| Revision as of 22:18, 12 September 2010 editZuggernaut (talk | contribs)5,018 edits →Step 4 - Policies: Response← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:35, 8 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,304,899 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:India/Archive 60) (bot |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}} |
|
{{VA|topic=Geography|level=3|class=FA}} |
|
|
|
{{Indian English}} |
|
{{Outline of knowledge coverage|India}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|maindate=December 3, 2004 |
|
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|
|action1date=22:24, 16 Sep 2004 |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/India |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/India |
|
|action1date=22:24, 16 Sep 2004 |
|
|
|action1result=promoted |
|
|action1result=promoted |
|
|action1oldid=5945311 |
|
|action1oldid=5945311 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=FAR |
|
|action2=FAR |
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/India/archive1 |
|
|
|action2date=11 Apr 2005 |
|
|action2date=11 Apr 2005 |
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/India/archive1 |
|
|action2result=kept |
|
|action2result=kept |
|
|action2oldid=12191859 |
|
|action2oldid=12191859 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=FAR |
|
|action3=FAR |
|
|
|action3date=15:45, 6 May 2006 |
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/India/archive2 |
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/India/archive2 |
|
|action3date=15:45, 6 May 2006 |
|
|
|action3result=kept |
|
|action3result=kept |
|
|action3oldid=51836931 |
|
|action3oldid=51836931 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=FAR |
|
|
|action4date=14:15, 28 July 2011 |
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/India/archive2 |
|
|
|action4result=kept |
|
|
|action4oldid=441811169 |
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|
|maindate=December 3, 2004 |
|
|
|maindate2=October 2, 2019 |
|
|
|otd1date=2004-08-15|otd1oldid=5256057 |
|
|
|otd2date=2005-08-15|otd2oldid=21044027 |
|
|
|otd3date=2011-08-15|otd3oldid=444882019 |
|
|
|otd4date=2012-11-26|otd4oldid=524820236 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA |vital=yes |collapsed=yes |listas=India|1= |
|
{{collapsedShell|text=Project Banners|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject India|class=FA|importance=Top|portal=yes|group-portal1=Kerala}} |
|
{{WikiProject Asia|importance=Top |india=Yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Countries|class=FA|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject India|importance=Top |portal=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages|India.ogg}} |
|
{{WikiProject South Asia|importance=Top }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=High }} |
|
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|importance=Top|class=FA|category=Geography|VA=yes|coresup=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Countries}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors |user=Twofingered Typist |date=21 September 2019}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|topic=ipa|protection=ecp}} |
|
|
{{Press|collapsed=yes|date=17 August 2009 |url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Misplaced Pages-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html |title=The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008 |org=] |date2=27 August 2009 |url2=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6099890/Wikipedia-Top-20-people-places-film-and-technology-articles.html|title2=Misplaced Pages: Top 20 people, places, film and technology articles |org2=] |author2=James Steyn |date3=4 July 2015 |url3=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/The-vandals-of-Wiki/articleshow/47941452.cms |title3=The Vandals of Wiki |org3=] |author3=Sandhya Soman}} |
|
|
{{tmbox |
|
|
| type = speedy |
|
|
| text = <big><big><big>'''PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING AN EDIT REQUEST ABOUT CHANGING THE COUNTRY NAME'''</big></big><br>If you have come here to post that the country name should be changed from India to Bharat, please note that we use the ] (common name) to determine article names, even when a country changes its name. For an example, see ], where the official name of the country (Türkiye) is noted in the lead sentence and the infobox, but the article remains at its common English name.</big> |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{banner holder |collapsed=yes |1= |
|
|
{{All time pageviews|151}} |
|
|
{{Annual report|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 report|Aug 11 2013|Oct 20 2013|until|Nov 24 2013|Dec 8 2013|Dec 29 2013|until|Jan 19 2014}} |
|
|
{{Spoken article requested|{{U|Sdkb}}|Featured article, and one that may have a higher-than-average proportion of readers who are English language learners}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership |width=570 |days=182}} |
|
|
{{Section sizes}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Indian English|date=September 2010}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}} |
|
|
{{DEFAULTSORT:India}} |
|
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-08-15|oldid1=5256057|date2=2005-08-15|oldid2=21044027}} |
|
|
{{press|date=August 17, 2009|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Misplaced Pages-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html|title=The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008|org=]}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|counter = 28 |
|
|counter = 60 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|algo = old(21d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:India/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:India/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
__ToC__ |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13#ভাৰত}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
==2010 data== |
