This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shiva's Trident (talk | contribs) at 02:26, 1 September 2006 (→general consensus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:26, 1 September 2006 by Shiva's Trident (talk | contribs) (→general consensus)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Template:WikiProject Politics of India
 List of archived discussions |
|---|
A fresh start
And hopefully a good one, feedback on inclusion of Indian cuisine and fashion would be appreciated. Freedom skies 03:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- D'you reckon the dot points should be prosified? Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The dot points should go in the Indian military achievements but it's my opinion that they stay in the belief in the ancient nature section, as they highlight the nature of the Indian civilization and it's achievements. What I don't get is why the encylopedic squad highlighted the depressing aspect of history with a sombre tone to boot in an article that's about indian pride, anyways I edited that.Freedom skies 03:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Belief in the ancient nature of the Indian civilization
"This sentiment may catch new momentum if the archeological survey near Dwarka completes the unearthing of a civilization which might be the oldest in human history, thereby making India the cradle of human civilization."
Mehrgarh, Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa are all older than Dwarka.
"India is one of the cradles of mathematics, the Indian civilization is credited with mathematical inventions including zero, the decimal number system, algebra, trigonometry and calculus. Indians such as Bhaskaracharya calculated the time taken by the earth to orbit the Sun hundreds of years before the astronomer Smart. According to his calculation, the time taken by the Earth to orbit the Sun was 365.258756484 days. The value of "pi" was first calculated by the Indian mathematician Baudhayana, and he explained the concept of what is known as the Pythagorean theorem. He discovered this in the 8th-7th centuries BC, long before the European mathematicians."
I could not find citations for this bullet. The sources kept giving credit to others. Perhaps another editor will have better luck.
- Regarding the decimal system, base-ten number systems are nearly universal because people are generally born with 10 fingers.
- With regard to zero, Seife and Kaplan, in separate works devoted to the history of zero, both give credit to the Babylonians for the invention of zero. Both were published in autumn of 2000, which means they're relatively up to date.
- As for algebra, trigonometry, calculus, etc., other ancient civilizations—the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks and Chinese—each have a claim to at least one of these and without sources these attributions can't be verified or compared.
- For the rest, we are given specifics, such as attributions to named individuals, but again, these can't be verified w/o sources. CiteCop 18:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Zero invented by Babylonians --- what bull.... Even the Arabs who overran Babylon credited the hindu arabic numeral system to India. I'm not sure about Algebra, calculus etc, but the hindu arabic numeral system is one Indian invention that the world needs to be grateful for.
- 1. There is NO need to be rude.
- 2. If you'll note, I did not remove 'The numerals called "Arabic" in the West actually come from the Indian Brahmi script' so your comment about the Hindu Arabic numeral system is irrelevant.
- 3. Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea and The Nothing That Is: A Natural History of Zero, two books focused entirely on the history of zero, give credit to the Babylonians, so it is not "generally accepted" that India is the birthplace of zero.
- CiteCop 01:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The new stuff
The citations are there in the new links and related books are mentioned as well, which should be available in any public library of repute if you want to see them. Anyways, try to shorten up the article a bit, after all this work I'm too tired to summarize the article. Also, brilliant work for the editor who does all the grammer editing around here, the language is great and does not have the sombre funeral tone of the earlier encyclopedic squad. Good Work.Freedom skies 22:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
INDIAN PATRIOTISM
This article should either be moved to Indian Patriotism or renamed to Indian forms of Nationalism and Patriotism to reduce the level of emphasis on Ethnic difference within the Indian subcontinent. In particular, it is useful and necessary to consider the scientific basis of nationalisms both historically and currently (in relation to genetic similarity and the cladistic foundations of racial classifications).
The concept of Indian Nationalism does not need to be precarious (especially in regards to their surrounding populations - Indians can certainly claim that they have a variety of distinguishing features that make them significantly different from those that surround them), so overly emphasising the sub-nationalisms of other groups within India is not advisable. In fact, if anything productive is to be done with this article, perhaps the phrase India Nationalism can be further justified through various aspects that unite the Indian people (which may/may not involve foreign threats, competition and the fact that India is still a developing country in a world which a far over-representative power capability for the Old Industrial North). AxSingh 22:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
However, the primary logical basis for thi
If you want to say it...
...cite it. JFD 17:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The martial practices at the temple of Shaolin were initiated by Indian monk Bodhidharma. Martial arts such as Kung Fu, Jujutsu, Karate and Judo trace it's origins to Indian martial arts. Indian martial arts have also influenced relatively modern martial arts such as catch wrestling, shoot wrestling and Brazillian Jiu Jitsu.
