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 don't know. What do people think? My idea was to have a page of Sacred sites, which would include information about the various religions in India. In this way, it will help people who are coming to India primarily on pilgrimage or for spiritual reasons in general. At the moment it is just a list of places, but I was hoping that it could be enhanced into a proper travel topic by adding short articles about the religions and their historical connections with India. Also, there would need to be a limit on the number of places listed. Anyway, take a look at the discussion below taken from Talk India - Sacred sites discussion. So far, we have two dissensions (including yours, which I assume is a vote against), and no votes in favor of developing. Anyway, let's see if there's any more comments, and if the general consensus is to delete, then let's stamp her with a VFD. WindHorse 10:50, 20 February 2007 (EST)
- What I mean windhorse, is that wikitravel travel topics are not intended to be lists of holy sites or national parks. I realize that many people do come to India for pilgrimages, but I have to agree with Mr. Finn on this one. We can have a section under India#Other destinations with a list of about 7-9 towns.
My suggestion is this, under the India#Other destinations section we can have a line which says, for a comprehensive list of sacred sites in the country, please see Sacred Sites of India. Make this page into a disambguation (forgive me for my wrong sp, please post the correct sp on my talk page!!) and we could move this article to that.
I quote from your previous message — My idea was to have a page of Sacred sites, which would include information about the various religions in India. In this way, it will help people who are coming to India primarily on pilgrimage or for spiritual reasons in general. At the moment it is just a list of places, but I was hoping that it could be enhanced into a proper travel topic by adding short articles about the religions and their historical connections with India.
Sorry windhorse, but I find a number of flaws in what you have suggested.
- Include info on the various religions in India?? That should go in India#Understand or India#Culture.
- It will help people coming primarily on pilmgrimages or for spiritual reasons. Will it?? People coming on pilgrimages can refer to the list on the main India page or the disambguation page. Most people who come for pilgrimages are quite sure about where they are supposed to go, so we should really try to improve the Haridwar, Rishikesh, Char Dham, Madurai, Ajanta and Ellora articles instead of wasting time on this fairly pointlesss argument. And the spiritual stuff bit, well, if you refering to weary Americans who come to the East in search of instant nirvana, we can recommend good ashrams and universities in India#Learn and more specific info on the city page.
- .......by adding short articles about the religions and their historical connections with India. That should go to India#Culture. The sheer diversity of religions in India can be explained in broader detail there. Upamanyuwikitravel 05:58, 21 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)
- I think this page is totally relevant, whether or not we decide to have it replace the "Sacred sites" section of the India page. Let's continue that replacement conversation over there though - Cacahuate 14:41, 21 February 2007 (EST)
- Hi Upamanyuwikitravel. I haven't communicated with you since the Shimla article, which incidentally is looking great. Thanks for you input on this matter, though I would like to make a few comments with regard to the points you raise. First of all, I feel the Understand section is for general information, so while the religions of India can be introduced there, it does not provide adequate space for such a profound and complex subject matter to be given justice. Even before we discuss the needs of dedicated believers, we need to recognize that ordinary tourists also require at least basic information about the philosophy, rituals and customs associated with the religious sites that that they will visit during their stay in India. However, at the moment, there is absolutely nothing. Of course, all this information can be mentioned on each and every sacred site article, but as most of the information is standard for all temples/sacred sites belonging to a particular religion, I believe that it would be convenient if this information was covered under one specific heading. Even general guides like Lonely Planet or Rough Guide dedicate several pages to these matters. While I agree that people already booked on a pilgrimage package tour will know where they are going, others who are traveling independently might like to consider their options. For example, a Hindu may consider staying in Varanasi and then traveling somewhere not too far, such as Haridwar, or maybe they would prefer to limit their pilgrimage to just the east and south only. Whatever, they will need information to assist with this decision. Furthermore, whether those coming to India for spiritual purposes are people looking for instant enlightenment, are deeply committed believers or overseas Indians returning to the mother land is no concern of ours. A travel guide is created to offer information to all travelers, not only those the author or contributors feel an affinity with. Therefore, from the point of view of creating a travel guide, there is no difference in providing information for people wanting to find a place to meditate than providing it for surfers looking for good beaches in Thailand or families trying to locate hiking trails in Scotland. Actually, even Japan and Thailand (and possibly other countries) have printed guide books purely dedicated to information on monasteries and sacred sites, and those countries have far less such places than India. Anyway, those are my points, but having said that, I also think that your argument is reasonable and perhaps you are right and that the subject matter doesn't require a dedicated article. However, as Cacahuate seems to feel that it does, I won't enter it for VFD at the moment. Instead, let's first explore ways to try and develop the article to accommodate everyone's (most people's ?) concerns and incorporate their ideas. What do you and others think? WindHorse 22:42, 21 February 2007 (EST)
First we need a consensus of keeping or deleting. Comments would be appreciated. If delete is the overwhelming majority, then I'll propose for vfd. If people prefer to keep, then I propose the following set up:
- For each section give background info on the religion, with particular attention being given to its connection and significance to Indian culture/history.
- Brief explanation of common images that tourists will encounter in India such as Shiva, Vishnu in Hinduism, Tara, Padmasambhava in Tibetan Buddhism etc. ect.
- Info on respect - eg: are there entry restrictions based on sex or belief? What kind of clothing is acceptable? are leather items banned? Are there restrictions on non-veggie/alcohol within a temple confines? etc. etc.
- List of places: I believe that the Hindu section requires more listing than the others religions, but how to divide up - 7 names for each religion, and then divide India into north and south for Hinduism, giving it a total of 14 listings?
At the moment this section is a mess - just a list of names - so It would be great if a decision could be made whether to keep or not. If keep, then I/we can begin the process of turning the current telephone directory into a proper travel topic. Otherwise, I can propose for vfd and move on. Thanks I'd appreciate any feedback/input. WindHorse 20:05, 23 February 2007 (EST)
- Keep - While I can't lay out a clear vision at the moment, I'd love to see how this page develops... it's as relevant as any other travel topic we have, I think... and could also be somewhat of an itinerary, walking someone through the Buddhist 4-destination circuit of Bodh Gaya, Kushinagar, Sarnath and dipping over the border to Lumbini, for example... or on a circuit of the big temple sites in Tamil Nadu... I don't think (unless there's some policy somewhere) that we should have to limit it to 7 per section or whatever... obviously it shouldn't turn into a yellow pages since there are millions of place with some little link to a minor deity all over India, but I think the point of this page is to expand beyond the constraints of the "Other destinations" section and give a more in depth look at the possibilities - 1 page to look at that can guide someone interested in touring sacred sites to the area(s) they're dreaming about... I think it's got lot's of potential :) - Cacahuate 13:28, 24 February 2007 (EST)
- Thanks for your input. I am probably not the best person to write this article, but anyway I have had a go kick starting it. Please take a look, and tweak and change at will. I appreciate your opinion about not limiting the number of sites listed, though I am afraid that without doing so we may be overwhelmed by contributors making subjective edits. India really has a lot of sacred sites, and personally, I think it would be beneficial to travellers to only list the more important ones. That's why I thought 7 for each religion multiplied by two for Hinduism (by dividing the country in to north and south) would be a good start - which is still far more than the original front page list that offered space for only nine sites for all religions. Also, from experience, I know that it can be almost impossible to persuade a contributor not to add a place unless we can show them some regulation. Anyway, I haven't not added restrictions and will not do so unless you and others agree to it. Thanks again for your suggestions. WindHorse 03:24, 25 February 2007 (EST)