This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Integral humanism (India) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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".
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)
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)
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)
Removed tag. Provided academic references. This philosophy exists independent of politics too. -- Jyoti ( talk) 17:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Integral Humanism does not mention its very basic definition, it just "States" that integral humanism is brought together from so and so ideology. the contrast nature that we can get among ideologies like Communism versus capitalism that contrast is missing. it is very difficult to differentiate integral Humanism with any other form of moral responsibility for as a matter of fact any other responsibility.
Also the page heavily rely on the sole person Deen Dayal Upadhyay. it is very veil and sharp technique to advertise some person and political party he was part of.
The deletion of this page should be discussed as the page cannot define even its meaning RashmikantT ( talk) 21:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Plus joining name of integral humanism and India the purpose must be marketing only as in the whole topic the linking is missing RashmikantT ( talk) 21:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Despite the obvious albeit vague and meandering hostility to the very existence of this article, it should be kept. Whether one likes it or not, the BJP is a large and important political party in a large and important democracy, and this is about their founder's philosophy that explains their policies. The BJP and its parent RSS inspire a lot of critics but that does not make the subjects less relevant to Wikipedia. Sooku ( talk) 22:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Integral humanism (India) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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".
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)
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)
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)
Removed tag. Provided academic references. This philosophy exists independent of politics too. -- Jyoti ( talk) 17:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Integral Humanism does not mention its very basic definition, it just "States" that integral humanism is brought together from so and so ideology. the contrast nature that we can get among ideologies like Communism versus capitalism that contrast is missing. it is very difficult to differentiate integral Humanism with any other form of moral responsibility for as a matter of fact any other responsibility.
Also the page heavily rely on the sole person Deen Dayal Upadhyay. it is very veil and sharp technique to advertise some person and political party he was part of.
The deletion of this page should be discussed as the page cannot define even its meaning RashmikantT ( talk) 21:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Plus joining name of integral humanism and India the purpose must be marketing only as in the whole topic the linking is missing RashmikantT ( talk) 21:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Despite the obvious albeit vague and meandering hostility to the very existence of this article, it should be kept. Whether one likes it or not, the BJP is a large and important political party in a large and important democracy, and this is about their founder's philosophy that explains their policies. The BJP and its parent RSS inspire a lot of critics but that does not make the subjects less relevant to Wikipedia. Sooku ( talk) 22:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)