Talk:Indian nationalism/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I requested sources for this material over a week ago and somebody just rv'd it back in w/o providing sources

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)
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)
This is well known man.Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Fine up until here.Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
Crudely, but correctly.Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Not buying this though. This assertion is dubious.Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Also dubious.Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Fact.Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

CiteCop 08:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


CiteCop 08:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


CiteCop 08:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Check this out [1]. Indians discoved Zero some 100 years before the Babylonians Syiem 12:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That page says, among other things, that

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)


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:-

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[2][3] 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 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)
"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)


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

  • A prize-winning science journalist with an M.S. in mathematics from Yale[4] and a mathematician who taught at Harvard[5]


CiteCop 22:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected edit request


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

Appendix B of the same work is a discussion of whether Taxila ought to be considered a university at all.

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,

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

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)


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)

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.
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)