Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marathi nationalism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. However, this is likely to be back here before long unless it is improved. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Marathi nationalism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is a complete WP:OR and never has been such a term or sentiment used in India or abroad in past or present media. Article has no citation and is a complete hoax or propoganda page created for some nuisance. I am surprised how this article survived so long. -- gp pande  «talk»  19:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. AfDs are not the place for content disputes.  Ask for specific citations and edit the uncited information out.  If nothing is left then come back. JASpencer (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Article is a complete hoax and reads like a propaganda. Try googling and you would find nothing. This is WP:OR -- gp pande  «talk»  13:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 14:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know anything about this subject, so I'll not "vote", but I will agree with the nom: this is an "existence" dispute, not a content dispute — i.e. is there really such a thing as M. nationalism at all? Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, there is gross OR at present, but the phenomenon is certainly real and deserves an article of its own. --Soman (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Soman, nice to see you buddy. I think you are trying to say that Marathi regionalism exists - as can be seen from recent activities of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena. WP has a GA for that 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra. But Marathi nationalism, which means, Maharashtra as an independent state has never been thought of in past or present. So this article deserves a delete. What say? -- gp pande  «talk»  07:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nationalism is a rather broad subject, and I don't think the term 'Marathi nationalism' necessarily needs to imply demand for a separate state. My understanding is that there is a separate Marathi nationalist discourse, which isn't 100% the same as Maharashtra regionalism. But perhaps a merger between the two articles can be a solution. --Soman (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you explain which organization, political leader or mass movement represents "Marathi nationalism" and which cannot be covered under Marathi regionalism article? Merge might be a solution but only if the two terms of regionalism and nationalism imply same meaning. Otherwise not. I don't think the 2 terms are synonyms. -- GP Pande  talk!  12:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why aren't they the same? Is it because of the meaning as shown above? If it's because nationalism = seperatism, then that is wrong. B/c it does not necessarily mean that. Marathi nationalism might exist, but as it already includes a level of Hindu nationalism the "enemy of my enemy ultimately becomes my friend." Lihaas (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I tried googling as suggested by the nominator and |+%22Marathi+nationalist%22&btnG=Search+Books this Google Books search confirms that this is a notable subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic based not the search Phil did. Certainly not a hoax as the nominator claims. Edward321 (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep a clearly notable subject matter, clean up no excuse for deletion.Taprobanus (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Phil Bridger and all those who voted to "keep" after him: Nice that Phil did a google search to check this out. Let me explain you the findings you have got. Most of the book findings show "Marathi;nationalism". This means the two terms are present in the book at separate places but they are not present as a "term" used as article here in WP. For those with non-Indian background, I can explain this more simpler. Marathi is an Indian language spoken in west Indian state of Maharashtra, India's most industrialist and third most populous state. Marathi people have been quite prominent in freedom struggle of India (till 1947) and also during the 1857 Indian uprising. People who were involved in these struggles are called "nationalist". There is nothing like "Marathi Nationalist" fighting for separate Maharashtra as written in the article. In the book "Where I Come from" by Vijay Agnew - he is trying to address the Samyukta maharashtra movement which took place before Maharashtra state was created in 1960. The term is entirely out of context here. The two movements are different by decades and purpose. My point is - in India there are separatist movements in states like Jammu and Kashmir and in past in Punjab. But no such movement or feeling has been ever used in either of the central or western Indian states. Wikipedia already has articles like Marathi regionalism and 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra. But Marathi nationalism is way too much of imagination done, it's a hoax and complete WP:OR. I would ask all those who have given keep comments to rethink. -- gp pande  «talk»  07:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Bottom line is : Don't get confused between Marathi regionalism, which is resentment towards non-Marathi people living in Maharashtra to Marathi nationalism, which means separatist movements in Maharashtra as in Jammu and Kashmir or in Punjab in past. Former one surely exists and is represented quite thoroughly in Wikipedia but the later one is a complete hoax or WP:OR -- gp pande  «talk»  08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: WikiProject India has been notified of this debate. -- gp pande   «talk»  08:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Only five of the 29 Google books hits for which snippets are shown have punctuation between "Marathi" and "nationalism/ist". That isn't "most of the book findings". Also it's not necessary for Marathi nationalism to exist as a significant force today for us to have an article on it - we cover history too. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Never in past also - was there any sentiment for separate Maharashtra nation. -- gp pande  «talk»  09:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep  The article needs work but a quick google search shows many diverse references to the term, including news media and at least one academic source, indicating that the term is recognizable and topical. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 16:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you show me a single reference from past or present - where any organization, political leader or people sentiment in any media demanding a separate nation of Maharashtra ??? This is first time such an idea is seen only on Wikipedia. All you do is "google search". Read the article you have searched and show where there is a demand or movement for "Maharashtra nation". If you show just one reference showing separatist movement exists - I will withdraw. -- GP Pande  talk!  07:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. You are right. The term is WP:OR. The only academic mention is as follows: Tilak attempts to fit a militant Marathi nationalism into the rubric of the emerging all-India nationalist movement, an idea that continues to be relevant and revisited in the post-colonial period, where it is clearly not used as a term. The newspaper references are dubious (Indian Express, which shows up as many hits, contains the term in a comment from a reader). Google scholar pulls out five hits for "Marathi nationalism", but none of the five seem to address the issue directly (I can only see the abstracts). JSTOR pulls up 25 articles and, from what I can make out (I don't have the time to read all 25!), most don't even use the two words together. From the titles, none address the issue directly. I apologize for not looking deeper in my initial response but must admit that my view was partly colored by the fact that I think that Marathi nationalism does exist. Apparently, the world at large hasn't extended the sectarian influences in Maharashtra to a nationalistic level as yet. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 13:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And Yes, hate crimes committed by Shiv Sena and MNS show their regionalism but they are not separatists. Atleast till now :-) Who knows what Thackeray family might do in future. -- GP Pande  talk!  14:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article certainly needs a lot of work and citations, but they are not too hard to find. Keep a tag on for cleanup and citations, but it is certainly an issue that has been raised in the past, (division of states) and is once again picking up steam in 2008. (there was some scheme to demand visas for others coming to Maharashtra (if was obviously shot down)).
 * see this from nationalism: "nationalism can refer to an ideology, a sentiment, a form of culture, or a social movement that focuses on the nation."
 * And in turn, see nation. A nation is technically (by definition, and in academia) defined as having a commong ethno-cultural bond, where a nation is homogenous. See the Celtic nations as an example.
 * Heck, we should have a Gujarati nationalism too. That's picking up steam with economic growth and Modi's comments that Gujarat should not pay federal taxes in return for no central assistance. Lihaas (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please understand, nobody in Gujarat or Maharashtra is asking for separate "nation". You are still not able to understand the difference between regionalism and nationalism. Please read difference explained above in bold. -- GP Pande  talk!  07:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at my definitions above. The definition for nationalism doesn't precldue any demands for an independent state. The restructuring of india along linguistic lines was a result of pressures in the same vein of nationalism. Like the anti-hindi movement in the south (tamil), was also a result of a tamil nationalism (although there were fringe elements calling for indepedence) it doesn't mean it has to be an indepedent state. re-read my comments above to talking about the definitions of nationalism and nation.
 * Reading your comment above i can see a flaw in the logic there. Seperatism doesn't have to be based on grounds for a nation. What you are interpreting is the interchangeable use of nation and state. the two are not interchangeable (the nation-state was an ideal set forth centuries ago, it is rarely the case today. a few nation-states would be portugal, czech rep, slovakia, croatia, serbia, mongolia, and japan, but not much more)) Granted the wider world does use the term like so (and as a poli scientist this will grate, it's a major pet peeve), it is still wrong. a nation doesn't have to be seperate, nor does a seperation mean it becomes a nation. Your quote here, "Marathi nationalism, which means separatist movements," is wrong. It does not mean seperatist. again, see my links above.
