it is called by many scholars) but incorporated many local beliefs and evolved many new beliefs, resulting in it being quite different from its successor, modern Hinduism. PadFoot (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Joshuas view is sramana traditions(buddhism,jainism etc) are central to modern day hinduism instead of vedas and upanishads as mentioned by him in tallk page of vedic religion. Dont know what to say. I say Lets all accept buddha and be done with it TipTap21 (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC) (Striking comments by block-evading sock. Abecedare (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC))

@TipTap21 Hinduism related pages may have the views you have mentioned, but that doesn't mean it is particular editor's view. If you have sources with other view(s), you can include those with citation. Also, just want to note that sometimes I find that wiki has details with citations, but when you read the citation, the meaning is different - so it does help to read the citation in case you don't agree with what's written. Reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Explanation will help. Asteramellus (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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

"Vedas and upanishads are not central to hinduism" but " buddhism and other thousands of local traditions definitely are"- by joshua jonathan;"synthesis with vedic gods but vedas arent important"- joshua.."brhamins doing their brhmanical duties for non vedic gods forming modern hinduism but brahmanism is not central"- joshua.. Oh wikipedia..lol TipTap21 (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC) (Striking comments by block-evading sock. Abecedare (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC))

Well, it is widely viewed that Vedas and Upanishads are central to Hinduism, and are the oldest Hindu texts, and that the Vedic religion evolved into Hinduism, adoption and integrating other local traditions. PadFoot (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Michaels 2004, p.18: "most Indians today pay lip service to the Veda and have no regard for the contents of the text." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, and what does that do? Anyways, here are a few citations that affirm that Vedas are central to Hinduism:

• Shukla-Bhatt, Neelima, Hinduism: The Basics, As seen earlier, the Vedic corpus (ca 1500 BCE the turn of the Common Era) forms the foundational textual resource for Hinduism.
• Coxall, Eric (2016), The Kosmic Symphony -Volume 1, The Vedas are central to Hinduism; they are divine and record eternal spiritual laws.

PadFoot (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Note that Shukla-Bhatt states that she deliberately didn't include an 'origin of Hinduism'. Nevertheless, she gives a prominent place to the Vedic religion, as does Flood. So, in that respect it did indeed provide the "backbone," or "master narrative" (Flood) for Hinduism. Nevertheless, what mames Hinduism Hinduism is this synthesis of Brahmanical ideology and local traditikns, so calling the Vedic religion "ancient Hinduism" misses this essential point, as also explained by Witzel and Michaels. Regarding the central status of the Vedas, Michaels acknowledges this central status status accorded to the Vedas, but also notes that in reality their i fluence or importance is not that big. Coxall is self-published. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

PS: Flood refers to James Mill's periodisation. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, as a correction, "modern Hinduism" is a synthesis of earlier traditions. The distinction is important, as the religion whose common name now is "Hinduism" (which is an exonym btw) is more properly called "Hinduism proper" or "modern Hinduism", as the religion of ancient Vedic tribes is called "ancient Hinduism" or "Vedic Hinduism", which was considerably different from modern Hinduism, but the former does form the backbone or trunk of the latter, but incorporated a lot of local traditions as well. PadFoot (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The religion of the Vedic people is called the Vedic religion. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, No, it is not simply called just that. The religion of the Vedic people (in addition to the terms I mentioned above, which I've also provided sources for) is called the "historical Vedic religion" or "ancient Vedic religion", as "Vedic religion" refers to both modern Hinduism as well as the ancient religion, which is also the reason why the Wikipedia page about the religion of Vedic tribes is at "Historical Vedic religion". PadFoot (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Term "Hinduism"