|
|
Why do people use 2010 data for GDP instead of 2009? We are not even half way through 2010, and every country's using 2009 data, stop this childish and ridiculous behaviour. This information is not about "look better' |
|
|
|
|
|
==reflist== |
|
|
{{Reflist}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Edit request from 71.201.248.6, 22 August 2010== |
|
|
{{tlx|editsemiprotected}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
Castew discrimination in india is not anymore. it stopped decades back. please edit the "culture" section. in fact,, something new is in discussion of lately ie reverse discrimination because the upper castes (on paper) do not have rights and privileges the one with lower caste certificate has. India has 50 percent reservation in its education and government jobs. this has led to many people not having a lower caste certificate not getting proper educational and job opportunities despite being high in merit. |
|
|
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/2006_Indian_anti-reservation_protests |
|
|
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/Caste_system_in_India#Modern_status_of_the_caste_system |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 02:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{ESp|rs}} Misplaced Pages cannot be used to source itself for statements such as this (and it is not considered a reliable source in any case). ] (]) 04:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Names in other Indian languages== |
|
|
I have added the names of India in other official languages of India listed in the 8th Schedule as collapsable list. I think it is necessary. It has not been rejected in the talk page. Previously the attempts which were made to include the official languages were not added as a collapsable list, so the article looked very awkward. But if I include them as a collapsabla list, only those want to see it can see it by clicking on the '''show''' option. So I think it is unnecessary to remove my edition. -] (]) 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Nope, you've got to get consensus before you add this. And also, a civics lesson. None of these are official languages. The official language is Hindi, with English being a subsidiary official language. Adding another twenty simply doesn't make sense and is entirely undue. Do not add again unless there's consensus for adding them. —]''']''' 16:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::All the twenty-four languages are the official languages of India. Hindi and English are the official languages of the Union, means they are to be used for official purposes at the Central level. The languages listed in the 8th Schedule are the recognised official languages of India. These can be used as the official languages of any of the states and Union territories. -] (]) 16:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::THat's the whole point, they are official languages of the '''States''' and '''Union Territories''', where those language scripts are included. —]''']''' 16:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Agree with Spiff. 8th schedule is the official languages of the union. They are only for States and UTs. The same issue has been discussed before and rejected.--] (]) 17:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Agree with Spiff here. Its unnecessary to add the 20 odd languages in the article. ] (]) 04:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I request all of you to have look at the articles ] and ]. -] (]) 05:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::None of the two articles are Featured, whereas, India is. I could not find the *name* of the countries written in the scripts of the official languages anywhere. ] (]) 08:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: I also agree with Spiff there is no need to add this. and you cannot add something to a Featured Article before getting the consensus ]] 10:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Why does it matter whether ] and ] are featured articles or not? If both these articles are selected as featured articles in near future will the names mentioned in different languages be removed. And ] has not found "*name* of the countries written in the scripts of the official languages anywhere." Then what has he found on the top of the Infobox written in different scripts. I think these are all false but clever argument with intention to outwit. I do not want to do anything by force but I think it is illojical not to include these languages. Please look at my ] page and see how the Infobox looks after adding the languages. It makes no difference except the '''show''' option appearing at one corner. So please consider my opinion. -] (]) 14:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::There's no "false and clever" arguments out here. Each article talk page defines what goes in and out of the article. In this article, long standing consensus is that only two scripts - Hindi and English, signifying the two official languages of the Republic of India belong. In the case of Singapore and South Africa, they have more official languages and have decided to add them all. And it's not just a case of whether it's directly visible or not, there's also the article size, and this one is already too huge for it to load on slow connections, and adding a twenty four course alphabet soup is a disservice to our readers, especially when most of them have no interest in it. Besides, the first line already includes a link to the list of names that any interested reader can click and get to. Simple as that. —]''']''' 14:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Famines in India== |
|
|
Zuggernaut has added the following line to the history section: |
|
|
''India suffered a series of serious crop failures in the late 19th century, leading to ] in which 15.3 million people died'' |
|
|
|
|
|