 * comment subnationalism, as a term, should satisfy the disagreements here. For those who can't see it as per the political definition, one can at least see it as a "subnationalism"

Lihaas (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that nationalism and separatism are not the same thing. However, an examination of the available literature shows that the idea of Marathi nationalism is not something that is even remotely recognized outside of this article. Historians do not appear to state that Marathi nationalism drove Shivaji's conquests (in fact, the concepts of nationalism, nations, and nation states seems to have developed around the time of the French revolution, 1789, much after Shivaji's time). We should not be inventing terms and synthesizing ideas on wikipedia and Marathi regionalism (I had no clue that this article existed) covers everything that anyone wants to place under nationalism. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 02:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But using this nationalism here is not tied to Shivaji alone. I just re-read the part on the page with Shivaji and I agree that part can be re-phrased to something along of the lines that Shivaji is used as the rallying cry. Academically speaking Shivaji certainly didn't base his ideas around a Maratha base (although he never denied, and did occasionally use a Hindu base if it suited his battle). I agree with you on this path, but see the definition of nationalism above. regardless of whether the actual term is used by proponents/advocates, the definition falls in with their deeds and words; and, at any rate, in the modern era there is also mention of the term. Lihaas (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you. In fact, my first reaction to the nom was 'of course there is Marathi nationalism (calling it a hoax was not helpful).' I !voted keep and was going to respond to gppande's comments on my !vote with an explanation of why nationalism, nation, nation states, and separatism. But, instead I looked more carefully at the google results and was surprised to see that they don't really talk about Marathi nationalism and, in most cases (except for a Tehelka interview with Padamsee) the equation of the two was purely casual. Google scholar showed the same thing. I looked at JSTOR and found the same thing. When you research the term further, it appears that the academic community as well as the news media have not elevated regionalism to nationalism. We, at wikipedia, should not pre-empt them.--Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 13:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Valid points you have no doubt. but i imagined you searched for "Marathi nationalism" which limits your search. See this: http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=maratha+nationalism&meta= you can also search for this term (as it was they call themselves. Marathi is the language, not the people and the culture) Lihaas (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: I don't get what the article is trying to say. Either the editor(s) are thorughly confused or have thrown together a random collection of events and ideas(their own) in order to present a viewpoint of their own. To equate ethnic pride with Nationalisim is definetely OR. The present plank of the Shiv Sena or MNS is best defined as regionalism, not nationalism. Even at its worst this regionalism has not morphed in anti-India or seperatist sentiment (if that is what the article's creators intendent to convey by the term nationalism). The Belgaum issue is one of many border disputes within Indian states, caused by the Reorganisation of states on linguistic lines, and not restricted to Maharashtra alone. Delete as per WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV and maybe even WP:NONSENSE --Deepak D'Souza 07:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Strong Keep : Similar articles like Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism and many many more also exist. Subject notable. Kensplanet  Talk  Contributions  12:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong nationalist sentiments exists in different parts of India in past and present. Like Kashmiriyat, Khalistan and Tamil sentiments. They are not disputed. Show some reference for Marathi nationalism. That's what is the topic of debate here. -- GP Pande  talk!  12:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the recent attacks on North Indians by the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena and the past attacks on non-Mahrashtrians (both physical and verbal) by the Shiv Sena clearly reflect the ideology of nationalism (a nation only for Maharashtrians). Maharashtra can be classified as a nation since the state speaks only 1 language Marathi officially and has a majority aggregation of persons of the same ethnic group. Kensplanet  Talk  Contributions  12:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, that's regionalism and not nationalism. Regionalism is covered in WP with 2 articles - 1 is GA written by KHP2. Nationalism - is not present. Shiv Sena or MNS are not equal to Khalistani militants or LTTE or militants in Kashmir. Their xenophobic acts are for Marathi region and not nation. -- GP Pande  talk!  13:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are right GP. That is regionalism and not nationalism. They do not want a seperate nation as of now. But I still have to research on the differences between nationalism and regionalism. So, a Weak delete for now. Kensplanet  Talk  Contributions  16:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep – The title is descriptive, so that would blunt a claim on OR. Marathi nationalism does exist, only that its not called that in India. Xenophobic acts perpetrated by the Shiv Sena and MNS, and earlier organizations in the 1960s that advocated a greater Maharashtra state are acts of nationalism. Quoting wikipedia on nationalism: "The term nationalism can refer to an ideology, a sentiment, a form of culture, or a social movement that focuses on the nation." And yes, Maharashtra can be classified as a nation. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So are you suggesting that there is a separatist movement in Maharashtra and that MNS and Shiv Sena are fighting for a separate Maharashtra nation? That's not true. Their fight has been covered in Marathi regionalism, which is resentment towards non-Marathi people living in Maharashtra. Marathi nationalism, which means separatist movements in Maharashtra as in Jammu and Kashmir or in Punjab in past. Former one surely exists and is represented quite thoroughly in Wikipedia but the later one is a complete hoax or WP:OR -- GP Pande  talk!  12:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Gaurav, I think you are confusing the term nation with nation-state. Examples of nations are England, Scotland, Holland, while nation-states are the United Kingdom and The Netherlands. The Wikipedia article on nationalism has the following information:
 * "in a nation-state, the language of the nation should be the official language, and all citizens should speak it, and not a foreign language" Apropos Marathi
 * Nationalists see nations as an inclusive categorization of human beings ... national symbols, a national culture, a national music and national literature; national folklore, a national mythology and - in some cases - a national religion -- Apropos Shivaji, Hindutva
 * Nationalists define individual nations on the basis of certain criteria, which distinguish one nation from another; and determine who is a member of each nation. These criteria typically include a shared language, culture, and/or shared values which are predominantly represented within a specific ethnic group. Apropos Marathi, denouncing Valentine's day
 * Nationalism has the strong territorial component, with an inclusive categorization of territory corresponding to the categorization of individuals. Maharashtra + Belgaum
 * According to Smith, the preconditions for the formation of a nation are as follows: See the bulleted point there. I can map the following: 1 Memories of battles (Shivaji vs Mughals), Sacred centers (quite a few), Languages and scripts (Marathi), Special customs and Historical records and thinking (many), A fixed homeland (Belgaum agitation).