I see discussion about Hinduism term and use of the term "Hindu synthesis". Creating separate topic to avoid polluting existing discussion on "Periodisation" - Just wanted thoughts on the term Buddhism, which was also coined around same time (seems 19th century?). It seems often, the clarity for the term Hinduism is not clearly stated on some wiki pages compared to other Indian religions. E.g if we consider the term "Buddhism", which was probably coined by scholars around 19th century, we sort of still read/write/understand Buddhism to be based on teachings of Buddha since 6th or 5th BCE. From my very limited knowledge of Buddhism, it seems before/after 19th century, there were/are many Buddhist traditions and schools, each with their own developments, thoughts, texts, and practices - maybe quite different than original teachings of Buddha, but they are still called Buddhism. For the term "Hinduism" (also coined in 19th century), the clarity for that ancient vedic "backbone" (being discussed above in the "Periodisation" topic) is not there when we read many of these pages on wiki, and it does confuse the readers like me. (Just want to add that I have not read many sources for this, and don't consider myself an expert to contribute to this discussion, but this question came to my mind). Asteramellus (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Asteramellus::

• The Hinduism-page has a rather long section on the etymology of the term "Hinduism," and on the problems of definition;
• Some scholars do indeed assert that "Buddhism" contains so many deeply different traditions, that one could also speak of "Buddhisms";
• I think that the Vedic backbone isn't that clear indeed; "Hinduism" is an extremely complex of interwoven traditions; as Flood stated, Brahmanism provided the "master narrative," but what makes "Hinduism" "Hinduism," is that this "master narrative," propagated by Brahmins who also needed a living, was connected with local traditions; dee, for example, the many local 'incarnations' of Vushnu, that is, local deities who were aligned with Vaishnavism, yet also kept their distinct flavor.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Asteramellus, in simplest terms,

• Hinduism is the set of all traditions based on the Vedas. It's many stages (Ancient Hinduism/Vedicism, Brahmanic Hinduism/Brahmanism, Classical Hinduism, Puranic, Modern Hinduism) and branches are often very different from each other and has incorporated a lot of local traditions. The Indian schools that rejected the Vedas are not called Hinduism, e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, Smarta, etc and are referred to as Nāstik schools of thought in Hinduism.
• Again, in simplest terms, Buddhism is the religion centred around the founder Buddha, though in places outside of India, it incorporated a lot of local traditions, making it very different from the religion from the Buddha's time.

PadFoot (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

[Regarding]

Hinduism is the set of all traditions based on the Vedas. It's many stages (Ancient Hinduism/Vedicism, Brahmanic Hinduism/Brahmanism, Classical Hinduism, Puranic, Modern Hinduism) and branches are often very different from each other and has incorporated a lot of local traditions. The Indian schools that rejected the Vedas are not called Hinduism, e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, Smarta, etc and are referred to as Nāstik schools of thought in Hinduism.

Check following paper: Satoshi Ogura (2024), The Ā’īn-i Akbarī and Western Indology: with Special Reference to the Category of the Six Systems of Philosophy, Journal of Asian and African Studies, Supplement, No. 3, 2024:

We have found no Sanskrit doxography completed up to the end of the sixteenth century that distinguishes only Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Mīmāṃsā, and Vedānta as orthodox systems that acknowledge the revelation of the Vedas. To put it mildly, such a categorization was not mainstream in Indian philosophy. Based on the absence of this kind of classification in Sanskrit doxographies, some Indologists suppose that this concept of the āstika, six systems of philosophy was fabricated in the British colonial period, not in India but in Europe, and its vestige survives up to date.

Update the wiki with this info. Deep007 bond007 (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Deep007 bond007: thanks. Ogura argues, though, that "As far as we know, the Ā’īn-i Akbarī is the earliest work that classified the aforementioned six systems as orthodox calling the category ṣaḍdarśana"; the Ā’īn-i Akbarī is dated to the 16th century. See also History of Hinduism#Unifying Hinduism, and Hindu philosophy#Classifications. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, it's good that you brought up this astika-nastika distinction; it reveals where this idea that Hinduism is the set of all traditions based on the Vedas comes from. This is the notion of Vaidika dharma, 'derived from or conformable to the Veda' or 'relating to the Veda'. It is a self-designation which, not surprisingly, came into existence when the Brahmanical tradition had started to adapt itself to non-Vdxic religions to survive, and non-Vedic religions had started to appeal to the Brahmanical authority, the Hindu synthesis which started around the beginning of the Common Era. It's precisely this synthesis which sets "Hinduism" apart from historical Brahmanism.

