Talk:Indian nationalism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Didn't mean to get in any dispute, just citing sourced material

The long and auspicious history of India has it's roots going back to the establish Thanks for the kind words, CiteCop. I'm not really privy to the dispute which I think exists here , all I know is I'm citing sourced material. Please allow the sourced content to stay in it's present form.

I hope you guys get to solve your dispute soon, since you seem to have worked hard on the article. Freedom skies 19:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Freedom skies, the dispute revolved around the description of Taxila as the "oldest" or "first" university that you just re-inserted. The first paper's source for that claim is a website of, shall we say, questionable scholarly rigor. And the second merely describes it as the earliest of the ancient Indian universities.
Also, that material you just added regarding astronomy and such, I'm going to remove it and ask you for the sources for those claims.
Also, I have a fairly reliable source that credits atomism not to Pakhuda Katyayana, but to Kanada, another ancient Indian philosopher, so come up with a source for that, and we can see which one is more credible.
Regards
CiteCop 19:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(♂) 19:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Pakistani nationalism entry cites the same sources for Taxila that the Indian nationalism page used to and, as demonstrated above, neither of the sources cited verifies the claim that Taxila is "regarded by many historians as the world's oldest university".
CiteCop 20:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern day Pakistan was a part of ancient India, they have every right to feel proud about the histories of the geographical area ceded to the some 60 years ago.

The first paper's source for that claim is a website of, shall we say, questionable scholarly rigor.

It's an academic source from a reputed university, I will bring in more sources in addition to this one in the next few hours of similar academic nature though.

Also, that material you just added regarding astronomy and such, I'm going to remove it and ask you for the sources for those claims.

Would be glad to, these links [1][2][3][4] were already provided there. Those articles are sourced too.

and who removed Reiki ???

Anyways, the articles I cited are completely sourced, which should protect them from being removed, I'll bring in more such papers, especially of takshshila, as soon as I get time, which should be very soon.

I realize I walked in an ongoing tussle/debate, my idea is to just add sourced material, and keep personal POVs and opinions out of Wikipedia artilcles, not to take sides.

Freedom skies 07:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


As I have said above, this entire debate about sources is pointless, as this article is not the appropriate place for this discussion. We need to be discussing the evolution or imposition of a certain common consciousness for the people now called Indian. Worrying about Taxila is, frankly, peripheral. Hornplease 07:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of Indian heritage, My family also owns a home in India, on going there one sees Takshshila often comes up as a source of Pride within the Indian youth, it's one of the things that form nationalist sentiment there and the list is about mentioning things Indians take pride in.

Anyways, I realize that people have personal opinions, and from what I see, removing sourced text means that they have strong personal opinions, just don't let it interfere with the sourced portions of the article, people. Resolve your disputes here, in the talk page that

Jimbo Wales intended for this purpose, or give each other ids and chat on Yahoo real time to reach an agreement, if your altercations result in personal POVs removing sourced material, it can't be good.Freedom skies 08:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for your reply to my suggestion. However, your personal experience is inadmissible as an argument. If you can cite a mainstream academic work suggesting that knowledge of these achievements is central to the development of Indian national consciousness, I will withdraw my concerns. Until then, my point stands. Hornplease 08:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The facts themselves have been cited, a citation by Stephen Cohen, as follows :-

The specter of collapse has passed and India is emerging as a major Asian power, joining China and Japan. The 1998 nuclear tests in the Rajasthan desert that announced India's entry into the nuclear club only served to underscore the nation's new stature. India has begun economic reforms that promise at last to realize its vast economic potential. It possesses the world's third largest army. It occupies a strategic position at the crossroads of the Persian Gulf, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia. Its population, which crossed the one billion mark this year, may surpass China's within two decades. It is the site of one of the world's oldest civilizations, a powerful influence throughout Asia for thousands of years, and for the last 53 years, against all odds, it has maintained a functioning democracy.

Should be enough for a lot of questions, people of Indian heritage and nationality take pride in these achievements, cited by world renowed professors like Stephen Cohen.

The other citation is http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/articles/sen/, self explainatory.

I am not arguing with any of those citations. However, how is this relevant to the first section, which deals with ancient Indian achievements - not even the beliefs surrounding those achievements, but the records of those achievements? I repeat, If you can cite a mainstream academic work suggesting that knowledge of these ancient achievements is central to the development of Indian national consciousness, I will withdraw my concerns. Until then, my point stands, still unrefuted. Hornplease 05:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's interesting that you don;t raise the same concerns on
Shiva's Trident 08:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Subhash: I expect less trouble there, as and when I re-edit it in line with what is decided here. In the meantime, do try and answer my point without misdirection. Hornplease 07:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for Takshashila, I have provided a mention directly from Government of Pakistan[5], which should be good enough for anybody.Freedom skies 09:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an academic source from a reputed university
If you look carefully at its footnotes, you'll see that its source for the "first university in the world" claim is, in fact, a questionable website.
a mention directly from Government of Pakistan, which should be good enough for anybody.
Because governments never lie? Especially when it comes to matters of national pride?
The ideal source for this statement would be a cross-cultural survey of education in the ancient world, i.e. one that examined higher education in Egypt, Babylon, China, Persia, Greece, etc instead of just India alone.
The same goes for the scientific claims. One such cross-cultural survey credits atomism not to Pakudha Katyayana—whose name, incidentally, does not appear in any of Subhash Kak's papers cited for the claim, nor does the word "sapekshavadam," nor do those quotes from Aryabhata and A.L. Basham—but to a different ancient Indian philosopher, Kanada.
As for Subhash Kak's papers, I have consulted multiple histories of astronomy and none of them concur with Kak's conclusions. After doing a little more research on the professor, it appears that his ideas about the history of science are considered well outside of the academic mainstream.
One thing to keep in mind about papers from arxiv is that they do not undergo editorial vetting and fact-checking like an academic journal or a scholarly press would submit them to.
Regards,
CiteCop 02:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because governments never lie? Especially when it comes to matters of national pride?


Then Cite it that they do in case of Taxila and it's not your personal feelings talking and removing sourced text. Since you have consulted sources, it should'nt be that hard to pull off.


I have consulted multiple histories of astronomy and none of them concur with Kak's conclusions.


I go to a university too, I have consulted many historians and they speak highly about other historians not place them in exile.


As for the extent of this thought,

Albert Einstien
's quote, "We owe a lot to Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made." , your sources more verifiable that the man himself ???

Personal judgement of official sources and academic websites is Not good enough for removing sourced texts. It does'nt cut it

If it interferse with any past disagreements people have had here, too bad. But the authority here is an official government website, the other is a website by a professor. Get a citation that they are lying specifically on this matter and maybe we can move forward, the removal of an academic source and a government mention just because an editor feels like it, is unwarrented.

Saying that the government is lying and the prof is an exile does outline the past disagreements that editors have had over this issue, but no matter how strong personal feelings get sourced text must remain, as

Jimbo wales
intended it to, Wikipedia is not a place for personal emotions to interfere with academic or offical sources, it's a place to for citing sourced, verifiable information, not a soapbox for personal emotions.

Thanks for the active participation though. Freedom skies 11:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I would like to know specifically, where does it say :-
  • That the government of Pakistan has fallen under controversy or even faced dispute for calling a 700 years old university the oldest in the world.
  • That all academics lie when they cite information about maths from the Rig Veda, with specific mentions and everything, I'm sure it's not too hard to find an english copy of Rigveda in a library and check them out for your self, the sutras and everything. The prof has done so, and I've cited him.Freedom skies 11:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On an additional note, I (as a physicist) can attest to the legitimacy of arxiv articles' effective peer review process. The way it works is that peers see the articles, point out errata (if any) to the author and the author corrects it in errata of subsequent reposts (see this:

http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/grp_q-bio,grp_cs,grp_physics,grp_math,grp_nlin/1/all:+AND+Kak+Subhash/0/1/0/all/0/1?skip=25&query_id=f429311c2ada4136)

physics/9903010 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : Title: Concepts of Space, Time, and Consciousness in Ancient India Authors: Subhash Kak Comments: 14 pages; with minor corrections and a few additional references Subj-class: History of Physics; Popular Physics Journal-ref: In S. Kak, "The Wishing Tree", 2001 (Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, ISBN: 81-215-1032-5.)

Plus, the paper is published in a traditional peer-review journal also.

Shiva's Trident 11:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Freedom skies,
Likewise, there is no need to get defensive of become emotional over what is a conflict about sources.
What I am questioning the notion that a government source is ever "good enough for anybody" or should ever be the final word.
If you'll look above I consulted one source specifically about the history of Taxila and another text devoted to education in ancient India, precisely the kind of source one would expect to confirm the claim "first university in the world" and they did not.
I have consulted multiple histories of astronomy and none of them concur with Kak's conclusions.
I go to a university too, I have consulted many historians and they speak highly about other historians not place them in exile.
What's with all this talk about "exile"? I was saying that multiple sources on the history of astronomy conflict with Kak's claims.
As for the extent of this thought,
Albert Einstien
's quote, "We owe a lot to Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made." , your sources more verifiable that the man himself ???
I am not questioning the scientific prowess of ancient Indians. I'm questioning whether they ought to be ascribed with the specific achievements that you list.
By the way, if you can source it, that quote would make a great addition to this section.
Get a citation that they are lying specifically on this matter and maybe we can move forward, the removal of an academic source and a government mention just because an editor feels like it, is unwarrented.
sourced text must remain, as
Jimbo wales
intended it to
Actually, Freedom skies, the burden of providing a reputable source falls on the editor adding material (i.e. you), not on the editor questioning that material, who in fact does have the right to remove it. See
WP:V
.
And what
WP:V
.
On an additional note, I (as a physicist) can attest to the legitimacy of arxiv articles' effective peer review process.
It appears as if Wikipedia disagrees with you, Shivaji's Trident.
Plus, the paper is published in a traditional peer-review journal also.
If you could point out where, that would be very much appreciated.
Here:

Journal-ref: Correction: It's a section of a book In S. Kak, "The Wishing Tree", 2001 (Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, ISBN: 81-215-1032-5.).

