Template talk:Hinduism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Suggestion

I think there should be links to Hindu music --70.69.161.130 17:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is already a page for that, Bhajans.--Jesucristo301 21:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Why is the scriptures section titled mythology? It has very negative connotations - whether they are true or not - they are scripture (some accounts and some philosophy) and the title should reflect that. Any objections? As a comparison - the Genesis and bible would be categorized as scripture but not mythology. --Pranathi 02:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Most of the Hindu scriptures are a part of the Hindu mythology. We do have a separate template for Hindu texts. If you want you can some more mythology-related topics to the list --Deepak|वार्ता 18:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Deepak, do you mind if I change mythology to scriptures, since this section includes the Upanishad etc, which are not stories. I find mythology a bit offensive when applied to religion - also see (Christian mythology. Unless there are objections, I will change shortly. --Pranathi 20:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Mythology is a part of every religion in the world.. Anyway how about having the section title as Mythology and scriptures. --Deepak|वार्ता 20:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
If you see Christian Mythology, it is only stories that have 'developed' around texts, and stories that have 'accumulated' around scripture and fundamental stories of Christianity. It includes only what Christians think of as myth (it implies falsehood as mentioned in page). Parallels would be Jataka tales etc in Hinduism. The only place it could be sometimes called myth would be to differentiate belief from literal history - and is offensive to the members of the religion.
Our template includes Shruti, Upanishads, Vedas, Brahmana, Smriti, Bhagavad Gita, Sutras, Itihasa under mythology. I can see none of these, except maybe some of the puranas to be mythology. Even those are not considered by all Hindus to be mythology - only the logical thinking ones that limit the reach of the supernatural.--Pranathi 20:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I do get your point. I hope you have gone through the article on Hindu mythology. It kinda contradicts your point. I'm against removing the section on Hindu mythology from the template - not very constructive --Deepak|वार्ता 10:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I have added to the existing discussion questioning the title in that page. Also let's move this discussion to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism. Hopefully we can get a consensus there.--Pranathi 14:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Part of a series" ?

"Part of a series" implies there is some co-ordination by some group of every article to which the template is stamped. Is there such a group? ...and if there were, do the rules of wikipedia allow such a group to control a subset of wikipedia articles? The template is intended as a navigational aid, not as a stamp of approval upon an article. Would not "Related articles on..." be a more approriate lead-in? ---JimWae 06:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


Ganesha Murti made in Indonesia have a second face. I have seen it on back of Ganesha's head mand also incorporated into Lord Ganesha's face. What can anyone tell me about these murtis? Lakshmiji

[edit] proposal for new section

Just as the islam template has a section called 'societal aspects', i propose the hinduism template should also add a similiar section with topics concerning sciences, society and arts. Leafy 01:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible image change

This image

Hello an editor of the Hinduism article has suggested a change in the Aum picture, he has recently uploaded the image you see to the right. He wants to change it because he says that the color saffron would much better suit the article and the fact that saffron is a holy color in Hinduism. Does anybody agree with this.--Seadog ♪ 17:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys plz replace the black image with this saffron one.Sarvabhaum 11:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure but I feel of having seen Ohm in deep orange colour. If the editor agrees, we should try to see how it looks in deep orange. swadhyayee 05:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to make the Aum a bit darker/less bright. It hurts my eyes at the moment. Maybe a more reddish-orange would be better. GizzaChat © 14:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I would make a new one but I don't know how, you will have to ask Sarvabhaum. I have actually tested out the template with the new Aum and it actually looks pretty good. — Seadog 14:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
On the template it appears small but if we were to replace every black Aum with this one, there are going to be places where it will appear at this harmful-to-the-eyes size. GizzaChat © 14:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swastika replacement proposal

It has been proposed that the swastikas be removed from the following templates, as they are potentially offensive to readers.