 * So why is this not nationalism? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * England, Scotland and Holland are good examples of nation. But I think the idea of comparison between them and Maharashtra or Marathi resentment is not correct. England and Scotland were enemies in past. England and Scotland still have separate parliaments. Dutch rebellion against the Habsburgs was iconic. Holland was a sovereign state in a larger Dutch confederation. Shivaji or Maratha Empire never fought for "Marathi culture" or "Marathi language". Shivaji established Hindavi Swaraj(self rule) which was for Hinduism and not Marathi. Hinduism is a very broad term and cannot be narrowed down to Marathi. Another good example of nation would be Quebec as a nation. No such comparable sentiments exists in Maharashtra or Marathi people in past. Shivaji did not fight against the Gujarati, Kannada, Hindi or Telugu people to establish a nation. Shivaji fought against Mughal aggression while hate crimes of Thackeray family can be termed simply "regionalism". People of one region should remain there. They see migration to Maharashtra as aggression. They never put forth the Marathi nation concept like RSS imagines a Hindu nationalism. Below are answers -
 * Not true. Read Chapter XXIV. Maharashtra from | here. This is official. Marathi is official language in Maharashtra but central government directives force English and Hindi use in all official work.
 * Shivaji never fought for Marathi culture or Marathi language. Hindutva cannot be narrowed down to Marathi. It's a very broad term. Yes, Marathi language is different and so different music and literature but they never symbolized distinct nationalism. It was always a subset of Hindu nationalism and culture. Recent acts of MNS and Shiv Sena are not against this larger nationalism. Shiv Sena has always promoted Hindutva and so their hate crimes can be termed as regionalism.
 * No. People can be identified as Marathi or Telugu or Gujarati but there has always been shared traditions and festivals Hindu dominated parts in India. As far as ethnic origin or race is considered, all north Indians belong to same Indo-Aryan race while south Indian belong to Dravidian. Valentine day denouncing is foolish act and done in many other states too apart from Marathi people.
 * No arguments here. Yes there is strong territorial component which existed in past too. But again, this sentiment is very very weak as compared to other territorial sentiments in rest of world from UK, Netherland and Canada. Maybe, Peurto Rico in US.
 * Smith's points are * A fixed homeland (current or historical) - Yes. * High autonomy - No. Maharashtra or Marathi have no autonomy * Hostile surroundings - No - No war fought between Marathi's and Gujarati's or Kannada or Telugu. * Memories of battles - No. Wars of Maratha Empire were against Mughals and maybe stop Islam's expansion. Not for Marathi. * Sacred centers - No. Sacred centers of Hinduism not Marathi. * Languages and scripts - Language yes but scripts no - Scripts of Hinduism. * Special customs - To some very small extend like Gudi Padwa (Marathi new year). But that again the flexibility in Hinduism. * Historical records and thinking - None. Maratha empire was not aggression of marathi language, Tilak and Sawarkar were nationalist for Indian independence.
