Talk:Indian nationalism/Archive 1

message: While the subject of the article needs to be represented on Wikepedia, I believe that the tone and content are inappropriate. Each of the themes taken up need to be referenced strongly as each of them can add to lot of controversy and debate unless referenced from credible sources. Characterisation of major religions and political parties appears too simplistic at times. I believe that the article can be improved to a much better state with a Neutral Point of View and hence I inserted the tag. Regards, --Gurubrahma 13:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Dear Gbrahma 
NPOV is wrong tag to put on this article. There is in fact, a need for more information from a variety of Wikiusers which hasn't come in yet. You give people the wrong idea with NPOV. 
Tone: there is no problem with tone. Careful language has been in fact used to prevent any Pakistanis or Bangladeshis from taking offense. 
If some facts are controversial, so be it. It is not my fault they are controversial, but they do remain FACTS.
When I started this article, I knew that I didn't have a long list of references to suck up information from. But guess what, I could create an organized article that others could add to. 
You could help best by putting info in here. If you want to change tone, content, add your own improved passages to this. - Nirav
:Cd u pls. let us know as to why the reference to Chinese Nationalism was inserted and then removed by you? Let a couple of users with some standing on wikipedia debate on whether the NPOV tag has to be removed. If you believe that it is unnecessary and still feel that it is an inappropriate tag, remove that but answer the question above and I will not reinsert the tag. --Gurubrahma 06:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under Construction  

message: The Chinese Nationalism link was deleted by me, because it was apearing red for some reason, despite a very good article being present and accessible. 
I see the possible mistake theatres in this article, and I will remove them. In return, I hope you will contribute something to this article, instead of simply criticizing it. 
Good luck - Nirav.
:The link was red because you used wrong capitalisation. The article is Chinese nationalism. This is the right way to name articles that are not proper nouns; this is also a Wikipedia convention. IMHO, criticism as long as it is confined to the article is definitely a seminal contribution. --Gurubrahma 11:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorable, Final Agreement  

message: And hopefully a good one, feedback on inclusion of Indian cuisine and fashion would be appreciated. Freedom skies 03:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: D'you reckon the dot points should be prosified? Nobleeagle  (Talk) 07:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A fresh start

message: The citations are there in the new links and related books are mentioned as well, which should be available in any public library of repute if you want to see them. Anyways, try to shorten up the article a bit, after all this work I'm too tired to summarize the article. Also, brilliant work for the editor who does all the grammer editing around here, the language is great and does not have the sombre funeral tone of the earlier encyclopedic squad. Good Work.Freedom skies 22:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The new stuff

message: This article should either be moved to Indian Patriotism or renamed to Indian forms of Nationalism and Patriotism to reduce the level of emphasis on Ethnic difference within the Indian subcontinent.  
In particular, it is useful and necessary to consider the scientific basis of nationalisms both historically and currently (in relation to genetic similarity and the cladistic foundations of racial classifications).  
The concept of Indian Nationalism does not need to be precarious (especially in regards to their surrounding populations - Indians can certainly claim that they have a variety of distinguishing features that make them significantly different from those that surround them), so overly emphasising the sub-nationalisms of other groups within India is not advisable.  In fact, if anything productive is to be done with this article, perhaps the phrase India Nationalism can be further justified through various aspects that unite the Indian people (which may/may not involve foreign threats, competition and the fact that India is still a developing country in a world which a far over-representative power capability for the Old Industrial North).  
AxSingh 22:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: INDIAN PATRIOTISM

