Talk:Integral humanism (India)

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: At no point in this article is it actually explained what the philosophy of "integral humanism" is. The intro and first section describe when, where, and who. The second section describes what it isn't, and allegedly why it's necessary. The third section describes the contents of some membership form, and is totally irrelevant to anything. The fourth section describes a partial history of the BJP party, which is not the topic of this article. The fifth section explains that there was once a French guy who used the same term to mean something else.
[The "French guy" referenced above was Jacques Maritain one of the leading European thinkers of the 20th century. Where the Indian "integral humanism" would be important in India, Maritain's integral humanism was a key influence in European intellectual history and in Catholic social thought. Unfortunately, Maritain is dismissed as a "French guy" which is illustrative of the depth of ignorance which infuses so much Wikipedia content]LAWinans (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has no actual content on the stated topic at all. Delete it. --76.217.94.0 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's just a political label, it doesn't need to have any content. Nationalism works that way. Cry "indigenous self-reliance" and people will think you are talking good sense even if you haven't actually made any sort of point. --dab (𒁳) 19:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly my sentiment.  This article is totally content-free.  It makse no sense.  Dharma-artha-kama-mokshani and rejection of individualism, whatever that means, don't add up to a political and economic theory.  They don't even make a start.  Kautilya3 (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of hits the term has on google scholar and other academic search engines shows that the term itself is notable, and deserves an article. I don't currently have the time to go through the literature, but it is likely that some of those criticisms are present in the literature, and are worth looking into. Based off of the large amount of BJP literature that I have read, I would say that this article has "INUNIVERSE" issues, if you will; it is accurate so far as it goes, but it leaves out the context and criticism, so it doesn't go far enough. Specifically, the idea that it was evolved and adopted as a thin screen for Hindutva. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mean to say that the subject is pointless.  It is obviously a central plank in the BJP philosophy.  But this article is pointless in its current form.  It has obviously omitted all the politically inconvenient bits of the philosophy so that what remains doesn't say anything of any substance.  For instance, I see in Chetan Bhatt that the dharma of Indian society is supposed to mean that the constitution of India as a federation of states is wrong.  Now, that is real politics.  Not just the mention of dharma.  Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I mean; the errors in this are errors of omission, not errors of commission. The content in the article is accurate, but misleading because it leaves things out. The Meera Nanda source, for instance, is a critique of Hindu Nationalism in general; the way it has been used, though, you would never suspect that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I can explain the empty feeling. This article is more about anti-Hindutva politics than philosophy. It is clear from opening labels like "ideological hijacking", "transplant" and "appropriate the authority (of) Gandhian idioms". The writer approaches "integral humanism" not as legitimate philosophy but as a political hack's attempt to sugarcoat the otherwise (presumably) bitter Hindutva philosophy. .Sooku (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space-filling article. 

message: Integral Humanism does not mention its very basic definition, it just "States" that integral humanism is brought together from so and so ideology. the contrast nature that we can get among ideologies like Communism versus capitalism that contrast is missing. it is very difficult to differentiate integral Humanism with any other form of moral responsibility for as a matter of fact any other responsibility.
Also the page heavily rely on the sole person Deen Dayal Upadhyay. it is very veil and sharp technique to advertise some person and political party he was part of.
The deletion of this page should be discussed as the page cannot define even its meaning RashmikantT (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page should be deleted 

message: Despite the obvious albeit vague and meandering hostility to the very existence of this article, it should be kept. Whether one likes it or not, the BJP is a large and important political party in a large and important democracy, and this is about their founder's philosophy that explains their policies. The BJP and its parent RSS inspire a lot of critics but that does not make the subjects less relevant to Wikipedia. Sooku (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important article - keep it.