- Before you go all "Cite it", try reading the articles on catch wrestling and shoot wrestling on wikipedia itself. You should find all your "Cite it" answers there. In other words, before you try removing things from people's articles "READ IT" Freedom skies 20:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- From Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources: "Misplaced Pages cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference." JFD 22:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Try reading the articles before you go all lawyer-ish, you should find a few links that should have enough citation, that and a membership to scientificwrestling.com should help. Freedom skies 03:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is a citation:
- "Indian wrestling dates back at least to the eleventh century AD (Alter 1992:2).
- Alter, Joseph S. (1992). The Wrestler's Body: Identity and Ideology in North India. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-07697."
- Or even this would suffice:
- "Joseph Alter dates wrestling in India at least to the eleventh century AD."
- Also note the source: a book published by a university press by a faculty professor writing about his area of recognized academic expertise—Indian physical culture, about which he has authored or edited several other works—as opposed to professors of linguistics opining about politics or computer science pontificating about ancient history. Sources with this level of authority, though not always available, are preferred when they are. JFD 05:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The second example is merely attribution, not true citation, though it is better than nothing. It tells the reader that Joseph Alter is the source for the date given, but does not give the reader enough information to verify whether the source is, in fact, being correctly cited, as the first example does. CiteCop 23:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
npov
This article seems to state that indian nationalism revolves around a certain set of ideas... the problem is that most indians do not believe in these ideas. There is no evidence that any indian historians of note support any of these historical ideas that this article is stating. Further, it seems that some indian historians like tharpa at harvard disagree with many of these ideas. They seem to be the ideas of a minority of indians grouped together into one article. Some of them are sort of ridiculous and the factual content questionable as is discussed above. This article is similar to writing an article on american nationalism and then stating that most americans believe in "white supremacy," that america is the "best country in the world", and that america is the "birthplace of democracy"... those ideas that i mentioned of course are NOT held by the majority of americans. Steelhead 21:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- For all intents and purposes, America IS the birthplace of democracy.Netaji 21:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- American Nationalists say nothing of the sort. American nationalism is not the same as "White Nationalism", which is what you refer to above. America, like India, is a synthesis of many races. The comparison of Indian nationalism with WN does not apply here as the strengths of Indian Nationalism are precisely the points which WN people condemn (diversity). They are virtual opposites in ideology. American Nationalists are perfectly aware of the multi-ethnic nature of their country.Netaji 21:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
this article does not really discuss the subject of indian nationalism as in other articles on nationalism (like chinese nationalism) so much as it presents supposed "facts" that are questionable in its truthfullness that supposedly, the vast majority of indians believe in. if you want to talk about indian nationalism then you should talk about the history of indian nationalism and the nationlistic movement. You shouldn't present supposed "facts" that indians believe in (with no proof that the majority of indians believe in it) and supposed versions of history. this article seems to present views that the writer of the article believes in. Steelhead 20:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Quite frankly, Thapar is a biased pseudoscholar who can't be quoted without qualification as to her Marxist leanings (Plus, she has nothing to do with Harvard).Plus, all the claims here are properly referenced from legit sources. There are many academics like Will Durant, Rajiv Malhotra, Edwin Bryant and Jawaharlal Nehru, for instance, who support many of these facts quite adequately, thank you.Netaji 21:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- see below for my reply Steelhead 13:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Quite frankly, Thapar is a biased pseudoscholar who can't be quoted without qualification as to her Marxist leanings (Plus, she has nothing to do with Harvard).Plus, all the claims here are properly referenced from legit sources. There are many academics like Will Durant, Rajiv Malhotra, Edwin Bryant and Jawaharlal Nehru, for instance, who support many of these facts quite adequately, thank you.Netaji 21:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I requested sources for this material over a week ago and somebody just rv'd it back in w/o providing sources
| “ | Ancient Indian town of Taxila was home to the Takshashila University, the world's oldest university. | ” |
- This is mentioned by Megasthenes. Read ROMILA THAPAR's (ugh!) "Ashoka and the decline of the Mauryas" (for once, that vaulted old hag got something right).Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
| “ | It is now generally accepted that India was the birth place of several mathematical concepts, including zero, the decimal system,algebra, algorithm, square root and cube root. | ” |
- Possibly he means 'vaunted'? One never knows for certain. Subhash, fewer of your unappetising attempts at humour and more citing of reputable scholars, please. Hornplease
- Look at the index page of the NCERT text book on maths (tenth standard). All the shlokas that they cite from ancient texts clearly show cube-root and square-root calculations (sqrt(2) was calculated to 3rd place of decimal).Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
| “ | The concept of zero origininated in Indian philosophy's concept of "sunya", literally "void". Aryabhatta referred to Algebra (as Bijaganitam) in his treatise on mathematics named Aryabhattiya. A 12th century mathematician, Bhaskaracharya, authored several mathematical treatises; one of them, Siddantha Shiromani, has a chapter on algebra. He is known to have given the basic idea of Rolle's Theorem and was the first to conceive of differential calculus. In 1816, James Taylor translated Bhaskaracharya's Leelavati into English. | ” |
- This is well known man.Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
| “ | The Arabs and Persians internationalized these mathematical concepts. Persian mathematicianAl-Khawarizmi developed a technique of calculation that became known as "algorism." Al-Khwarizmi’s work was translated into Latin under the title Algoritmi de numero Indorum, meaning "The System of Indian Numerals." A mathematician in Arabic is called Hindsa, which means "from India."
|
” |
- Fine up until here.Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
| “ | Determining the number of planets in the Solar System. | ” |
- Ancient Indians did not (could not) know abt Uranus, Neptune, Pluto. These planets can only be detected by modern telescopes or gravimetric measurements, and they didnot have the equipment back then. They knew abt the rings of satun. You can see them with the naked eye even today (on a clear night).Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
| “ | Indian philosopher, Pakudha Katyayana, a contemporary of Buddha, also propounded the ideas of atomic constitution of the material world. | ” |
- Crudely, but correctly.Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
| “ | 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. | ” |
- Not buying this though. This assertion is dubious.Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
| “ | 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." | ” |
- Also dubious.Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
| “ | These theories have attracted attention of the Indologists, and veteran Australian Indologist A. L. Basham has concluded that "they were brilliant imaginative explanations of the physical structure of the world, and in a large measure, agreed with the discoveries of modern physics. | ” |
I'll be frank. I find this material very doubtful. But as a courtesy, instead of removing this material outright, I have instead moved it to this talk page to give people a chance to provide reliable sources.
CiteCop 01:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Most of these are well-known in the academic community. The only people who question them are:
- White Nationalists
- Fundamentalist Muslims
- Marxists (Even Marxists like Romila Thapar have scholarly proof as to the veracity of most of the above claims)
- Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you're going to accuse me of being something, then at least have the conviction to make an outright accusation instead of insinuations. Otherwise, keep your ad hominem innuendos to yourself.
- CiteCop 07:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not accusing you of anything. Do you have a guilty conscience?Netaji 07:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is entirely within my rights to request citations for unsourced material without being subjected to abuse. Is this how you typically treat other people? CiteCop 07:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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. |
” |
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. |
” |
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. |
” |
- 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)
- 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)
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. |
” |
- "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)
- 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)
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
CiteCop 22:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
don't appreciate your comments
look Netaji, I don't really appreciate your comments on my discussion page. Misplaced Pages is an open forum and if people do not agree with you then that does not mean they're wrong and it further does not require you to write nasty messages on their discussion page. As far as i can tell, you are trying to propose your views on history which interestingly enough seem to align with the fanciful "Hindutva", ultra neo conservative, view of history. As for Thapar, my apologies on her not being a faculty on harvard - the last time i had checked on her she was doing a sabbatical or some year long study at harvard. Regardless, she is considered by many in the academic community as one of india's greatest historians and publishes well. If you truly are a Ph.D in Physics as you claim, you would understand the concept of publishing well. On the other hand, your sources for history seem to have been misquoted in your article and include such personas as Rajiv Malhotra and Jawaharlal Nehru none of whom have a faculty position on any academic facility. Malhorta is a philanthropist and physicist who espouses his own personal views on history and Nehru is a freaking politician! Regardless, this article is about Indian Nationalism and should actually talk about the history of nationalism, not your views on what history should be. You have yet to prove that the majority of indians actually believe in this supposed "true" history and it would seem that there are many out their in the indian community who disagree about this history, especially Thapar. Your continued bashing of this lady who has won worldwide acclaim for her research and publishes better than anyone who you have quoted dismays me. I sincerely doubt it if you are a true Ph.D candidate as you claim. Steelhead 13:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Most of the citations and ideas taken from this page are taken from on-line websites that are run by Hindutva leaning organizations. Netajji himself claims that he is a Hindutva Neocon Steelhead 13:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Really? Romila Thapar is extremely controversial. The majority of Indians don't agree with the nonsense coming out of the JNU mafia. Talageri, Goel, Frawley, Elst, and Danielou are the kind of historians who write real history, and the Indians of course, side with real history, not Marxist nonsense.Bakaman Bakatalk
- Nevertheless, she is the mainstream. The historians you quote are mainly on the fringe, some of them amateurs. They ccannot be compared to Ms. Thapar as authorities worthy of being quoted in an encyclpaedia. Hornplease 20:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Danielou is not an amateur, neither are Goel or Talageri. Of course to some people, anybody not JNU is a "fringe" author.Bakaman Bakatalk 14:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- No doubt to some people. However, on WP, and for myself, 'fringe' merely means 'not mainstream' or, precisely, 'not in a major university' or 'not published sufficiently in a peer-reviewed journal.' This is well-established. I said 'some of them' amateurs. I of course except Alain Danielou from most of the comments, but not Talageri, for example, who is very much an amateur, as far as the dictionary definition of the term goes. Hornplease 04:24, 27 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)