I think this line is somewhat vague and should be reworded. my concerns: a)Famines during british rule weren't limited to late 19th century though they become more numerous. the last one lasted a couple of years into the 20th century b) the death count of 15.3 million is treated as an absolute, but it is a composite figure arrived at tallying the lower end of various estimates. c) "crop failures" alone didn't cause the famines. it was a bit more complex. monsoon failure - > drought -> crop failure -> free market grain policies -> inadequate relief measure -> great famine. (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
I know it is a bit too much to expect to capture the complexity of the issue in a single line, But still feel this line could be reworded.--] (]) 04:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::I wasn't sure if I could add significant content to a FA without a consensus, hence the hesitance and the resulting vagueness. I'm always glad to draw on multiple sources, reword and expand. I will do so shortly. Here's a potential source that shows how famines increased under British rule and how British propaganda citing population density, "famines cannot be "caused", etc has been trashed: . ] (]) 05:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Careful about that source. He draws on ], who isn't exactly a neutral scholar - he had lots of axes to grind. I wish Fowler & Fowler (the editor who wrote the majority of the famine articles) was around to help us with redrafting the section. I am fine with the "millions of deaths", but the lengthier explanation is now written from a Indian nationalist perspective (IMO). Lets see what other editors think.--] (]) 06:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hello there folks, |
|
|
:::Guess you are discussing about this "'''India suffered a series of serious crop failures in the late 19th century, leading to widespread famines in which millions of Indians perished.'''" Well, India did see a lot of famines, even after independence, right until ]. In my opinion, there is no hiding from that fact. Surely, no one can easily put a number to the death toll. But I do know that starvation deaths were a commonplace during those days... Some may debate over the exact reasons behind those deaths though... If you want me to comment as an Indian I would say that we can't change what happened before but accept it... our future is what we can mend! :) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks a ton for putting so much time and energy on this article... |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 08:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: This edit lacks neutrality and is clearly POV pushing. ] (]) 10:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I did have that deja vu feeling (all over again)! See ]. At that time, the rough consensus was not to include this material in the article because of ]. The causes of the famines, the reasons behind the number of deaths, etc. can not reasonably be discussed in a summary article and leaving the impression that the Raj was to blame for both the famines as well as the deaths is where the ] comes in. There are plenty of scholars who believe that at least some responsibility lies with the fact that India was colonized, but their arguments are nuanced (Amartya Sen, for example, blames it on lack of political participation, Gilmour on ineptitude, etc.). The point being that there were complex causes for the famines, complex reasons behind the number of people who died, and discussing all this in a summary article is just not possible. --] (]) 11:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I got interested in this topic after making changes per ] to ] and the resulting discussion ]. Clearly this is an important series of events in Indian history and needs mention in this article, the important thing being to keep it brief and avoid ]. That's the reason I limited my very first addition to just one short sentence.. However ] does have a point and we may need to allocate a couple of lines to cite precise reasons for the disproportionate deaths during British rule. At the very least we should provide number of deaths and the causes behind those deaths in the article. Do we have consensus on this? ] (]) 15:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::I was not involved in any previous discussion and dont have the time to read it as well (not because i disrespect previous consensus). My view is I dont see any problem adding a couple of neutral sentences about the famines. --<b><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" Color="##003399">]</FONT><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" Color=" #254117">]</FONT></b> 22:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I understand there is a debate going on ]! Though I did not write the article, that section stated facts! It also had citations! It deserves to be there till the debate is conclusively completed! How can you initiate a debate and remove a stanza without any reason? You may not have liked the stanza, that is your PoV! |
|
|
|
|
|
:::That apart, like i mentioned earlier, the stanza had enough credible citations to be there... Please do not revert it till it is concluded that is deserves to be removed... |
|
|
|
|
|
