Talk:Anarchism in India

message: In wikipedia, there is a separate category named Category:Anarchist movements by country. There are articles like Anarchism in Brazil, Anarchism in France etc., which depict the anarchist movement on that particular countries. Hence the need of this article, which describe anarchist movement in India. Otolemur crassicaudatus 13:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Justification

message: Appears to be relevant to this article, who wants to work it in? Murderbike (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added some info about this from the article.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Har Dayal]]

message: Substituted at 07:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anarchism in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050421015113/http://www.lion-publishing.co.uk/features/0745942342.htm to http://www.lion-publishing.co.uk/features/0745942342.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anarchism in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151001143403/http://raforum.info/article.php3?id_article=3225&lang=en to http://raforum.info/article.php3?id_article=3225&lang=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151001141654/http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n1/bsingh.htm to http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n1/bsingh.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just removed a whole lot of copyvio (from https://raforum.info/article.php3?id_article=3225&lang=en)... might still be more, as I haven't checked the other sources. If so, we might be looking at nuking the article. (not watching, please ) czar 07:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: This whole section is non-sensical. Although there appears to be a reference, I do not understand how it makes sense(even if cited) to include the divine rights of kings in an article about anarchism. Hindu society is stratified along the lines of caste and assuming that if it was even flexible and based on profession, it's fair to say that this does establish that a power difference exists. I think this whole section and possibly the Vedic anarchism needs to be removed. A lot of this article is based on ideas that claim to be anarchist but wouldn't hold up to scrutiny in a general anarchist beliefs of people such as Kropotkin, Bakunin or de Cleyre. This serves as a naive misrepresentation at best and an ignorant attempt at worst.
Thundersparkf (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best thing to do would be to consult the book cited, which is accessible via the Internet Archive, and see if the section can be rewritten to make more sense. This might be as simple as putting "Adi H. Doctor argues that..." at the beginning, or might entail a complete rewrite. For what it's worth, the sentence on the divine of right of kings makes sense to me: I read it as distinguishing between ancient Hindu thought, in which a stateless society is described, and mainstream or modern Hindu thought, in which a stateless society remains a possibility but is not foregrounded to the same extent. I could be misreading it though. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I understand what you're getting at. The concept of king implies the existence of kingdom, and by extension, a border. And a border needs to be enforced. So that would bring the need for a state. Moreover, the author mentions that it is a " time tested and successfully established anarchist model of the ancients", which would mean that either this model would be relevant to anarchists over the world considering it's more successful than Paris Commune or Zapatistas or it would mean that society would have maintained traits of anarchism at least. History and varna system and untouchability prove the latter wrong. And to convert it into "Adi H. Doctor argues that..." wouldn't be fair without also providing a counter argument. And as far as I've looked, if only found the same arguments regurgitated again and again. Would it be fair to give weight to a seemingly misaligned view because it has a citation? Thundersparkf (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would definitely be due weight to give a concise summary of Doctor's argument, unless multiple reliable sources explicitly disputing his argument can be found. If the argument was obviously, egregiously outside of the mainstream there would certainly be an issue of weight, but this doesn't strike me as that sort of case. Without having read the book, Doctor's argument strikes me as idiosyncratic and probably outdated, but by no means so far from the mainstream that we shouldn't include it at all. Bear in mind also that what we include in this article might of necessity be based on more obscure or idiosyncratic viewpoints than those we'd use in other articles: we probably wouldn't cite Doctor in the Hinduism article or the anarchism article, because the idea of a strong connection between anarchism and Hinduism isn't widely held in each of those broader fields, but in this narrower article (or another like anarchism and religion, for example), less widely-held viewpoints carry more weight. But all this is assuming that there aren't good sources directly contradicting Doctor; I could be wrong on that. It might be worth consulting anarchism Wikiproject or another relevant Wikiproject to get more eyes on this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I decided to look up stuff on the book and found this article on libcom . Look at this bit - "Doctor concludes: 'If one can single out any country in which the political philosophy of anarchism was placed in a coffin, the coffin tightly packed and nailed, and then buried full six feet deep, then that country was ancient India.'" I think the author of the cited book is actually arguing that anarchism in ancient India was more or less non-existant. The editor of the section may have just failed to present the point properly. I think the statement after that on Satya Yuga is just the view of the Doctor that anarchism in ancient didn't exist. As such I'm not sure it should be included in the article. We need to read the book to make sure though, the article that I found might itself have summarised it incorrectly. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

text:   and  the section is itself directly copied from this external source . A previous editor has pointed out a different violation on the page and had probably deleted it. Delete the section and completely rewrite if needed? I don't know what the proper process for copyvios is. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in that case best to just get rid (as I've now done). If it could be rewritten in someone's own words that would be ideal, but we might be waiting a long time. I'll add the Doctor book as further reading just in case though. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Seems like the best option for now. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Cool thank you. Thundersparkf (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-government philosophy in ancient Hindu thought 

message: Other than the work that still needs to be done to the Vedic anarchism section - neutralizing the language, sourcing content and removing original research - I think this article is in desperate need of restructuring. This article currently is divided into sections which focus on specific individuals and their relation to anarchism, where I think in order to bring it more in line with other articles that cover anarchist movements in certain regions (e.g. Anarchism in Bangladesh, Anarchism in China, etc.), this needs to be restructured and expanded into a broader overview of the movement as a whole.  I would be happy to get started on this myself, using the sources listed as Doctor (1964), Ramnath (2011) and Ostegaard, Currell (1971), just wanted to bring up the prospect here in the talk page before initiating the process.--Grnrchst (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring and expansion 

message: Alright, the complaints about the Vedic anarchism section have been up for years at this point - it's time to just WP:TNT the thing. If someone wants to rewrite it in a way that doesn't use sources published that predate Queen Victoria (yikes!), please do. Something from this century would be a nice stretch goal... -- asilvering (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the section was pretty much all original research, so I'm not too worried about losing it. The only thing I would contest is the removal of the last paragraph, which I sourced from Doctor (1964), a work specifically about Indian anarchism. So I have reincorporated that into the article. Grnrchst (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that the paragraph citing Doctor shouldn't have been removed. Your other additions look good too. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Great, thanks @Grnrchst! -- asilvering (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vedic anarchism 

message: @Arms & Hearts, your edit summary about adding uncited things to the bibliography - is there any reason not to list these items under "further reading"? Seems to me that would be clearest and most helpful...? -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people sometimes object, though probably more often in cases where the length is excessive, which this isn't approaching. One could also argue that they're mostly for the convenience of editors, and we should only add material that adds clear value for readers, but this isn't particularly clearly one of these cases either. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think in this case adding to "further reading" is helpful to both readers and editors. imo that's better than having them get buried and maybe overlooked in the bibliography. -- asilvering (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography