Jump to content

Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Section 21, policies

Vanamonde93 If you can find any quotes of him which would confirm that he was supportive of Christianity and Islam, you can bring them here. But I don't see any possibility, it is clear and according to sources that he was critical of those religion, just if you read the quotes you would know yourself. It was added a long time ago thus it cannot be removed or edited to other pattern without proper consensus. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I second Bladesmulti. Discospinster also put it back. I would do the same. Fine references in correct place. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 02:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I can live with a separated sentence. Ideally, though, I would like to see a quote from the author saying Nehru had anti-Islamic views, rather than a cherry-picked quote from Nehru himself; taken out of context, quotes can be used to prove virtually anything. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Nehru was neither supportive nor against any religion. There are countless sources which confirm that Nehru was an atheist.[1]. However this article claims that he was an hindu agnostic.Morever these lines were ,I think, recently added. The whole (religion) para must be checked properly because it makes no sense at all. As far as I know the book you just mentioned contains no lines what so ever to support the claim that Nehru was anti chrisian\islam. However some refs claim that ( pg102-103 pg-137) Nehru was ‘against’ some Christians who were against Indian nationalism. This does not mean that Nehru was against the religion Christianity but was rather against 'Christians' who were 'against nationalism'. I can provide other refs also to support this theory. If your ref does have lines which support your claim, please quote them.If this were some other article, I would care less. An article about Nehru, the architect of modern India and champion secularist, must be more precise. No offence.Indian4747 (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Nehru was agnostic which is different from atheist, but many of the chatsites you are referring cannot be source. Nehru's criticism of Christians and Muslims seems to be critical in its form. You are actually interested in Righting Great Wrongs but wikipedia is not for that. Read his autobiography whenever you have free time. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I am very well aware of the difference between agnostic and atheist. However Nehru was not agnostic. The previous version of the article stated that he was agnostic atheist. For your information, I am not new to Wikipedia and am also familiar with Nehru’s history. ‘Please go through the biography of Nehru’ is not sufficient enough for Wikipedia. I am accusing you of using false ref to write something unwanted. Could you back up your claims by providing proper references? And please go through the previous para I ve written properly and reply accordingly.Indian4747 (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Already told you before, that you must read these books. Do I have to paste them here? Read this and last quote. Even Cluebot assumed your edits to be vandalism. If you know about wikipedia then why you still don't know that you should not vandalize it?
I have removed the clarify tag too. You reason "The reference seeems fake and needs verrification" was funny, but useless.
If you don't know how to check sources, then I am very sorry because I am not here to spoon you. "Nehru was still an agnostic, but a Hindu agnostic." per Nehru, Ideology and Practice - Page 273, and Jawaharlal Nehru: a biography - Volume 3 - Page 17, I am not sure why multiple reliable sources disagree with your knowledge about Nehru. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Blades, if so many sources exist, it should be easy to provide a quote, should it not? A quote from the author, rather than a cherry-picked one from Nehru himself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
If cluebots can think, why do you think Wikipedia needs human editors. Wikipedia can some times be very unreliable because of editors like you. Editors who use the loopholes of wiki to write anything they see fit. You are ignoring everything I have said above and just trying to make stories. You are also ignoring the refs I have posted above. If it’s not a fake ref why are you so afraid to quote its contents. I think you just have the claim ‘Go through the biography of nehru’ to support your baseless theories. And the quotes from the wikipedia article you just mentioned speaks nothing about his view towards the religion 'Christianity or Islam'. I am not going to give up very easily just because you know a rule or two. Indian4747 (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

We can quote Nehru. What we cannot do is suggest any interpretation of the meaning of such quotes (WP:OR) and thus it really is rather pointless without secondary sources. Find those sources, please. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome Sitush! I have posted some refs about Nehru's view on Christianity\Islam. Please go through them and let me know your suggestions. There are still many more books out there about this topic.Indian4747 (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Sitush, could you repeat that @this disucssion? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 05:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Sitush's argument has nothing to do with that debate; he is asking for a secondary source, because there is none here, whereas that entire argument is about a secondary source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Smiley. I made a request fairly within my rights. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 12:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Indian4747: you say Nehru was against some Christians who were against Indian nationalism. Who exactly? I didn't find any such mention in the refs you have supplied. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The book ,'Christianity and the State in Asia: Complicity and Conflict'(page no 103) by Julius Bautista, Francis Khek Gee Lim, quotes the contents of a letter sent to the chief ministers by Nehru. I ll just quote it below.