As formulated above there seems to be the assumption that all Hindu-traditions are based on the Vedas. 'Folk-Hinduism' is not "based" on the Vedic tradition; many local deities which were incorporated into "Hinduism" have non-Vedic origins. At best, they accept the authority of the Vedas, and even that is questionable; many Hindu-traditions are merely paying 'lip-service' to the Vedic authority. The more correct phrase would be 'all traditions kind of accepting the authority of the Vedas'. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"Ancient Hinduism"

Issue

@Padfoor2008: regarding this addition diff, edit-summary

Per WP:RS and WP:NPOV, all significant sources and views should be covered. I've provided sources in the main article as well as the talk page this article.

You provided sources at Talk:Ashoka#Ashoka's religion before his "conversion", not here. "Ancient Hinduism" is not the WP:COMMONNAME, as also explained at Historical Vedic religion#"Ancient Hinduism", and note a at that page. "Brahmanism" ("Brahminism") is the WP:COMMONNAME; see also Google Books, "ancient Hinduism" ca. 4410 hits, Brahmanism ca. 376,000 hits, Brahminism ca. 121,000 hits. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Brahmanism is a different topic, which I know you would be aware of. It doesn't refer to the entirety of the Vedic period but to the later period only. Ancient Hinduism covers the entire topic. Also, you shouldn't be giving undue weight to one opinion over others. Additionally, WP:COMMONNAME applies to article titles not section headers. PadFoot (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The term "Ancient Hinduism" is not used in the article, completely unsourced, and not the standard term. Your argument diff Also "Second Urbanisation and decline of Brahmanism" for instance shows two different topics, this name as well shows two topics, the period and the religion. is nonsense; the Vedic religion is called the Vedic religion (correcting myself on "Brahmanism" above). Google Books: "Vedic religion" ca. 110,000 hits. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, you're incorrect again. Do you even know why the article is called Historical Vedic religion and not just Vedic religion? Because they both are different. The term Vedic religion is often used to refer to the modern Hindu religion as well. This is the correct link for that specific religion, see "Historical Vedic religion" ca. 2,270 hits. The religion is referred to by many names in the scholarly community, including, but not limited to, "Historical Vedic religion" and "Ancient Hinduism". PadFoot (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this comment diff You are the one who reverted first and have reverted again now. You should discuss instead of reverting my edits.: no, that's not how it works. You added a controversial, unsourced term, which was reverted twice; you have to discuss this as a proposal, not as a given fact. Somehow the arguments don't get through to you, but you could try again: "ancient Hinduism" is not the standard name for the religion of the vedic people. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Why you would think that "Ancient Hinduism" is not the standard term despite its more common usage compared to "Historical Vedic religion", is beyond me. Also, I don't see any point of making two threads. PadFoot (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

To make it abundantly clear to you: in the main article we use the terms Vedism, Vedic religion and Rigvedic religion, not "ancient Hinduism." Scholars have explained that this term is inapt, as explained above. Using the phrase "ancient Hinduism" gives WP:UNDUE weight to this term. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Some scholars have said that the term is inapt, while other scholars do not think so. Again, "we" do not use "Vedic religion", we use "Historic Vedic religion" as the article name. Using the phrase "Vedic[..]" but not "Ancient Hinduism", does not give WP:DUE weight to the latter. Especially, when the article title "Historical Vedic religion" gives only 2,270 hits while "Ancient Hinduism" gives 6,680 hits. PadFoot (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't limit your search-term to "Historical Vedic religion," when it's obvious that most authors simply use "Vedic religion," or an equivalent (Vedism 16,600 hits), when writing about this period. Regarding we use "Historic Vedic religion": indeed, so we can settle on that term in the header, which is also the title of the main article, and eventually add that sometimes the phrase "ancient Hinduism" is being used, just as we do in the Historical Vedic religion article. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

