Misplaced Pages

Talk:Indian nationalism

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CiteCop (talk | contribs) at 05:55, 4 September 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:55, 4 September 2006 by CiteCop (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:WikiProject Politics of India

Archive
List of archived discussions

Square root

“ The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus is a copy of an even earlier work. It was copied by a scribe called Ahmose in 1650 B.C.....The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus shows us how the Egyptians divided, extracted square roots, and solved linear equations.
Anglin, W.S. (1994). Mathematics: A Concise History and Philosophy. New York: Springer-Verlag. 		”
CiteCop 08:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Algebra

“ The next group of cuneiform texts dates back to the first Babylonian Dynasty, when King Hammurabi reigned in Babylon (c. 1750 B.C.) and a Semitic population had subdued the original Sumerians. In these texts we find arithmetic evolved into a well-established algebra. Although the Egyptians of this period were only able to solve simple linear equations, the Babylonians of Hammurabi's days were in full possession of the technique of handling linear equations. They solved linear and quadratic equations in two variables, and even problems involving cubic and biquadratic equations.
Struik, Dirk J. (1987). A Concise History of Mathematics. New York: Dover Publications.
Professor Emeritus Dirk J. Struik of Belmont, MA, a highly respected analyst and geometer, and an internationally acclaimed historian of mathematics, was a member of the MIT mathematics faculty from 1928 until 1960, and remained intellectually active throughout his life. 		”
CiteCop 08:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Zero

“ Around 500 BC the placeholder zero began to appear in Babylonian writings; it naturally spread to the Greek astronomical community.
Seife, Charles. (2000). Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea. New York: Penguin Books.
Charles Seife is a mathematician and a journalist of science and mathematics. He was writer for Science magazine—specializing in physics and mathematics—and had been a U.S. correspondent for New Scientist. He holds an A.B. in mathematics from Princeton University, an M.S. in mathematics from Yale University, and an M.S. in journalism from Columbia University. His research interests include science and mathematics journalism. He is also the author of Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea (2000), which won the 2000 PEN/Martha Albrand Award for First Nonfiction. 		”
“ The people of Gwalior - some 250 miles south of Delhi - wanted to give a garden to the temple of Vishnu there, from which fifty garlands of flowers could be taken each day - a lovely though. They had the details of this gift inscribed on a stone tablet, dated Samvat 933 (876 AD), which shows that the garden measured 187 by 270 hastas. This is the first indubitable appearance of the symbol in India. Documents on copper plates, with the same small o in them, dated back as far as the sixth century AD, abound - but so do forgeries, since the eleventh century seems to have been a particularly auspicious time for regaining lost endowments and acquiring fresh ones, through a little creative reburnishing of the past.
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. 		”
CiteCop 08:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Check this out . Indians discoved Zero some 100 years before the Babylonians Syiem 12:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That page says, among other things, that

“ In mathematics, the concept zero is used in two ways: as a number and as a value of a variable. The positional system of number notation, developed first by the Babylonians (about 500 b.c.) with the base 60, and a millennium later by the Hindus and the Chinese with the base 10, required for greater clarity a special marker of the empty, nonoccupied position. ”
“ Various punctuation marks were first used in Mesopotamia beginning about 700 BC to indicate an empty space in positional notation, but never at the end of a number-the difference between, say, 78 and 780 had to be understood from the context. ”

And even if it didn't, I trust authors with credentials published by major presses more than I do some random webpage.
CiteCop 12:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Bháskara

The origin of the fallacy that any number divided by zero is equal to infinity goes back to the work of Bháskara, an Hindu mathematician who wrote in the 12th century that "3/0 = ∞, this fraction, of which the denominator is cipher is termed an infinite quantity". He made this false claim in connection with an attempt to correct the wrong assertion made earlier by Brahmagupta of India that A / 0 = 0.

Notice that by this fallacy one tries to define "infinity" in terms of zero.
Arsham, Hossein. Zero in Four Dimensions: Historical, Psychological, Cultural, and Logical Perspectives. Retrieved on 2006-08-21.

Bhaskara wrote over 500 years after Brahmagupta. Despite the passage of time he is still struggling to explain division by zero. He writes:-

“ A quantity divided by zero becomes a fraction the denominator of which is zero. This fraction is termed an infinite quantity. In this quantity consisting of that which has zero for its divisor, there is no alteration, though many may be inserted or extracted; as no change takes place in the infinite and immutable God when worlds are created or destroyed, though numerous orders of beings are absorbed or put forth. ”

So Bhaskara tried to solve the problem by writing n/0 = ∞. At first sight we might be tempted to believe that Bhaskara has it correct, but of course he does not. If this were true then 0 times ∞ must be equal to every number n, so all numbers are equal. The Indian mathematicians could not bring themselves to the point of admitting that one could not divide by zero. Bhaskara did correctly state other properties of zero, however, such as 02 = 0, and √0 = 0.
O'Connor, J J; Robertson, E F. A history of Zero. Retrieved on 2006-08-21.

CiteCop 09:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that's just plain stupid. The laws of commutation and cancellations do not apply to infinity and Bhaskara knew this. Whoever thos Robertson guy is, his understanding of maths is worse than that of my 6 year old nephew.Netaji 11:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The Robertson article is the "history of Zero" article that you cite repeatedly to credit Aryabhatta with zero and trace zero's origins to "sunya" (even though the word "sunya" does not appear in the article at all).
If you think Robertson's understanding of maths is so bad, then STOP CITING HIM.
CiteCop 12:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Taxila

Taxila is definitely the world's oldest university (in the modern sense). This is mentioned by Megasthenes.

The gymnosophists to which Megasthenes refers are sadhus, that is, an ascetic religious community, not a university.
Megasthenes visited Taxila and mentions an organized group of teachers teaching students. The rest is your POV interpretation.Netaji 07:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
“ Megasthenes: Indika

FRAGMENT XLV.
Of Kalanos and Mandanis.
This shows that Alexander, notwithstanding the terrible ascendancy which the passion for glory had acquired over him, was not altogether without a perception of the things that are better; for when he arrived at Taxila and saw the Indian gymnosophists, a desire seized him to have one of these men brought into his presence, because he admired their endurance. The eldest of these sophists, with whom the others lived as disciples with a master, Dandamis by name, not only refused to go himself, but prevented the others going. He is said to have returned this for answer, that he also was the son of Zeus as much as Alexander himself was, and that he wanted nothing that was Alexander's (for he was well off in his present circumstances), whereas he saw those who were with him wandering over so much sea and land for no good got by it, and without any end coming to their many wanderings. He coveted, therefore, nothing Alexander had it in his power to give, nor, on the other hand, feared aught he could do to coerce him: for if he lived, India would suffice for him, yielding him her fruits in due season, and if he died, he would be delivered from his ill-assorted companion the body. Alexander accordingly did not put forth his hand to violence, knowing the man to be of an independent spirit. He is said, however, to have won over Kalanos, one of the sophists of that place, whom Megasthenes represents as a man utterly wanting in self-control, while the sophists themselves spoke opprobriously of Kalanos, because that, having left the happiness enjoyed among them, he went to serve another master than God.

”
"Gymnosophist" (literally "naked philosopher") is a Greek expression for "ancient Indian philosophers who pursued asceticism to the point of regarding food and clothing as detrimental to purity of thought (sadhus or yogis)".
A group of sadhu masters and disciples is not a "university in the modern sense". (Maybe Brown) The POV is yours.
CiteCop 11:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Then read Romila Thapar's "Ashoka and the Decline of the Mauryas". There she explicitly states that Nalanda was a university.Netaji 11:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You are the one who said that Megasthenes mentioned that Taxila is "the world's oldest university (in the modern sense)" and accused my interpretation of being "POV".
And you are the one who said that the "history of Zero" credits Aryabhatta with zero when it does no such thing and that it says that zero comes from "sunya" when the word "sunya" does not even appear in the article!
So believe me, I will read Thapar to make sure that you are not lying about her like you did about Megasthenes.
CiteCop 11:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Who is the more credible authority on the history of mathematics:

  • A prize-winning science journalist with an M.S. in mathematics from Yale and a mathematician who taught at Harvard

or

  • magic crystal lady

CiteCop 22:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected edit request

{{Editprotected}}

I request the removal of the following code because the references cited do not verify the text.

*The Ancient Indian town of ] was home to the ], is regarded by many historians as the world's oldest university.<ref> {{cite book | last = Thapar | first = Romila | authorlink = Romila Thapar | title = Ashoka and the Decline of the Mauryas | publisher = Oxford University Press | date = 1960 }} </ref> John Marshall explicitly mentions the possibility of Taxila being the oldest university.{{cite book | last = Marshall | first = John | authorlink = John Marshall | title = Taxila | publisher = Cambrisge University Press | date = 1951 }} </ref>

John Marshall, the second source cited, 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. 		”

Nowhere in Taxila does Marshall "explicitly mention the possibility of Taxila being the oldest university."

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. 		”

The word "university" does not even merit an entry in the index of Romila Thapar's Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas. Thapar writes merely that Taxila

“ was noted as a place of learning and was the residence of well-known teachers.
Thapar, Romila (1997). Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 		”

In other words, neither of the sources cited verifies the text "The Ancient Indian town of Taxila was home to the Takshashila University, is regarded by many historians as the world's oldest university. John Marshall explicitly mentions the possibility of Taxila being the oldest university." Not only does John Marshall not "explicitly mention the possibility of Taxila being the oldest university," his work contains a discussion of whether Taxila should be considered a university at all.

Because neither of the sources cited verifies the text in question—one in fact calls it into question and a third, uncited source outright contradicts it—the text should be removed.
CiteCop 20:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Point made quite thoroughly. Hornplease 22:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

The whole section "national consciousness of india" should be removed. It should be removed because the people writing that section have yet to prove any of those facts are truth and further, they represent opinions of the one or two biased writers getting information from questionable on-line sources. Further, they have yet to prove that the vast majority of Indians believe in these suppposed "facts". There is no study or article that has shown that indians agree at all on these facts. Steelhead 21:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It certainly needs a complete rewrite, if not outright removal. Hornplease 22:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree... I don't understand the nature of that one section except to present a skewed view of history... no survey has ever shown that Indian people as a majority believ in those ideas... Kennethtennyson 12:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Since there are requests for good edits supported by consensus, I'll unprotect the page. Please settle any disagreements on the talk page first! Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

general consensus

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

Removing well-sourced info is vandalism. Bakaman Bakatalk 02:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Per above. Since everything is cited, removal is vandalism.Shiva's Trident 02:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved disputed tag to the last sentence of paragraph.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Look its pretty obvious that you are using this page and that section to address your love of india... that's fine and dandy, but the truthfulness of what you have written is in question for the section... further, you have not shown that indians as a majority believe in those supposed "facts" and many of those facts are in question... and what the hell does all of those martial arts quotations have anything to do with the entire article at all? Kennethtennyson 02:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't need to address anything. Also see WP:AGF, don't assign motives to other users. "believe in facts"? What kind of joke is this? Bakaman Bakatalk 02:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Placing a dispute tag in the middle or end of an article merely hides the dispute tag... the purpose of it is to draw attention to the dispute which is the current section... it is accepted policy to leave the freaking tag at the head of the article... so please leave it there...Kennethtennyson 02:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Your only dispute is with the last sentence, which I can anecdotally confirm (though that is not enough for wikipedia, obviously; I'm working on finding some refs). As for the rest of the section, it is vital to establish a background for the history of the country in order to explain the stuff below it in the article. Everything mentioned in the section is well-sourced fact. In fact, disputable statements that were present in the section were removed earlier. I have put the fact tag on the last sentence for now. I think that should be enough. If I can;t find any objective references to back it up, then I will personally dispute the section's validity. Until then, it stays as per consensus.Shiva's Trident 03:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

