Talk:Indian nationalism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

NPOV

While the subject of the article needs to be represented on Wikepedia, I believe that the tone and content are inappropriate. Each of the themes taken up need to be referenced strongly as each of them can add to lot of controversy and debate unless referenced from credible sources. Characterisation of major religions and political parties appears too simplistic at times. I believe that the article can be improved to a much better state with a Neutral Point of View and hence I inserted the tag. Regards, --Gurubrahma 13:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Under Construction

Dear Gbrahma

NPOV is wrong tag to put on this article. There is in fact, a need for more information from a variety of Wikiusers which hasn't come in yet. You give people the wrong idea with NPOV.

Tone: there is no problem with tone. Careful language has been in fact used to prevent any Pakistanis or Bangladeshis from taking offense.

If some facts are controversial, so be it. It is not my fault they are controversial, but they do remain FACTS.

When I started this article, I knew that I didn't have a long list of references to suck up information from. But guess what, I could create an organized article that others could add to.

You could help best by putting info in here. If you want to change tone, content, add your own improved passages to this. - Nirav

Cd u pls. let us know as to why the reference to Chinese Nationalism was inserted and then removed by you? Let a couple of users with some standing on wikipedia debate on whether the NPOV tag has to be removed. If you believe that it is unnecessary and still feel that it is an inappropriate tag, remove that but answer the question above and I will not reinsert the tag. --Gurubrahma 06:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Explain The Controversy, Not Erase It

Let me explain why subsections on the two-nation theory and Muslim nationalism, while controversial, should stay:

- Its a fact that the Partition deeply affects our politics and consciousness even today, and the same applies to Pakistan.

If Wikipedia should find (I agree with a factual, credible source) a way to explain this, it will improve its standing beyond the traditional encyclopedia that ignores as many realities as it explains facts.

I recognize that my viewpoints are imbibed in the writing, and that does not conform to NPOV. But what is needed is not simply removing some words, but adding more material. If anybody simply sticks NPOV here, it doesn't encourage the participation of others, but discredits the effort.

When I wrote this, I wanted more Indians to contribute to complete this effort. As an involved Indian user, you could bring a lot to the table.

Honorable, Final Agreement

The Chinese Nationalism link was deleted by me, because it was apearing red for some reason, despite a very good article being present and accessible.

I see the possible mistake theatres in this article, and I will remove them. In return, I hope you will contribute something to this article, instead of simply criticizing it.

Good luck - Nirav.

The link was red because you used wrong capitalisation. The article is Chinese nationalism. This is the right way to name articles that are not proper nouns; this is also a Wikipedia convention. IMHO, criticism as long as it is confined to the article is definitely a seminal contribution. --Gurubrahma 11:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Like it or not, the mention stays

I'm sorry for the tone and such but the fact that you have to realize is that this is an article on Indian Nationalism and Indians do take pride on the series of military achievements I mentioned. The tone may have been out of line but that means that you get to edit the nature of the tone, not erase the mention of the events which form the indian nationalist sentiment. I'm sorry but the stone cold tone of the message to me was not appropriate either, In other words, if you don't want the tone of the grand scale article then go ahead edit the tone, The mention of India's great militay feats stays, try living with it Freedom skies 05:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well first of all, there is no "like it or not" on Wikipedia. If anything violates policy, it will be removed no matter what anybody thinks.
Your title itself was POV - "Grand Scale of Indian military achievements." Secondly, it was not specific, and neither can anybody assert that India's achievements are inherently great. This Fire Burns 06:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It is true that the article has many such flaws, and it needs re-writing a lot. This Fire Burns 06:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I can assert that India's achievements are inherently great. It's a fact, try living with it. As for the tone, I did try a rudimentary cleanup and seeing as you're the guy with the stone cold tone try editing the tone and not the facts that form the core of Indian nationalism. Freedom skies 06:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do your attempts of not actually trying to modify the tone and setting up a tag not surprise me ?? the mentions are true and unless you can dispute the POW count in the 71 war, the height of Siachin, the fact that there is an Indian flag on kargil, the fact that the NLI is assimilated into regular Pak army as a result of the Kargil war damages, the fact that indians have withstood terrorism or the tank battles of 65 and 71 I don't see any reasons of your repeated NPOV tags.

As for the tone, edit it , I don't mind as long as the mentions stay. For someone who thinks "neither can anybody assert that India's achievements are inherently great" I'm not really expecting much except the usual sabotage. Freedom skies 06:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm making an effort to change the tone at least, opposed to "You're being uncivil to me, instigate edit wars and such" and the sabotage attempts. Freedom skies 06:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Wikipedia 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)

don't appreciate your comments

look Netaji, I don't really appreciate your comments on my discussion page. Wikipedia 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)

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?[1][2] 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?[3][4] 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"[5] 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.[6]

“ 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]. ”
“ 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.[7]

 ”

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".[8]
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)