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism. --tjstrf talk 01:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the debate no longer applies to this template. Only to {{Hindu Links}}. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 00:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism link

I propose adding a link to the criticism page. Back in December, the Mormonism, Buddhism, and Islam templates all had links to their specific criticism page, however Islam removed their citing this template as precedent. Ironically, someone wanted to include the Criticism of Christianity link on the Christianity template, and cited those as precedent. If this is going to be a matter of "Well the Jews don't have the link, so why should we" or "The Mormons have the link, so should the Muslims" etc, we should decided as a whole whether links to these criticism pages are appropriate for the parent religion templates. I believe that all religion templates should have a link to the parent criticism page (if one exists), and that is what I am proposing here. What do we think?-Andrew c 00:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of the religion templates need a criticism link. I don't see them on other WikiProject templates, either. ॐ Priyanath talk 00:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:ScientologySeries has a whole section of critical/controversial links. Since there is a Criticism of Hinduism pages, it seems more neutral, and holistic to include that POV in the form of a single link on this template. --Andrew c 01:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Most WikiProject Templates (looking further than just religions) don't have criticism links. As far as I know, there's no policy saying that templates need to have criticism links. Let us know what the Christianity, Islam, and Judaism Project members think of your proposal to add criticism links to their Religion templates. Since this is really a Project-wide policy, you should also see what other WikiProjects think, for example countries and ethnic groups. The Village Pump may be the best place to propose what sounds like a new policy, rather than here. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. A centralized discussion on this general topic can be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Criticism link on religion navigational boxes. -Andrew c 03:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There was wide support to include critical links across the board. So I'll see if I can't find a good place to put the link here.-Andrew c 03:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing Aum Symbol

My english is low, excuseme. I am thinking to change the aum simbol to or into Template:Hinduism_small

Thanks --Wilfredor 18:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the artistic creativity of your version, it's done using Chinese calligraphy brush strokes - what does that have to do with Hinduism? It adds confusion in my opinion. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with ॐ Priyanath. Wilfredor's calligraphy is truly beautiful, but introduces an element of cultural confusion for me. -- Lisasmall 04:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reincarnation vs. Rebirth question

Should Reincarnation not be Rebirth? I'm not an expert, but from my knowledge this could cause serious misunderstanding. Reincarnation means that the soul is transferred, but in Buddhism there is no soul (anatta).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baynardo7 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 May 2007.

But this is a Hinduism template, not a Buddhism template. See Reincarnation and Hinduism. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added vehicle article title

I was bold and added a link to a new article on divine vehicles at the top, next to "deities," where it seemed to best belong. I hope I have not done wrong or violated some protocol; I will wait for feedback before adding to other templates. -- Lisasmall 03:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed it to Vahana, which has wider meaning than the loose English translation vehicle .--Redtigerxyz 14:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

I have cleaned-up and reorganized the template from this version to this newer version. My main aim was:

  • Keep the template focussed on the themes of central importance to Hinduism and remove articles that are IMO not as central (such as Vahana, Swami), or generic articles that are not focussed on Hinduism (such as Reincarnation, as opposed to Samsara, and Vegetarianism).
  • Reorder and regroup links so that related concepts are grouped together (such as the four Purusharthas; Yoga and Bhakti etc)

I am certain that the new version is far from perfect and invite feedback. Some observations:

  • Should we link to Purushartha instead of Kama, Artha, Dharma and Moksha individually ? Sounds sensible but also, Dharma and Moksha are too important not to link from the template. Any suggestions ?
  • I noticed that we have no good articles on Hindu practices (as opposed to philosophy, beliefs and scriptures) such as marriage, cremation etc. Hindu covers some of those topics but is in a bad state. Perhaps knowledgeable editors can look to expanding wikipedia's coverage of those topics.