 * All I am trying to say is, before Samyukta Maharashtra movement there was no separate linguistic identity on large scale. Recent acts of MNS and Shiv Sena is truely "regionalism" as they do not symbolize any identity other than language. That alone cannot be called "nationalism". Maybe you would like to explain the difference in the two terms. As we are on WP, if you can show some good reference on Marathi nationalism exists and which in contrast with other cultures or languages of India and which is not Hindu nationalism - I will withdraw. -- GP Pande  talk!  09:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While nationalism is associated with nations (cultural, ethnic, and sometimes linguistically defined) rather than with the nation state, and therefore can be associated with the Marathi people without the presence of a separatist movement, I don't think that there is evidence of the independent existence of a 'Marathi nationalism', either historically or today. The conditions may exist, a proto-nationalism may exist, however we should look at the outside world to inform us about that existence rather than drawing those conclusions ourselves. A look at the literature on JSTOR shows little or no evidence of Shivaji's conquests being driven by a 'Marathi nationalism'. Google pulls up a bunch of assorted pairings of the two words without an explicit attempt to combine them into a single noun, except in one or two cases from unreliable sources. No, what we have here is a protologism, and that is best avoided. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 18:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Week Keep – Particularly relevant with MMS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Merge with Marathi regionalism. Essential article. First of all, it is not a hoax. Next, WP:OR is not a reason for deletion.- Ravichandar My coffee shop 18:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 *  Delte or Merge  agree with Gppande and RegentsPark. Can be incorporated as a subsection in Marathi Regionalism with sufficient reliable sources.  Docku: “what up?”  19:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I support this merge idea, although i think marathi regionalism should fall under marathi nationalism. Lihaas (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge with Marathi regionalism. Perhaps I am confused but it seems from what I read above is that if Marathi nationalism does exist, it is synonymous with Marathi regionalism. Topics like the attacks on South Indians and Biharis and other activities of the Shiv Sena are already covered in the latter and it appears that if the former is expanded, it will dwell on the same issues. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 23:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Exactly. There is a grey area between regionalism and nationalism. It is conceivable to consider demand for separate nationhood as a cogent criteria for nationalism and we have no sources supporting this claim. The grey areas of nationalism can be discussed in the Marathi regionalism article.  Docku:  “what up?”  23:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Marathi regionalism or vice versa?: I have apprehensions like Kenneth (Kensplanet). Could someone point out the difference b/w nationalism and regionalism. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 07:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See my comments above for a mention of the definitions of nationalism, etc. (+ i have since edited the main page, it looks cleaner now, though still needs some more work) Lihaas (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I am trying to descern the differences here. Nationalism: The ideas espoused by Shivaji to consolidate the Maratha empire which was later invoked by people including Tilak during Ganesh Chaturthi and Cow protection movement. Regionalism: Issues defined in Marathi Regionalism article mostly occured and occuring after India became one nation. Is that a fair assessment? If that is, should I change my vote to keep the article?  Docku: “what up?”  18:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Regionalism is largely a misnomer. It is something more suited to IR than intrastate. Especially in the regard of an ethnically diverse country/state (NOT nation, India is NOT a nation) like India, regionalism is essentially nationalism. Lihaas (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be right. But, I am trying to make a distinction grounded on available secondary sources, or we will run into the risk of creating original research.  Docku: “what up?”  18:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)According to wikipedia: As an ideology, nationalism holds that 'the people' in the doctrine of popular sovereignty is the nation, and that as a result only nation-states founded on the principle of national self-determination are legitimate. So it does seem that the goal of nationalism is the foundation of a nation state. However, I do think that we're going down a slippery slope here where we, in wikipedia, are defining something that may not yet exist. Maratha nationalism does draw more hits on google, 220 versus 151 for Marathi nationalism, but most seem in the same vein (not RS, using the term casually). A few sources seem more reliable (an IHT article, something on JSTOR, and a few books, but one will have to read the text to see if Maratha nationalism exists or not. Not to belabor the point but, in every ethno-linguistic group, you'll find some elements of nationalism. The question is to what degree has that nationalistic spirit spread in the community and at what point does it become a recognized movement that deserves a page on wikipedia. I don't think Marathi or Maratha nationalism is notable enough for that as yet, or at least, there are no reliable secondary sources that say it has. (IMHO, of course.) --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 19:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean, what Shivaji did to consolidate Maratha empire (this book calls it Maratha Nationalism) is neither notable nor nationalism?  