Talk:Hinduism and other religions

Seed page

I think this page should read like a seed page with a quick synopsis and links to other various pages which detail the events more elaborately. Currently there is another page History of Hinduism that is also struggling for direction and replicates the purpose of this page, should they be merged?

I started straightening out and rearranging the format of sections but then I gave when I ran into rather strange sections having no idea what to do with them. I have tagged thos sections appropriately. --Tigeroo 07:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This could be a really valuable page, because Hinduism is a fascinating religion, and it has had so much influence on Indian culture YOU ARE A GAY MAN FAG!!! among other sources, so its not really a useful comparison.

I added a few missing blank spaces.--Patillotes 15:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is looking really rough. A lot of the Judaism section is about Christianity or both ambiguously, and the Christianity part reads like it was translated and pasted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.255.13 (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Relations to judaism

The first paragraph of the "relations to judaism" section needs to be removed entirely. I am a student of religious history and there is no eveidence that any of the claims made therein are true. I would love to provide a source to prove this but the fact is that since this is almost a complete fabrication by the author there is very little reliable material on the topic. There have been claims, however, by biased authors both Hindu and Judeo-Christian in perspective that attempt to trace the origin of the other religion to their own. However, these are, as stated previously, very biased and based on sketchy evidence and should be disscused in another article, perhaps liked to this, or not at all.Pzureick (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Hinduism and Islam

Oppose merger, this article is for Hinduism's relationship with all other religions, not just Islam.--Editor2020 (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy Spirit and kundalini

I have read some people had made links between the two notions/beliefs. The article should maybe look into that. ADM (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

yeah i agree  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.35.219.120 (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 

Made minor grammatical correction

I changed "few Jews who came to India had a history of comfortable life" to "the few Jews who came to India had a history of comfortable life", which I believe was intended, judging from the preceding sentences. As a matter of grammar, without "the", the statement would have the opposite meaning, i.e. "most Jews... did not have a comfortable life".--206.130.174.44 (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Blackguard SF's edit

I would like Blackguard SF to cite the reason that why he reverted the 10,000 bytes text without citing any legible reason, considering that the main articles of the pages, of each index have been written the same way. Justicejayant (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for the editor in question, but your edit was a mess of WP:SYNTH, poor wording, unsourced and irrelevant claims (wealth of Hindus, influence of Hinduism on other religions etc etc). If you want to add such a large amount of controversial material to an article you better propose such an edit on the talk page first. Also, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Saddhiyama How it is irrelevant or controversial when it's sourced with the reliable sourced? In the page such as Christianity and other religions it's ok to add such information, but why not here? Justicejayant (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Just saw the edit history. I didn't knew about that you have made 3 edits before you cleaned up the whole. Well i agree about the removal of the texts that you have removed in "relevance" section. That's all. But you can re-insert the rest, which is apart from the 3 edits, that you made manually(selection) with edit summary. Justicejayant (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)

Again see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Your edit is so massive that it is a daunting task to go through the problems one by one. However I can point out a few examples that are representative of the entire edit:

You keep repeating (unsourced of course) that Hinduism has had an "influence on other religions", that may be true, but very few of the examples you provide actually supports that claim, for example "Druze share the belief in reincarnation, although the religion is strictly Monotheistic". This is unsourced WP:SYNTH. Reincarnation is not an idea exclusive to Hinduism, so that is not evidence of influence, especially not since you do not cite any sources from scholars claiming such a connection, this applies again in your claim "24% of Americans believe in reincarnation, a very important concept of Hinduism like mentioned previously".

In the section "Conclusion" (a title which supports Blackguard SFs claim that your edit reads like an essay) you again write that the influence of Hinduism on other religions is obvious (after superflously inserting the statement that Hinduism is the oldest religion, a statement which seems unconnected to anything following that) but the very first quotation by Zaehner actually concludes that Hinduism didn't influence the monotheistic religions ("...if only" he says), and the rest of the examples in that section are only about how some writers see a connection in modern science to some of the ideas expressed by Hinduism (you interpreting this with generalised claims about Hinduisms "relation to science", when that is not what the citations support).

That Hindus has the highest level of income in the US does not necessarily have any connection to the religion, and the source doesn't make any such claim either, and even if it did, it seems completely out of place with regard to the scope of this article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at your edit history. I would like you to acknowledge these few points:-

• Your edits[1], [2], [3].
• Indeed those points have to do nothing with the religion but only with people.
• You can have a look at the talk page of "Beeblebrox", i just mentioned that i saw no notification that you have already asserted at talk page.
• Similar to this article Hinduism in Israel the Druze thing is mentioned, here's the source[4]. Also this source[5], it completely proves the point.
• Other 2 quotes, especially the one by Carl Sagan talks about the relation of science with hinduism, which is visible in the quote, originally by him.