Abecedare 02:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caste system

Why was this item removed? It seems like that is a notable topic that is related to Hinduism.-Andrew c [talk] 00:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andrew - I removed caste system as a 'main' Hinduism link because it's already covered in the 'Criticism' article. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We need a separate Caste system which is key in hinduism society,politics etc further Criticism covers other aspects also.Pharaoh of the Wizards 10:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

90% of the Criticism article is about the caste system. For comparison, look at the Islam, Judaism, and Christianity templates. The Islam template doesn't have separate links to sections on Jihad, Dhimmi, Terrorism, and Treatment of Women. There's just the one link to a Criticism section. in the Christianity template, there aren't separate links to Crusades, Persecution, and Slavery. They are all mentioned and linked in the template's Criticism page/link. The same is true for the Judaism template. Let's be consistent, and show NPOV. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I second Priyanath's view. The Christianity & Islam templates does not have articles on their castes, slavery, or stratifications either.Bakaman 16:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I third that view. The caste system is covered well and should not be given a place on the template out of fairness with other religions.

[edit] Regarding the link "Mandir"

Attending a Hindu temple is not core to the Hindu belief system. The practice of puja occurs in the home with murtis owned by the householder. Should we remove "Mandir" from this section?--ॐJesucristo301 18:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deities?

I've edited the link "Deities" to "Devas."--ॐJesucristo301 17:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Deities" is much broader - it covers devas, devis, avatars, Trimurti, Gandharvas, and much more. Note that the article it links to is titled Hindu deities for that reason. Please discuss and get consensus here before changing a template that's used on hundreds of articles. Thanks, ॐ Priyanath talk 18:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deities is an improper word as it insinuates polytheism. I won't edit it any more, but can we try to think of a better word?--ॐJesucristo301 18:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
If there is one, yes. "Devas" is just as bad in that regard, so it's not an improvement. ॐ Priyanath talk 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Jesuscristo, you are right that "Deities" does not necessarily capture the complexity and diversity of the Hindu concept of God/god. However, as Priyanath has pointed out it still seems to be the best single word, and an improvement over "Devas", which refers to a specific sub-genre of divinities. Can you think of some better term ? Abecedare 19:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are many concepts from Hinduism and Sanatan Dharma that don't have English translations that are accurate. This is one of them. As far as I can see it's the most accurate, or rather the least inaccurate approach. ॐ Priyanath talk 20:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I have some but they are a bit wordy. How about "Celestial Beings," "Divine Beings," or "Numen?" I do not think the term "deities" does these individual concepts justice.--ॐJesucristo301 01:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Jesucristo301, This idea needs to be discussed in a wider forum, since it would affect so many articles and templates. In addition to the hundreds of articles that this template affects, there is Template:Hindu Deities and Texts, the article Hindu deities, and many articles that use the term "deities". For the sake of consistency, and in order to change a term that is used so widely, you should begin a discussion at the WikiProject Hinduism Notice Board: WT:HINDU. If there is a better term, that's the place to find consensus. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, I am new here Priyanath, I never thought of that. I assumed because of the wide use of this template I should come here first, but I will post this in the aforementioned section.--ॐJesucristo301 17:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Devi bhakta's recent edits

I have undone the edits by the aformentioned user. He/she added "Denominations" to the template which was unneccesary and innaccurate. --ॐJesucristo301 01:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You feel adding "Denominations" to the template is "unneccesary and innaccurate."

So let's discuss. Why is it unnecessary? How is it inaccurate?

I would think, on a template purporting to guide users to Hinduism resources, that links to the three or four major denominations of Hinduism -- i.e., Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism and (the arguable fourth) Smartism -- would be a no-brainer.

"Denominations" is already linked as a separate topic (meaning it is apparently *not* unnecessary?) -- and that article is in a pretty iffy state. In my reconfiguration, that page remained available, but separate links to the stronger individual articles about the main Hindu schools were added -- which would seem a really obvious and basic addition?

If this seems fantastically wrong for some reason, then I'd like to hear counter-arguments -- I am open to the possibility that I am missing something big? Otherwise, I think I made a pretty respectful and useful addition without harming or removing original content -- so why revert? I am open to compromise.