message: This article seems to state that indian nationalism revolves around a certain set of ideas... the problem is that most indians do not believe in these ideas. There is no evidence that any indian historians of note support any of these historical ideas that this article is stating. Further, it seems that some indian historians like tharpa  at harvard disagree with many of these ideas.  They seem to be the ideas of a minority of indians grouped together into one article.   Some of them are sort of ridiculous and the factual content questionable as is discussed above.  This article is similar to writing an article on american nationalism and then stating that most americans believe in "white supremacy," that america is the "best country in the world", and that america is the "birthplace of democracy"... those ideas that i mentioned of course are NOT held by the majority of americans. Steelhead 21:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For all intents and purposes, America IS the birthplace of democracy.Netaji 21:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: American Nationalists say nothing of the sort. American nationalism is not the same as "White Nationalism", which is what you refer to above. America, like India, is a synthesis of many races. The comparison of Indian nationalism with WN does not apply here as the strengths of Indian Nationalism are precisely the points which WN people condemn (diversity). They are virtual opposites in ideology. American Nationalists are perfectly aware of the multi-ethnic nature of their country.Netaji 21:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite frankly, Thapar is a biased pseudoscholar who can't be quoted without qualification as to her Marxist leanings (Plus, she has nothing to do with Harvard).Plus, all the claims here are properly referenced from legit sources. There are many academics like Will Durant, Rajiv Malhotra, Edwin Bryant and Jawaharlal Nehru, for instance, who support many of these facts quite adequately, thank you.Netaji 21:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: see below for my reply Steelhead 13:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: npov

message: subash, i think there has been a general consensus that the whole section entitled "belief in the ancient nature of india" is questionable in its veracity along with the fact that no one has been able to show that indians actually believe in these ideas as a majority... I tried to remove the section to represent what the everone has been stating but obiously there is one person on here who wants it to remain... I'm placing a disputed tag to represent our dispute. Kennethtennyson 02:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per above. Since everything is cited, removal is vandalism.Shiva's Trident 02:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I don't need to address anything. Also see WP:AGF, don't assign motives to other users. "believe in facts"? What kind of joke is this? Bakaman Bakatalk 02:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Placing a dispute tag in the middle or end of an article merely hides the dispute tag... the purpose of it is to draw attention to the dispute which is the current section... it is accepted policy to leave the freaking tag at the head of the article... so please leave it there...Kennethtennyson 02:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Your only dispute is with the last sentence, which I can anecdotally confirm (though that is not enough for wikipedia, obviously; I'm working on finding some refs). As for the rest of the section, it is vital to establish a background for the history of the country in order to explain the stuff below it in the article. Everything mentioned in the section is well-sourced fact. In fact, disputable statements that were present in the section were removed earlier. I have put the fact tag on the last sentence for now. I think that should be enough. If I can;t find any objective references to back it up, then I will personally dispute the section's validity. Until then, it stays as per consensus.Shiva's Trident 03:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry. You were saying? CiteCop 20:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Your tag is inaccurate. You dispute NEUTRALITY. The factual accuracy of 99% of the article is verified as per wikipedia policy. The unverifiable bits were removed.Shiva's Trident 04:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm. do we have another WP:NPA violation in our hands I wonder quietly to myself?Shiva's Trident 05:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I never said I removed them.Shiva's Trident 06:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Why does wikipedia refer to Lyceum correction Schools in Athens as a university? By these definitions, Greece did not have any Universities in the modern sense either. <removed potentially inflammatory comment by myself and replaced with> Double Standards on wikipedia!Shiva's Trident 06:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the relevance of this little temper tantrum to the discussion at hand is?Shiva's Trident 06:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Illustrating your credibility. CiteCop 13:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:Civil and Wp:NPA violation.Shiva's Trident 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see my comments below. This entire section simply has to go. Hornplease 11:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: general consensus