Shiva's Trident 14:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

If you notice the summary to the arxiv article pasted above, it says so there.
Shiva's Trident 14:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


Perhaps we should first try and address and issue that we will find less contentious, such as which ancient Indian philosopher should be credited with
Katyayana
or Kanada]]?
CiteCop 14:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what Taxila's chronological status has to do with Indian nationalism. The place isn't even located in India! Secondly, if someone disputes a claim of being first in the world, they should state who in fact was first, and their source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sooku (talk • contribs) 09:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Credible sources

I give you my word: if you can attribute something to a source that is peer reviewed I will let it stand.

I have fact-checked almost all of the bullets in this section. I left the first half dozen alone because they check out, that is, the sources they cite are credible AND the sources cited verify the text.

By contrast,

  • Pakudha Katyayana's name appears nowhere in the cited Kak articles.
  • That quote from Aryabhata appears nowhere in the cited Kak articles.
  • That quote from A.L. Basham appears nowhere in the cited Kak articles.

The very least that one expects, when a source is cited for a quotation, is for that quotation to appear somewhere in that source.

As for Kak himself, I have checked three other histories of astronomy and none of them confirm Kak's claims.

Shiva's Trident/Netaji/Subhash bose himself found some of those claims dubious.[6][7][8]

Remember, I was the one who added the bullet about Kanada because I had a reliable source.[9]
CiteCop 16:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irrational Hesperophilia and Orientophobia


Just because Subhash Kak is a brown person does not automatically rate him as unreliable, except maybe to a Kiplingist. He has tenure in a reputable univ. He has accolades.He has a fairly long publication history in Cryptologia, ACM Ubiquity, Int. Journal of Theoretical Physics, Foundations of Physics Letters ,History of Science, Philosophy & Culture in Indian Civilization,Information Sciences and other periodicals. Look at his publication history on arxiv (the arxiv articles are preprints of articles that HAVE been published in peer-review journals listed above).

I said find the relativity bit dubious, as well as claims that ALL planets were discovered, though I believe Kak says that only some of the planets were discovered. Everything else is fine.

The Kanada thing is fine.

Shiva's Trident 16:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I know the Kanada thing is fine. I WAS THE ONE WHO ADDED THE KANADA THING.[10]

What I want to know is where the Pakhuda Katyayana thing comes from, because it doesn't come from Kak. Neither do the quotes from Aryabhata and A.L. Basham.

I repeat, the very least that one can expect when a source is cited for a quotation is for that quotation to appear somewhere in the cited source.

Kanada's field of expertise is computers, not the history of science.

As for arxiv,again

CiteCop 16:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think the problem is one of semantics... i'm rewording it to "one of the oldest universities in the world.." therefore, we won't go into a wrestling war as to what is the oldest. if you really think about it the egyptians or sumerians probably had the oldest... secondly, the article is about indian nationalism so i'm rewording it to state that these are the sentiments of many indians... not all mind you but many.... for example romila tharpa (who is professor emeritus at an indian university) and most academics would disagree with many of these ideas on who is first or who invented what. Kennethtennyson 19:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Credible, citable sources

Like Dr. Kak will be used, no matter how hard it is for some people to understand that sourced text from renowed academics is used for citation in Wikipedia, not personal thoughts and opinions.
Dr. Kak's work has appeared in many encyclopedias. For example, Stanley Wolpert - edited Encyc. of India (Scribner's, 2006). You can see the list of topics here at this site. [11]
How's that for peer review ?? ??
And as you know, Wolpert is a very conservative historian, and not a supporter of "Hindu nationalism."
Personal emotions should be set aside, sourced text should not be removed no matter how strong past disagreements are.
Regards.Freedom skies 19:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if someone wants to do something to actually help on the page, instead of incessent, irritable removing of sourced text, archive. See you in a couple of days.Freedom skies 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proper and improper citation

This is how Ancient India's scientific achievements were attributed.

CiteCop: that material you just added regarding astronomy and such, I'm going to remove it and ask you for the sources for those claims.

Freedom skies: Would be glad to, these links [12][13][14][15] were already provided there. Those articles are sourced too.

I consulted The History & Practice of Ancient Astronomy[16] as well as The Cambridge Concise History of Astronomy[17] and neither of them corroborated Kak's claims.

This hardly qualifies as "well known and documented".

The word "circumference" appears in none of the four Kak papers cited for this section.

The word "gravity" appears in none of the four Kak papers cited for this section.

Neither "Pakudha" nor "Katyayana" appears anywhere in the four Kak papers cited for this section.

The word "sapekshavadam" appears in none of the four Kak papers cited for this section.

This quote by Aryabhata appears in none of the four Kak papers cited for this section.

This quote by A.L. Basham appears in none the four Kak papers cited for this section.

At the barest minimum, the very least that one ought to expect is that, when a source is cited for a quotation, that the quotation appear somewhere in the cited source.

Material attributed to a source that does not verify the text not only may be removed, it ought to be removed.
CiteCop 06:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that the sources cited are a load of Kak?
*Badum-CHING*
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week! Try the veal lobster, it's fantastic!
JFD 06:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a defamatory post against a living person. Please refrain from making such immature posts.Hkelkar 09:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to my post, I don't see how it is defamatory to point out that certain words and phrases do not appear in cited sources.
If you are referring to JFD's post, I don't think it's meant to be taken seriously.
As evidenced by the "rimshot".
CiteCop 13:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the eclipses part is mentioned in the article.Hkelkar 09:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is precisely why I left that statement alone and attributed it to Kak by name.
CiteCop 13:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sen and Cohen citations

They do not support the statements for which they are purportedly citations. I have mentioned this before, above. Unless alternative citations are provided within 24 hours I am removing them as well as the statements that they do not support. Hornplease 07:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've been reading this article and edit wars for a while now. While I agree that Subhash is being negligent with the refs, I looked at the Cohen ref and it said:

Since the heady days of Nehru, all Indian leaders have proclaimed a special destiny or mission for India in Asia and the world, based on the greatness of its civilization, its strategic location, and its distinctive view of the world

The answer is that unlike the people of other middle powers such as Indonesia, Brazil, and Nigeria, Indians believe that their country has both a destiny and an obligation to play a large role on the international stage.

I think this supports the statement that the ancient nature of Indian civilization is a source of pride among Indian politicians and Indian citizens.Hkelkar 09:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, the "greatness of its civilisation" is not the same as "ancient origins". Second, its one of three clauses in a single, throwaway, sentence, in a forty-page essay on resurgent Indian nationalism and foreign policy. That is simply insufficient and inaccurate. I will remove it and the sentence. Hornplease 22:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite me the specific wikipedia policy that claims that a minimun number of sentences is required for a reliable source?Hkelkar 22:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try not to be deliberately obtuse here. The "greatness of its civilisation" is clearly given minimial importance in the Cohen piece, which is then cited as a reference to support a giving it considerable importance in the WP entry. This is mis-citation. Hornplease 22:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you can also check some of the works by Edwin Bryant.
Also if you can help, find the source for the statement, All five human races are originally found in India, and nowhere else in the world. i.e. India is the native country for the members of all human races. (like mongoloids, caucasians, negroids and austroloids )
(♂) 09:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

India is the 'native' home to ALL 'races'??

Now hold on a minute with this edit. Is India the "native" home to the Inuit Eskimos? What about the Anasazi Native-Americans? Mestizos? Did they come from India too????? I admit that there are many ethnicities in India: Causasoids, Mongoloids, Africans, Dravidians etc.. But "all" seems a bit much.
I reworded the edit to make it a bit less POV, I'll read the ref to see if this sweeping statement is made there exactly verbatim or not.Hkelkar 23:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing. The census listed in the article is very old, as is the analysis. Back then "races" meant just whites and blacks. It was a narrow view that modern studies refute. There are many "races" in the world that are recognized as distinct ethnic subgroups who have had no connection with India at all. we can say, based on this ref, that many ethnicities are represented in Indian society, more than any other part of the world, but not "every and all".Hkelkar 23:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When we talk about human races, we just talk about the basic fives, i.e. Caucasians, negroids, mongoloids, australoids and i think proto-australoids. Inuit Eskimos are the subgroup of Mongoloids. Native is important here because in the current scenario, even US have all the five races.
(♂) 23:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
races never meant just white and black. even classifications from 19th century devided human species into five races. And there is no other place in the world where all the five races are found in such a small area. There are areas with fusion of two races, but nowhere do we even find three. All the native americans are sub-groups of mongoloids. You can check
(♂) 23:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, fine. Since anthropologists define the term "race" broadly then I'll concede this point. However, it's misleading (though not entirely wrong depending on your interpretation of the term 'native') to say "native home" since that gives rise to the misconception that all of their cultures originated in India, which they did not. Just "home" is enough I think. If you REALLY want to put native in then perhaps you should qualify what you mean by 'native' somewhere in the article, then put it there.Hkelkar 23:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where in that 1931 census[20] does it say that India is "native home of all known human races of the world" and that "no other region on earth has similar multi-racial diversity"?
CiteCop 12:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It says that all the human races are natural inhabitants of India.
(♂) 12:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
What is your exact point of contention citecop. You can refer to human races for details of other regions. No other region has even three of the races. There are fusion points where two races meet, but none other with all five.
(♂) 12:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, where specifically in that paper does it say that "all the human races are natural inhabitants of India" or that "no other region has even three of the races"?
CiteCop 12:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This too may be of interest to you cite, In India, from anthropometric studies, one used to find traces of seven races of humans who intermixed to create the Indian race. [21]. --
(♂) 12:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Two aspects to this source- One article written by someone called tanmoy on Bengal at tripod.com is not as good a source for citing as a book. Second anthropometric studies based on visible physical appearance and no data to show that this was a scientific study makes it appear an amateur analysis. Today we have DNA studies on populations available and those should be used to cite. And again it does not say anywhere that India is unique in this characterstic. Haphar 18:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well currently, the statement is not too POV so the source is sufficient. It doesnt even claim about the uniqueness. I am searching for better sources and then i will change the statement too.
(♂) 19:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Citecop, I am adding the above statement as the source I cited above directly says that. But just FYI the heading under which i added the controvertial statement says that these are the nationalist beleifs that Indians think to be true. They are not necessarily required to be true. Although they are. And for the racial part, just looking at the race chart can tell you that no other place on earth has so much racial diversity. But for you it is an OR and you need a source to pin point to a statement.
(♂) 18:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for providing the above source, Nidishsinghal, and especially for making sure that the statements you added to the article are actually supported by the source you cite.
However, the position that "these are the nationalist beliefs that Indians think to be true; they are not necessarily required to be true" seems to contradict the position you express here:[22]
CiteCop 18:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well since the statement was not changed to convey the meaning that they are true, i can write anything as vague as you can imagine, because it is just about beleifs. Check out
(♂) 18:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I apologize. I was under the impression that changing that sentence to read "nationalistic beliefs" was still a matter under discussion on the Talk Page, not a change that has been retained.
You do realize that sentence will have to continue to read "nationalistic beliefs" in order for you to continue to be "as vague as you like."
CiteCop 19:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well currently, we are in a perfect position to change the intro as all the facts are true. But if it remains nationalist beleifs then you may have to back off.
(♂) 19:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
As long as that sentence continues to read "nationalistic beliefs," that's fine.
But as soon as that changes, facts and references will be checked and material will need
better sourcing
than it currently has (i.e. articles from peer-reviewed academic journals, books from scholarly presses).
CiteCop 19:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this is ridiculous! the article is even more POV now and factually incorrect then it was before... Home of all races... inventor of zero (when that title is disputed by other countries), the first university (disputed by other countries also)., etc. Kennethtennyson 03:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the racial part kenny. What more citation do you want for this. Or rather i should ask you, cite something which dissapproves this fact and reports another place on this globe which is native home to all the known living races.
(♂) 07:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Where is it disputed Kenny ?? Cite a few sources ??? Freedom skies 04:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero

There is a lot of stuff in the article that is there more because of beleif than fact, however Zero seems to have better documentation than the other points, the sources given in the article too are credible. Robert Kaplan might be one school of thought that disagrees with this but have not seen too many other authors disputing that the Mayans, Babyloniana and India got the concept of zero, the Greeks don't even feature in the discussion. 9th century is also centuries after zero is known to have been used in India.

Moreover are you referring to this Robert Kaplan ? hHaphar 13:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaplan credits zero to the Babylonians, not the Greeks.
However, in the above passage, he does seem to be making the case that the modern symbol for zero was first used in Greek texts.
And no, I don't believe he is one of the three Robert Kaplans listed.
CiteCop 14:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds too vaugue and argumentative to draw inferences from, still no ciations of the babylonian zero being used as the modern one. Freedom skies 06:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In your interpretation, what is the distinction between the Babylonian zero and the modern zero?
CiteCop 12:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned in one of the links, that the Babylonian Zero did not have all the properties associated with a number. Haphar 13:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can settle this until we agree on the distinguishing characteristics of the modern zero.
CiteCop 14:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Characteristics of the modern zero is that it is the additive identity of the set of real numbers (belonging to the set). I don't think it was until the Ancient Indians that it was shown to be a real number just like all other real numbers (as opposed to an arbitrary logical construct).Hkelkar 19:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's consistent with the first source cited.
Were we talking about the concept of zero, both Seife and Kaplan credit that unambiguously to the Babylonians.
Were we talking about the symbol for zero ("0"), Kaplan gives that one to the Greeks.
But that first source (Ifrah) is pretty clear that the Indian zero was the first to be conceived of as a number.
CiteCop 20:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxila

John Marshall's Taxila contains references to centers of learning that were not only contemporaneous with Taxila, but had characteristics of a university such as legal personality and campuses, characteristics which Taxila lacked.

Appendix B of the same work is a discussion of whether Taxila ought to be considered a university at all.

In 1965, Professor Altekar, who literally wrote the book on Education in Ancient India, writes,

CiteCop 20:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxila university , which is the oldest in the world, has been in existence even before the time of the Buddha and before the occupation of the Taxila valley by the Achaemanid rulers in 6th- 5th century B.C. Probably in the period of the (7th century B.C.) philosophers gathered here to have their own schools of thought and imparted instructions.

A citation by the official Government of Pakistan website confirming the existence of Takshashila as a university. Someone removed it, anyways, I'll see to it that this stays.

It is also the position of the Government of Pakistan that there is no connection between its ISI and the Kashmiri mujahidin.
You wouldn't tell me that claim ought to be good enough for anybody just because it's offical, would you?
CiteCop 17:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case of mujahids, the Pakistani government claim is controvertial as the corresponding claim by indian government is that they are linked. If there would have been no controversy, (like case of Taxila), then this claim could have been accepted as true.

(♂) 19:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Profs. Altekar and Thomas disagree with the Pakistani government claim.
CiteCop 01:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HUMAN GENOME PROJECT AND RACE. The idea of "race" is not of a valid scientific construct. "At the public announcement of the completion of a draft map of the human genome (June 2000), Craig Venter, Head of Celera Genomics and chief private scientist involved with the Human Genome Project, claimed that ‘race’ was not a scientifically valid construct" http://das.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/4/409 The old notion of dividing people into Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongloid, etc was a product of a failed science called, Eugenics 1.

intro

the introduction in heading Belief in the ancient nature of the Indian civilization says

The following is an abridged set of nationalistic beliefs that many Indian believe in:-

`what is this? All facts given are true. Otherwise Why would we need to provide citations.' If it is just about beliefs, we can even give vague statements. Since we are providing citations, it is wrong to say that these are mere nationalist beliefs.--

(♂) 08:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

This is exactly the point I have been trying to make. Instead of wasting time provinding citations for what ancient India may or may not have invented, people should look for citations from mainstream sources of what Indians actually believe about the past, and how it affects their national identity, as that is the only thing relevant for a discussion of nationalism. The way this article is written is pointless and misguided, and, frankly, absolute rubbish. Hornplease 04:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry you feel this way hornplease. However, I believe that your perspective may not be entirely neutral on this matter, although I certainly hope that I'm wrong in my assessment.Hkelkar 04:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? How is my perspective not neutral? If you think there's a POV colouring my above statement, please do explain it. Or at least respond to the statement, instead of accusing me of bias. It's just that I feel terrible seeing so many people putting so much effort into that section when it is entirely irrelevant. Hornplease 06:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not willing to make any outright accusations, I believe that this criticism may reflect a systemic bias (perhaps unknowing on your part), particularly in light of this recent edit of your which was obviously a POV insertion [23]
Plus, you seem to hold a double standard for
Indian Nationalism and Pakistani nationalism
, as has been pointed out earlier.
Here's what I suggest. If you really want to attack this section, then perhaps you should ask a third party admin to intervene (one with no potential for bias on this matter), or one who is nationally or ethnically non-partisan and see what HE has to say.

Hkelkar

I might take this to RfC if the situation persists for much longer.
The Nehru edit you mention consisted of me reverting an obviously POV edit to an earlier verson, also not written by me, which may also have been POV. Also, I take objection to your mischaracterising my evenhadedness, as I have stated earlier, once this is settled on this page, I myself will make changes to
Two-Nation Theory. Hornplease 09:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Qualified as "India-Pakistan Two-Nation Theory" (as opposed to, say, Israel-Palestine Two-nation Theory).Hkelkar 21:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Kennethtennyson called it "believing in facts".Bakaman Bakatalk 01:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Out of Africa

Here [24].is a result of a genetic mapping excercise that traces how man moved to the rest of the world from Africa. Would help on issues such as "race" "type" and "origin" as well as base genetics. This [25]has some great graphics on how the migration happened. Haphar 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The map created by US geneticist Specer Wells (Author: Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey) disagrees with the bradshaw foundation's map. Soo who is correct? Gene Expression Also what is the point of talking genetics in a history discussion?

the problem is that some statements are POV

if you read throught this very long discussion that we are all having, the problem is one of POV... it is true that there are books and texts out there that might contend that india was the inventor of the zero, or that it had the very first university, and so forth on all the other facts, there are also books out their -many of them- that state a more balanced view depending on what you define as the first use of zero or what you define as a university and so forth... this is for almost all of the supposed "facts" on this page. By saying "first" or "only", you are excluding all the other possibilities. The problem with these statements that we have all been discussing is that by stating on the page: "india was the inventor of zero" or that "india had the oldest university in the world" is that you state something as fact when many authors of various books have other opinions. that is very similar to an environmentalist stating "DDT is the sole cause of the decline in this bird's population in the wild" when it can be shown that DDT played a role, air pollution played a role, deforestation played a role, global warming, infections, etc... the statements made on this page are quite POV and even though they are cited, have very one-sided citations with the authors who propose them not allowing for any other statements that allow for a more balanced view. Kennethtennyson 19:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then qualify them accordingly. Say that "some reputable scholars contend that..." Hkelkar 21:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No.
"some reputable scholars contend that..." is
weasel wording
.
In other words, name the scholars who say x and let the reader make up his or her mind whether or not they're "reputable".
CiteCop 23:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I refer everyone to Wikipedia:Citing sources.
Attribution is especially needed for
  • direct quotes
  • information that is contentious or likely to be challenged
  • superlatives and absolutes (such as statements that something is the best, first or only one of its kind.
And let's not forget how Wikipedia defines
reliable sources
  • Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing.
Done for Subhash Kak.Hkelkar 21:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subhash Kak's postgraduate degree is in Electrical Engineering, not the history of science.
More importantly, his claims are contradicted by the prevailing view in the academic community and you, Subhash bose and other editors speak of a racist conspiracy to keep his views down.
CiteCop 23:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certain red flags should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim, such as claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
  • Typically peer reviewed publications are considered to be the most reliable, with established professional publications next. Government publications are often reliable, but governments vary widely in their level of reliability, and often have their own interests which will explicitly allow for withholding of information, or even out right deception of the public.
  • There are a growing number of sources on the web that publish preprints of articles and conference abstracts, the most popular of these being arXiv. Such websites exercise no editorial control over papers published there.
CiteCop 21:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ArXiv often hosts articles that are preprints of articles published in peer-reviewed journals (cited in the arxiv publication only). I myself have a few such articles (in Physics). That should count as backed by peer review.Hkelkar 21:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If an arXiv article has been published in a peer-review journal, then there should be no problem identifying the issue of said peer-reviewed journal the article was published in.
See
Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style#Journal articles
for instructions on how to format citations for journal articles.
CiteCop 23:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