Thanks! (Devi bhakta 01:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

I agree with jesucristo that it's unnecessary. All the "Denominations" are already covered in the template with the "Denominations" link. Better to work on that article if you think it needs work. For the same reason, "Vedas" is the link in the template, rather than a link to each of four main vedas linked separately. "Upanishads" rather than listing ten different Upanishads. "Hindu Festivals", rather than listing each of many Hindu Festivals. If each Denomination, Upanishad, Hindu Festival, etc. were linked it would get unwieldy. And then you would get smaller denominations, festivals, etc. insisting they were big enough to be in the template, ad infinitum. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll leave it to you. I don't think the "slippery slope" argument goes that far, though. Pick up virtually any book on Hinduism -- Westrn or Eastern -- and the organizing principle is the three (or four) major denominations. It is a useful starting point simply because *every* subdenomination in Hinduism fits into one of them. This basic division of the three main branches of Hinduism has stood for ages -- to me it seems like a really glaring omission. It is not like listing ten Upanisads separately; it is more like grouping Vedas, Upanisads, Epics and Puranas all under one title. It is also not like festivals -- in that festivals really could expand indefinitely, whereas the basic schools of Hinduism have been stable for centuries. My two paise ;-) (Devi bhakta 13:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC))
I think you would be surprised by how slippery the slope already is. I've seen Ayyavazhi scriptures added to this template (and in other areas of Wikipedia), because someone thought it a notable denomination of Hinduism. But it also helps to make an already unwieldy template a reasonable size. ॐ Priyanath talk 17:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Devi bhakta, first I would like to say two things. 1) Welcome to Wikipedia! 2) It was not my intent to be rude. I myself am a practicing hindu.


Another arguement is that these "denominations" can not cover the entire spectrum of Hindu beliefs and will leave out many groups leaving readers semi-misinformed. Also, I'm merging this with my original subject.--ॐJesucristo301 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What a paining colour!!!!!!

IMO, the present colour is very bright. An eyesore to my eyes atleast. Please revert to the previous more soothing orange.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Om Symbol

I have added this om (first image) because the previous om was not a correct representation of the symbol. The previous om (img2) is misleading and false. An om does NOT look like the second image. Anyone opposed to it? Nikkul (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The newer red Om is great. I think it should remain.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The new image you propose is problematic from a technical standpoint. It is compressed too much so there are artifacts, and the image is not transparent. If we can have a consensus that the form of the new image is superior to the form of the old image, I highly suggest requesting to the graphics lab to create a transparent, SVG version based on the image. That said, I believe it is much more common for the "tail" of the om to turn downwards (like the long standing image) not upwards (like the proposed new image). Can you please be more specific about how the image is misleading and false? A search of google images shows a great degree of variation between images, so it would be nice to know what criteria you are using to establish what is and isn't a proper aum. -Andrew c [talk] 04:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Both versions are fine in terms of representation, they are just different styles. So the new one is ok IF we can get it into the hands of someone who can create a high quality image without artifacts, without pixelating, without white background, without low resolution, and in non-bitmap format - i.e. svg, scalable format. In other words, the same quality as the "old" one. Otherwise we need to go back to that version. –priyanath talk 04:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please take the image to the graphics lab? Im not really sure how to do that. The image is misleading because it shows the om in a very unusual format. The image is very odd and it doesnt show the traditional om. the new image is closer to the traditional om that you would find in a temple or a chain. Nikkul (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Second Thoughts: How did I miss it? As pointed by User:Andrew c, IMO, the tail usually turns downwards. (When I draw it, I often draw it that way) The shape of new Om is more conventional than the abstract Image:Aum red.svg. But the narrower pointed end of the tail joins at the lower end. The tail goes up first, then moves to right with circular curve, moves down and then joins back at its origin or if not joined, comes near to it like the one uploaded before (pictured). --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Filed this on the graphics lab. 68.39.174.238 17:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Return from the graphics lab: Both are legitimate images, they're just handwriting differences. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that I love the new Om! --ॐJesucristo301 (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with the new om (was ok with the previous one too!), but like Redtigerxyz, I too find the orange colour too glaring. Are there any objections to changing the colour so that it matches the swastika ? Abecedare (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)