message: :How about this as a reference:
The book is "Nation, Nationalism and Social Structure in Ancient India : A Survey through Vedic Literature Acharya" by Dr S. Acharya
"The concepts of nation and nationalism are generally considered as having their genesis in western modes of thought. However, in this book, Dr. Shiva Acharya attempts to show that the theories of nation and nationalism can be traced to the Vedic era on the basis of a painstaking study of the Vedic culture and civilization.
<from an online review here>
"The book analyses the social, political, civil and military, economic, religious and philosophical aspects of the Vedic culture to explore the origin of the concepts of rastra (nation), motherland and rastrabhakti (patriotism), parliaments, the notion of all-round development, democratic educational system, equality of peoples and economic growth for prosperity in Vedic times. Citing from the Vedas and other Vedic literature and a host of modern scholarly researches on the subject, it presents the salient features of the nation and nationalism theories as found in ancient Indian culture such as their stress on culture-based nationalism rather than political. It points out that these features have enabled India to continue with its past traditions and culture and emerge as a successful nation in modern times."
Amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/Nation-Nationalism-Social-Structure-Ancient/dp/818692129X/ref=sr_11_1/002-1661668-4766455?ie=UTF8
:I will buy/borrow the book and read it unless teh Shahebs want to throw another tantrum.Shiva's Trident 07:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think a review of a book written by an obscure author is what decides wiki content. And Saheb is not a word that is polite either as it was what Soth Asians referred to their white colonisers, it's something like "Massa" that slaves used for their white masters. Haphar 07:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On what basis do you claim that he is obscure? He is a published author by a fairly reputable publisher.Shiva's Trident 08:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I havent heard of the publisher. I would suggest you do not selectively locate books in this manner, as that merely indicates to observers that the level of neutrality in the article is insufficient. Hornplease 11:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I made a mistake. I thought that the publisher was "Narosa Publishing House" (which is notable) but now I see that it is "Decent Publishers" (I've never heard of them either, but isn't listing on Amazon enough to establish some credibility? After all, Amazon does not list just any arbitrary publication).Still looking for other refs...Shiva's Trident 13:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Amazon sells books, it does not perform any checks, any author that has a market in the "Western world" will get onto Amazon. So an Amazon listing is not any indication of "credibility". They would sell Mast Ram books if they had buyers Haphar 14:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the origin of Nationalist beliefs in India

message: The section is quite questionable in that it claims achievements for ancient Indian civilisation are the basis for a sense of pride. First of all, an academic investigation of the causes of Indian nationalism should not focus necessarily on the normative question of "what can Indians feel pride about". Secondly, we have required all these achievements are in many cases irrelevant, even if we need to suggest that ancient indian 'firsts' are crucial to Indian nationalistm - which I doubt - because to claim that most Indians are aware of this stuff about martial arts or whatever is absurd.  To put it front and centre in an article on nationalism is to suggest that the hundreds of millions who might believe that they are part of a nation-composite called India need to think, in order to justify that, about the Indus script or Kautilya or kalaripattayu. This is unsupportable. I strongly suggest that we reconsider the entire drift of this article. We need to look at what actually causes national cohesion, or the lack thereof, in India today, and we are not going about it the right way at all. Hornplease 12:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it interesting that you didn;t raise any such objections in Pakistani nationalism.Death to Kaffirs?Shiva's Trident 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Drop that attitude, Subhash. Its not funny, its not accurate, its not appropriate, its not useful. Hornplease 07:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry. You were saying? CiteCop 20:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: All the section does is to establish a historical context to the concept of Indian nationalism. it does not say that these things are the root of Indian Nationalism.Shiva's Trident 13:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, that is precisely what it is saying. Secondly, it does not establish a 'historical context' at all. A 'historical context' would give the historical circumstances in which people felt the necessity to build up a common national consciousness. Please dont throw the terms around without knowing what they mean. Hornplease 07:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Nature section 

message: :Regarding CiteCop's edit about Taxila being "Buddhist", I merely point out that terms like "Buddhism", "Vedism", "Hinduism" etc did not exist during the period in discussion (in fact, the word Hindu did not even exist back then). Plus, the Differences between "Hinduism" and "Buddhism" , in terms of society were not that pronounced (the Hindu-Buddhist rift occurred much later).Therefore, it is inappropriate to characterize Taxila as "Buddhist" because it introduces an exclusivist bias.Plus, religion is not the issue here, it's nationalism. I mean, I'm sure CiteCop would refer to Athens as an "Ancient Greek City" not an "Ancient Hellenistic City".Shiva's Trident 17:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disputing that. I am disputing the relevance of adding redundant information to the article.Shiva's Trident 17:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding CiteCop's edit