Talk:India as a Secular State

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

India: Politics Start‑class Low‑importance

	India portal 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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article was last assessed in July 2015.

publishing history of the book[edit]

The edition of this book in my possession says it is the second printing of the book and that this was published in London and Delhi by Oxford University Press. But it also says the copyright is held by Princeton University Press and the copyright dates from 1963. Soham321 (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is? The article already says it was PUP in 1963. - Sitush (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I agree. Soham321 (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Table of Contents[edit]

i notice that the table of contents (the chapter titles) for this book given by me in the main article has been deleted. I would suggest that this be re-inserted in the main article. Soham321 (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? - Sitush (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The chapter titles give significant information about the contents in the book. For instance, the penultimate chapter is titled "The Challenge of Hindu Communalism." Soham321 (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article for how to structure an article on a book. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extract from the link you gave: an exhaustive list of contents, without any editorial commentary or significance, should not be included. Unless the list has encyclopedic value it is better to convey this in the synopsis. My claim is that the list of chapter titles for this book has encyclopedic value. Soham321 (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why? You seem to be very keen on wikilawyering but surely a better solution is to write a decent synopsis? My bet is that the umpteen book reviews that Kautilya3 kindly provided would help with that, although I am not in the mood to digest them at present. As a rule, we try to avoid lists within articles - I'm sure you can find the guideline for that, given your proclivities, but I can't be bothered, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to why it has encyclopedic value, the list of chapter titles gives significant information about the contents of the book leading to no ambiguity about what the book is actually about. For instance, Kautilya3 has written on the talk page of Jawaharlal Nehru that:

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.

And this is the diff: diff1 But Kautilya3--who claims he has a physical copy of the book, indicating he has read it-- is obviously wrong about his claim that "Smith was trying to argue that there were fundamental forces that made India secular, and especially, Hindus secular" if it so happens that the penultimate chapter of the book is titled "The Challenge of Hindu Communalism". Including the list of chapter titles would ensure that incorrect claims about the book, like the kind Kautilya3 made earlier, would not be made in future. Soham321 (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why you can't cover the last chapter in your synopsis. Giving a dry table of contents would serve no purpose because an average reader like me would still ignore it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last chapter is titled "Building of a Secular State." I am now quoting from the penultimate page of the last chapter:

The forces of Hindu communalism are biding their time, and it is not unlikely that the future will bring circumstances more congenial to their growth...The poor showing made by the Hindu communal parties, and the overwhelming success of the Congress in three general elections cannot be interpreted as the deliberate espousal by the huge electorate of the principles of secularism.

Soham321 (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Nambath[edit]

The journalist Suresh Nambath's endorsement of Donald Eugene Smith's book has been cited in the main article. In this connection i would like to state that at the time of my writing this edit, Suresh Nambath is the Co-Ordinating Editor of The Hindu newspaper as per his official twitter account. Soham321 (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the entire statement. Nambath has no authority as a historian, writer or book reviewer: it is just an opinion that happens to be held by someone whose wide-ranging journalism gets published in a newspaper. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well Sitush has removed the reference to the Suresh Nambath article: http://www.thehindu.com/2005/03/10/stories/2005031007351200.htm I will leave it to future editors to decide if this 2005 article should be re-inserted in the main article as a reference. Soham321 (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The value of Suresh Nambath's article is not just that it contains the view of Nambath on Smith's book. It is the fact that it contains an interview of Donald Eugene Smith--in 2005--in which he talks about secularism in India. Smith's book, as the main article says, was published in 1963. Perhaps this interview can be utilized in a future wikipedia biography of Donald Eugene Smith. I will leave it to future editors to sort this out.Soham321 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there may be some value in the interview but that was not what the source was being used for. You might perhaps add it back as an item in the Further reading section if you think there is something of merit, although you might equally well just add the useful stuff straight into the article. - Sitush (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC

I have added a link to the interview in the 'Further Reading' section. Soham321 (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis[edit]

Request Sitush and Kautilya3 (and any other interested editor) to give feedback for the Synopsis section. Soham321 (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say that the book has seven parts but you only describe three. - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, This is a work in progress. Soham321 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]