:::] (]) 11:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: This is a featured article. Someone inserted material which a couple of editors have big problems with in its current form and think it lacks neutrality among other things too. He was bold, it got reverted and now we must discuss it. ] (]) 12:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Yes, I know this is a featured article... The author, whoever he or she may be, has stated as credible citations as anywhere in the wikipedia domain! I can see that a couple of editors have issues while a couple of others do not, with the write! That does not mean that line deserves to be removed because a couple does not like it. Do not revert the article. Let the debate be over and then lines can be added or removed! I can see a couple of statements in the stanza may not be appropriate... we may comment then and give reasons to do so. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: ] (]) 12:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*The content that's been added is definitely undue here. I'll wait for work on RegentsPark's suggestion to comment any further. —]''']''' 12:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Even I agree the content is undue. However, it contained truth and has to find a place somewhere within or outside the article. The point here is, we need to follow rules like <nowiki> {{Misplaced Pages:Consensus}}</nowiki>. My interpretation of the rule is as follows (from the flow chart) - |
|
|
:: Case 1 - The content is not credible -> In that case anyone can remove the content and then start a debate |
|
|
:: Case 2 - The content is credible -> Reach a consensus (remove the lines which fall under case 1) to remove the content. |
|
|
: We need to understand that what one or more of us like/s or dislike/s does/do not change facts. Those lines represented facts. Neutral Point of View is also a matter of interpretation. I may find something neutral, for example, while others may not! In such a scenario we need to figure out of citations are from acceptable sources. It has been quoted earlier in the discussion that a certain scholar is not particularly neutral! Is that a PoV or can that statement be backed up with quotations from people considered neutral widely? I don't like MANY statements in wikipedia as well, including the lines under debate. That does not mean I'll raise objections and simply remove line/s without any reason! I've removed lines before and from articles where my participation may have been viewed as biased! and I found that as long one is just and impartial in even raising objections, a broad consensus follows automatically. It should be our unflattering endeavor to ensure that wikipedia reflects "facts" and not just what a group of individuals (country, community etc) thinks. Let us ensure that in creating consensus we are not ignoring (or compromising on) the truth! That's the last thing we need, in my opinion! |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 12:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Several editors (], ], ], ] and I) have already agreed famines merit inclusion (a brief 2-3 lines). I would request interested editors to focus and comment on the content proposed here ]. Thanks. ] (]) 16:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, that is correct. We need to have the famines during the British rule as well included in the article. After reading the other comments may be we need to work on the language but it should reflect unequivocally that people died during bad policies during the Raj. That is what I understood from ]'s citation sources. If someone thinks otherwise please provide citations to prove otherwise. I'll see if the draft provided by ] can be modified and paste it here. Let us ensure that this is not an attempt to hide facts! |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 17:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==History section== |
|
|
I have added a POV tag to the disproportionately large paragraph that has been added to the history section about famines in India. It's not even close to being written with a neutral POV and might I also say even if it was, this amount of attention to this subject in what is a potted history of India is way too much detail. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 10:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Oops just saw the discussion above. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 10:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::I have reverted to the pre-famine version. We can work out the exact text to be added here in the talk page. Famines were major events in 18 and 19th centuries and merit a couple of lines in the history section.--] (]) 10:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Famine, starvation deaths during British era== |
|
|
I'm proposing a simple four step process to come up with fair content that's not prone to POV labeling as was done by ] who ] me for my changes to ] on the same topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Step 1:''' Reliability of sources - establish validity of sources provided below.<br> |
|
|
'''Step 2:''' Focus - agree on what content to focus on<br> |
|
|
'''Step 3:''' Concise compiling - put the content together in concise 2-3 sentences.<br> |
|
|
'''Step 4:''' Policies - ensure Misplaced Pages policies such as ], ], ], etc are met. |
|
|
|
|
|
I have provided several sources with links to Google Books below. Most of the content has been typed out verbatim with the only exception that not everything is contiguous. Typos and other errors, if any, are mine. URLs are provided for quick verification. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2024 == |
|
===Potential sources=== |
|
|
{| |
|
|
|'''Source: {{citation|title=India Today (1940)|first=R. Palme|last=Dutt|publisher=Read Books|year=2006|ISBN=9781406798463|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=hLKfIGpiFVcC&dq=famine+deaths+under+british+india&source=gbs_navlinks_s|pages=131-2}}<br>Content:''' Even more significant was the rising export of food grains from starving India. |
|
|
|| |
|
|