{{quote|I know that there is a hangover still of the old prejudices against Christian missions and missionaries. In the old days many of them except in the far south, where they were indigenous, represented the foreign power and some times even acted more or less as its agents. I know also that some of them in the north-east encouraged separatist and disruptive movements. That phase is over.If any person, foreigner or Indian, behaves in that way still certainly we should take suitable action. But remember that Christianity is a religion of large number of people in India and that it came to the south of India nearly 2000 years ago. It is as much a part of the Indian scene as any other religion. Our policy of religious neutrality and protection of minorities must not be affected or sullied by discriminatory treatment or harassment. While Christian missionaries have sometime behaved objectionably from the political point of view, they have undoubtedly done great service to India in the social field and they continue to give that service. In the tribal areas many of them have devoted their lives to the tribes there. I wish that there were Indians who were willing to serve the tribal folk in this way. It must be remembered that the Christian community, by and large, is poor and is sometimes on the level of the backward or depressed classes. Christianity and the State in Asia: Complicity and Conflict. Taylor and Francis. 2009. p. 103. ISBN 978-0415-48069-7. Indian4747 (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, this is saying something against Christian missionaries, especially those that represented the "foreign power". It is a wild generalization to say that he was against Christians themselves! Kautilya3 (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. As I said above, we need a secondary source making that claim; so long as it has not been provided, the sentence should be removed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has become a medium to propagate false right winged propaganda. Most articles are absolutely false. I really hope that the admins would look into these issues properly.Indian4747 (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Page 42 of Secularism and Hindutva, a Discursive Study has it about Christianity, it includes: "He finds catholicisms highly constricting and other wordly, Even after studying books on catholicism Nehru is far from satisfied. "I am afraid it is impossible for me to seek harbourage in this way." He continues with more criticism and added that:-
"Instead of understanding and following the teachings of Jesus, the Christians argued and quarreled about the nature of Jesus’s divinity and about the Trinity. They called each other heretics and persecuted each other and cut each other’s heads off. There was a great and violent controversy at one time among different Christian sects over a certain diphthong. One party said that the word Homo-ousion should be used in a prayer; the other wanted Homoi-ousion-this difference had reference to the divinity of Jesus. Over this diphthong fierce war was raged and large numbers of people were slaughtered.
For Islam, according to the source, the writer considered Jawaharlal Nehru to be "worst pseudosecularist", author argues that Nehru was not really secularist, he would start with the Nehru's quote, "The Muslims who came to India from outside brought no new technique or political or economic structure. Inspite of religious belief in the brotherhood of Islam, they were class bound and feudal in outlook. In technique and methods of production and industrial organization, they were inferior to what prevailed then in India," in the tone of criticism. If its not enough, I would just copy these quotes with the sources and add to the section. But major thought is that current version is not harmful. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I can accept that he did hold views of this kind. But if you have read Nehru's writings yourself, you would know that he also aired much stronger views about Hinduism/Hindus. He was a rationalist and looked at all religions critically and honestly. That does not translate into having "views against Christianity and Islam." You would need to add Hinduism to the list as well, and you would need to balance them against the positive statements he might have made in their favour. How can we know that this writer is giving such a balanced assessment? Kautilya3 (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know which writings you are talking about, cannot be of Nehru's but probably someone else. He writes in discovery of India that Hindu word first occurred in 8th century and that Hinduism after all invasions, wars has "tremendous force", which is praise and it shouldn't be included really. He has strong opinions about Bhagwad Gita which are full of praise. What he thinks about Hinduism was :-

For the first time I began to think, consciously and deliberately of religion and other worlds. The Hindu religion especially went up in my estimation; not the ritual or ceremonial part, but it's great books, the "Upnishads", and the "Bhagavad Gita".

He details about Gita that:-

The Bhagavad Gita deals essentially with the spiritual foundation of human existence. It is a call of action to meet the obligations and duties of life; yet keeping in view the spiritual nature and grander purpose of the universe.

"Honestly" will probably apply here, but "critically"? No and never. Thus balance is only applicable when such content exists. Here the content was written in the sense that he was against a number of religions, still he wanted secular model which remains critical to this day. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What? Being for or against religions and wanting a "secular model" (secular state?) are entirely independent things! Coming back to the topic, we already decided that we are not going to sit here and analyse the "Discovery of India" or any other material on Wikipedia. We are only going to rely on reliable sources. So, is the author of your book a reliable source on Nehru? Is she a scholar on Nehru that studied all of his writings and formed a balanced opinion? Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, They are reliable source. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
These are lines about a certain group of Christians. If you have proper refs we can include it in this article. However these quotes fail to explain whether Nehru was completely against these religions as the current article states. According to the book, A Survey of Hinduism By Klaus K. Klostermaier, Nehru distanced himself from all kinds of religions; including Hinduism. Indian4747 (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

[Copyvio Removed].A Survey of Hinduism (3rd ed.). State University of New York Press. 2007. p. 376. ISBN 978-0-7914-7081-7. Indian4747 (talk) 06:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this discussion has been derailed already. There was clearly no consensus to add anything. Neither we could establish that he was critical of any other religion except Christianity and Islam. He was talking about whole christianity, not 'certain group'. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti just removed all the content I just posted by using the loop hole 'copy vio'. Its only copy vio if I post something in the article. This is clearly for reference purpose. There is nothing there to discuss. I think I have provided enough refs to conclude that Nehru distanced himself from all the religions. I can even provide more refs if you want to. But I don't think that is necessary. The admins should just go through these refs and come to a conclusion soon. Bladesmulti is trying to use fake refs to post fake lines. This is a unwanted discussion. Just go through my refs. And please go through them asap before Bladesmulti does something to the content. Thank you. Indian4747 (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Copyright violations you cannot bring copyrighted content just anywhere. You are just repeating an unnecessary point. First of all you are a single purpose account who is editing only for causing mischeif. Since start, all you have got to say 'fake references' 'fake lines', because are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and now you are violating copyrights. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The right paraphrase of Nehru's views towards Christianity would be something like "He didn't hold Christianity in high regard," not that "he was against Christianity." (What does it mean to be against a religion?) The views he had for the "Muslims that came from outside" can in no way be attributed to Islam, the religion. He says plenty of nice things about the Muslim Arabs. About Mughals, he calls them "semi-feudal" and again says quite a few nice things. So, there is no basis to say that he was "against Islam." Kautilya3 (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. I cant believe that this issue is still on.This guy is obviously a phony. He is just threatening anyone who is against his wild theories with wikipedia rules.He has so far provided no valid references to support his theories.The admins must look into this asap.He just sent me a message that my account will be blocked.Why will wiki block my account?for speaking the truth?Indian4747 (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hindu agnostic

@Indian4747: Regarding this edit [2], what clarification are you looking for? Kautilya3 (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya3 He just reverted to his 1 month old version, which was considered as vandalism by Cluebot[3] and today it was turn of Huggle(another anti-vandal tool) to recognize his edits as vandalism. He's still going to consider them as fake. "Nehru was still an agnostic, but a Hindu agnostic." per Nehru, Ideology and Practice - Page 273, and Jawaharlal Nehru: a biography - Volume 3 - Page 17. Per some discussion above, I am not going to remove any sources, but I have changed wording some bit. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
As usual I am going to ignore blade. According to the many sources I posted above, Nehru was an atheist. This is also what the previous version of this article stated. But someone changed it to agnostic. I am not sure that the ref supporting that sentence is valid. So please check this. If the ref does support the sentence, I have no objection. But I think we should also mention the sources which state that he was an atheist. We cant censor that. The article looks fine now. Indian4747 (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, the question I asked is what problem you have with the reference. Sarvepalli Gopal has edited the entire collection of Nehru papers. So, he is the best authority on Nehru's views. If you are asking whether "Hindu agnostic" is the phrase used by Gopal, the answer is yes. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok. I dont have any objections then. We should also include sources that states he was an atheist. I am a little busy at moment. Will come back with more refs..Indian4747 (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. Since Gopal is the best authority on Nehru, he has a more accurate view, which I think we should accept. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2015

117.222.224.53 (talk) 07:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done this page is not protected, and you made no request. - Arjayay (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2015

Death

... His death was announced to Lok Sabha at 14:00 local time on 27 May 1964 (same day); cause of death is believed to be syphilis Kavikumar999 (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

i googled and finds cause of death is syphilis . This has to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.56.226 (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

should this be added to the main article?

Wiki entries on Nehru family edited from NIC IP? If this continues to happen, and continues to receive media coverage, then we can consider adding this information on the wikipedia page--that Nehru's biography is being targeted by vandals using computers having a Government of India IP address. Soham321 (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/wikipedia-pages-on-nehru-family-edited-from-nic-office_1622948.html Extract:

New Delhi: The woes of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance government are far from being over with the Congress now alleging that Wikipedia pages on former prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his father Motilal Nehru have been altered.The Congress claims that the editing was done from an IP (Internet Protocol) address belonging to the government-owned National Informatics Centre (NIC). Addressing a press conference, Congress spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala sought Prime Minister Narendra Modi's reply in this regard. "There was an attempt to alter the Wikipedia pages of Jawaharlal Nehru and Motilal Nehru. What is worse is that the changes were done from a government IP address, specifically from the NIC, the software provider of the government. There was a sinister attempt to show that Jawaharlal Nehru was a Muslim. It doesn't matter whether he was a Muslim or a Hindu, he was an Indian. The government should conduct a full enquiry into the same," Surjewala said.

Soham321 (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Currently, no, but if continues or if someone big is involved then yes. It is presently a cat and mouse fight. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. If, hypothetically speaking, this edit was made by a notable person who ends up having to resign from their current position, then the fact can be noted on that person's wikipedia page. If, as is most likely, this is just routine vandalism made by a non-notable entity that catches the media's attention for a moment, then this would not be worth mentioning anywhere on wikipedia per WP:NOTNEWS etc. In either cases, the content is irrelevant to this this and other (deceased) Nehru family member articles. Abecedare (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is that this article seems to be an advertisement of Nehru and nothing else. There is no mention of this guy declining permanent seat in UNSC and instead advocated to give it to China [1], [2]. How due to his stupid policy on Kashmir, India is still suffering from the Kashmir problem and insurgency, how India lost a wide territory under him due to his foolish policies and actions.[3], [4],[5]. Hope these historically important facts get added to this article rather than being a eulogizing one.210.212.144.133 (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources for historical matters are scholarly articles or books written by historians. Please see WP:HISTRS. Newspapers are only reliable for day-to-day news. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Buddy please go through link [6] which is a scholarly article written by a PhD held person. Further newspaper reports form the basis of any article. Many articles on Wikipedia have information solely based on newspapers. And Nehru is not just a historical figure. He was a major political figure too.So attempt to dislodge factual things in the garb of historical matter is not prudent. All aspects should be covered.210.212.144.133 (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.ibnlive.com/news/india/world-view-55-467791.html
  2. ^ http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/how-nehru-turned-down-permanant-unsc-seat.15854/
  3. ^ http://www.niticentral.com/2013/06/26/nehru-was-willing-to-let-go-of-jammu-kashmir-95714.html
  4. ^ http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jun/16spec3.htm
  5. ^ http://www.susmitkumar.net/index.php/history-of-kashmir-conflict
  6. ^ http://www.susmitkumar.net/index.php/history-of-kashmir-conflict

Nehru's religion

I just reverted the edit of someone who made the claim that Nehru's religion was Agnosticism. This is based on claims that Nehru was an agnostic, which he was. The point is that there are many schools of Hindu philosophy and some of these are atheistic schools like the Sankhya philosophy for example. The Sankhya is an atheistic philosophy. What this means is that it is possible to be a Hindu while continuing to be an atheist or an agnostic. Additionally, one should take note of the fact that Nehru was cremated in accordance with Hindu rites as per Nehru's wikipedia page (which gives the relevant references for this). So i think it is appropriate to claim that Nehru was a Hindu; or one can say that Nehru was a Hindu agnostic. But one cannot say that Nehru's religion was Agnosticism. Agnosticism is actually not a religion. Soham321 (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Can someone please do something about the links below my edit? I did not give these links but it is appearing as if i did. Soham321 (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding just that field in the infobox, this edit made by Guy Macon is relevant. The infobox should be left blank. I thought of moving that recent edit to the relevant section since someone's beliefs can rarely be put in one word, especially if there is doubt that they identify themselves with any religion. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Done your latter request. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Ugog Nizdast.Soham321 (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
If (and this is a big if) Nehru was an atheist or agnostic, putting that information in in the body of the article and omitting the religion parameter from the infobox was decided by the clear consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. If, on the other hand, Nehru was a Hindu (even an atheistic branch of hinduism), it's OK to say that in the infobox. This came up in the case of Nontheist Quakers a while back. I will leave it for the folks who are working on this page to decide whether Nehru was agnostic or a Hindu, All I care about is that the religion parameter of the infobox contains an actual religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Best to omit the religion parameter for now in my opinion. Soham321 (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Nehru and Patel

I am afraid the new section on Nehru and Patel is a textbook example of WP:COATRACK. I accept that there is a case for a section on the subject, but I don't think we have the proper sources for it yet, and the current treatment is more about Patel and less about Nehru. Starting the section with BJP views is entirely ridiculous. This is a level-4 vital article, and we can't allow it to degenerate like this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The material is relevant because it is discussing Nehru and Patel concomitantly, and the source being cited is considered an expert on this subject (see for instance: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/experts-reject-advani-s-claim-of-nehru-patel-spat/article1-1147924.aspx ). Furthermore, the material is relevant to contemporary times as both the references given (the Frontline article of A.G. Noorani and also the Economic Times article) prove. You are welcome to add other views on Nehru and Patel. Soham321 (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I find it strange that the Hindustan Times article at the link i gave which had pronounced Noorani to be an 'expert', 'a veteran journalist and chronicler', referred to one of his upcoming books, and which had given his views on BJP leader Advani's statement of a rift between Nehru and Patel is no longer available for viewing (at least not on my computer). I had only viewed it a few hours ago. This business of Indian newspapers yanking their online articles from the internet has been noted in a New York Times editorial: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/28/opinion/Indias-Press-Under-Siege.html?_r=1 Soham321 (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
And now the article is back online. Thank you, Hindustan Times. Soham321 (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The entire article is turning into a mess due to recent edits. In particular, there are far too many quotes and close paraphrases. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Sitush, have you read the books being cited to make the charge of close paraphrasing or is this mere speculation on your part? If you feel any kind of copyright violation is taking place, then best to report it in the appropriate forum instead of writing about it here or making copyright violation accusations against me on my talk page. Soham321 (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC) And regarding the quotes, that is a matter of style and taste. Giving direct quotes also ensures that no distortion is taking place of the sourced content. I agree that excessive quoting should be avoided. But if a quote contains critical information, which is liable to be misinterpreted, it should be retained as it is. For instance, the quote from A.G. Noorani in the section 'Communism, Fascism, and Hindu right-wing communalism' should be retained as it is because it contains critical information and paraphrasing it could result in misinterpretation and distortion, and notice that some paraphrasing has in fact been done just before this quote was given. Soham321 (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
That is actually a very good example of an unnecessarily long quotation. It could be reduced to a single sentence and would lose nothing in meaning. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. You will not be able to compress the critical information in this quote in one sentence. Incidentally, here is a short review of the book Nehru: A Contemporary's Estimate by the eminent historian Ramachandra Guha: An Uncommon Diplomacy. In the book review, Guha finds it necessary to give the following quote from the book he is reviewing in one shot:

His first concern was to see that India did not fall apart. To this end he encouraged a nationalism that would make Indians feel that they were Indians instead of feeling that they were Tamils or Punjabis or Dogras or Assamese or Brahmans or Kshatriyas or this or that caste, as they are apt. He gave special consideration to the Muslims as to induce them to feel Indian. For the same reason Christians and other minorities could always be sure of Nehru's unflinching protection. The "Secular State", that is to say a non-Hindu and all-Indian State, was fundamental to this concern.The great bulk of the people of India sensed, and they never lost the sense, that Nehru only wanted to help them and wanted nothing for himself; and that he was a ruler who had pity and kindness.

Nehru had conflicts with other [Indian] leaders, such as Rajagopalachari, Rajendra Prasad and Patel, over Socialism; with Subas Chandra Bose over the Fascist approach; and with Jinnah over the status of the Muslims. Nehru's contests were always over ideas, never over any personal interests of his own, although he waged them without quarter and provoked a good deal of personal enmity.

Nehru might have been ignorant or misguided about some matters, and about some persons, but he was always disinterested, always concerned with what he thought would help Indians or mankind. We can be certain that there will be no revelations to make about him of the kind which are often made about celebrities; not even revelations like those of Churchill's disagreeableness. Nehru's private face differed scarcely at all from his public face.

Soham321 (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Soham, whether a particular quote is important enough to be included verbatim is a judgement call. You need to seek consensus rather than stick to your own judgement. Note also that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a book review. An encyclopedia is supposed to provide a quick summary, not detailed analysis. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I have simplified it. I have no idea whether the section actually reflects things in a neutral manner but I do think that my simplification causes no loss of information. Revert it if you gain consensus to do so. - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Donald Eugene Smith and his book 'India as a Secular State'

Sitush, writing about Donald Eugene Smith, wrote the following message on my talk page (diff1) (i have deleted some irrelevant comments given by Sitush but i am giving the diff of the comment made by Sitush on my talk page) :

There is no article telling us who he is What we have is a poor stub full of mini-quotes in Yogesh Khandke style. That tells us how important this now-outdated book was in its time. What we need to know in the context of Jawaharlal Nehru is what qualifies Smith to form such an opinion. That would be, for example, that he is/was a political scientist or a historian. Given that it is 50 years since, it might also be necessary to say that this is an old opinion, ie: something like "In 1965, the political scientist Donald Eugene Smith said that yada yada"

I prefer to respond to content disputes on the main article of the Nehru page, so i am giving my response here: This is the book of Donald Eugene Smith: India as a Secular State. This book has been described as a 'classic' in a 2010 article by A.G. Noorani, as a pioneering effort in a 2005 The Hindu article, and as a "seminal work" on Hindu nationalism by the historian Ainslie Embree in an invited contribution published in a book. References for these endorsements of the book are given in the wikipedia page of the book. So the wikipedia page of this book does tell you who Donald Eugene Smith is--he is the author of this significant book. Sitush's suggestion that we should write that this is "old opinion" constitutes original research as far as i am concerned. Soham321 (talk)

Stop being obtuse and turning everything into a battle! I said "might also be necessary". I'm on the cusp of blowing up here, Soham: you seem to be simply incapable of accepting improvements without long-drawn sagas that, inevitably, you "lose". - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I have this book on my bookshelf, and I have read parts of it. It is indeed a classic but, as Sitush points out, it is also out of date. For talking about Nehru's times, it is fine though. Sitush's point was that we should say a word or two about who Donald E. Smith is. I have already taken care of it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Off-topic: this talk page is for discussion of improvements to the article. - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would still maintain that you are doing Original Research when you claim the book is 'out of date', considering A.G. Noorani called it a "classic" in 2010, and Ainslee Embree described it as a "seminal work" on Hindu nationalism in 2003. Soham321 (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Try reading a dictionary. For example, a "classic car" is not usually one that we associate with the modern conveniences of speed, fuel economy, reliability, air conditioning etc but rather a significant development somewhere in the arc of car design. Similarly, a "seminal" work is not necessarily an up-to-date work. Yet again, you are arguing seemingly just for the sake of it. Please let it drop because it isn't even relevant now that Kautilya3 has fixed the issue. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Please explain how Kautilya3 has "fixed the issue", because i am continuing to see Donald Eugene Smith's quote in the main article in the exact shape and form it was existing when i first inserted it in the main article. And there is no disclaimer that Smith's quote is 'out of date'. Soham321 (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, for fuck's god's sake - historian, remove link from article, add link to citation. I said "might need"; Kautilya3 has the book and says it isn't needed. I'm out of here until you are blocked, which is going to happen sooner or later. - Sitush (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
What makes book "classic" or "out of date" is individual perception, holy books are outdated but still some people believes that its relevant even today. We can't reject book when author is notable and his book is also notable. And Sitush you please be civil during discussions, no one owns the article. Anyone can get blocked. --Human3015 knock knock • 19:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The book is definitely out of date. Smith was trying to argue then that there were fundamental forces that made India secular and, especially, Hindus secular. Unfortunately for him, the Hindus proved him wrong. Even 10 years ago, I was predicting that the BJP would never get majority at the Centre. I have been proved wrong too. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
This talk page is not about Smith; it is about Nehru. But i will just make the limited point that Kautilya3 is wrong when he says Smith thought there were fundamental forces that made Hindus secular. In fact, the penultimate chapter in Smith's book is titled 'The Challenge of Hindu Communalism." Soham321 (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3, are you saying that everyone who voted for BJP is communal? BJP's campaign was based on issue of "development" and also it was having background of corruption scams of earlier Congress led government. Indians usually vote different kind of parties on contemporary issues, even Owaisi's MIM is getting good success in local elections. We can't declare anyone as communal or secular depending upon which political party they vote, same people voted for Congress in 2009, so that time they were "Secular" and suddenly in 2014 they became "communal"? --Human3015 knock knock • 20:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Reverted to prior stable article version, current one had one or two isolated source with no relevance to the subject, please remember that this is not person's fansite for promoting a specific point, accept only relevant info. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Editors of Wikipedia. Please help in improving this article. I had put references for the controversies related to Nehru in an earlier talk section. But seemingly pro Congress/ pro Left editors are not willing to put disturbing facts about Nehru in this advertisement article. request all to please consider the references/ links and make necessary amendments to include truths and facts about the person Nehru.210.212.144.133 (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Better you come with an account and discuss your issues. Your most of given sources are more like blogs, though you may have point regarding "UNSC seat" and "Kashmir issue" and you may find reliable criticism for it but you should get consensus for it. You should open an account and discuss your issues here in descent way. If you call people "pro-congress" or "pro-BJP" then everyone will ignore you. This is not facebook. And you should read article carefully, mention about his stand on Kashmir issue is already there. --Human3015 knock knock • 05:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Looking on this conversation, i thought to search about some good citations and contribute. Because i also felt that this article is written in a praiseworthy format only and unlike biographies of other prominent persons found on Wikipedia. It's clearly not a neutral article. No body can be 100% correct in his/her lifetime. A biographic article should mention all aspects of subject's personality. For UNSC seat, In his latest book, Nehru — The Invention of India, United Nations Under-Secretary General Shashi Tharoor's says Nehru declined UNSC permanent seat and offered it to China. See archived article Nehru declined offer of permanent U.N. seat Shekhar 08:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2015

115.241.104.42 (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jawaharlal Nehru. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Jawaharlal Nehru. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

These all look good. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC notification

On 23 July, 2015, large chunks of this article were deleted. See diff1 and diff2. The deleted content included the following sections:

  • On Caste system, and Caste based reservations (chunks of this section deleted)
  • Religion (chunks of this section deleted)
  • Budhism
  • On Cow Protection
  • On Spiritualism in India
  • Secular State
  • Views on communalism
  • Nehru and Science
  • Nehru as a person
  • Nehru and Patel
  • On Communism, Fascism, and Hindu Right-wing Communalism in India

Other changes were made to reduce the neutrality of the article. For instance, the words "According to a Times of India editorial, Nehru left behind a disputed legacy, being "either adored or reviled for India's progress or lack of it." were changed to "Nehru, thus, left behind a disputed legacy, being "either adored or reviled for India's progress or lack of it." These words have exactly one source to back them up which is a Times of India editorial. So the previous version was clearly better and not the changed version (which exists till date).

This page has been subjected to vandalism which has generated a lot of publicity in India: Link While vandalism certainly needs to be reverted the quality of the material in the article also needs to be borne in mind. Additionally It has been argued that there is a political campaign in India to erase the legacy of Nehru. See Link2. So great care needs to be extended to this page to protect it not just from vandalism but also from insertion of any bias (which reduces neutrality) and removal of any content that portrays Nehru in a positive light.

Also, what makes the large scale deletions (refer to diffs given above) curious is that the person who carried them out (refer to diffs given above) is being accused of sock puppetry on his talk page (see also his block log). I don't have the energy and stamina to have a prolonged discussion to re-insert all this disputed content into the main article. What I intend to do is to start an RfC on this issue, and let others weigh in. I thought it best to leave a preliminary comment here before i start the actual RfC (in another 1 or 2 days).Soham321 (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of previously deleted content

Closing this since the filer is currently blocked, the questions are not properly formulated, and there has been on prior discussion.--regentspark (comment) 14:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On 23 July, 2015, large chunks of this article were deleted. See diff1 and diff2. The deleted content included the following sections:

  • On Caste system, and Caste based reservations (chunks of this section deleted)
  • Religion (chunks of this section deleted)
  • Budhism
  • On Cow Protection
  • On Spiritualism in India
  • Secular State
  • Views on communalism
  • Nehru and Science
  • Nehru as a person
  • Nehru and Patel
  • On Communism, Fascism, and Hindu Right-wing Communalism in India

Other changes were made to reduce the neutrality of the article. For instance, the words "According to a Times of India editorial, Nehru left behind a disputed legacy, being "either adored or reviled for India's progress or lack of it." were changed to "Nehru, thus, left behind a disputed legacy, being "either adored or reviled for India's progress or lack of it." These words have exactly one source to back them up which is a Times of India editorial. So the previous version was clearly better and not the changed version (which exists till date).

Also, what makes the large scale deletions (refer to diffs given above) curious is that the person who carried them out (refer to diffs given above) has been blocked for socking in the past and is again being accused of socking. I am pinging this editor so that he is aware of the outcome of the RfC: D4iNa4

This RfC is being initiated to determine whether the removed content should be re-inserted into the main article. Please vote Support to accept my proposal to re-insert the deleted material or Oppose to maintain the status quo.Soham321 (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Before commenting on the content, I'm putting a disclaimer about the format of this rfc. This shouldn't be a poll format per WP:NOTVOTE, such formats are only suitable for straightforward yes/no questions, rare ones where majority votes actually matter or just straw polls. Let's default to the usual single threaded discussion from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting. Additionally, from what is proposed, given the scale of it in terms of content and topic-wise, even separate section for straw polling would not be wise and would distract us from main issues of it--given that most of the content is failing on initial inspection. It's mainly WP:QUOTEFARM concerns. That being said, I'll note that the article isn't in the best of shape currently as well and there is some content I think can be salvaged from those diffs. We should focus our discussion on that content. I'll elaborate more in my subsequent comment. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Ugog Nizdast, i have no objection to whatever format of discussion is adopted about this RfC. As regards the WP:QUOTEFARM concern, the correct approach is to transform the quotes by paraphrasing and summarizing rather than deleting the material altogether. Some of the quotes may be given as footnotes rather than in the main article. Some may be truncated, some may be retained. But this massive deletion of clearly significant content ( the Nehru and Science section for instance) in one shot is clearly unacceptable. Soham321 (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I think we're on the same page here. This issue is far more complex than "yes, put them back" or "no, remove them entirely". All those sections seem to excessively rely just on quotes. On style and format, they should follow WP:USEPROSE and would most of them even get their own separate section say if it became a FA? and how would they be mentioned? Are they referenced adequately for it? This leads to a bigger issues of this page which I don't think we can solve in one-shot, nor is it concerned with specifically to those diffs (rather than those topics in general); so we should focus on each at once. Without doing much digging, FWIK, there has to be at minimal something about his views on science but question the relevance of specific issues like Cow protection and Spiritualism in India, the rest have at least a mention in the present revision. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
One obvious solution is to allow the Support and Oppose voting to take place and if the removed content is deemed significant it can be re-inserted into the main article and then editors working on the article can convert the direct quotes into prose by paraphrasing or summarizing or retaining the quotes as footnotes or retaining the quotes in the main article. Some of the material can be removed through condensing the content. Another solution is more time consuming: we do a voting on each and every section that was deleted to determine whether it should be re-inserted into the main article. Step by step, one by one. I am not as worried about QUOTEFARM as you are. What is more important to me is whether the quotes contain meaningful, relevant, significant and encyclopedic information. If they do they can be easily transformed into prose or retained as footnote. Note also that it is acceptable to use long quotations in WP articles. See here and here for instance. Of course, over quoting should be avoided. Soham321 (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

