Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sacred sites of India"
Revision as of 16:07, 20 February 2007
Er, is this a relevant travel topic?? Shouldn't there be a list on the main India page??
Or we could make a disambguation (i don't know the sp!!!) page. Upamanyuwikitravel 10:08, 18 February 2007 (EST)
:I've taken a look at the info for both places on Wikipedia and agree that Char Dham probably is more of an important tourist and pilgrimage site than Madurai. However, until the stuff copied from other sites (eg: ) has been removed from the article, I oppose its addition on the front page. Once this issue has been dealt I will no longer object. Cheers. WindHorse 11:00, 17 February 2007 (EST)
:So I haven't thoroughly read the long-winded conversation above, but I just spent about a year in India, and I've never heard of Vrindavan or Chan Dham. Not that that's a measure of much... but if Chan Dham is going to replace something, I think it should be Vrindavan, rather than Madurai. For one, there isn't an article written yet about V, and Madurai is pretty hugely visited, and then also used as a base for the plethora of other temple sites around Tamil Nadu - Cacahuate 03:54, 18 February 2007 (EST)
:Ooh, another thought... what about creating a travel topic such as Sacred sites of India, with sections for all of the religions. Then we're not trying to fit a sea of possibilities into a list of 9 - Cacahuate 04:01, 18 February 2007 (EST)
:That's a good idea. In fact, let's give that a try. Like national parks, there are just too many sacred sites in India to fit into a selection of nine. A specialist page with the main sacred sites listed will be convenient for people coming to India purely for spiritual reasons. Anyway, I'll set it up, and if there a lot dissent, then we can always hit the roll back button. WindHorse 04:12, 18 February 2007 (EST)
:I'll dissent, for one. A comprehensive list of sacred sites for India would be near-infinitely long, and the point of the main India page is to give selected pointers, not whack readers on the head with a phonebookful of listings. Jpatokal 02:26, 20 February 2007 (EST)
:By setting this up, I was thinking in terms of the major sacred sites, not every garden shrine. It can still be limited, but by increasing the number of sites listed it facilitates more people whose specific purpose to visit India is for pilgrimage. Such a list will give them the opportunity to find places directly, rather than going through regional lists. The hodgepodge list of mixed religious sites on the front page does not accomplish this, because obviously most Hindus will not be interested in the Sikh shrines and Sikhs not interested in the Buddhist ones, and therefore merely listing one Sikh holy place is of no benefit to Sikhs traveling to India on pilgrimage. Now, if you are dissenting on the basis of tourists finding a destination of interest, then the places don't necessarily have to be listed as sacred sites, rather as Other destinations with spiritual significance, because except for Varanasi and possibly Rishikesh/Haridwar most tourists will be less interested in the ritual, special festivals excluded, than in the the architecture. Certainly Ellora and Ajanta fit this category and I believe that most visitors who trek over to Bodh Gaya are Buddhist as are those who make the journey out to Sarnath, because, to be frank, there is not much there of interest to the casual visitor. To conclude, I feel that a Sacred site list as a travel topic is no less valid than Electronics and entertainment shopping in Thailand, Golf in China, California desert camping or Tramping in New Zealand, because like these articles it serves to supply information suited to a specific group of people with specialist interests and, yes, I do believe that the Sacred sites article should include basic information about the religions and possibly their historical connections with India, and not just be a telephone directory of names. Anyway, I do understand your point, and I fully agree with you if we are looking at the matter from the point of view of a front page listing, and this why it has been changed to a travel topic - to supply more detailed information to a specific interest group. Significant sacred sites that are of interest to tourists can still be listed under Other destinations. Anyway, that's my point, but if you strongly disagree, that's OK. I agree that your point is also valid and that the setting up of a Sacred sites specialist page does have it flaws and draw backs. As with most thing, nothing is 100% right or wrong. Let's see what others think, and I am happy to accord with the general consensus. WindHorse 03:36, 20 February 2007 (EST)