|'''Source: {{citation|title=The Twentieth century magazine|volume=Volume 2|editor1=Benjamin Orange Flower|editor2=Charles Zueblin|publisher=Twentieth Century Co.|year=1910|page=437|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=RmYAAAAAYAAJ&dq=famine+deaths+under+british+india&source=gbs_navlinks_s}}<br>Content:''' This poverty of India is caused by the British plunder and legalized pillage and destruction of Indian industries. The famines in India, are the result of British exploitation, and are not, as may be supposed, caused by lack of rain or lack of production, or by over-population. It is an economic famine of an enslaved nation caused by merciless plunder of at least $175,000,000 a year, without a cent in return. People are generally misled to think that India was always a famine-land; but it is not a fact. Before the advent of the British rule in India, famine was occasional, but the British plundering policy has made it chronic. The area of famine districts is increasing yearly, and not a year passes that millions do not fall victims of the dreadful calamity. We produce below statistics taken from Sir William Digby's "Prosperous British India". Rev. J. T. Sunderland, in his work The Causes of Famine in India, like all impartial writers, has conclusively proved that neither "failure of rains" nor "over-population" is the cause of famines in India. He has stated that the real cause of famine is the extreme, the abject, the awful poverty of the Indian people caused by "enormous foreign tribute," "British Indian Imperialism" and the destruction of Indian industries. Sir William Hunter, K. O. S. I., the historian of India, formerly of the Viceroy's Council, says: "The government assessment does not leave enough food to the cultivator to support himself and his family throughout the year." |
|
|
|} |
|
|
<br> |
|
|
<center> |
|
|
{| |
|
|
|+'''Sources: {{Cite book|title=Some aspects of British rule in India Monographs University of Iowa|volume=Volume 5|issue=Issue 1 of Studies in the social sciences, University of Iowa|first=Sudhindra|last=Bose|publisher=The University|year=1918|pages=79-81|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=5wmGAAAAIAAJ&vq=26,000,000&dq=total+famine+deaths+in+british+india&source=gbs_navlinks_s}}<br>{{citation|title=England's Debt to India: A Historical Narrative of Britain's Fiscal Policy in India|first=Lajpat|last=Rai|publisher=BiblioBazaar, LLC|year=2008|ISBN=9780559800016|pages=263-281|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=vImwzLVXACoC&vq=famine&dq=famine+deaths+under+british+india&source=gbs_navlinks_s}}<br>{{Cite book|title=The Labor Revolt in India|first=Roy Basanta|last=Koomar|publisher=BiblioBazaar, LLC|year=2009|ISBN=9781113349668|pages=13-14|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=glyTySh8cLoC&dq=9781113349668&source=gbs_navlinks_s}}<br>{{citation|title=India Today (1940)|first=R. Palme|last=Dutt|publisher=Read Books|year=2006|ISBN=9781406798463|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=hLKfIGpiFVcC&dq=famine+deaths+under+british+india&source=gbs_navlinks_s}}''' |
|
|
| |
|
|
{| class="wikitable" border="1" |
|
|
|+Famines before British rule-duration 700 years |
|
|
! Century !! Number of famines!!Location |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Eleventh|| 2||Both local |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Thirteenth|| 1|| Around Delhi |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Fourteenth|| 3||All local |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Fifteenth|| 2||Both local |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Sixteenth|| 3||All local |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Seventeenth|| 3||General; area not defined |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Eighteenth (to 1745)|| 4||Northwestern provinces, Delhi, Sindh (twice), all local |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Total||18||Deaths not reported by source |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|| |
|
|
{| class="wikitable" border="1" |
|
|
|+Famines under the British rule in the 19th century |
|
|
!Years!!Number of famines!!Deaths |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|1800 to 1825||5 famines||perhaps 1,000,000 deaths |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|1835 to 1850||2 famines||500,000 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|1850 to 1875||6 famines||5,000,000 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|1875 to 1900||18 famines||estimate 26,000,000 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Total estimate||31||37 million |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|} |
|
|
</center> |
|
|
{| |
|
|
|'''Source: {{citation|title=Democracy, market economics, and development: an Asian perspective|last1=Sen|first2=Amartya|editor1=Farrukh Iqbal|editor2=Jong-Il You|publisher=World Bank Publications|year=2001|ISBN=9780821348628|pages=12-14|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=NfrXOZIef2AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=9780821348628&source=bl&ots=lL1TY_EGYz&sig=lTQRHhl7CpMRlMtcnoxSacb9aXw&hl=en&ei=BFaMTPFikryxA9P4xdUE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false}}<br>''' '''Content:''' Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to prevent them, and a government of a democratic country-facing elections, criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers-cannot but make a serious effort to prevent famines. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule right up to independence (the last famine was in 1943, four years before independence, which I witnessed as a child), they disappeared suddenly, after independence, with the establishment of a multi-part democracy with a free press.<br>For example in India the priority of of preventing starvation and famine was fully gripped already at the time of independence (as it had been in Ireland as well, with its own experience of famine under British rule). |
|
|