We already use the term "Vedic" once in the header. Also since "Vedic religion" refers to religions not included within the "historical Vedic religion" as well, it would be incorrect to use it as the search term. PadFoot (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

We can however settle for the original header of just "Vedic period", but within that section use the term "Ancient Hinduism" intermittently, give both terms due weight, but AH shall occur less frequently. PadFoot (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that this is overdone, that is, undue: "the introduction of the historical Vedic religion (ancient Hinduism) with the Indo-Aryan migrations." When we speak of the introduction of the Vedic religion, we speak of a stage where there were no influences yet of Indian traditions. At least it should be put in brackets here.

Same here:

Indeed, Vedic Hinduism, including the names of certain deities, was in essence a branch of the same religious tradition as the ancient Greeks, Romans, Persians, and Germanic peoples.

It somehow suggests that those religions are a kind of Hinduism. @Asteramellus, Dāsānudāsa, and Kautilya3: what are your thoughts here? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it suggests that those religions are called "Hinduism" by some scholars. Not that they are "a kind of Hinduism" but rather that they are earlier forms or stages of Hinduism. I've included very few mentions of AH and VH, compared to Vedicism or Vedic religion. And there's just one mention of AH in the lead (that too in brackets), and no mentions of VH at all which I'm fine with though for the lead. PadFoot (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Simple Google hits are not enough to establish COMMONNAME. We need evidence of it being used in the kind of scholarly sources that we cite. In my experience, "ancient Hinduism" is sometimes used in the passing, sometimes in popular books, but not so much in scholarly discourse. Max Mueller indeed coined the term "Brahmanism" for it early on (not that I recommend that term, but the distinction with Hinduism was made early on). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Kautilya3, I do not seek to assert that ancient Hinduism is the common name. I've only made a few mentions of the term to refer to the religion, since that term is also used by scholars. PadFoot (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. But the net effect of all your edits, which were all unsourced, is to make it appear as if the Vedic religion was just an older form of Hinduism. I can't agree with that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

There are scholars that consider the early Vedic religion and Brahmanism as being encompassed by the term "Hinduism" and that they are the early forms/stages of modern Hinduism. Stietencron (2005):

Three different phases mark the further career of the term "Hinduism". In the nineteenth century it was applied only to the living religion of the Hindus as based on the epics and Purāņas, on the "sectarian" Āgamas and Tantras, also on regional folk traditions, and characterized largely by the devotional approach of bhakti and by the worship of images in daily rituals. Vedic religion, when it came to be explored with great enthusiasm, was taken to be something different, more pure, and less overgrown by the jungle of su- perstition. And between the Vedas and Hinduism some scholars placed "Brāhmaņism" as a religion marked by priestly speculation and priestly dominance, a religion that found expression in the Brahmaņas, the Upaniṣads, the Sūtras and Smrtis.

Throughout the nineteenth century the term "Hinduism" was used in such restricted sense; it was applied only to a section in the historical sequence of Indian faiths. But the strong emphasis placed on the Vedic and Vedāntic heritage by the Neo-Hinduistic reform movements in the second half of the nineteenth century and in the twentieth century, as well as the growing awareness of the continuity of certain elements in the tradition, could not remain without impact on the scholarly terminology. Therefore, in the twentieth century, "Hinduism" gradually came to encompass Brahmanism and Vedic religion as well.

There are indeed scholars who disagree with this. But there are scholars who support this as well. PadFoot (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

And what says page 232 about the third phase? You have only quoted a passage about the first and second stage. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Page 232 is not a part of the book preview. Stietencron has clearly said what he wanted to say in the above quote. PadFoot (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Bullshit. That's an incomplete quote, omitting the present stage. NB: full title Hindu Myth, Hindu History, Religion, Art, and Politics. Original publication: Südasien-Institut der Universität Heidelberg, no.24, Heinrich von Stietencron : Hinduism: on the proper use of a deceptive term. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I was using Google Books and thus wasn't aware of this. There's no need for the anger. Could you link directly to the "current phase". PadFoot (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. I've tried several ways to find a pdf, but no succes... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It's alright. Could you at least quote it here? PadFoot (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, we've this by Bronkhorst (2007) (quoted from Flood):

The complex Vedic canon represents a religion which modern scholarship chose to name either Vedism or Vedic Hinduism as preceding that of Brahmanism and later traditions of Hinduism.