Docku: “what up?”  19:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I introduced this definition into the article. When I look back at the old version of the article, it talks about something similar.  Docku: “what up?”  19:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)Consolidating a Maratha state is not nationalism. Nationalism is explicitly defined as the idea that national (as in common ethnic, linguistic, and social groups) self-determination is the only way to form a nation-state. If Shivaji espoused a Maratha kingdom based solely on the socio-cultural-linguistic Maratha identity, then yes, it would be an example of Marathi nationalism. Most historians, however, don't say that Shivaji did that. At best, he was more interested in a Hindu nationalism rather than a Maratha one (see the Spear quote in the book reference you've provided). Your reference does say Maratha nationalism (but then, confusingly, adds Maratha Hinduism to the mix), however, I doubt if the source can be called reliable (peer-reviewed work, high academic credentials, etc. etc.) Of course there is a nationalistic streak in the Marathi world, that (unfortunately) exists in every community, but is there a nationalistic movement - I don't know,  but I've yet to see a reliable source for that. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 19:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I read your definition. There is a huge WP:OR leap between cow, country, et al and Maratha nationalism (I know, that's what the source says, but the conclusion neither flows from the Spear quote nor from the slogan. ....) But, clearly I'm in the minority here, so que sera sera and all that. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 20:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Change to Keep I believe Marathi nationalism was the nationalistic sentiment created by Shivaji to carve out an empire from several small kingdoms.  Docku: “what up?”  20:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In regards to the reflections from the nationalism page, i though that was dubious to say it has to be manifested as a state. Sure enough, upon seeing the source, one will not it is referenced from an abstract to a book without any mention this. This cannot be ascertained from a source like that, it is dubious at best. I have yet to see a reliable source to show that nationalism has to do with becoming a state. The Basque case is certainly a nationalism, yet it doesn't have a state. Likewise with Celtic nationalism, Corsica, Catalonia, Alsace-Lorraine, Prussia, Bavaria, and this is just West europe.
 * When one uses the definition it is possible to get a basic idea of what this is. Of course you need sources too, and with that idea something molded around the definition can be seen. There is a clear mention of this phenemenon, as you have already shown, all we should be doing is working out when it developed and what it's manifested as.
 * Docku, I agree with you broadly, but still not too sure if it was a Maratha nationalism that Shivaji fought for.
 * (btw- nice intellectual debate on the nuances of this political nitty-gritty, most people miss the difference on nation, state, and nation-state. Lihaas (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there has to be the desire for a nation state. The basques, for e.g., definitely desire independence from the Spanish (and, to some extent, the French, but that's another story). Celtic nationalism arose out of the desire for a nation of their own. Ditto for Catalonia. Alsace-Lorraine, I can't say if there ever was a nationalist movement there - they got tossed around a bit but no fault of their own. Prussia, Bavaria - I'll have to read up on German history and what exactly Bismarck was fighting so I won't comment on that. But, most of your examples are those of a people wanting their own country, which, afaik, the Marathas are not doing. Perhaps if the article were titled "Nationalism amongst the Marathas" I would be less concerned but the current title seems to be taking it a bit further than we should. (I promise, this is my absolute last post on this topic!) --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 20:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree I dont have a reference which claims that Nationalism is only associated with founding a nation. Nevertheless, Marathi Nationalism as a cause was used by Shivaji to make the empire. Does it still exist? it doesnt have to.... What exists now can rather be classified into regionalism.  Docku: “what up?”  20:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Regents, I may have fed your point on the Basque case. But see the Cornish part of Celtic nationalism. All they want is devolution at the moment (all that might change when Scotland become independent (inside 10 years, probably 5)). Wales have had strands seeking independence, but that was mellow compared to the demands and near ceasure of independence with devolution. Scotland is starting to pick up thats true, but it's independence and devolution numbers are quite different amongst the nationalists. Some form of pragmatic nationalism was at play. Nonetheless, the sources have quite indicated a necessity for statehood. But once again, I'm fair game if the title was changed. It keeps the subject but alters it's meaning (if you must) to get accomodation. Although, I do see somewhat eye to eye on the basic strain your heading on.
 * Dockhu, Agree with you on the first part. On the second, however, I think that's the big problem here. Regionalism is not a nationalism (even the wikipedia article on a domestic regionalism is completely uncited. Lihaas (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Marathi nationalism was a past event, history. Marathi regionalism is present. References do support this notion. I am not sure if we will succeed in our effort in drawing an unambiguous distinction between regionalism and nationalism, a feat which could not be achieved by those two WP articles.  Docku: “what up?”  21:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For all good purposes we are on the same page about nationalism existing and being sourced. I just don't agree with it being regionalism today. I call it nationalism today as well. Lihaas (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.