dude, my dispute is with the whohle section entitled - belief in the ancient nature of indian civilization -... have you not been reading this discussion that you are a part of? the whole section in dispute mentions facts that you were part over the veracity of the statements... further, no survey has ever shown that indians actually believe in these ideas or facts that you are presenting in the article... so leave the dispute tags on there... Kennethtennyson I find it interesting that you didn;t raise any such objections in Pakistani nationalism.Death to Kaffirs?Shiva's Trident 20:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You were saying? CiteCop 20:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Your tag is inaccurate. You dispute NEUTRALITY. The factual accuracy of 99% of the article is verified as per wikipedia policy. The unverifiable bits were removed.Shiva's Trident 04:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The unverifiable bits were removed.
No thanks to you, Subhash.
CiteCop 05:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. do we have another WP:NPA violation in our hands I wonder quietly to myself?Shiva's Trident 05:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, just fact. I was the one who removed the "unverifiable bits" and you were the one who kept putting them back in. Therefore, you deserve no thanks for the removal of the unverifiable bits. QED

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

Oh, by the way, I had a couple days free last week so I read the Romila Thapar and John Marshall.
Guess what they had to say about Taxila being the "world's oldest university"?

Why does wikipedia refer to Lyceum correction Schools in Athens as a university? By these definitions, Greece did not have any Universities in the modern sense either. <removed potentially inflammatory comment by myself and replaced with> Double Standards on wikipedia!Shiva's Trident 06:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So adding Thapar and Marshall to Megasthenes, your 10th grade math textbook, answers.com, A history of Zero—your repeatedly mistaken citation of which I found especially entertaining—Pakudha Katyayana, etc, etc, etc, that puts you at something like ZERO for seven!
CiteCop 05:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And the relevance of this little temper tantrum to the discussion at hand is?Shiva's Trident 06:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Illustrating your credibility. CiteCop 13:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:Civil and Wp:NPA violation.Shiva's Trident 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Please see my comments below. This entire section simply has to go. Hornplease 11:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the origin of Nationalist beliefs in India

How about this as a reference:

The book is "Nation, Nationalism and Social Structure in Ancient India : A Survey through Vedic Literature Acharya" by Dr S. Acharya


"The concepts of nation and nationalism are generally considered as having their genesis in western modes of thought. However, in this book, Dr. Shiva Acharya attempts to show that the theories of nation and nationalism can be traced to the Vedic era on the basis of a painstaking study of the Vedic culture and civilization.

<from an online review here> "The book analyses the social, political, civil and military, economic, religious and philosophical aspects of the Vedic culture to explore the origin of the concepts of rastra (nation), motherland and rastrabhakti (patriotism), parliaments, the notion of all-round development, democratic educational system, equality of peoples and economic growth for prosperity in Vedic times. Citing from the Vedas and other Vedic literature and a host of modern scholarly researches on the subject, it presents the salient features of the nation and nationalism theories as found in ancient Indian culture such as their stress on culture-based nationalism rather than political. It points out that these features have enabled India to continue with its past traditions and culture and emerge as a successful nation in modern times."

Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Nation-Nationalism-Social-Structure-Ancient/dp/818692129X/ref=sr_11_1/002-1661668-4766455?ie=UTF8

I will buy/borrow the book and read it unless teh Shahebs want to throw another tantrum.Shiva's Trident 07:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not think a review of a book written by an obscure author is what decides wiki content. And Saheb is not a word that is polite either as it was what Soth Asians referred to their white colonisers, it's something like "Massa" that slaves used for their white masters. Haphar 07:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
On what basis do you claim that he is obscure? He is a published author by a fairly reputable publisher.Shiva's Trident 08:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I havent heard of the publisher. I would suggest you do not selectively locate books in this manner, as that merely indicates to observers that the level of neutrality in the article is insufficient. Hornplease 11:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I made a mistake. I thought that the publisher was "Narosa Publishing House" (which is notable) but now I see that it is "Decent Publishers" (I've never heard of them either, but isn't listing on Amazon enough to establish some credibility? After all, Amazon does not list just any arbitrary publication).Still looking for other refs...Shiva's Trident 13:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Amazon sells books, it does not perform any checks, any author that has a market in the "Western world" will get onto Amazon. So an Amazon listing is not any indication of "credibility". They would sell Mast Ram books if they had buyers Haphar 14:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Nature section

