Revision as of 11:41, 22 September 2006 editHornplease (talk | contribs)9,260 edits →Request: emphasis← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:35, 23 September 2006 edit undoNobleeagle (talk | contribs)6,780 edits →Request: replyNext edit → | ||
Line 469: | Line 469: | ||
::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. ] 11:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | ::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. ] 11:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
:::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. ''']''' ] 03:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:35, 23 September 2006
India: Politics Unassessed | |||||||||||||
|
List of archived discussions |
---|
Did'nt 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 establishment of the first university in the world some 2700 years ago, at Takshshila.
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)
- 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)
Pakistani nationalism too mentions that Takshashila is the oldest university according to some authors. You can pick references from there too.nids(♂) 19:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
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 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 Misplaced Pages artilcles, not to take sides.
Freedom skies 07:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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 achievenments, 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)
- Again, it's interesting that you don;t raise the same concerns on Pakistani nationalism.Shiva's Trident 08:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Again, it's interesting that you don;t raise the same concerns on Pakistani nationalism.Shiva's Trident 08:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
As for Takshashila, I have provided a mention directly from Government of Pakistan, which should be good enough for anybody.Freedom skies 09:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
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, Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- Like I said, I would like to know specifically, where does it say :-
- 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:
physics/9903010 : 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)
- 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 Jimbo Wales said was that "no information is better than bad information." See again WP:V.
- On an additional note, I (as a physicist) can attest to the legitimacy of arxiv articles' effective peer review process.
“ | 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. For this reason, arXiv (or similar) preprints and conference abstracts should be considered to be self-published, as they have not been published by a third-party source, and should be treated in the same way as other self-published material. See the section above on self-published sources. Most of them are also primary sources, to be treated with the caution as described in various sections of this guideline.
Researchers may publish on arXiv for different reasons: to establish priority in a competitive field, to make available newly developed methods to the scientific community while the publication is undergoing peer-review (a specially lengthy process in mathematics), and sometimes to publish a paper that has been rejected from several journals or to bypass peer-review for publications of dubious quality. |
” |
- It appears as if Misplaced Pages 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)
- If you notice the summary to the arxiv article pasted above, it says so there.Shiva's Trident 14:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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 atomism, Pakhuda Katyayana or Kanada]]?
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.
Remember, I was the one who added the bullet about Kanada because I had a reliable source.
CiteCop 16:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
I know the Kanada thing is fine. I WAS THE ONE WHO ADDED THE KANADA THING.
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
“ | 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. For this reason, arXiv (or similar) preprints and conference abstracts should be considered to be self-published, as they have not been published by a third-party source, and should be treated in the same way as other self-published material. | ” |
CiteCop 16:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
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 Misplaced Pages, 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.
- 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.
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)
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 were already provided there. Those articles are sourced too.
“ | Ancient India’s contributions to astronomy are well known and documented. | ” |
I consulted The History & Practice of Ancient Astronomy as well as The Cambridge Concise History of Astronomy and neither of them corroborated Kak's claims.
This hardly qualifies as "well known and documented".
“ | Calculation of Earth’s circumference. | ” |
The word "circumference" appears in none of the four Kak papers cited for this section.
“ | Theorizing about gravity. | ” |
The word "gravity" appears in none of the four Kak papers cited for this section.
“ | Indian philosopher, Pakudha Katyayana, a contemporary of Buddha, also propounded the ideas of atomic constitution of the material world. | ” |
Neither "Pakudha" nor "Katyayana" appears anywhere in the four Kak papers cited for this section.
“ | Similarly, the principle of relativity (not to be confused with Einstein's theory of relativity) was available in the ancient Indian philosophical concept of "sapekshavadam" (c. 6th century BC), literally "theory of relativity" in Sanskrit. | ” |
The word "sapekshavadam" appears in none of the four Kak papers cited for this section.
“ | Several ancient Indian texts speak of the relativity of time and space. The mathematician and astronomer Aryabhata (476-550) was aware of the relativity of motion, which is clear from a passage in his book: "Just as a man in a boat sees the trees on the bank move in the opposite direction, so an observer on the equator sees the stationary stars as moving precisely toward the west." | ” |
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)
- 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
veallobster, it's fantastic! - JFD 06:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is a defamatory post against a living person. Please refrain from making such immature posts.Hkelkar 09:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
- I believe that the eclipses part is mentioned in the article.Hkelkar 09:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Which is precisely why I left that statement alone and attributed it to Kak by name.
CiteCop 13:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 )nids(♂) 09:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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.nids(♂) 23:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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 Human Races for details.nids(♂) 23:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Where in that 1931 census 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)
- It says that all the human races are natural inhabitants of India.nids(♂) 12:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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.nids(♂) 12:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. . --nids(♂) 12:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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.nids(♂) 19:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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.nids(♂) 18:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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:
“ | 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. | ” |
- 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 Zakir Naik article for his claims about cricket results. When they are claims, you can be as vague as you like. If the sentence in the intro is changed to true facts, then you are free to remove the controvertial parts. Till then, it's hard for you to change the beliefs.I am waiting if you actually change the heading. If it remains that way, i just need to point out to links where it is claimed and not necessarily proven to be true. --nids(♂) 18:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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.nids(♂) 19:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.nids(♂) 07:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Where is it disputed Kenny ?? Cite a few sources ??? Freedom skies 04:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Zero
“ | Had the Indians invented a symbol for zero which was, say, a tattooed an in a necklace with his head thrown back, who would question their originality? As it is, they seem by the end of the ninth century to have long since had access to, and made good use of, Greek writings stuffed with the same symbol for zero that now took root among them. Kaplan, Robert. (2000). The Nothing That Is: A Natural History of Zero. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Robert Kaplan has taught mathematics to people from six to sixty, most recently at Harvard University. He has also taught Philosophy, Greek, German, and Sanskrit. |
” |
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- In your interpretation, what is the distinction between the Babylonian zero and the modern zero?