||'''Source: {{citation|title=The idea of justice|first=Amartya|last=Sen|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=2009|ISBN=9780674036130|pages=338-343|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=enqMd_ze6RMC&dq=famine+deaths+under+british+india&source=gbs_navlinks_s}}<br>''' '''Content:''' The Bengal famine of 1943, which I witnessed as a child, was made viable not only by the lack of democracy in colonial India, but also by severe restrictions on reporting and criticism imposed on the Indian press, and the voluntary practice of 'silence' on the famine that the British-owned media chose to follow (as a part of alleged 'war effort', for fear of aiding the Japanese military forces that were at the door of India, in Burma). The combined effect of imposed and voluntary media silence was to prevent substantial public discussion on the famine in metropolitan Britain,including in Parliament of London, which neither discussed the famine, nor considered the plicy needs of dealing with it (that is, not until October 1943 when ''The Statesman'' forced its hand). There was of course no parliament in India under the British colonial administration.<br>In fact, governmental policy , far from being helpful, actually exacerbated the famine. There was no official famine relief over the many months in which thousands were dying every week. More than this, the famine was aggravated, first, by the fact that the British India Government in New Delhi had suspended the trade in rice and food grains between the Indian provinces, so that food could not move through legitimate channels of private trade despite the much higher price of food in Bengal. Second... |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|India|answered=yes}} |
|
===Consensus=== |
|
|
|
India's population is 1,457,248,665 as of Friday, December 27, 2024<ref>{{cite web |last1=2024 |first1=India Population |title=India Population 2024 |url=https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-population/ |website=morldometer |publisher=worldometer |access-date=27 December 2024}}</ref> ] (]) 10:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Please provide your comments in the relevant sections below for form a consensus. Thanks. ] (]) 21:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{Not done}}: Worldometer is unreliable. ] (]|]) 10:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
====Step 1 - Reliability of sources==== |
|
|
* I find all sources reliable for the following reasons: they are third-party (independent), published sources, fact-checked, accurate, there are no unverifiable claims, they perform an in-depth study relevant to the context. All of them are either university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines or journals. None of them are self-published. All sources are secondary or tertiary sources building on previous work. ] (]) 21:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Ref-talk}} |
|
====Step 2 - Focus==== |
|
|
I propose that we foucs on: |
|
|
#Definition of famine in this context, i.e, it is something that is easily avoidable and made possible by the suppression of freedoms of movement/transportation, expression, by the lack of infrastructure and due to taxation without representation) |
|
|
#Provide the number of famines that occurred in the 700 years preceding British rule. Compare this with the number of famines and deaths in the British era. |
|
|
#Show that the poor Indian peasant was taxed while no investments were made in Indian irrigation works. (I have not looked for sources that show the collected revenue being sent to Britain to fund it's fledgling industrialization. I do remember reading in the past at as much as 30% of capital for the British industrial revolution came from India) |
|
|
#Show that suppression of freedom of movement/transportation, freedom of expression, etc caused deaths. |
|
|
#Show that famines disappeared with the British |
|
|
] (]) 21:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Reordering sentence in the lead == |
|
====Step 3 - Concise compiling==== |
|
|
'''Originally proposed content:''' Famines in India before the arrival of the British were few and local and they affected comparatively a small number of people, for example, from the 11th century to the 18the century, there were only 18 famines in India. Under British rule, a total of 31 famines were recorded for the 100 years between 1800-1900 with a death toll of about 37 million, primarily due to starvation. India continued to suffer from famines under the British Crown, right up to independence in 1947 after which they vanished with the establishment of representative democracy and a free press. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minor edit suggestion: Currently the lead reads "It is the seventh-largest country in the world by area and the most populous country.". The latter fact seems by far the more notable of the two, so you'd think "It is the most populous country in the world and the seventh-largest by area" would be a more sensible phrasing. ] (]) 17:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Based on the feedback received from ] and other editors, I am revising the originally proposed content:<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I '''support''' this. The current sentence framing has stayed the same since before India surpassed China in terms of population. I think its due for a change now ] (]) 19:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
'''Revision:''' Between the 11th century and the 18the century, famines in India were few and local and they affected comparatively a small number of people. Eighteen famines were recorded during this period in India. Under British rule, a total of 31 famines were recorded for the 100 years between 1800-1900 with a death toll of about 37 million, primarily due to starvation. India continued to suffer from famines under the British Crown, right up to independence in 1947 after which they vanished with the establishment of representative democracy and a free press. ] (]) |
|
|
|
:I '''support''' this aswell. ]] 20:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2025 == |
|
====Step 4 - Policies==== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|India|answered=yes}} |
|