My discussion is not about citing articles, it is about citing only articles that present one type of POV. IF i wanted to, i could cite articles only to present the POV that DDT is the sole cause for the drop in the bald eagle population in the US, and then state that "DDT is the sole cause of the fall of the bald eagle population." That would be an untruth and a POV statement. It is similar to what some of you have done with the statement ""India is credited with the development of the modern form of zero," "Most of the positional base 10 numeral systems in the world have originated from India," "The Indian numeral system is commonly referred to in the West as Hindu-Arabic numeral system, since it reached Europe through the Arabs," "The history of education in India goes back to the establishment of the first university in the world at the Gandhāran city of Takshashila." These are statements that exclude the possibility of debate and some of you have been very emphatic in not allowing these statements to be modified in a less POV manner. For instance, "one of the oldest", or "one fo the first" Kennethtennyson 17:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It bears repeating:
Attribution is especially needed for superlatives and absolutes, such as statements that something is the first or oldest of its kind.
Claims contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim.
CiteCop 19:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The base 10 number system originated in India[26][27], just like papermaking originated in China. They dont call it the Chinese-Persian-Arab-Italian papermaking system.
WP:POV. It seems the secular-marxist POV wishes to denigrate Indian history.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
IMHO all the above statements mentioned are true and I never had any doubt in any of them. But that's just my two cents. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

  • I quote from somewhere earlier on this page: "Instead of wasting time provinding citations for what ancient India may or may not have invented, people should look for citations from mainstream sources of what Indians actually believe about the past, and how it affects their national identity, as that is the only thing relevant for a discussion of nationalism. The way this article is written is pointless and misguided, and, frankly, absolute rubbish." instead of wasting any more time on trying to cite achivements for the first section, can we please discuss this for a moment? If it continues to be ignored for the next 48 hours, I will delete that section and move the contents to a new article entitled Achievements of Ancient Indian Civilisation, where you people can spat over who invented the decimal system till the sky falls on our heads.
  • The sole citation for the statement that "Nationalism is not negative in India, unlike in the West" is a Koenrad Elst book. (1) I have discussed previously with Subhas Bose that Elst is a unencyclopaedic source. He agreed to hold off on quoting Elst till Elst could respond to this "defamation". He went ageand and added this source anyway. (THis is documented above or on his talk pages, I'll locate the diffs if anyone's interested.) In any case, Elst is stillnot a major enough scholar of sociology or political science to be quoted for such a broad statement. (2) Even if he were quitable in terms of notability, it is also the case that he is a known sympathiser with Hindu nationalism; so a statement from him that nationalism in India is benign is not suitably reliable. Find a citation from someone else, if you can. More to the point, dont bother with that statement at all. It's irrelevant. Lise so much here. Hornplease 09:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a wikibreak so I'll try to be short. You're the same guy who went "I'll remove the Stephen Cohen citation in so and so hours" right ??? Cohen is mainstream, I put him there because you added a citation needed and then you decided to do the deadline routine.

Anyways, Elst graduated in Philosophy, Chinese Studies and Indo-Iranian Studies at the Catholic University of Leuven, he's an academic and the citation stays.

Refrain from replacing citations with "citations needed" next time.

Freedom skies 11:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care for your tone. I am more than familiar with his qualifications, thank you. He certainly has a PhD. So do many millions of others. He has also published with non-academic presses. So have many millions of others. He has no peer-reviewed articles. He is a marginal figure and cannot be quoted as an expert except on the internal dynamics of Hindutva. You placed a Cohen citation which did not support your statement. I will not refrain from demanding citations for this absurdly OR piece. And please respond to the first part of my question as well. Hornplease 11:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Koenraad Elst is one of the more quotable sources we can use. Elst is better than some others and is even accepted by Dbachmann, who I have noted for being very strict on which authors should be quoted on pages relating to IE studies. Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked dab about this already. While I am willing to expect Elst is quotable on pages as a specific representative of a certain viewpoint about ancient Indian history - that he can be quoted as encyclopaedic on a page about nationalism is absurd, unless it's about Hindu Nationalism specifically, on which he is an expert. If quoted on any other page, it should be as the representative of a certain viewpoint, which can then be balanced by other opinion. But here's the point: if the only citation you can find is Elst or someone of equivalent stature, your ideas are in trouble. Hornplease 07:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than familiar with his qualifications, thank you.

Hold the thank yous for a second there, you're familiar with his qualifications as an academic ?? and you still remove his work ?? Tell me, if a graduate in Philosophy, Chinese Studies and Indo-Iranian Studies does'nt cut it then who, according to you does ??

An expert in nationalism, political science, or modern indian history. by which I mean someone with tenure somewhere, possibly an award or two, and multiple peer-reviewed articles. Not this guy. Anyone with a PhD does not become an expert on everything automatically, at least on WP. Hornplease

He has also published with non-academic presses.

As has Stanley Wolpert, want to form a posse` and torch him with pitchforks and everything too ???

Except a single paper in a collection with Routledge India (which is not really academic, unlike Routledge UK), he has no books with major academic presses. Wolpert, whatever his faults, is a full professor at a top twenty history faculty. His biography of Gandhi was published by Oxford University Press. So was "Roots of confrontation in South Asia", and a dozen others, including the big one, 'India', which was the University of California press, I think. Since I, at least, am not willing to descend to personal attacks and really rather incoherent snideness, I will merely point out that if you are a college student, your college must have a library website. With an online catalogue. With lots and lots of detail about who published what. Try it sometime, and compare the two individuals. Hornplease 07:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is a marginal figure and cannot be quoted as an expert except on the internal dynamics of Hindutva.

Hindutva and Indian nationalism are different things, religious nationalism and pride in a nation respectively. You plan on advertising your ignorance like that ??

I just read this, and am regretting my self-righteous claim that I am not snide, for this really asks for it. I said he's marginal, and thus should not be quoted as an expert except on the internal dynamics of Hindutva. In other words, Indian nationalism: not expert; Hindutva's internal dynamics: yes, expert (or at least, quotable). Now, how does that mean that I think they're the same thing? (This is where I would normally be snide about your statement that I planned on advertising my ignorance.) Hornplease

You placed a Cohen citation which did not support your statement.

Actually it did, as demonstarted by someone else. Did you even read it ?? ??

Nice one. Did you read my response to the 'someone else' above? I quote: "Try not to be deliberately obtuse here. The "greatness of its civilisation" is clearly given minimial importance in the Cohen piece, which is then cited as a reference to support a giving it considerable importance in the WP entry. This is mis-citation." Hornplease 07:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I will not refrain from demanding citations for this absurdly OR piece.

I'll see to your removal of citations. Meanwhile, at least refrain from making childish spelling miskes which resemble a Niles Crane-ish preschooler then ???? ??? Freedom skies 07:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What miskes did I make? I do apologise.Hornplease 07:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat myself. Considering some of the degreeless random journalists and website-makers that get sourced on Wikipedia, Koenraad Elst is a way better source and if he specifically writes about a certain point than that reference is suitable. At times, Hindu nationalism and Indian nationalism are intertwined, so if you can say he's an expert on Hindutva you can say he is suitably familiar with Indian nationalism. However, one would not source Koenraad Elst in some page on wildlife in Africa. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I am sorry to make you repeat yourself, but the problem is not addressed by repeating an argument that has already been answered. I agree that degreeless random journalists and website makers should not be sourced about matters such as theunderlying basis of nationalism. My point is that Elst is (a) probably the four hundred thousandth most qualified person ever to have written about Indian nationalism, as his degree is in none of those matters, and (b) He has written extensively about Hindutva, and might be called a sympathiser. While this means that he can be quoted as the academic voice of a certain form of political Hinduism in related articles, it does not mean that he can be quoted as an expert on political science or nationalism more generally. The thing is, as I have said earlier, if you cant find a more qualified alternative out of the four hundred thousand, why have the sentence at all? Hornplease 05:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't characterize the political motivations of scholars, particularly when such accusations are irrelevant to the article at hand. Such accusations constitute a violation of
WP:BLP.Hkelkar 05:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
From
Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles
CiteCop 05:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please point me to the part of
WP:BLP that forbids mentioning verifiable sympathies. Milton Friedman's article in the first line points to his 'advocacy' of laissez-faire capitalism. This is not a 'political motivation' in any underhanded sense, but in areas where Hindu-centric concepts of nationhood are only one of a stream of possible causes of nationalism, Elst being quoted alone and without qualification is inappropriate. (Hence, not irrelevant.) And that is only one of the unanswered objections I have raised.Hornplease 04:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

What a weird article

Amazing how many totally unconnected things can be put in one single article. What do Chicken Tikka, the Indus script and Bollywood have in common? Of course Indian nationlism. Shouldn't all this be merged into other articles? The least of all this problems are the quotations, but because they have made alot of controversy over at

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion, I ask that the quote by Elst from his book Deconolizing the Hindu Mind be reproduced here in full (including the context), to make sure that it is not misquoted or taken out of context, which might be the case. It also does not belong in the introduction. --Bondego 09:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Take a look at Pakistani nationalism before mouthing off here.Hkelkar 09:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to sound too offensive, but there are simply many things in this article that don't fit here very well, in my personal opinion. Yes, the Pakistani nationalism article has similar problems. --Bondego 09:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you did'nt sound offensive at all. As for the article, actually the things do fit in this article all too well. The article is about Indian nationalism and what makes indians proud of their civilization and culture. I've been to India and my family owns a home there, Indians are proud of Indipop concerts selling out in Europe, Indian takeout food being "number 1" in the UK and they'll tell you that their civilization is the cradle of mathematics etcetera.

Does sound pretty "weird" to an outsider but all these things do form a nationalist sentiment in the Indian mind, you're likely to run into a lot of rabid nationalist websites if you just place Will Durants words in any search engine[28], or other "unconnected" things from here. The article, as weird as it may appear is just aimed at explaining Indian thought and conciousness which form nationalist sentiment in India. Freedom skies 13:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this article heading?