The section is quite questionable in that it claims achievements for ancient Indian civilisation are the basis for a sense of pride. First of all, an academic investigation of the causes of Indian nationalism should not focus necessarily on the normative question of "what can Indians feel pride about". Secondly, we have required all these achievements are in many cases irrelevant, even if we need to suggest that ancient indian 'firsts' are crucial to Indian nationalistm - which I doubt - because to claim that most Indians are aware of this stuff about martial arts or whatever is absurd. To put it front and centre in an article on nationalism is to suggest that the hundreds of millions who might believe that they are part of a nation-composite called India need to think, in order to justify that, about the Indus script or Kautilya or kalaripattayu. This is unsupportable. I strongly suggest that we reconsider the entire drift of this article. We need to look at what actually causes national cohesion, or the lack thereof, in India today, and we are not going about it the right way at all. Hornplease 12:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Just to make what I say clearer, I think that an investigation of what is actually believed about the ancient nature of indian civ is more relevant to this page. So, by all means, find a citation - from an actual sociologist or political scientist, please - that says "Indians believe they invented math. This is a source of pride, as thus we were counting things before anyone else, and leads us to a sense of nationhood", or whatever. I am being facetious, but finding something on these lines shouldnt be too difficult. Hornplease 12:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you didn;t raise any such objections in Pakistani nationalism.Death to Kaffirs?Shiva's Trident 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Drop that attitude, Subhash. Its not funny, its not accurate, its not appropriate, its not useful. Hornplease 07:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry. You were saying? CiteCop 20:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
All the section does is to establish a historical context to the concept of Indian nationalism. it does not say that these things are the root of Indian Nationalism.Shiva's Trident 13:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all, that is precisely what it is saying. Secondly, it does not establish a 'historical context' at all. A 'historical context' would give the historical circumstances in which people felt the necessity to build up a common national consciousness. Please dont throw the terms around without knowing what they mean. Hornplease 07:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding CiteCop's edit

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

UNESCO calls Taxila a "Buddhist centre of learning" and I was citing UNESCO.
Take it up with them.
CiteCop 17:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that. I am disputing the relevance of adding redundant information to the article.Shiva's Trident 17:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Taxila again

It look like Freedom skies, unlike some editors who will remain unnamed, knows how to cite decent sources.

Unfortunately, it looks like one of his sources doesn't.

“ The long and auspicious history of education in India has its roots going back to the establishment of the first university in the world some 2,700 years ago, at Takshashila (Taxila), in the northwest part of India . ”
“ 7. http://www.indiaoz.com.au/hinduism/articles/amazing_science_3.shtml ”

And these authors don't seem to be making the claim that Taxila was the "first university in the world," merely the earliest of the ancient Indian universities.

“ In developing science and technology, ancient Indian universities have played an important role.

To name a few: Takshashila (Taxila) (800–540 BC) in the Northwest corner of the subcontinent (now near Rawalpindi, Pakistan) was the earliest.

”

CiteCop 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The edit no longer says "oldest university in the world". I know how to drop the matter, unlike some editors who shall remain unnamed.Shiva's Trident 17:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The edit no longer says "oldest university in the world".
There's not exactly a world of difference between "oldest university in the world" and "first university in the world".
CiteCop 18:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Present sentence as of your last edit is fine.Shiva's Trident 18:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The misunderstanding arose from the fact that I was using Firefox to search the diffs for the Greek name "Taxila", which pointed to a different sentence, as opposed to the Sanskrit "Takshashila", which is on a different sentence.Shiva's Trident 18:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining that.
CiteCop 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)
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  : 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]]?
CiteCop 14:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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.
Regards.Freedom skies 19:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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)