] (]) 21:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] (]) 18:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:I think you're mistaken about what the purpose of a summary article is. It is not a simple matter of reporting what reliable source say. It is fairly easy, for example, to find reliable sources that lay the entire responsibility of the famines on the British rule but that doesn't mean that we include it in the article. Everything included here must be put in perspective. So, what you need to do is to look at all histories of the famines that took place in the 19th century; sort through all the differing views on why these famines occurred or why the x number of people died; and then present a 3-4 sentence summary that includes all the major viewpoints. Simply presenting what the few sources that support one view say is insufficient for a summary article. --] (]) 01:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well put, RegentsPark. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 02:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Agreed. ] (]) 02:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I've been around Misplaced Pages only a few months so I apologize if I am unaware of all policies (I know of ], ], ], and a few other guidelines). I've mostly worked to GA level so I'm having difficulty understanding the term "summary article". Is it a synonym for FA? Also, please provide a link to the policy applicable to: {{quote|...look at all histories of the famines that took place in the 19th century; sort through all the differing views on why these famines occurred or why the x number of people died; and then present a 3-4 sentence summary that includes all the major viewpoints. Simply presenting what the few sources that support one view say is insufficient for a summary article.}} |
|
|
::::Thanks. ] (]) 04:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just change the language of "Hindi" to "Hindustani". Both are the same |
|
IMO, we should have two lines about Famines of the 19th century in the history sections indicating a) they were many in the late 19th century b)they caused millions of deaths. The cause of famines and how the british govt handled/mishandled it are contentious issues and can be explained in detail in the Famines in India article.--] (]) 04:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
: Not done. Edit requests should be uncontroversial and backed by RS. ] (]) 21:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:Since this appears in the history section, I am OK including all recorded famines (data goes back to 11th century). I also feel it's necessary to mention that famines on the scales seen in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries were never seen again after independence. Thanks. ] (]) 05:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I don't know whether it's true that there has been no famine in India since 1947. Even if it is true, who's to say whether it's coincidence or causation? In your mind you've clearly linked the two causally, but that's just your own original research. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 05:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Everything related to this work-in-progress is sourced from the sources listed above ]. I would request you to browse through that section to find the relevant text/source. I've provided all available URLs and even typed out text. Please feel free to ask for an explanation regarding OR and the like after you have carefully reviewed the sources. Thanks. ] (]) 06:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::As has been pointed out, there is a wide range of views on this subject - and you have cherry-picked a few sources which agree with your own personal views. I agree with the editors above that the history section here should not be pointing fingers, and instead all relevant views (including ones you wont like) should be covered in the indian famines article. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 06:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::These sources meet all Misplaced Pages policies such as ], ], ], etc. I don't see this as finger pointing - it's just a recounting what secondary and in some cases tertiary sources state. The community should be glad to include other views on the subject. I request that your provide your sources to balance the alleged cherry-picking. Thanks. ] (]) 06:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I completely agree with ]... If other arguments are to be considered then I can raise objection on almost every line written in wikipedia! As long as statements are backed up with credible citations we '''must''' and '''have to''' accept it. If you have an objection raise with backed up with better citations. Considering the fact that the objections and the subsequent actions are not as per wiki - consensus and other policies and that the section was properly sited, I'm escalating the issue to ]. ] (]) 13:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''': Following a request at ] and taking a look at this, it would seem that adding a large amount of material which could be better covered in ] is unnecessary. One or two short sentences about famines (not just those during British rule) may merit a place in the History section, with a link to the ] article. I would suggest that editors focus on improving that article, which is in a rather sorry state, rather than destabilising this article in a matter which might lead to its being delisted as a featured article, which would not be a good outcome I suggest that ] re-reads ], which is the policy that applies here. Suggest that you invite comment from ]. If you really disagree with other editors and cannot or will not work to achieve consensus then you may open a ]. Instructions at that page. ] (]) 14:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Jezhotwells - I appreciate your critique. Can you explain your comment that the article is "in a rather sorry state" and specify the areas where the article is