I largely agree with Bondego. First off all, it is uncivil to pounce on him as an outsider who is mouthing off. There should be no sense of Indian ownership of this article - editors may deny this, but its obvious to anybody who takes a look at this article and talkpage that many Indian editors are too defensive when this article is criticized. As for this article:

  1. This article should be titled "Introduction to Indian culture," because this is what a lot of it reads like. The facts may be valid, but the article carries very little encyclopedic language, which is necessarily sober,
    WP:NPOV
    and loyal to the main topic.
  2. Its a delicate point to argue that things like IndiPop and Chicken tikka compose of Indian pride. Sure they do, as do a lot of other things. But "Indian nationalism" is the philosophy of national consciousness, self-identity - its shaped by history, religion, economics and politics, not trends and genres in fashion, music and cuisine. If you'd really like to prove that IndiPop is a part of "nationalism," you should provide a scholarly reference. As a reader, I would want to assure that at least a part of the scientific world backs this interpretation.
  3. "Indian nationalism" is national consciousness, sense of identity. Its more like a philosophy or political expression. Take a look at
    Manifest Destiny - do these mention Chow Mein or McDonalds? Rama's arrow 14:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for devising new interpretations of facts and reality. Its a logbook of knowledge, not a journal for proposing new ideas or a magazine for discussing new trends in the world. Rama's arrow 14:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The page incorporates aspects of nationalism at the time of the independence and the present, young Indian nationals are proud of Chicken Tikka and Indipop being accepted outside and they might even know more about facts like "largest democracy, beauty contests, indipop, nuclear power" than the Quam and the Rasthra ideals which were more valid and widespread some 50 years ago. The newer facts forming sentiments of nationalism deserve to be mentioned, at least on the "Indian nationalism" page of Wikipedia.
The article is about explaining the nationalistic sentiment of the young Indians who walk unaware of the old princliples from the days of the freedom struggle and have rediscovered their culture when Shakira does a Namaste' and Shaan sells out in London. The article also involves the old school of principles which still do form sentiments of nationality in India like they did at the time of the struggle for independence and before, Gandhism etcetera.
Like I said, it's just a set of explainations about the nationalistic beliefs in India. The set of nationalistic beliefs in India, like anywhere else, did not remain constant over the 60 years period from the time of the independence till now, they evoloved adding newer beliefs and rediscovering older ones, and newer aspects need to be mentioned.
India has a newer set of nationalistic beliefs such as Nuclear capability, Beauty, fashion, economy and resurgent pride in old culture which should find their rightful place in the logbook of knowledge that is wikipedia, this logbook of knowledge must never be hijacked harbouring dillusions of nationalism remaining constant from the time of struggle for independence till time infinite and adamantly suggesting that the indians will forever be proud the school of thought at the time of independence and will never take pride in anything newer at any time at all. That would be abusing the resources
Jimbo Wales
trusted at our disposal.
Freedom skies 09:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this article for nationalism of "younger" Indians alone ? It is for "Indian nationalism" and not "Younger Indian's nationalism.Some "younger indians" may have new ideas, who decides what is mainstream and what is fringe ? So can we get what is mainstream documented first, and introduce new trends in a section called new trends ? So that it is not potrayed as mainstream and representative of all. Haphar 09:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See ?? that's why I tried so hard to repeat myself and say things like "The article also involves the old school of principles which still do form sentiments of nationality in India like they did at the time of the struggle for independence and before, Gandhism etcetera." and "they evoloved adding newer beliefs and rediscovering older ones, and newer aspects need to be mentioned."

In simpler terms, "Newer beliefs like nukes etc. will also be mentioned in addition to the older ones". Try actual reading next time before you go Why is this article for nationalism of "younger" Indians alone ? and cause a panic or a heart attack or two in the old people's home. Freedom skies 10:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I strongly endorse Nirav's comments above, which he signed as Rama's arrow. This article needs fixing. Unless the editors who think they own this read and understand the
Nationalism in the United States, as templates that this article should follow, enormous parts of this article will be deleted as irrelevant to the topic. This is not an article about what Indians can feel proud about. Hornplease 10:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
What do you define as something India can be proud of? Pseudo-secularism? Treating outsiders as Sahibs? pre-1991 tax laws? Freedom Skies seems to have got the definition of nationalism down pat.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this article is about Indian nationalistic beliefs. They will be mentioned as such and modern sources of nationalist sentiment will not be removed. Nationalism and patriotism are related to national pride.

This article in any form will always be about things Indians are proud about, whether it's the 60 years old sources of nationalist sentiment alone, the new sources of nationalist sentiment alone or a combination of the two nationalist sentiments as shown in the article in it's present form.

The "This is not an article about what Indians can feel proud about" version of Indian nationalism is an absurdity that I'll make sure will not happen, at least not on Wikipedia. It's just a fact, try living with it. Freedom skies 11:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in being militant or defensive, especially as you missed my point. If a consensus decides to clean-out some content, that's what will happen. And why be so emotional about it? Why think that India's real glory will be diminished? Of course not, so calm down and work with others, not against them.
Firstly, I am perfectly aware of "Indian pride" at the export of Indian culture worldwide. What I'd like to see are scholarly references (i.e., not just "India Today") that support the argument. Also, I'm sure that ONE para, which discusses "Indian Globalism" and the expression of the NRI community will be enough. These people are a few million - almost nothing compared to 1 billion other Indians. This means that compared to the sense people have about the freedom struggle, about Hindu civilization or about Bengali, Aryan-Dravidian, Two-Nation theory, this branch of "Indian pride" is of little significance as of yet. To be relevant to this article, one must not discuss what they're proud about but how this affects their consciousness and vision for India. Rama's arrow 11:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Also, you seem to have missed the thrust of the argument. You are welcome to detail and cite things that "Indians can be proud about." I will even be willing to contribute. However, this is not the article for that. Have you even read the articles I pointed you in the direction of? Until you read those articles, and understand that an encyclopaedia article on nationalism is not a list of accomplishments, you will miss the point of this article completely. Until you read those articles, and change this one, you are not helping the Wikipedia project at all. Hornplease 07:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two nation theory, the struggle for independence etcetera are almost of as much relevance as the new ideas of economic reforms pioneered by Dr. Manmohan Singh, the nuclear tests and the global acceptance of culture.

The reforms, which have enabled India'seconomy to become one of the largest in the world, in terms of PPP etc. parameters need to be given the same treatment as the Two nation theory and else. They have helped shape India's present and are the reason why engineers, microscopic in numnber as they are, still contribute more than the very large agricultural sector, trained Indian's contributions to the overall economic upsurge needs to be highlighted especially in that. Remember, numbers have nothing to do with it but it's the contributions. The number of IT engineers is still greater than the Indian National Army and the economic upsurge has made a greater difference to the conciousness of an Indian than the Two nation theory and AIT put togather.


That statement and any article emerging from it is, in my opinion, plain wrong. But, ortunately, that is irrelevant, for, it is also a violation of
WP:OR, and thus has no place on wikipedia. If you wish to discuss these issues, thats what blogs are for, and I urge you to express yourself there. Hornplease 10:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Until you read those articles, and change this one, you are not helping the Wikipedia project at all.

The indian nationalist sentiment is comprised of belief in the ancient nature, confidence in current economy, pride of nuclear arms, global acceptance of culture (Beauty, Indipop, Bollywood and Cuisine) in addition to the older principles. These things have been mentioned as such and are even broken down and explained in order to get a clearer picture.

As for the articles, my family has a history of international diplomacy. In arguments one never draws parallels with other events at all. In parallels, you're likely to point out towards a good cause being similar to yours and the not-so-good cause is inevitably referred to the actions of the other party, though this is always done euphemistically enough.

Indians have seen changes like a massive economic upsurge, revival of miliatary patriotism in Kargil, Global acceptance of culture and many more things which have added to the nationalist sentiment in the last decade and a half. The idea that the Indian nationalism is, and will forever be determined by principles from the time of the struggle for indepence alone and no new features like the economic upsurge, pride in culture, revival of patriotism etc. be added at any time at all is not acceptable. Freedom skies 08:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about there. Any discussion of nationalism in India will discuss it's relevance in today's India, naturally. But it has to be a explanation of what is believed to be the contours and causes of Indian nationalism today, which requires a discussion of the major literature about it. So everything you have said above, while fascinating, is irrelevant unless you are a peer-reviewed journal, which I suspect you are not. Again, read the articles I have directed you to, and understand the changes that must be made here.Hornplease 09:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refrain from placing your arguments in the middle of my statements, try using quotations instead of distorting other people's posts.

The article breaks down and explains aspects of Romantic nationalism, Cultural nationalism and Diaspora nationalism, which form a part of nationalism in any major country.

The explaination of these factors of nationalism is done is done at length, which in my opinion is being used as an excuse stating that it overshadowes the article, while the purpose it serves is to explain that, for example, the Indian ancient civilization forms a nationalist sentiment in Indians and those who identify themselves with indian culture. Here, an explaination of just why it does is as follows.

The article in it's present form mentions aspects of Romantic nationalism, Cultural nationalism and Diaspora nationalism and then further explains why Indians or those who identify themselves with Indian culture take pride in this. Hence the length and mentions of stuff that Indians take pride in. Freedom skies 09:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're finally heading in the right direction. However, you need to cite the importance of romantic nationalism to the Indian state. You cannot rely on your own OR to do so. Cultural nationalism and Diaspora nationalism are not commonly accepted taxonomies. They, for example, do not have their own WP articles. However, if you are of the opinion that they are important, discuss how they came to be important - citing your statements - and then cite scholars stating which aspects of are particularly important to the idea of the Indian nation. The article in its current form does none of this and must be changed.Hornplease 10:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two ways then, you specifically ask me which citations you want, since the statements themselves are sourced, it should be of little difficulty to get the material and I get them and the article stays in it's present form with citations or the middle path. Choice is yours and i'm assuming will be final, lemme Know. Freedom skies 10:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Path

I was suggesting a compromise, when edit conflict showed and the latest reply.

Anyways,

An alternative, a compromise which can accomadate both sides is as follows.

The article mentions a paragraph, complete with a heading, introducing India's ancient civilization forming sentiments of nationalism in India. The heading is followed by "See Also:

Achievements of ancient Indian civilization
", the statements from the Belief in the ancient nature of the Indian civilization are copied and pasted in the new section.

This serves both sides, The article size and content will be reduced, mentions in short paras will be given to accomadate newer views, trivialities like Chicken Tikka and Indipop can be mentioned euphimistically in the more formal Indian nationalism article and would allow editors like me to expand Achievements of ancient Indian civilization section etc. and the new article under "See also" would be inevitably reached by the reader who wishes to go into the details of this.