- CiteCop 12:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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.
“ | In Greece proper higher education and research had from the time of Plato onwards been in the hands of the various Academy schools, which, by virtue of their nominally religious character, could be endowed with property of their own and enjoy the right of legal succession and other amenities attaching to religious corporations. In the Hellenistic kingdoms of the Nearer East, on the other hand, higher education, with literary and scientific resarch of every kind, was in the hands of royal universities such as those at Alexandria, Antioch, Pergamum, etc., which were housed in a single imposing group of buildings—an adjunct of the royal palace—and maintained exclusively at the expense of the State, the president and the professorial staff holding their appointments at the pleasure of the king. In putting the old type of independent academy on a royal footing Ptolemy Soter and his Seleucid and Attalid imitators no doubt had in mind the danger to the State which such an academy might constitute, unless kept under close control, as well as the very important part it could play, and had in fact already played, in supporting a monarchic form of government. Whether the Greek kings at Taxila or any other Greek kings in the Middle East followed their example there is no evidence, one way or the other, to show, but it is clearly a possibility that cannot be summarily dismissed. Marshall, John (1975). Taxila. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. |
” |
Appendix B of the same work is a discussion of whether Taxila ought to be considered a university at all.
“ | (1) Extract from a letter of 22 October 1944, from Prof. F.W. Thomas, C.I.E., M.A., Ph.D., F.B.A. I have never supposed that these 'Universities' were anything but organised groups of independent teachers, such as you describe, without common buildings or action....Real Universities, with colleges (sc. monasteries) and endowments were created by Buddhism. These, of course, Nālandā, Vikramaśīla, etc., were primarily religious and sectarian, and the students and teachers were monks or aspirants to monkhood. But that, as we know from Hiuen-tsang and I-tsing, did not preclude a keen interest in general studies, literary, scientific, and philosophic, including even subjects specially Brahmanic, such as the Veda. In numbers and fame and in splendid buildings and rich endowments these were, of course, great institutions, but they do not belong to the early centuries A.D. In Central Asia and China the Buddhists usually founded pairs of (real) colleges, one for religion and doctrine (dharma), the other for contemplative philosophy (dhyāna). These were about contemporaneous with Nālandā. (2) From Education in Ancient India (1934) by Prof. Altekar, pp. 79–80. In ancient India for several centuries the relations between the teacher and the student were direct, i.e. not through any institution. Buddhism had its own Sanghas or monasteries, which developed into education institutions in the course of a few centuries; but, as far as Hinduism is concerned, we do not so far find any regular education organisations or institutions till about the beginning of the ninth century A.D. For centuries Hindu teachers like Hindu Sanyāsins had no organised institutions. We come across several Jātaka stories about the students and teachers of Takshaśilā, but not a single episode even remotely suggests that the different 'world renowned' teachers living in that city belonged to a particular college or university of the modern type. Marshall, John (1975). Taxila. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. |
” |
In 1965, Professor Altekar, who literally wrote the book on Education in Ancient India, writes,
“ | It may be observed at the outset that Taxila did not possess any colleges or university in the modern sense of the term. It was simply a centre of education. It had many famous teachers to whom hundreds of students flocked for higher education from all parts of northern India. But these teachers were not members of any institutions like professors in a modern college, nor were they teaching any courses prescribed by any central body like a modern university. Every teacher, assisted by his advanced students, formed an institution by himself. He admitted as many students as he liked. He taught what his students were anxious to learn. Students terminated their courses according to their individual convenience. There were no degree examinations, and therefore no degrees or diplomas. Altekar, Anant Sadashiv (1965). Education in Ancient India, Sixth Edition, Revised & Enlarged, Varanasi: Nand Kishore & Bros. |
” |
CiteCop 20:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.nids(♂) 19:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Profs. Altekar and Thomas disagree with the Pakistani government claim.
- CiteCop 01:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
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.--nids(♂) 08:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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 Pakistani Nationalism - which, as i have said earlier, would ideally just be a redirect to Two-Nation Theory. Hornplease 09:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Qualified as "India-Pakistan Two-Nation Theory" (as opposed to, say, Israel-Palestine Two-nation Theory).Hkelkar 21:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe Kennethtennyson called it "believing in facts".Bakaman Bakatalk 01:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Link to Out of Africa
Here .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 has some great graphics on how the migration happened. Haphar 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
- Then qualify them accordingly. Say that "some reputable scholars contend that..." Hkelkar 21:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- No.
- "some reputable scholars contend that..." is weasel wording.
“ | From Misplaced Pages:Citing sources: Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say…" Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. |
” |
- 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)
- I refer everyone to Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages:Citing sources/example style#Journal articles for instructions on how to format citations for journal articles.
- CiteCop 23:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages: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)
- 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)
- The base 10 number system originated in India, just like papermaking originated in China. They dont call it the Chinese-Persian-Arab-Italian papermaking system. WP:V > WP:POV. It seems the secular-marxist POV wishes to denigrate Indian history.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Unassessed India articles
- Unknown-importance India articles
- Unassessed-Class India articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed Indian politics articles
- Unknown-importance Indian politics articles
- Unassessed-Class Indian politics articles of Unknown-importance
- WikiProject Indian politics articles
- WikiProject India articles