Thanks, i hope the misunderstandings are cleared. Justicejayant (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mention anything about the Druze, and I haven't seen anything in your edit about them either, however considering the massive size of your edit you may have, I don't see the relevance to my stated objections above, though, since I did not mention the Druze. Your reply to my objection about the Hinduism and science connection does notadress my objections, namely that you present two quotes as being many scientists have related Hinduism and science, since they are only two specific examples about two specific phenomena, not general theories of science in connection with Hinduism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't see anything wrong with this version[6]... Do you? Let me know. Justicejayant (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

As I stated above, those were just examples, and that version only has fixed a fraction of the problems with the edit. Besides there are numerous other problems I haven't mentioned yet. What is "Laidlaw, pp. 154–160; Jindal, pp. 74–90; Tähtinen p. 110" referring to? It seems that the citations are taken out of context from somewhere else, hopefully this isn't a copyright issue. Referring to Volney wrote over 200-years ago, not exactly representative of contemporary scholarship on connections between Hinduism and Judaism, at best his opinions, worded expressively as his opinions, belong in an historiography section. The essay by "S. Korn" is not sufficient to support such an exceptional claim as that "either the aboriginal Brahmins were Jews or the primitive Jews were Brahmins". The section beginning thus: "According to Kushwant Singh...", seems to be a quotation, it has a quotation mark at the beginning of it, but nothing at the end, which is really problematic as the section is definitely POV-worded with lots of religious hyperbole ("martyrdom ", "supreme sacrifice" etc) which is not acceptable, and even if it is one long quotation it is too long. In the Zoroastrianism section there is a citation just reading "Boyce (1979), p. 26", which again suggests some copyright problems going on here (copy pasting from other sources). And again in the following citation which even has a bot notice saying it is a dead link. You are aware that bulk copypasting even older versions of Wikipedia articles with no attribution are prohibited on copyright grounds? Not to mention the problem of reverting to older versions or copying from other older versions of other articles without mentioning that that is what you are doing suggests some bad faith on your part.

In short, there are so many problems with the edit, not least the fundamental copyright and bad faith editing that Blackguard SF was surely correct in rejecting it outright. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Saddhiyama, maybe you are in hurry. What about Buddhism, Atheism, Agnosticism and others? And the rest of "Relevance" which was left after this edit[7]. None of the edits are taking from "older versions of wikipedia articles", but the current ones. As mentioned at the page of Mary Boyce, the source "Boyce(1979)" is not a copy paste, but it's taken as the clue from the book "Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices". The Kushwant Singh's quote starts ends at "Tegh Bahadur, Hind Di Chadar" if you clearly watch, i agree that it should be clearer though, and the quote should be lowered.

"http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/zoroastrianism-i-historical-review" is not a dead link, but it's actually working, so bot has forgotten to replace. How can we deny the statement of Volney? When it's backed by the multiple sources states the same?[8]. As for this "Laidlaw, pp. 154–160; Jindal, pp. 74–90; Tähtinen p. 110"... this is the actual source:-

"Dundas, Paul: The Jains, second edition, London 2002, p. 160; Wiley, Kristi L.: Ahimsa and Compassion in Jainism, in: Studies in Jaina History and Culture, ed. Peter Flügel, London 2006, p. 438; Laidlaw pp. 153–154." S. Korn's statement isn't unreliable either, if you think it's exceptional claim, then it can be backed by more sources.[9],

In short words, these all information are simply legit, as per the wikipedia guidelines, and used in different pages already, not that they are from "older versions". Justicejayant (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Since I had no way of identifying where you copypasted it from, I assumed older versions, that it is indeed from existing versions doesn't make it any better, quite the contrary, it is still copyright infringement (please read this link). And combined with the multiple problems in your massive edit which I have pointed out, and which you have not adressed in anyway except repeating that "it's legit edits", I fear that we are a very long way from constructing anything meaningful out of this mess. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Saddhiyama, where it is saying that you can't copy from one page to another one? And i have hardly copied + pasted, as at least 70% of the content is of my own words, sourced too. Hardly 2-3 lines are not even the matter, because it talks about making duplicate articles. Plus, i have already notified you, that none of the edits that have been made in this page are fringed. So i think it's easier to say, that if you revert it back to the 2nd last version, i will edit it as per this discussion. Justicejayant (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)