Same for acceptance of Indian culture, beauty, fashion and cuisine. A page incorporating all four sections mentioned in the present form of the Indian nationalism article can be created and "linked through a "See Also:The global acceptance of indian culture" mentioned above a consice paragraph mentioning Indian culture, beauty, fashion and cuisine. It would also allow editors like me a much freer hand in describing UN endorsing Vedic chanting, yoga in mixed martial arts and the other aspects etcetera.

Freedom skies 10:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than create new forks, I suggest you implement the transfer of info to
Ancient India. But this won't eliminate the need for NPOV, encyclopedic language and references. Rama's arrow 22:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Why are you assuming bad faith? What makes you think this will be a fork? If you believe NPOV=secular then we will differ. I dont see the need for cuisine though, most countries think their cuisine is the best (cant beat a masala dosa.)Bakaman Bakatalk 00:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The references are provided for ancient achievements of indian civilization and the achievents in field of beauty, indipop are well referenced too. References as such, have not been and will not be a problem at all. The thing is, if there is a concern about retaining the core values of nationalism with minimal additions of newer parameters then the middle path is most viable, consice mentions and the details provided in the "see also", complete with formal, enclyclopedic language and mentioning cuisine, beauty, fashion and indipop under just on para about indian culture, thereby hiding the chicken tikka that seems to be causing a lot of high blood pressure around here.

The articles

Achievements of ancient Indian civilization and Global acceptance of indian culture
, since it's proposed that we remove them from the main article they deserve paragrahic mentions and a "See Also" in the Indian nationalism. This has been proposed before by other editors as well. Apart from giving us greater scope for expanding these articles, the Indian nationalism article can retain the original vision while mentioning the newer ones, the reader will inevitably navigate to the "see also" and will read the referenced, expanded explaination.

As for the encyclopedic squad, it's about time. They're welcome as soon as the negotiations are finalised and parts allocated to different pages. Freedom skies 00:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with transferring that material off this page. I had originally suggested the "Achievements of Ancient India" page, as a lot of people had put a lot of work into sourcing the statements, and I didnt want that to go to waste. If Nirav worries that it will be a POV fork, I must respectfully disagree. The indipop stuff and the vedic maths stuff, while all very well, is simply inappropriate reading for someone who might come to the encyclopaedia looking for information on the formation of Indian nationality. Hornplease 08:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree per precedent in Pakistani nationalism. If this forks off then so must that.Hkelkar 08:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have made this point several times on this page. On each occasion I have stated that, once consensus is achieved on this page, a similar solution will be implemented on that page, which has fewer editors closely involved on a day-to-day basis than this one. Nothing has changed since the last three times I had made that statement. I was unaware that those occassions had not served to set your mind at rest about this matter. I hope this, the nth repetition, will suffice. Hornplease 09:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the forks will be POV - I said the paras Freedomskies is suggesting should merely be shifted to Culture of India and Ancient India - "Global acceptance" and "Achievements" are rightfully belonging there. Also, there must always be a balance and room for differing views. And this won't eliminate the need for NPOVizing and better references in this article - I don't know why Baka brings in "secularism" and "bad faith" into this. Rama's arrow 15:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article Pakistani nationalism is a poor cut/paste job of this article. Its hardly a "precedent." Rama's arrow 15:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Isn't the definition of fork - POV fork? Bakaman Bakatalk 15:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A fork is a sub-article - for example, History of Kolkata is a fork of Kolkata. Rama's arrow 15:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article dealing exclusively with the achievemnts of ancient India and another dealing with the influence of indian culture would be more appropriate. For one thing, they would be full-fledged articles, complete with multiple points and explainations. The merging of these points with existing articles which already have reached peacful completion would give rise to chaotic edit wars, with editiors (rightfully) claiming that these points do not have a place in the current layout of the article etcetera.

User:Hornplease originally came up with the suggestion, and it's good enough to implement. The core content, so to speak of the indian nationalism article will be retained and another article, exclusively dealing with other aspects will provide detailed explaination while marginalising itself from the core Indian nationalism article by being under "See Also."

As for And this won't eliminate the need for NPOVizing and better references in this article train of thought:-

We'll cross the bridges once we reach them, my two cents, citing Indians in beauty peagents, indian fashion in NY, indian enclaves and cuisines abroad and indipop selling out in europe will not be that much of a problem.Freedom skies 16:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and references are the two mainstays of WP so you'll have to address those issues first. You can add this data as subsections in Culture and Ancient India (and then link 'em thru here) but if you wish to create forks, then be mentally prepared for any AfD. Rama's arrow 16:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's an AfD ?? ?? ?? In any event, the newer sections will be well looked after, and if that does'nt happen we can always pursue the other option, shift the content to the subsections, but that would, quite simply, amount to messing up the pages that other editors worked so hard to present in it's current form, and would take away the freedom of future editing as well, not to mention will lead to unending, utterly chaotic edit wars. Freedom skies 19:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient India? This fork will be seen by some as a "India glorification" article. Also "Global acceptance of Indian culture" - what about non-acceptance? What if the people buying out Indian movies abroad are all NRIs, which doesn't mean "Global acceptance?" It is better if you deal with the status of Indian culture abroad in Culture of India. Rama's arrow 23:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I gotta agree with Ramas arrow on the Bollywod part. 99% of Bollywood movies are not achievements, but Hindi movies are immensely popular in Africa, Indonesia, and the Arab world.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"unending, utterly chaotic edit wars" will ensue, not due to "obstinate editors" but by adding new points into a finsihed article itself. Where does one place the points from "Belief in the ancient nature of Indian civilization" in

Ancient India
 ?? ?? In the kingdoms of India ?? the history of India ?? or any other page which has been completed ??

An article

Bollywood
above the paragraph mentioning Indian culture. I'll work from within these articles to provide individual global appeal articles.

Now, if everyone agrees we place the points from "Belief in the ancient civilization" in Achievements of ancient India and mention a brief paragraph about ancient India on the main page while providing a "See Also:Achievements of ancient India" then let's do it, why argue at one reply per day when consenseus is already reached here ???

As for removing Bollywood, cuisine, music, beauty, fashion and pop. A short paragraph mentioning the new aspects of indian culture with "See Also

Bollywood, Indian pop and Indian cuisine
" will do. 

Freedom skies 09:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you have the right perspective. "Finished article?" "Achievements of Ancient India" is obviously connected with
WP:AFD. The idea about "See also" is a good suggestion that I agree with you on. Rama's arrow 22:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, my main concern is that these facts are mentioned. If you take a look at
ancient India
you'll find it links to a set of related pages, each of which is inappropriate for the shifting of this content, so to speak. It would be helpful if you suggested a page where this content is to be directed if you have such strong views about the "Achievements" section.
My two cents, a para mentioning ancient Indian civilization and a "See Also" above it with achievements of ancient India ought to both serve the purpose of the user navigating to see just what makes Indians so proud about their ancient civilization and remove the lengthy ancient civilization content from the "core" Indian nationalism article.
And about the NPOV, references etc. doubts. The refernces could not be better in the "Belief" section, if anymore are needed I'll rummge through the tons of material and e-mail more profs personally to get more. It's an unfounded doubt, especially since other editors User:Hornplease and myself, are in agreement over this.
Freedom skies 17:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either you can develop
Ancient India into a real article or shift the data into History of India. I maintain my view regarding creating a new article called "Achievements of Ancient India." The question of NPOV arises from the language, which is pro-India - it should be sober and impartial. The question of references arises for the whole article - while "Beliefs" is cool, the article's other parts are not referenced well. Rama's arrow 18:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
A title for the article which is not pro Indian then, would be very welcome.
History of india
is too well laid out for me (or anyone) to go and modify, it gives the ages and the dynasties etc. Same problem, while I can accomadate Bollywood, cuisine, indipop and fashion by working from the main articles themselves, I can't accomadate the all too well referenced "Belief" section anywhere.
Just an idea: Suggest a non-pro-India title ?? ?? ?? Freedom skies 21:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My dear fellow, you're splitting hairs for no reason. Firstly, you can just start writing an article in
Ancient India. Secondly, History of India is NOT "well-laid out" - it is not an FA. You can plug this info into the Ancient India subsections. Rama's arrow 23:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
As splitting-the-hair-ish as it may sound, I actally have a very real reason here. The "Belief" section is both factually correct and very well referenced, now if I have to move it, the only option I see is a creating new article, which has come under an AfD threat from you.
The problem quite simply is "where do I move it ?? ?? ", please suggest the specific location of an existing article (not a group of pages) and where exactly in that place do I accomadate this content, which at the cost of repition comprises of very real and very well referenced facts belonging in this "logbook of knowledge." Again at the cost of repition, I, and other editors believe that an article titled
Achievements of ancient Indian civilization
ought to cut it.
Any real help on either mentioning the place of shifting of the content or the title for the new article, which would keep the NPOV scare away, would be very welcome.
Maybe then we could get down to the actual article editing instead of the slow discussions.
Freedom skies 16:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Slow discussions" is not the problem. I believe that my previous answer explicitly explains my reasoning and I don't need to clarify it further. The point is, if you wish to create
WP:AFD (or NPOV, factuality issues), which you must go through with a cool head and behaviour. I do think that this is not a good idea, but I've made my suggestions clear. Rama's arrow 18:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll be heading out on a vacation shortly, and will not be able to contribute to this (or any other) article in the near future.
Sorry for leaving things unfinished like this, that's why I wanted to reach to a conclusion quickly and finish this ASAP.
Hope the other editors do justice to the article. G'bye.
Freedom skies 18:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finished it just like we talked about, seemed nobody wanted to take the lead and do it while I was away. Time for the grammer crew to move in and arrange, correct etc. though Freedom skies 20:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S Seagal 06:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreements Between Indian Nationalism And Pakistani Nationalism

Hello;

Some things need to be cleared up here, and on the Pakistani nationalism article because the history of both countries is very, very similar.

  • Indus Valley civilization is in Pakistan not Republic of India

Thus for Indians taking pride in Indus valley civilization which in its almost entirety inside the borders of Pakistan, Is like a Sudanese taking pride in the pharaohs of egypt, the pyramids and its civilization and claiming it as its own.

