Talk:Integral humanism (India)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India / Politics (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

Untitled[edit]

This text was deleted from this page Removed criticism part entirely. While there no doubt is valid criticism of the subject, the entire tone of the removed paragraph smacked of bias. In particular, describing free healthcare as (regardless of one's political opinion on the matter) as an inherently and convoluted proposition is non-sensical given its implementation in a number of countries. Also, no citations whatsoever.

- A critique of integral humanism calls it a theory penned in an "ambiguous tone" which lacks clear definitions of the terms used, and lacking to "clearly defining terms". It has also been criticised for using the "common defence (of) evasion", and "sidestepping the main problems facing the author of a new philosophy", apart from not clearing "the air about fundamental questions". This theory quotes passages from the Indian religious text, The Ramayana, The Mahabharata and the Vedas. This critique also says that examples have been "lifted out of context" to claim the "stamp of authority of the sacred texts".

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Space-filling article.[edit]

At no point in this article is it actually explained what the philosophy of "integral humanism" is. The intro and first section describe when, where, and who. The second section describes what it isn't, and allegedly why it's necessary. The third section describes the contents of some membership form, and is totally irrelevant to anything. The fourth section describes a partial history of the BJP party, which is not the topic of this article. The fifth section explains that there was once a French guy who used the same term to mean something else.

[The "French guy" referenced above was Jacques Maritain one of the leading European thinkers of the 20th century. Where the Indian "integral humanism" would be important in India, Maritain's integral humanism was a key influence in European intellectual history and in Catholic social thought. Unfortunately, Maritain is dismissed as a "French guy" which is illustrative of the depth of ignorance which infuses so much Wikipedia content]LAWinans (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This article has no actual content on the stated topic at all. Delete it. --76.217.94.0 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It's just a political label, it doesn't need to have any content. Nationalism works that way. Cry "indigenous self-reliance" and people will think you are talking good sense even if you haven't actually made any sort of point. --dab (๐’ณ) 19:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly my sentiment. This article is totally content-free. It makse no sense. Dharma-artha-kama-mokshani and rejection of individualism, whatever that means, don't add up to a political and economic theory. They don't even make a start. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The number of hits the term has on google scholar and other academic search engines shows that the term itself is notable, and deserves an article. I don't currently have the time to go through the literature, but it is likely that some of those criticisms are present in the literature, and are worth looking into. Based off of the large amount of BJP literature that I have read, I would say that this article has "INUNIVERSE" issues, if you will; it is accurate so far as it goes, but it leaves out the context and criticism, so it doesn't go far enough. Specifically, the idea that it was evolved and adopted as a thin screen for Hindutva. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't mean to say that the subject is pointless. It is obviously a central plank in the BJP philosophy. But this article is pointless in its current form. It has obviously omitted all the politically inconvenient bits of the philosophy so that what remains doesn't say anything of any substance. For instance, I see in Chetan Bhatt that the dharma of Indian society is supposed to mean that the constitution of India as a federation of states is wrong. Now, that is real politics. Not just the mention of dharma. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
That's what I mean; the errors in this are errors of omission, not errors of commission. The content in the article is accurate, but misleading because it leaves things out. The Meera Nanda source, for instance, is a critique of Hindu Nationalism in general; the way it has been used, though, you would never suspect that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Tag[edit]

I just tagged this for POV, because the article takes the given ideology at face value, and also buys into the idea that this is what the BJP practices. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Are there sources that indicate the BJP practices this idea,or sources that the BJP does otherwise?Guru-45 (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I haven't come across sources which explicitly state that the BJP does not practice "Integral Humanism" but that is only because the term itself is not used outside Sangh Parivar circles. There are plenty of rigourous sources which state that the BJP doesn't follow some components of this ideology, like secularism, national integration, national self-reliance, etc. I could provide them if necessary. However, I tagged the article not to turn it into an academic exposition on BJP ideology, which of course doesn't really belong here, but rather to get the tone changed from "This is the policy of the BJP" to "This is the policy the BJP claims to follow." Does that make sense?
Frankly, I am a little unsure of how to go about a rewrite, because like I said, the term itself is not used except in certain circles, not even in academia, unlike Hindutva, which you can find extensive rigorous literature on. Of course, that has nothing to do with a POV tag, which is more about tone. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
No source stating about the BJP's usage of this philosophy?Guru-45 (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Did you not understand what I said above? Nobody talk about integral humanism except the Sangh Parivar. The Sangh Parivar says that Integral Humanism is about secularism, national integration, national self-reliance, etc. Many sources say that the BJP does not support secularism, national integration, etc. So, saying that the BJP DOES support these things is problematic. Is that clear? Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh,I got it now.Guru-45 (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
It's really tricky to try and rewrite the article without running into WP:SYN.Guru-45 (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜ Removed tag. Provided academic references. This philosophy exists independent of politics too. --Jyoti (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)