PadFoot (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

That's Galewicz, actually. Jamison and Witzel also use the term, and state that it is a contradictio in terminis (quote at Historical Vedic religion. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Jamison and Witzel considering it contradictio in terminis is their opinion as they use Hinduism to refer to classical Hinduism and it successors only. As I said before, some scholars might disagree but there are some that agree, which is why I said that we should use both terms giving them due weight. PadFoot (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No consensus

@PadFoot2008: it should be clear by now that there is outspoken opposition to your usage of the terms "ancient Hinduism"," "Vedic Hinduism," and "Brahmanical Hinduism":

• I have repeatedly, in edits and discussions, op[osed these terms;
• Kautilya3 has spoken out against it diff: "Ok, I understand. But the net effect of all your edits, which were all unsourced, is to make it appear as if the Vedic religion was just an older form of Hinduism. I can't agree with that."
• So has Dāsānudāsa at Talk:Historical Vedic religion#Quotations: "The Vedic religion wasn't Hinduism, "ancient" or otherwise."

Furthermore, numerous authors explain that terms like "Vedic Hinduism" are inexact, as "Hinduism," as a synthesis of Vedic/Brahmanical religion and non-Vedic/Brahmanical traditions, emerged around the beginning of the CE:

• Jamison & Witzel (1992) p.3: "to call this period Vedic Hinduism is a contradictio in terminis 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."
• Michaels (2004) p.38: ""The legacy of the Vedic religion in Hinduism is generally overestimated [...] Thus, it is justified to see a turning point between the Vedic religion and Hindu religions."
• Welbon (2004): "It is usually taught that the beginnings of historical Hinduism date from around the beginning of the Common Era, [when] the key tendencies, the crucial elements that would be encompassed in Hindu traditions, collectively came together."
• Samuel (2010), p.17: "Increasingly, scholars have seen 'Hinduism' as a problematic term for the pre-modern period, at least before the mid-first millennium CE, when a religius tradition with recognisable similarities to modern Brahmanical Hinduism took shape under the patronage of the Guptas and subsequent dynasties.
• Samuel (2010) p.195 (emphasis mine): "The establishment of Brahmanical Hinduism as a state religion can be associated above all with the Gupta dynasty in North and Central India (c. 320-c. 510 CE). I use the term 'Brahmanical Hinduism'here, because I think that if we want to use the term Hinduism at all before the nineteenth century then this is the point at which we can reasonably start usng it."

It's fine to mention that terms like "amcient Hinduism" are also being used, but it's not okay to use them randomly with a misplaced appeal to WP:NPOV and equal weight. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The other editors have not spoken out against its (extremely low) usage in this article. Kautilya didn't oppose any further while Dāsānudāsa too, self reverted. I am not saying that all mentions of Vedism be replaced by AH, or that of Brahmanism by BH, but only for very slight secondary usage of the term, while the primary usage be that of Vedism (or historical/early Vedic religion or Vedicism) and Brahmanism. PadFoot (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Read their comments again ("I can't agree with that"), read what the authors above have to say, and notice that Michaels and Bronkhorst do not use the phrase "Brahmanical Hinduism." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: could you give your (admin-)opinion here? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Joshua Jonathan: I'd rather not give an admin opinion on anything involving PadFoot2008 so this is just an ordinary editor opinion. @PadFoot2008:, since you're adding this to the article, when reverted, you need to get explicit consensus on the talk page for the text you're adding. On reading the discussion above, I don't see that. RegentsPark (comment) 13:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)