So we have a problem here, Who has claim on the Indus valley? Pakistan or India? or do both? And if India also has claim on the Indus valley then on what basis? Since all the sites Mohjendaro etc all are within the borders of Pakistan. — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] — continues after insertion belowReddyuday (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a spurious effort by a Pakistani national to make it appear that there are some serious disagreements whereas, in fact, there aren't any. The Pakistani nationalism article makes no mention of the Indus Valley Civilization at all!
But the essential objection is one of "claim". Since the IVC sites are in Pakistan (supposedly), the writer believes that the heritage of IVC belongs to Pakistan. One wonders then why such rich heritage of Pakistan finds no mention in the Pakistani nationalism article. To lay to rest any further silly arguments on this account, I mention two points that govern the issue:
- Since the division of ancient India into the present day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh is a recent event, all the heritage of the ancient India can be claimed by all of them quite equally. What is being claimed here is the cultural heritage, not territory. So, unless there is any argument that the cultural heritage of IVC does not exist in India, there is nothing factually wrong here.
- Even as the territorial extent is concerned, the Indus Valley Civilisation article makes it abundantly clear that the civilisation extended over regions in present day Pakistan as well as present day India. In fact, the majority of the IVC archeological sites are in the present day India, along the banks of the Ghaghra-Hakri river. Lothal in Gujarat was a major IVC port city and there are plenty of IVC sites in India extending all the way to the Godavari basin in Maharashtra.

To those that suggest that Pakistan only exists since 1947, Republic of India likewise also only exists since 1947, So that claim goes out the window. The world 'India' is like the word 'Soviet' its a term used to describe people of a geographical area, irrespective of ethnicity, religion, culture, race, language. British India? That also included not just Pakistan and Bangladesh but also Burma, so Would 'Indians' be just as within thier rights to claim Burmese Buddhas and civilization as 'Indian'

Also one should note that the entire Indus valley and river lies in Pakistan, The Indus does pass through Jammu and Kashmir (However this is contested territory), thus politically it would be errorenous to make claim to the indus civilization because a small sliver of the river passes throw a contested part of India.

I hope we can clear this up.

S Seagal 21:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal[reply]

Wrong abt Indus valley civ. Lothal, the chief port of the Harrappans, existed in Gujarat, which is in India.Hkelkar 22:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line is tha Pakistanis can only associate unique nationalism with anything that happened in their country after 1947. Of course, Pakistani attitudes extend to before that, which is an extension of the ideology of "preserving the myth of eternal Islamic rule" historically imposed by the Arab caliphates which would involve rewriting history to remove all references to pre-Islamic cultures.Hkelkar 22:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your mistaken, The Republic of India is actually a younger country than Pakistan, Pakistan achieved its independence from British colonization on August 14th 1947, India the next day on the 15th, Thus Pakistan is an older country than India albeit by a day.

Bottom line here is that Indians can only claim history of the territory that now makes up the republic of India, Minus Pakistam, Bangladesh, Burma. Similarly Pakistan can only claim the history of the region that now is within the borders of Pakistan and that includes the Indus calley civilization.

The Roman empire extended much beyond the city of Rome, and Italy but its impact was felt in a larger area than just the city of Rome, But it is Italy and Italy only that can claim the Roman empire as its own because it was from Italy ie Rome from where the Empire that would influence world history first arose, not In Africa, or anywhere else.

In short to clarify for both articles, Each country may express pride for any event, person, empire, government or any action that may have taken place in WHAT IS NOW that country but not out of what was once part of it. For instance Indians have no claim on the history of anything that happened in what is now Pakistan, similarly Pakistan has no claim on Tagore the Bengali because Bangladesh was part of Pakistan for quarter of a century, Tagore belongs to Bangladesh.

This is really confusing.

S Seagal 00:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal[reply]

Therefore we can safely say that both India and Pakistan independently claim the harrappans as part of their culture. The attitude to wards the Harrappans by India is one of association. Just check any Indian history book.It is precisely those attitudes we are discussing here. If Pakistanis have the same attitudes towards the Harrappans then fine. Put it there also. Though frankly I doubt it as Harrappans were "infidels" to Pakistanis, but if you can source it then ok.Hkelkar 00:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So let me understand, You are claiming the Indus valley civilization and the Harrapans as being part of Indian prides because one small port of this great civilization is located now in the republic of India?

Using that logic, Alot of Africa could lay claim to the Roman empire because alot of Roman sites are located in Africa, However the Roman empire in its almost entirety lies in what is now Italy, The Empire arose from the city of Rome and from Rome ruled the world.

Similarly Harrapan and Mohejendaro are located in the Islamic republic of Pakistan, it was from these two sites that the Indus ruled, not from Lothal. It was from what is now the Islamic republic of Pakistan that the Indus valley reigned not from the Republic of India.

Besides I find your claims about the Harrappans being 'Infidels' funny, You must have heard of the

Aryan Invasion theory
? The Harrappans were a semi-negroid people, most probably similar to Dravidians the people of South India who were slaughtered by the Invading Aryan hordes from Central Asia, Who by the way were Hindus and practiced 'Brahmanism', So if anything it would have been the Aryan Hindu Invaders that would have regared the Harrappans as 'Infidels', The fact that they destroyed a civilization that vied with ancient Egypt and Rome, Shows the contempt with which the Aryan Hindu Invaders felt towards the Dravidian, Non-Hindus and made them low-caste sudras.

Just so you know. So please stop making outrageous comments.

S Seagal 00:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal[reply]

Er, the Aryan invasion Theory was a pile of revisionist nonsense that was refuted a long time ago in favor of the
out of India theory that pretty much dumps the whole idea of the Aryan Race. Plus, The so-called "Aryans" were hardly Hindus. they followed a more primitive religion that evolved to the Hindu Dharma on India soil. Again, we seem to have some good old-fashioned Khilafatic revisionism at work here.Hkelkar 00:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


Again, I am not debating the relevance of the assertion of the harrappans' association with India. I am saying that Indians consider harrappans to be part of their fold. It is the attitude, not the logic behind it, that we are talking about here. If the Nigerians regard the Roman Empire as part of their fold then, by all means, start an article on Nigerian Nationalism and add it there. If they do not, then they do not.Indians DO. You claim that Pakistanis do as well. Fine.Hkelkar 00:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It bugs me no end when I see out-right falsifications and manipulation of historical facts, and yes logic, not attitude is important here because last time I checked wikipedia was an encyclopedia not a personal blog.

Japanese may express pride in Eddie Murphy but that does not make him Japanese. Similarly Indians may admire Pakistani civilization such as the Indus valley civilization, they may admire Pakistanis such as Ranjit Singh, King Porus who fought Alexander the great, Mr Jinnah but that does not in anyway make them Indians. These civilizations, charachters, are part of Pakistan, and Pakistan only. S Seagal 01:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal[reply]

Sigh! Fanaticism is patently obvious when people misuse terms like "logic" and "reason" to advance political and religious agendas.Read the above posts and debates. We ARE discussing attitudes here. If the Japanese express pride in Eddie Murphy, then, regardless of whether Murphy is Japanese or not, it merits inclusion into
Japanese Nationalism. If you have a problem with this then take it to mediation.Hkelkar 01:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
In fact, we can also argue that Japan did not exist as a country during the time of the Budhido or the Samurai.For a long period they were a Mongolian colony even. Despite that, all that stuff is there in
Japanese Nationalism.Hkelkar 01:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with Sarvagnya completely, but I want to point out how outrageous this comment by S Seagel is.
Besides I find your claims about the Harrappans being 'Infidels' funny, You must have heard of the
Aryan Invasion theory
? The Harrappans were a semi-negroid people, most probably similar to Dravidians the people of South India who were slaughtered by the Invading Aryan hordes from Central Asia, Who by the way were Hindus and practiced 'Brahmanism', So if anything it would have been the Aryan Hindu Invaders that would have regared the Harrappans as 'Infidels', The fact that they destroyed a civilization that vied with ancient Egypt and Rome, Shows the contempt with which the Aryan Hindu Invaders felt towards the Dravidian, Non-Hindus and made them low-caste sudras.
That is 19th century stuff with a racialized undertone. There are disputes as to the Urheimat of Aryan people. But going by any hypothesis, Hinduism originated in India, not Central Asia. There was no slaughter by invading Aryan hordes, don't you even think that's a bit far-fetched. For updates, see
Out of India theory. Please update your history before making comments which could insult people. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


I'm involved in my own projects at wikipedia at the time but stopped to see, and wow.
My two cents:-
  • Pakistan is a 60 years old country, slightly younger than my grandfather. It's just a fact. Live with it. The "ancient" history of the reigons falling under Pakistan is the history of India and in some cases Persia.
  • The reigons which Pakistanis take pride in existed before Islam, and before the shift in demographics that led to the formation of Pakistan. You can't just shift all the people out from a reigon and fill it with muslims and then go on to claim it's ancient history, which was created by non-muslims and existed before islam, as is the case with Pakistan.

Freedom skies 06:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • India is less than 60 years old also. Infact its younger country than Pakistan as I mentioned because Pakistan got its indepedence one day earlier.
  • What Does Islam have to do with this? We are talking about the Indus valley civilization, they were not Hindu either.

S Seagal 06:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal[reply]

Check out main page of
(♂) 08:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Unlike some 60 year old joke of a state, India existed during the accounts of Fa Hein, Magesthenese and else. It's not 60 years old like some childish country which can't help getting chopped in half every now and then.
  • Islam is the foundation of Pakistan. Pakistan is the reason why people who created history such as the Mahayana sect, Sikkhism, Indus valley had to be driven out and replaced by Islamic populace from mainland India. Read my lips and try listening this time "People of Pakistan and people of the Saraswati Sindhu are Different". The demographics changed as Pakistan asked for shifting of muslim population from mainland India to the reigons of the newfound state and asked the non muslim populace with historic ties to the Saraswti Sindhu land to move out of the newfound state. The people who were a part of the ancient history i.e. the Buddhists, the Hindus and the Sikhs etc. shifted to India.
  • Hinduism is the oldest religion in human history. Both Pashupatinath and Yogi images have been procured from these civilizations. The name Hindu is derived from the river Sindhu, the base of the Saraswati Sindhi civilization.
In case it's still to hard to understand, imagine shifting all Chinese out of China and replacing them with Pakistanis, then claiming that Pakistan deserves credit for developing kung Fu at the Shaolin temple.
Your version of
negationism
deserves a place on a comedy show, not wikipedia. This is not a place for original reaseach or local housewive's tales. Pakistan is one of the younger nation states while India is one of the oldest in recorded human history. I'll do you a favour and see that you learn to live with it.
As for the so called "disagreements", you did an overly poor job of cutting and pasting the very layout of Indian nationalism article, resulting in a sick, perverse offspring that is Pakistani nationalism. This seems to be a habit of the Pakistanis, trying to copy the more sucssesful Indians and ultimately yielding monstrosities like Pakistani nationalism. There are no disagreements, Pakistani nationalism article is a joke, a copy of the Indian article with monstrosity written all over it. It's just a fact, live with it.
As for the other editors. Why even take this joke seriously ?? This guy can't even come up with words of foreign admiration for his country. He is trying to swipe some words from an old book from Rudyard Kipling, who died before the very formation of Pakistan, and wrote the words about India and people of a different demographic. Like I've said before, it's a joke, and for some reason perfectly sensible people are willing to talk to him about it. Go figure.
Freedom skies 13:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
India is a region as well as a nation, the Indian subcontinent, one can't say that the Indus Valley (which is where India's name is derived from) is completely Pakistani. The feature of Pakistan that defines it from India is the fact that it is majority Islamic, however, the Indus Valley was arguable Vedic (early roots of Hinduism) and even if it wasn't Vedic, it featured many traces of what later became Hinduism. How can you explain the presence of ancient temples which have been defined as Vedic Temples in the Indus Valley before your so-called "slaughter" of non-Hindus? How can you explain the Swastika on Indus Valley seals? One can't say that everything that is in Pakistan now was in Pakistan then, in fact, it is the the History of Pakistan page thst needs working on, the name Pakistan wasn't even coined before the 20th century. I'm not going to say anything about the Pakistani nationalism page, as one can't stop people from being proud of achievements in their region, and that's what nationalism is about. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 01:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pakistan is a joke. It's going to get worse once they get Balochistan out of their system, and subsequently Sindh. It's going to mean more trouble as two new nations go on squabbling on who controls what of the ancient Harrappan culture, and how can this make them relevant to the world who can't even locate them on a map. Freedom skies 12:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I Just got back from my holiday, I had a really enjoyable time away and completely forgot about you all.

Now getting back to the discussion, the point here is that India as a republic never existed when the IVC existed, also that the IVC is located almost entirely inside the borders of the state of Pakistan. India has only existed since August 15th 1947 a day after Pakistan. So the history of India is everything that happened inside the borders of what is now India. Minus Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Aksai Chin, Azad Kashmir and areas no longer part of India.

For example America is also a country ie, the USA, and is also the name of a continent, Ie North America, South America, This does not mean that the History of Canada belongs to the United States because canada is part of the 'American continent', Similarly Neil Armstrong, elvis ,M Monroe, Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki belongs to United States history not Canada.S Seagal 04:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal[reply]

I've participated in some discussions on talk pages of articles myself. This got to be the most useless and pathetic one I ever participated in. Segal, good luck with your arguments. Sarvagnya 05:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand you Seagal, know respected historian would say that the Indus Valley Civilization is not part of Indian history. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I Just got back from my holiday, I had a really enjoyable time away and completely forgot about you all.
Nice to know, guess it's back to the madarsas now that you're back, eh ?? Hope some of your nice Mujahideen folks teach you to speak proper english.
For example America is also a country ie, the USA, and is also the name of a continent, Ie North America, South America, This does not mean that the History of Canada belongs to the United States because canada is part of the 'American continent', Similarly Neil Armstrong, elvis ,M Monroe, Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki belongs to United States history not Canada.
Pakistan was founded as the Dominion of Pakistan in 1947, this lasted 10 years. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan in followed in 1957. In addition Pakistan has been under "Chief Martial Law Executors" and "President Generals." If we are comparing the kind of government the countries had since independence from then British do we take those years off from the history of Pakistan then ?? and which Pakistan are we dealing with now, under the "democratic" rule of the benovelent "President General" ?? India has been under democratic rule since the independence from the British, by the way.
India has only existed since August 15th 1947 a day after Pakistan
Try understanding this :-
"India in whatever form, under whatever government (Mauryan, Mughal, British or Republic of India) and under whatever geographical boundary has existed as one of the oldest nation states in history, unlike Pakistan, essentially a 60 years old country. Occupy the Indus valley reigon for the next 9 millenia and try to mouth of to India then"
Maybe this'll help :- If you called Babur Badshah-e-Pakistan he would have a sword thrusted in your rear for the joke and if you called him the Badshah-e-Hind and you're paying respect to the emperor of India, a country which actually existed.
It's because India existed before 60 years and Pakistan did'nt.
Live with it. Freedom skies 21:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOOPS

Just deleted half the page - can someone put it back please :oS

Akhand Bharat passage

The Akhand Bharat passage would need some copyediting, not at least to remove speculation and commentary (such as 'many young Indians and some Pakistanis'). Moreover, I know there was an underground movement in Pakistan in the 1970s working for reunification of India and Pakistan. I can however not source this claim, any assistance would be welcome. --Soman 15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The

Indian Nationalism page already exists. I am therefore proposing a merger. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 22:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I too support this merging as The Nationalis Movement of India is a very weak page and contains only few yrs of history.. --Sandeepsp4u (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting a reverse merger

The topic Indian Nationalism is well described and moreover unbiased in the page

Nationalist Movements in India. Also the current page of Indian nationalism is pretty biased in which some organizations and persons worked against the freedom movement are cited as part of the national movement. So i propose to merge Indian Nationalism to the article 'Nationalist movement in India'. Also impartiality would be expected and appreciated from the editors. Aravind V R (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Hmmm.. nothing's happened in over 2 years, did everyone get tired of the non-academic wrestling and go home? Anyway, my point is that nationalism is by definition a highly subjective sentiment having to do with pride, which is also highly subjective. So even violent disagreements between articles on Pakistani nationalism and Indian nationalism, say, are entirely to be expected. The same might be said of North and South Korea, for instance. Secondly, an outside observer who has no connection to the nation in question is very likely to be biased or hostile against the beliefs of the nationalists. In my humble opinion it is utterly ridiculous to demand objectivity on a subjective issue. Either ban all articles on any type of nationalism, or quit quibbling over lack of objective evidence or peer-reviewed references. Those who don't like an article on XYZ nationalism are welcome to go read the article on ZXY nationalism. Let a hundred flowers bloom, said Mao; a little disagreement is a good thing. Sooku (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal Empire

I request the writer of this article to add an image describing Mughal empire also.Ovsek (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your primordialism is showing

come on, indian nationalism is a post-1857 phenomenon, nobody is going to be fooled with the grab-bag of miscellaneous "historical precedents" under "National consciousness in India" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.232.28 (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian nationalism. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

States and principalities

JosephusOfJerusalem, this edit was completely undue. In the first place, the section is on "National consciousness" and not about states. Even though the current content talks mostly empires, which is not all there is to the issue, just arguing that India had many states at various times doesn't disprove the existence of national consciousness.

The statement that political boundaries "largely followed" ethnic ones is completely wrong. In North India, there was always a dialect continuum as uanfala can confirm, i.e., there were no "ethnic boundaries". In South India, there were ethnic boundaries, but for the most part of history, the kingdoms were always cross-cutting. (The only exception was the period 1100-1300, when there kingdoms along ethnic lines, but Alauddin Khalji destroyed them, after which they reverted to cross-cutting empires again).

The author Sagarika Dutt is a specialist in International Relations, not on Indian history. No Indian historian worth their salt would make absurd statements like this.

Nottingham-Trent University is not a hotshot University and the Third World Quarterly is not a hotshot journal. Everything about this edit shines bright red lights. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I am afraid there is too much

WP:BURDEN of providing sources for restored unverifiable content is now on your shoulders. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Just an add-on, the idea of nations and national consciousness are modern concepts. No such thing existed in ancient times. This is universally accepted in scholarship.[1][2] Anyone arguing otherwise will just have to find themselves convincing academics rather than push nationalist POVs. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ISBN 978-1-84467-086-4
    .
  2. ISBN 0-8014-7500-7
    .
Responding to the ping, I can confirm that most of the northern half of the subcontinent is one enormous dialect continuum with very few meaningful linguistic boundaries and with ethnolinguistic identities that have often changed. I don't know much about the history, but the statement about political boundaries following ethnic ones does sound really odd.
WP:OR of course has no place in article text, but we still need a way of judging the reliability of sources. If there are reasons to doubt a bold assertion made by an academic outside of their area of expertise, then I don't think we should included it in an article unless we have good reasons to the contrary. – Uanfala (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Josephus, there you have it. It is ironic that you should start pushing a scholar who doesn't seem to know ABC's of history whereas you are contesting the "historian" label almost everywhere else.
The sentence that you have tagged for "citation needed" is an introductory sentence which is saying "many empires", gives some examples and gives you a link to the main article
verifiable
. Even though I don't believe that "nationhood" necessarily requires political unification, I don't find anything here to be wrong.
And, as for "nationalism" being a modern concept, read the second paragraph of nationalism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just removed the contentious

WP:OR that was in the text. Waiting for someone to provide sources. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Aha... - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Father of Indian Nationalism(Earliest account of Indian Nationalism)

Earliest thought on Indian Nationalism I saw is from the book-(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varthamanappusthakam). Source link is here -[1] Any other recorded history of Indian Nationalism? Reply with thoughts and opinion on adding this to the page.Manabimasu (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nasrani.net/2013/01/28/nazrani-history-and-discourse-on-early-nationalism-in-varthamanapusthakam/#identifier_53_1038. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

What was the growth of nationalism in India during colonial period

Taxes were introduced...... And you tell me the rest 2405:201:5C16:13A:5921:28B8:BC4F:DC2B (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2022

Request to add Anti-Western sentiment, Anti-Pakistan sentiment, Anti-British sentiment under the section Indian nationalism 223.25.74.34 (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
"change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Goldsztajn (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_nationalism&oldid=1207710693"