| Revision as of 16:16, 30 June 2024 editCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,292,055 edits Reminder of an inactive anchor: Hinduism Middle Ages, Remove 2 notifications← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:00, 16 December 2024 edit undo87.74.207.248 (talk) →The title of the article isn't an accurate description of the contents: new sectionTag: New topicNext edit → | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
| :::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 is the same as Ceylon but British India was not equal to India. As you saw in the map British India was the portion of the Indian Empire which directly ruled by the Crown while rest of the Indian Empire, i.e, 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 (or India). 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 were '''not''' recognised as being a 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) | ::::This confuses many people but the usage of British Malaya and British Ceylon vs usage of British India is not same. British Ceylon is the same as Ceylon but British India was not equal to India. As you saw in the map British India was the portion of the Indian Empire which directly ruled by the Crown while rest of the Indian Empire, i.e, 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 (or India). 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 were '''not''' recognised as being a 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) | ||
| == The title of the article isn't an accurate description of the contents == | |||
| The article's topic is "the religions that originated in the Indian subcontinent", but such an article isn't well described by the title "Indian religions". I would expect an article with the current title to be about religions that exist in the country of India, not ones that originated in a region significantly larger than India and incorporating multiple modern countries. Buddhism, founded by a man from modern-day Nepal and practised for thousands of years all over Asia, isn't an "Indian religion" at all. Further, the country of India didn't exist when any of these religions came about. Historically, "India" was sometimes (and rather vaguely) used as a name for the region, but I strongly doubt that most readers would understand the title of this article to refer to a region or subcontinent rather than the modern country. I certainly didn't. | |||
| As an alternative, I suggest "Religions originating in the Indian subcontinent". It's less snappy, but would do a better job of communicating the content of the page. ] (]) 11:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:00, 16 December 2024
| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | |||||||||||||
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | 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. |
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 is the same as Ceylon but British India was not equal to India. As you saw in the map British India was the portion of the Indian Empire which directly ruled by the Crown while rest of the Indian Empire, i.e, 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 (or India). 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 were not recognised as being a 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)
- 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)
- No, see look at this map of the Indian Empire in 1909 from the official Imperial Gazetteer of India:
The title of the article isn't an accurate description of the contents
The article's topic is "the religions that originated in the Indian subcontinent", but such an article isn't well described by the title "Indian religions". I would expect an article with the current title to be about religions that exist in the country of India, not ones that originated in a region significantly larger than India and incorporating multiple modern countries. Buddhism, founded by a man from modern-day Nepal and practised for thousands of years all over Asia, isn't an "Indian religion" at all. Further, the country of India didn't exist when any of these religions came about. Historically, "India" was sometimes (and rather vaguely) used as a name for the region, but I strongly doubt that most readers would understand the title of this article to refer to a region or subcontinent rather than the modern country. I certainly didn't.
As an alternative, I suggest "Religions originating in the Indian subcontinent". It's less snappy, but would do a better job of communicating the content of the page. 87.74.207.248 (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages articles that use Indian English
- Former good article nominees
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- B-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- B-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class India articles
- Top-importance India articles
- B-Class India articles of Top-importance
- Past Indian collaborations of the month
- WikiProject India articles
- B-Class Hinduism articles
- Mid-importance Hinduism articles
- B-Class Buddhism articles
- Mid-importance Buddhism articles
- B-Class Sikhism articles
- B-Class Jainism articles
- Mid-importance Jainism articles
- B-Class Nepal articles
- Low-importance Nepal articles
- WikiProject Nepal articles