weak? That'll be a lot of help improving the article. Also, if you closely review the debate, you will find that your comment about what the content about famines should look like is redundant. Thanks. ] (]) 15:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::] is in a sorry state because the majority of content is about famines under British rule, not before or since. The first reference is to a Misplaced Pages article which is NOT a reliable source. ] (]) 15:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thanks for pointing out, I will put that on my to-do list. Since we are discussing other relevant articles, I would like to point out that I find a related article ] very biased. It completely ignores the view that the ] was despised, not just in India, but universally. Gandhi called it an evil Empire and a curse for India. The plethora of the secondary and tertiary sources describing the British Empire in that manner have been left out of that featured article. Perhaps the legacy section of that article should be labeled as a <nowiki>{{POV}}</nowiki> section. Thanks. ] (]) 15:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I checked the disputed content about the famine. The content seems ] in this ] article, however it merits mention in ] and ], although both POVs - those blaming the Raj and those not doing so - need to be covered.--] <sup> ] </sup> 15:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Several editors disagree with this viewpoint - ], ], ], ] and I support the inclusion of a brief 2-3 lines relating to the famines which from a series of major events in Indian history. I invite your comment on the proposed content in this section ]. ] (]) 16:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: {{ec}} with Jezhotwells: The current draft has a strong, leading POV and blaming tone, which needs to be neutralized. Also a 3-sentence para about Famines is still too much detail (UNDUE) for me in the summary section. At most, there is a strong consensus to include the sentence, 1 line stating just the facts about the deaths and famines in the 19-20th century is enough. --] <sup> ] </sup> 17:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Famines are a significant part of Indian history. All available data (going back to 11th century) should be summarized. I find the exclusion of certain specific data as a tactic to promote a pro ] view point. Thanks. ] (]) 17:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Just a minor point further up the page it saids that the British did not invest in irrigation etc., whilst not wishing to get into a debate that blames the Empire for everything, the British (actually the Indian administration) spent a considerable amount of money on flood defences to help alleviate famines caused by lack of rain. See ] for one example (only about Rs 200 million spent). ] (]) 16:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Several prominent historians and Indians have analzed the situation in-depth. IMO, Gandhi's terse statement something to the effect - On the balance, the British rule of India was evil - is apt. I would extend that to the famine discussion. The British build a barrage here and a railway track there, only when it suited moving capital from India to Britain to fund it's fledgling industrial revolution, while India starved ] (]) 16:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::That would appear to be a rather POV statement, and not particularly useful for this discussion. ] (]) 17:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Which is why these discussions dont really achieve anything with such strong POVs, 200 million rupess in the 1930s on one project is not a small amount but as it associated with the evil empire it has to be dismissed. As a non-neutral view is unlikely in this discussion not much point with continuing. ] (]) 19:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I was just paraphrasing Gandhi and it's a mainstream view in a country of 1.2 billion. But I agree, not point going that route as far as this discussion is concerned. Sorry about that. ] (]) 22:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
(od) Frankly, we have about 6 lines on the entire 200 year history of British India which focuses on political transitions, as does the entire history section. To this you want to add '3-4 lines' on the 19th century famines. I'm no fan of British rule in India, but I am a fan of this encyclopedia and can see no reason, other than an attempt to paint British rule in a bad light, to include even one line on famines in this article. The notion of history as political transition is a fairly well accepted one, other material should go in other articles. --] (]) 21:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::I appreciate that feedback. We're all fans of Misplaced Pages, IMO and that's why we are here. There's agreement to include content about the famine amongst several users as stated above. We now need to work on keeping it concise. Critique on the currently proposed content (]) is welcome. Thanks. ] (]) 22:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
Minor edit suggestion: Currently the lead reads "It is the seventh-largest country in the world by area and the most populous country.". The latter fact seems by far the more notable of the two, so you'd think "It is the most populous country in the world and the seventh-largest by area" would be a more sensible phrasing. IRN-Dumas (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Just change the language of "Hindi" to "Hindustani". Both are the same
view · edit Frequently asked questions
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}
The redirect ভাৰত has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13 § ভাৰত until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Worldometer is unreliable. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 10:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)