To make it easier to read some of the deleted content, i copied the 'Nehru and Science' material on my user space: Link. Rather than deleting this content altogether, I would like to see a separate main article on this subject giving even more details. Even in this article this section could be expanded to incorporate more information. I also don't like the point format being used here; there is no need for using it. Of course, the question is: what do you do with the two Blackett quotes being used in this section? We could convert both into prose or convert one into prose and leave one as it is. Soham321 (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Reading the Nehru and Science section again makes me conclude that while the content is significant and deserves inclusion in the main article it also needs to be rewritten to make the language more encyclopedic. Soham321 (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jawaharlal Nehru. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Jawaharlal Nehru

In the Wikipedia article on Harold J Laski, a prominent British left/socialist political scientist, it points out that Nehru was one of his students and Laski's thinking greatly influenced Nehru and Laski became well known in India for his articulation of socialist ideas and his championing of Indian independence. Nehru even founded a Harold Laski Institute for Political Science. Thew Wiki article states "He taught generations of future leaders at the LSE, most famously, his prize student, V.K. Krishna Menon. According to John Kenneth Galbraith, "the center of Nehru's thinking was Laski" and "India the country most influenced by Laski's ideas".[16] It is mainly due to his influence that the LSE has a semi-mythological status in India. He was steady in his unremitting advocacy of the independence of India. He was a revered figure to Indian students at the LSE. One Indian Prime Minister of India said "in every meeting of the Indian Cabinet there is a chair reserved for the ghost of Professor Harold Laski".[31][32] His recommendation of K. R. Narayanan (later President of India) to Jawaharlal Nehru (then Prime Minister of India), resulted in Nehru appointing Narayanan to the Indian Foreign Service.[33] In his memory, the Indian government established The Harold Laski Institute of Political Science in 1954 at Ahmedabad.[14]"

The article even quotes Nehru as having said after Laski's death in 1950 "It is difficult to realise that Professor Harold Laski is no more. Lovers of freedom all over the world pay tribute to the magnificent work that he did. We in India are particularly grateful for his staunch advocacy of India's freedom, and the great part he played in bringing it about. At no time did he falter or compromise on the principles he held dear, and a large number of persons drew splendid inspiration from him. Those who knew him personally counted that association as a rare privilege, and his passing away has come as a great sorrow and a shock."

However, in the Wikipedia article on Nehru, there is no mention of Laski anywhere. Should this omission be corrected? While Laski become more radical in his later years and his influence decreased, he was never the less a brilliant and influential academic in his earlier years.

Michael Wiggin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.30.14 (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Michael Wiggin: Well let's see. The "early life" section does mention Annie Besant who was an early Fabian socialist, and the Fabian socialism page very prominently mentions both Besant and Nehru in the "second generation" section. Yes, Laski was definitely important. Nehru had many Fabian friends, George Bernard Shaw (as I remember it, ... at least there are pictures of them together) and the Bevans (Aneurin and ...). I didn't realize that Laski was absent. Perhaps in the "economic policy" section a few lines could be added, if appropriate. Of course, we have to be careful that in the current atmosphere of scapegoating Nehru for all of India's ills, this addition is not WP:POV. Why don't you take a stab at it, or some other editor might who watches this page with more care than I do. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Nehru was at Harrow, was he not? Not mentioned, though. Seadowns (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There is at least one historical figure with a non-placeholder article to them that is not hotlinked from here.

Can someone hotlink the Annie Besant article wherever her name occurs? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Besant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.84.16 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jawaharlal Nehru. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Dubious revert

@Capitals00: this is quite crossing the line. Removing scholarly content for such a spurious reason is likely to land you in deep waters. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Article is better without mention of what somebody "speculates", what was "controversial" about the speculation and all other types of opinions associated with these gossips. Capitals00 (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree, there is enough material to write about Nehru than his romantic life. This stuff is quite WP:UNDUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The two of you need to explain what issues there are with such content under his personal life? No doubt the man has much to have written about, but his affairs belong under personal life. Its received ample coverage, the sources I cited being a few of them. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:IDHT. Read the "two" again and don't repeat the same question. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

When was the first question asked? Read WP:CIVIL and WP:ESDONTS. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You're proposing to double the size of the section by adding much non-summary (e.g. "Ghose cannot determine how Mountbatten felt", "speculates that a statement from Nehru was actually a metaphorical reference to his sexual relationship with a young Englishman") information on Nehru's affairs with just two people—Edwina Mountbatten, who is mentioned in the previous paragraph in summary fashion, and a an unidentified male lover—without saying how representative of the full extent of his emotional entanglements this is. This seems undue, certainly. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

My proposal is to fill up the space in his personal life. Its in a pitiful underdeveloped state. Given the academic attention it pulls there needs to be a paragraph at least on the whole Edwina-Nehru affair. And a breeze of some sort on the male lover too. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you present something that we haven't already heard? These are nothing but rumours. See WP:UNDUE. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

With such a recurrence in academia this is biography material per WP:DUE. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

You're adding detail but also too much WP:WEASEL on emotional relationships without answering the questions they raise, for me at least: are these extra-marital well-documented, sincerely felt (given that we're dealing with a politician who is possibly capable of demonstrations of empathy that we might think indicative of deep feeling, but for him are tools of the trade), and, lastly, how does a post-independence leader maintain credibility when his most heartfelt friendships seem to be with former colonial overlords? Dhtwiki (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is yes, they are well documented. The sources I cited are examples. Those latter two questions don't seem very pertinent. Why does ″sincerely felt″ even matter and why does the effect of this on his ″credibility″ in India matter here? Are Muslims allowed such objections on pages like Criticism of Muhammad? You also need to showcase examples of the alleged WP:WEASEL words. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, Winged Blades of Godric, can you weigh in here? This is getting out of hand. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources

This article relies a lot on Frank Moraes' biography written in 1956, well before Nehru's death in 1964.The article also has a number of government publications as sources from Nehru's period in office.I believe these matters need be looked into.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Assassins

It is not said what the motives of the four were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.119.171 (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

FA

I think the article now meets the FA criteria and I'm thinking about nominating it as a FA candidate. It would be helpful if other editors could comment on the article and/or offer suggestions, etc. Thanks.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in my opinion, this article is not ready even for a GA because it relies too much on outdated source like Frank Moraes (1956) or government publications.I would recommend that we wait until these issues are addressed.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Annie Besant's Name is Misspelled

Annie Besant's name is misspelled "Annie Beasant" in one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4CE:9A89:70E8:3F38:7ADD:28C3 (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)  Done Whispyhistory (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Amar Chitra Katha

The article states: "He has been described by the Amar Chitra Katha as the architect of India." Amar Chitra Katha publishes graphic books, mostly for children, and not a political commentator or as such. So I feel we don't need this in the lead/article. --Titodutta (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely! And even-more when read in the context that the given citation provides, Amar Chitra Katha's volume on his life does little to describe, or even contextualize, the story of Nehru's political life. ... The final caption reads: "Thus began his close identification with the masses of India. the man of destiny who later became the architect of India had stepped into the arena of public life." The narrative halts there at 1920, twenty-seven years before he became India's first prime-minster.
The source is largely critical of the homogenized (and, implicitly ideologically tainted) narratives provided by ACK, and would be a good addition at Amar Chitra Katha article, but not here. Abecedare (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The India League

'At that time he also formed Independence for India league, a pressure group within the Congress.[42][43]' Nehru was also involved with the India League - a separate but affiliated group to the Congress. The India League was set up in 1928 by Nehru's close friend Krishna Menon. Citation - 'India in Britain: South Asian Networks and Connections, 1858–1950, Palgrave, 2012'. Also, the India League was so successful due to this friendship - http://www.open.ac.uk/researchprojects/makingbritain/content/india-league Could you please amend this section? 

JumpingJimmySingh (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC) 16/06/2020

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Objection

Updated the template from "Citation needed" to "POV statement". The word 'reluctantly' has been placed here without citing any source, and is being defended by wiki editors who are aligned with the political ambitions of Mr. Nehru's Congress party, who in turn, have ruled and written the history of India for most of the years since the country gained independence. This one word (reluctantly) influences the reader into forming an opinion about the inner intentions of one of the founding fathers of India (Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru) and therefore, implicitly seeks to acquit the latter from the fate of the country during and after independence. This one word, without providing a shred of evidence, seeks to justify Mr. Nehru's actions while he oversaw a war that resulted in the largest migration in human history and resulted in the death of millions: a war (between India and Pakistan) that rages on even today.

In the spirit of moving this article towards an FA candidacy (or even a GA), I propose that the word 'reluctantly' be removed from this sentence in order to maintain objectivity. Furthermore, I request other editors to cleanup this article and remove all traces of hero-worship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitbalani (talk • contribs) 04:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2020

The information in this article is true as we all know but the fact that Nehru's surname has been compromised. Nehru was from Kashmir and his father from Muslim background. That need to be corrected. 49.3.41.93 (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2021

Newfoundland was not a dominion in 1916. 82.26.131.93 (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: see Dominion of Newfoundland, it looks like the statement in the article is accurate. Volteer1 (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2021

In the Assassination attempts section, the 1961 explosion happened on a road in Old Delhi in the source but the article incorrectly states railway tracks in Maharashtra were blown up. 2402:3A80:6F6:9141:F8E2:AE93:6736:EFCB (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Run n Fly (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Biased editors keep removing 'citation needed' tag!

    • THIS IS AN APPEAL TO THE SENIOR EDITORS OF WIKIPEDIA**

This is the Nth time i'm adding a 'Citation Needed' tag and it has been removed!! Individuals or parties (Perhaps the Indian National Congress, a political party in India founded by Jawaharlal, which receives billions of dollars in funding) who have a vested interest in portraying a false image about the individual in question keep removing it! Either cite your source when you say 'reluctantly' or remove this word! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitbalani (talk • contribs) 15:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Haven't you seen the three sources at the end of the sentence? If you continue to add that "Citation needed" tag, it will be considered as disruptive editing.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Domestic influence and posthumous assessment

Under the section on legacy, we need a sub-section on Nehru's influence on India and the world since his death and the consequences of his policies. There is a great amount of information , disinformation and propaganda on the topic in media in recent years but that has not been reflected in the Wikipedia article. I will add content on the topic as I search for reliable sources.I urge others interested in this page to contribute with reliable sources and in NPOV manner.Thanks Jonathansammy (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC).

Jonathansammy I would recommend the creation of a new page like the Influence and legacy of Swami Vivekananda covering all of these subjects.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2021 (2)

Minister of Defence In office 31 October 1962 – 14 November 1962 Monarch George VI

When jawahar lal nehru was defence minister, india was a republic. Hence it had no monarch. Hence the name of monarch should be deleted from here. Vaibhav samrat (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Hopefully I haven't missed anything.--RegentsPark (comment) 21:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Social democrat

The lead mentions Nehru as a social democrat, but nowhere in the article is that mentioned. Is that not a WP:synthesis? Appu (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That is because this is not a well-developed article in which the main body is comprehensive. So, ipso facto, a comprehensive and NPOV lead can't be a summary of the article. I often do this on some pages and cite the sentences so that the main bodies can be developed. The mistake I made was to forget the citations. I will now add them with liberal quotes from which the main body can be further developed. Thank you for pointing this out. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jawaharlal_Nehru/Archive_4&oldid=1129551813"