Talk:Indian religions: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:26, 12 July 2023 editDāsānudāsa (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users4,120 edits →Government of India: re← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:15, 13 July 2023 edit undoPadFoot2008 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users9,681 edits →Government of India: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply Next edit →
Line 64:		Line 64:
	::No, see look at this map of the Indian Empire in 1909 from the official Imperial Gazetteer of India: ] The territory colored pink was British India, and together with the yellow (native territory), it made up "India" as recognised contemporary by law, both domestically and internationally (See section 18 of Interpretation Act 1889). Portuguese India (officially, State of India) or French India (officially, French settlements in India) weren't a part of India and got added to India between 1954 and 1961 after a series of annexations by the Republic. The Government of India was responsible for administrating entire India not just British India. ] (]) 11:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)		::No, see look at this map of the Indian Empire in 1909 from the official Imperial Gazetteer of India: ] The territory colored pink was British India, and together with the yellow (native territory), it made up "India" as recognised contemporary by law, both domestically and internationally (See section 18 of Interpretation Act 1889). Portuguese India (officially, State of India) or French India (officially, French settlements in India) weren't a part of India and got added to India between 1954 and 1961 after a series of annexations by the Republic. The Government of India was responsible for administrating entire India not just British India. ] (]) 11:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
	:::I understand that it was called the "Government of India" (or sometimes the "Indian Empire", as on this map), but isn't this rather a case of ], in that the British definition of "India" is different to our modern one? I don't see the harm in keeping the disambiguation. We also now say things like "British Ceylon", "British Malaya", etc., when in fact they were just called Ceylon and Malaya at the time. ] (]) 14:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)		:::I understand that it was called the "Government of India" (or sometimes the "Indian Empire", as on this map), but isn't this rather a case of ], in that the British definition of "India" is different to our modern one? I don't see the harm in keeping the disambiguation. We also now say things like "British Ceylon", "British Malaya", etc., when in fact they were just called Ceylon and Malaya at the time. ] (]) 14:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
			::::This confuses many people but the usage of British Malaya and British Ceylon vs usage of British India is not same. British Ceylon was the same as Ceylon as a country itself but British India was not equal to India. As you saw in the map British India was only a portion of the Indian Empire directly ruled by the Crown while the princely states (in yellow) were also a part of the British Empire and but were indirectly ruled by the Crown. This British India + the princely states was '''internationally recognised''' (excluding Portuguese and French territories) as "India". Thus Government of British India should have refered to an entity that governed British India but such an entity never existed. The Government of India was responsible for governing the entire Indian Empire. Also it wasn't really a case of pars pro toto as at least by the time the League of Nations was formed, Portuguese and French territories, (and later the Kingdom of Nepal) were not recognised as part of India. It's the same as how Bangladesh isn't called a part of India now but still it is not a case of pars pro toto, even though Bangladesh was historically included within the region called "India". I suggest we could do "{{monospace\|the British-appointed Government of India}}" to keep the distinction as you said. ] (]) 02:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:15, 13 July 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indian religions article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Vital article

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Indian religions was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 9, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
July 16, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Shramana was copied or moved into ] with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion: Interfaith Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

India Top‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was a past Indian Collaboration of the Month.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Hinduism Mid‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Buddhism Mid‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sikhism

This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.

Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventionsSikhismWikipedia:WikiProject SikhismTemplate:WikiProject SikhismSikhism

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Jainism Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Jainism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Jainism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style – Naming conventionsJainismWikipedia:WikiProject JainismTemplate:WikiProject JainismJainism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Nepal Low‑importance

	Nepal portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

] Anchor History of Hinduism#Middle Ages links to a specific web page: Middle Ages. The anchor (#Middle Ages) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

formatting typo

Hey, the page is locked so I can't try to figure it out myself (sorry). There is a formatting typo in this section: "Late Vedic period – Brahmanas and Upanishads – Vedanta (850–500 BCE)"

what's the typo in that section RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Only Four religions?

Sanamahism in Manipur, India and Ayyavazhi in Southern Tamil Nadu & Kerala are counted as Hinduism and they are principlely based on Hinduism. It can be mentioned in text.

Ayyavazhi is a hindu denomination not a different religion while worth mentioning. while for Sanamahism it is not clear.RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change to Hindu Religion instead of Indian religion - there nothing called indian religion. People from Nepal doesn't follow indian religion. It's Hindu Religion that followed by other country. This is a false information. Buddhism is also not Indian religion - once again please change it to Hindu - not Indian. 2607:FEA8:7AA4:CF00:6053:3E12:1B8B:3C5F (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Not done: moving an article involves a discussion and consensus. M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Government of India

Hello fellow editor @Dāsānudāsa, I recently noticed you reverted one of my edits and so I opened this discussion. I agree that a distinction is needed to prevent confusion but there was no "Government of British India". There was only one for entirety of India — the good old "Government of India", established in 1833. I suggest we change it to "the Government of India during the British Raj" to also keep the distinction? PadFoot2008 (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @PadFoot2008:, I have to confess I don't see the issue with the current wording. Yes, it was rarely called "British India" contemporaneously (the "British" part being a given), but "government of British India" seems to me a perfectly good description of the government of the British-ruled parts of India – as opposed to French India, Portuguese India, etc. – and is used elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Thoughts? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No, see look at this map of the Indian Empire in 1909 from the official Imperial Gazetteer of India:

The territory colored pink was British India, and together with the yellow (native territory), it made up "India" as recognised contemporary by law, both domestically and internationally (See section 18 of Interpretation Act 1889). Portuguese India (officially, State of India) or French India (officially, French settlements in India) weren't a part of India and got added to India between 1954 and 1961 after a series of annexations by the Republic. The Government of India was responsible for administrating entire India not just British India. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand that it was called the "Government of India" (or sometimes the "Indian Empire", as on this map), but isn't this rather a case of pars pro toto, in that the British definition of "India" is different to our modern one? I don't see the harm in keeping the disambiguation. We also now say things like "British Ceylon", "British Malaya", etc., when in fact they were just called Ceylon and Malaya at the time. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This confuses many people but the usage of British Malaya and British Ceylon vs usage of British India is not same. British Ceylon was the same as Ceylon as a country itself but British India was not equal to India. As you saw in the map British India was only a portion of the Indian Empire directly ruled by the Crown while the princely states (in yellow) were also a part of the British Empire and but were indirectly ruled by the Crown. This British India + the princely states was internationally recognised (excluding Portuguese and French territories) as "India". Thus Government of British India should have refered to an entity that governed British India but such an entity never existed. The Government of India was responsible for governing the entire Indian Empire. Also it wasn't really a case of pars pro toto as at least by the time the League of Nations was formed, Portuguese and French territories, (and later the Kingdom of Nepal) were not recognised as part of India. It's the same as how Bangladesh isn't called a part of India now but still it is not a case of pars pro toto, even though Bangladesh was historically included within the region called "India". I suggest we could do "the British-appointed Government of India" to keep the distinction as you said. PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Categories: