Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:23, 24 August 2007

	India is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 16, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted May 6, 2006 Featured article review Kept
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article.

Template:WP1.0

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60

• The article is written in summary style in Indian English.
• All sections are a summary of more detailed articles. If you find any points missing, please add it in the section's main article rather than on this page to keep this page size within reasonable limits.
• Only external links pertaining to India as a whole are solicited here. Please add other links in the most appropriate article.
• India-related matters should be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Notice board for India-related topics.
• See the FAQ section before posting a topic on the page.

Eighth Schedule Languages Again

I just went back and re-read the secondary sources that I had compiled earlier. I am afraid I have to side with Blacksun. (My original goal was to make the point that Hindi and English had special status; after that discussion, I didn't pay that much attention to the sources, and, in particular, to what they said about other languages). It seems that the languages mentioned in all the references are the 8th schedule languages. The secondary sources don't all say that the languages are officialj languages, but have words to the effect that these languages are recognized by the constitution. The main point, however, is not whether the languages are technically official or not, but whether in the context of articles on India or the languages of India, they are mentioned by reliable secondary sources in discussions of official languages. Sorry to go back to the sources, but that is all we can go by. The secondary sources only mention Hindi, English, and 8th schedule. So, how does one resolve this? One way to get around the semantic problem would to have two boxes: one for Hindi, English (and labeled) "Official Languages;" and the other for 8th schedule languages, labeled "Official Languages Commission Languages." "Officially Recognised Languages." (Changed in light of Blacksun's comments below.) I am reproducing the secondary sources below (winnowed to make them more focused):

In particular, David Laitin's words (in reference 8) are significant: "And the 'Eighth Schedule' specified a list of fourteen "languages of India" whose speakers would be given protected seats on the Presidential Commission to implement the All-India language policy." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

PS Sorry, Blacksun, I didn't see your post (you must have posted while I was compiling the sources)! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I have been trying to say. I did read the entire discussion that had taken place but it was primarily about Hindi & English. Somewhere along the lines, user Abecedara proposed using state languages instead of 8th scheduled languages citing the fact that 8th schedule languages are not official. However, neither are state languages. Add to the fact that secondary sources tend to mention 8th schedule languages in the same breath as official languages. This cannot be said about state languages. Not to mention, this entire argument has come up before kindav. Nichalp cited: --source; Manorama Yearbook 2006, pg 507, ISBN 8189004077 -- to support 8th schedule languages inclusion and also stated that French is not the national language of India. --Blacksun 11:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about the following infobox: It has two boxes 1) Official Languages: Hindi, English, 2) Officially Recognized Languages: 8th Schedule Languages (listed).

Expand to see the suggested India Infobox:

Republic of IndiaIndia भारतBhārat Flag Emblem Motto: "Satyameva Jayate" (Sanskrit) सत्यमेव जयते  (Devanagari) "Truth Alone Triumphs" Anthem: Jana Gana Mana National Song Vande Mataram Location of India Capital New Delhi Largest city Mumbai Official Languages: ________________ Languages Recognised by the Constitution: Hindi, English Hindi in the Devanagari script is the official language of the union and English the 'subsidiary official language'. 8th Schedule: Languages recognised by the constitution and requiring development so that "they grow rapidly in richness and become effective means of communicating modern knowledge." Assamese Bengali Bodo Dogri Gujarati Hindi Kannada Kashmiri Konkani Maithili Malayalam Manipuri Marathi Nepali Oriya Punjabi Sanskrit Santali Sindhi Tamil Telugu Urdu Demonym(s) Indian Government Federal republic • President A.P.J Abdul Kalam • Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Independence from the United Kingdom • Declared 15 August 1947 • Republic 26 January 1950 • Water (%) 9.56 Population • 2007 estimate 1.12 billion (2nd) • 2001 census 1,027,015,248 GDP (PPP) 2006 estimate • Total 4,156 trillion (4th) • Per capita 3,737 (118th) GDP (nominal) 2007 estimate • Total 1,0 trillion (12th) • Per capita 820 (132th) Gini (1999) 32.5 medium inequality HDI (2006) 0.611 Error: Invalid HDI value (126th) Currency Indian Rupee (₨) (INR) Time zone UTC+5:30 (IST) • Summer (DST) UTC+5:30 (not observed) Calling code 91 ISO 3166 code IN Internet TLD .in Non-numbered Footnotes: †. This is the name Bharat, the Hindi name of India, written in the Devanagari script; see also other official names ‡ This includes only Indian-administered territory. }} "State Emblem -inscription" (HTML). National Informatics Centre (NIC). Retrieved 2007-06-17. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) "CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME XII". Constituent Assembly of India: Debates. parliamentofindia.nic.in, National Informatics Centre. 24 January 1950. Retrieved 2007-06-29. The composition consisting of the words and music known as Jana Gana Mana is the National Anthem of India, subject to such alterations in the words as the Government may authorise as occasion arises; and the song Vande Mataram, which has played a historic part in the struggle for Indian freedom, shall be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana and shall have equal status with it. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) "The Union: Official Language". National Informatics Centre (NIC). 2007. Retrieved 2007-06-24. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) "Notification No. 2/8/60-O.L. (Ministry of Home Affairs), dated 27th April, 1960". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help) Official Languages Resolution, 1968, para. 2. ^ "CIA Factbook: India". CIA Factbook. Retrieved 2007-03-10.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That is fine with me. You can call it just recognized or whatever else. --Blacksun 12:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Support: KnowledgeHegemony 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

PS I have changed the category from "Officially Recognised Languages" to "Languages Recognised by the Constitution" (8th Schedule Languages). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(This was a reply to Lexmercatoria, who seems to have removed his question.) Well, here is the logic (as I see it). Agreed that 8th schedule languages are not "official," however, the languages mentioned in the secondary sources, in addition to Hindi and English, are only the 8th schedule languages. The "countries infobox template" has a number of language variables one can use: two are "pre-made" in the template. These are "official languages," and "regional languages" (the latter is not official state languages, but rather unrepresented languages that do not have official status); however, it also gives you a choice of defining the variable by choosing "languages_type" and creating the languages heading in a flexible manner. That is the option I have chosen. Clearly, the country infobox template allows that option, otherwise it wouldn't be there. The fact that secondary sources on India mention 8th schedule languages, but not official languages of the states, doesn't leave us with much choice. We can't have the official states languages. It is either "official languages" (Hindi and English) or choosing the flexible "language_type" with "official languages" (Hindi and English) and "Recognised Languages" (8th schedule). I have to run, but this is the logic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Could Lexmercatoria, Abecedare, Sarvagnya, Gnanapiti, and others please respond? We have spent a lot of time on this topic and I know that it is getting to be exhausting, but it is best to get it over with. Believe me, I don't have any interest in prolonging this discussion, but unfortunately our hand is forced: the secondary sources only mention Hindi, English, and the 8th schedule languages (and not official state languages). The only way that I see it can be done (without mislabeling anything) is shown in the info box above. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried your latest infobox in the article by seeing its preview and I felt it looks quite 'distracting' and 'ugly'. It takes the attention of the reader away from the main article. KnowledgeHegemony 16:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, please suggest what you prefer. (Note that the references appearing on the left in the infobox above, will not show up in the actual article (and there won't be any repetitions). Since you supported the previous version, I guess it is a choice of what to call the 8th schedule infobox:

a) Recognised Languages (also a previous version)

b) Officially Recognised Languages (previous version OK's by Blacksun and KH)

c) Languages Recognised by the Constitution (current version)

Also, the explanation in the 8th schedule infobox can either be put in a footnote or be made shorter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he might be talking about how its bolded. I guess it makes it stand out and can be distracting. --Blacksun 23:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the refs F&F; given the secondary sources I am happy with listing only the English, Hindi and scheduled languages in the infobox. However I do share K&H's concern about the current arrangement being somewhat cludgy. How about the first column saying only "Official languages" (does anybody object to this ?), with the second column containing the two collapsible boxes. My suggested short title for the 8th schedule infobox is simply "Scheduled languages" (ethnologue uses this terminology). A couple of potential though minor problem with using "recognised language" is (1) it suggests that the languages not listed are not recognised as (Indian) languages which obviously makes little sense :-) , (2) that the constitution may be recognising some other non-scheduled languages in some completely different context (this is the reason I had used the phrase "recognises in particular" in the Demographics section). Cheers. Abecedare 23:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, how's the new infobox on the main page? I have changed "recognised languages" to "Scheduled Languages." Unfortunately, I think, if we only have official languages, Lexmercatoria will object that "scheduled languages" are not official. As for the bolding, it comes with the template. ("Largest City" etc are in bold-face too.) I have removed the explanation as well, and made the "8th Schedule" infobox more compact. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am satisfied by this version. I think it looks much cleaner without the black separator line in the previous version; and the left justification (rather than center justification) of the first column entries also blends in with the remainder of the infobox. Thanks F&f for your attempts to accommodate so many disparate views :-) Abecedare 01:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Good work F&F your efforts were indeed great KnowledgeHegemony 05:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the format of the version shown by Abecedare too. However, I will state that calling them scheduled languages is bit useless as the reader is not going to have any clue what it means without clicking further. We should attempt to avoid such phrasings. Their is one thing about "click to read in detail" and entirely different when you make it so that its "click to understand what the hell this means." We should avoid the latter and strive for the former. I noticed that quite a few of the secondary sources by F&F refer to them as recognized languages which should be good enough for us. We should not sacrifice readability over unnecessary political correctness. --Blacksun 08:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blacksun, I do understand your point that "scheduled languages" require clicking on the link for explanation; but, my guess is that almost anything short and sweet that will make an apt title for the left hand column will require further explanation. Even "recognised languages." (By whom? What about the other languages? Like Abecedare said, "Are they not recognised?) So, since as you say, you are satisfied with the current format, I'd say let's stay with it, and you and Abecedare can now work on improving the title. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Appositive Phrases

Dear Universe=atom, In my version of the last sentence of the lead ("A pluralistic, multilingual, multi-ethnic society, India is also home to a ..."), the appositive "A pluralistic, multilingual, multi-ethnic society" precedes the subject "India." That is OK. Here is an example from the New Oxford Guide to Writing:

Besides in your version there is redundancy in "In addition" and "also." Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the appositive doesn't agree with the subject. The appositive relates to the Indian society (pluralistic, multilingual and multi-enthnic) while the subject is India, the country. I would suggest rewording the sentence to something simpler, perhaps even breaking up the sentence into two, since the first half(which discusses the Indian society) has little to do with the second half of the sentence (which talks about India's wildlife and protected habitats). AreJay 23:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the appositive doesn't relate to Indian society. Had the subject been "Indian society" it would have read, "Pluralistic, multilingual, and multi-ethnic, Indian society is ...." The sentence has exactly the same structure as the "Bishop Andrewes" example. The reason why the "also" (a subject of much previous discussion on this talk page) has been added, is that it de-emphasizes the main clause a little in contrast to the appositive phrase. Note that the sentence is similar to the sentence: "India, a pluralistic, multilingual, and multi-ethnic society, is also home to a diversity of wildlife ...," but in its current form, the two disparate elements—the society of people and the diversity of wildlife—are separated more, thereby making the transition from one to the other less jarring. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice point. Universe=atom 13:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hindustani ?

Do we need this newly added demonym listed in the Infobox ? I know it is used in literary and historical context, but AFAIK the term is not used in any official documents or formal (non-literary) writing. Also the cited source is a lexical database which groups "cognitive synonyms", and hence has grouped "Hindu, Hindoo, Hindustani (a native or inhabitant of Hindustan or India)". I could see adjectives like Bharati/Bharatiya listed instead, but even that is very rarely (if ever) used as a demonym for India in English. Thoughts?
Also, anyone know why the "‡)" symbols appear before the lat/long coordinates of New Delhi in the infobox ? Abecedare 01:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need "Hindustani." Were we to allow historical demonyms, the list could be very long. As for the "‡)" symbol, it seems to be an artifact of the lat/long, a recent problem I'm guessing. Other country pages like Pakistan, China, Nepal, ... have similar problems. We could remove the lat/long info for New Delhi (which seems to be different anyway from that on the New Delhi page) for now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. I added the demonym because Hindustani is used frequently by Indians themselves at the conversational level as well as in several Bollywood movies. For example see the film title, Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani. In other words, the demonym is not only a historical word but is still used today. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we should add Hindustani. "The term is used in conversation frequently" is subjective. As I have witnessed the usage of term is not so frequent. Again, "several Bollywood movies" is subjective. Even if it is used in movies, that's not a good reason to add it here. At most the term can be used in Hindi wikipedia or any other language wikipedia where the term is in use.(I haven't come across the word Hindustani in Kannada. Instead, the term widely used is "Bharatiya".) Gnanapiti 03:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't know about the movies, but this is the "India" page of the English Misplaced Pages, and Websters' main entry for India, refers to "Indian" as the demonym: "of or from the subcontinent of India : of the kind or style prevalent in the subcontinent of India : INDIAN" Also, according to the OED, "Hindustani" is "A native of Hindustan; a Hindu or Muslim of Upper India." That means that regardless of how Indians use "Hindustani" in conversation, in the English language "Hindustani" still retains its historical meaning, i.e. a native of Northern India." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

interestingly, the OED also gives a meaning of Hindustani as equivalent to Urdu, not "Hindi+Urdu" (and adds, "By earlier writers sometimes applied to Hindi itself."). We may need to review our definition of Hindustani. "WordNet" is obviously not a "reliable source". dab (𒁳) 11:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dab, Yes, the Hindustani language use to be the same as Urdu (or, more correctly, Urdu use to be the same as Hindustani). The Hindustani page does say belatedly (towards the end of the lead paragraph), "In fact, before the Partition of British India, the terms Hindustani and Urdu were synonymous." As far as I am aware, things began to change after 1947 (or perhaps starting with the poetry of Iqbal a little earlier), when Urdu, especially in Pakistan, began to acquire its highly Persianized literary vocabulary; contemporaneously, in India, modern Hindi (which had emerged in the late 19th century) began to move even more in the opposite direction, adding all kinds of Sanskrit neologisms. The term "Hindi-Urdu" was created by linguists (I'm guessing in the 1960s) as a more descriptive and neutral (since Hindustan also meant India, which, after 1947, was a different entity) replacement for "Hindustani" (or old Urdu). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

PS You might be interested in reading the excerpts from David Laitin's paper at the end of the section here. Laitin, who says, "Gandhi also emphasized the need for an indigenous all-India language as something of grave need, and promoted Hindustani, a north Indian koine that blurred the distinction between Hindi and Urdu," is also not quite correct. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

PPS And here is the entry, "Hindostanee" in Hobson-Jobson (not always completely reliable, considering it was written in 1886, but correct here). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

that's all very well, but I am still surprised that the current (2007) OED has "Urdu" and adds that in earlier times it used to mean Hindi. --dab (𒁳) 13:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, my version of OED, which is the current on-line version (actually the 1989 second edition) says for entry Urdu, "A. n. Formerly, = HINDUSTANI n. 2; in recent use distinguished from Hindustani (the lingua franca) and designated as the official language of Pakistan." For Hindustani it says, "2. The language of the Muslim conquerors of Hindustan, being a form of Hindi with a large admixture of Arabic, Persian, and other foreign elements; also called Urdu, i.e. zaban-i-urdu language of the camp, sc. of the Mogul conquerors. It later became a kind of lingua franca over all India, varying greatly in its vocabulary according to the locality and local language." You are right, the "Hindustani" definition could certainly be improved. For one, what they mean by "Hindi" is not modern Hindi, but the "Hindi" dialect that was spoken in the Delhi area in the 16th or 17th century; and by "Urdu" they don't mean modern Urdu, but what was called Urdu in the 19th century. Perhaps someone should write to them, but, given that it is the OED, they might have reasons for the choice of words ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

you are right, I suppose our Hindustani article is doing alright. dab (𒁳) 13:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

First Woman President

The first woman president will take oath.

--Florentino floro 04:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As User:Abecedare has already explained in the edit summary, although the news is latest and of much importance it doesn't really fit into the main space of this article which is supposed be a high level Summary style article on India. Thanks for showing interest in the betterment of article though. Hope to see more such constructive edits from you in the future. Gnanapiti 05:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Footnote in Infobox

The second footnote in the infobox states that "This includes only Indian-administered territory" (or something like that). That is present where it states the area of India, the reason of which is logically deductible. However, why is it present where it states the latitude and longitude of New Delhi? Is that at all related to Indian-administered territory? Universe=atom 16:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The ‡) symbol in the lat/long of New Delhi, is just an artifact of (or rather the result of a bug in) the lat/long program. The same problem exists on other country pages, where other footnotes symbols appear. I am removing the lat/long info for New Delhi for now, until the bug in lat/long has been fixed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does it say India is multi ethnic?

If you go to the CIA's world factbook website, it says that India is somewhere over 70% Indian - Aryan & 25% (or so) Dravidian. (I dont agree with the term Dravidian) but the point is, India is not "MULTI ETHNIC" 71.119.249.104 21:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

nonsense. "Indo-Aryan" and "Dravidian" are huge linguistic super-groups, not single ethnicities. You might as well say they're all Homo sapiens (which is also true, of course). dab (𒁳) 21:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if User:71.119.249.104 is confusing ethnicity with race (whatever that is). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

yes; race used to mean "breed, type" and could apply to groups smaller than an ethnos, and has now come to mean "super-phyllum" or what. Racism and related trouble is first and foremost a semantic confusion. dab (𒁳) 22:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You people havn't done your research. If you ask an Iranian what they are, I mean after the Persian part, they will say Aryan (at least some will). ANd the same can be said for some Afghans, Pakistanis, and Indians. I mean this is not a debate. Many people from this region say there Aryan. And this can be said for some Europeans (of course some of the Euorpeans who believe there Aryan, might have a racist version of that, similar to that of a white supremacist group)....Anyway.....the point is.....Even the CIA recognizes that most Indian people are INDO-ARYAN. Now if you want to say India is multi ethnic fine I know u people are not going to understand what im saying cuz some of u might not be Indian. But this article should at least say somewhere in the start of the article that India is said to possibly be the homeland of the Aryans. 71.107.57.134 08:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, we are all from Africa, including you and me. Our ancestors left Africa only about 50,000 years ago. That is the big story. After they left Africa, whether they came straight to India along the coastal route (as some ancestors of the Adivasis, India's original inhabitants, did, or as the ancestors of the native Andaman islanders did), or they migrated a little later out of Africa into the region of Western India/Pakistan/Iran along the coastal route, then migrated into Central Asia, then into Europe, and (for some) then back into Iran and India, as it apparently happened for some Indo-Aryans (according to Y-chromosome evidence), it doesn't really matter. The DNA is more or less the same for all humans. As for what is the homeland of the Aryans? According to most historical linguists, it is Southern Ukraine, west of the Dneiper River, not India. It is people in that region, who are considered by mainstream opinion in historical linguistics, to be the original speakers of PIE (Proto-Indo-European). Sanskrit is a descendant of that language. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Without discussing origins or Indians, there are hundred of different ethnicities in India (e.g. Bengali, Gujrati, Tamil, Assamese) etc. I believe our anon friend is utterly confused by the words Ethnicity and Race. Since it has already been pointed out to him, I believe reiterating the same thing would be pointless unless he reads the previous comments. --Ragib 19:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Total Area of India

3 Questions:

• What is India's area considering all areas under actual administration and total area as claimed by Indian government?
• Similarly, the same data for Pakistan (actual and claimed)?
• What are the CIA figures based on (their considerations)?

Please mention the source you refer to gather your data. KH 14:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

...... *waiting* KH 09:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Total area of India as per India yearbook and indian govt website is 32,87,263 sq km. However CIA website states it as 3,287,590 sq km. I guess we should go by the figures stated by Indian govt and make the necessary changes in the article.Gprince007 14:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Help on Indian law

Hello, I am an editor from Britain who mainly does the law pages. I wanted to request some contributions from either experts or people who know a little about the Indian legal system for the Indian law page. I thought this would be the best place to ask. What does Indian law say on issues of contract, trusts, property, and criminal law? How many decisions of the House of Lords remain in the common law in India? Are you still burdened (like us!) with Donoghue v. Stephenson in tort law? To what extent has Indian common law followed its own path since independence, and how influential does Commonwealth jurisprudence remain? What is the constutional and administrative law balance between the state and federal levels? And so on... If people could help out at the Indian law page I would be very grateful. Wikidea 01:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the resident expert on Indian Law is user:Lexmercatoria, who sadly seems to have withdrawn from the WP enterprise. I am hoping that this is temporary. I have already left a post on his talk page encouraging him to return. Perhaps you could post your message there as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of statement

I removed this recently added statement from the lead:

Historically, South Asia was always famous as the richest region of the globe .

for the following reasons:

• It is not directly connected with the Republic of India, which is the subject of this article.
• It, while true if interpreted in certain contexts, is vague overly-broad (and arguably incorrect) in its current formulation (South Asia? always?)
• It is sourced to an essay in the Time magazine by William Dalrymple, and not to some scholarly article. As such it is equivalent to an Op-Ed piece which is usually taken as a reliable source for the author's opinions but not necessarily the stated facts. (see discussion here)

If other editors think that the past wealth of India/South Asia is a worthy topic to be covered in the main India page, we should find reliable academic sources that document the relevant times and statistics, to use as citations. Abecedare 07:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. No need for that recently added sentence. I noticed that there were some other minor (redundant or incorrect) changes made in the lead in the last week or so. I have reverted those as well. Also, the preposition that seems to go with "market exchange rates" in the literature is "at," not "by," i.e. "at market exchange rates," rather than "by market exchange rates." So, I've changed that as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I strongly disagree. This was a quote from a Renowned Historian William Dalrymple, and QUOTED by TIME Magazine. The quote is relevant because is describes the history of India and it's influence around the World.

This had also been backed up by Renowned Economic Historian and former OCED Head Angus Maddison. You can find it in the List of regions by past GDP (PPP) and also in his research in The World Economy: Historical Statistics.

Your Case isn't Strong. You are merely using blanketed statements with no real substance. I will change it later if I don't see a strong case. You can't say that's not a relevant quote, unless you disagree with the MEANING behind it, and your trying to use Censorship. This leaves the impression that your intentions are questionable. Can you provide anything to PROVE your case? Cosmos416 15:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cosmo416, I have reverted your edit because it is redundant. It echoes what has already been said in the second paragraph (lead). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fowler, it is not redundant, and I see no clear mention of this quote in the same context. First you said the facts were incorrect, and now your saying it's very repeptive? That's a complete lie. It sounds like your trying to marginalize historical facts.

Why are you fighting this so hard? Do you have any real argument? I have provided 2 VERY Reputable sources, that deal with India's influence throughout history. Cosmos416 21:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cosmos, here is the sentence from the second sentence where the basic point is made: "Home to the Indus Valley civilization and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history." (emphasis added) If you wish to add a citation to the Angus Maddison paper to the sentence, you are welcome to do so.

Also I trust that your original edit was well-motivated and never questioned your motivation or truthfulness - I urge you to extend F&F and me the same courtesy. Thanks. Abecedare 01:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the citation to Angus Maddison's book myself. Abecedare 01:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, I understand your concern (as I would have about your intentions aswell), and I know I'm acting in good faith, as I have provided a Quotation from a Historian William Dalrymple in article he wrote for TIME Magazine.

I have also provided the secondary source of Economic Historian and former OCED Head Angus Maddison. The statistical resources in his research in The World Economy: Historical Statistics are also mentioned and provided in the List of regions by past GDP (PPP). I actually have the Maddison book, and will provide more statical data as a secondary source if needed. Cosmos416 14:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but these historical GDP estimates are unreliable. They are based on many conjectures about economies of a thousand years ago. The Misplaced Pages article is the work of one editor Jagged85, whose edits on the Indian mathematics page I have found to be exaggerated. For example, there is no agreement even among Indian economic historians on the economy of Mughal India, let alone early medieval India. There are some who think that there was widespread recession during many periods and others who think that the recession only affected parts of north India. The bottom line is that statement is too definitive and too conjectural. It does not belong anywhere on the India page, much less the lead. You are welcome to add it to the List of whatever ... you quote. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Since *this article* is about the Republic of India, and not the Indian subcontinent, such claims of economic data pre-1947 are irrelevant. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh can claim that the same quote applies to them as well. Mughal India <> Republic of India. The Time Magazine quote applies to Historical Indian subcontinent, and NOT to RoI, the modern country. --Ragib 00:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As I had guessed, there are problems with Maddison's book. Here are some excerpts from a review by Bryan Haig (Australian National University), Economic Record, volume 81, 2005.

(I have added excerpts from reviews of other books by Maddison to the discussion page here.) If Maddison's estimates for Australia from the 19th century, moves Haig, an expert on Australian national accounts statistics, to say that "by the standards of Australian official statisticians, they (Maddison's estimates) are inaccurate and irrelevant as a measure of Australian real income in the 19th century," then I am afraid it is hard to pin much confidence on Maddison's estimates of India from first millennium. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Ragib, I didn't see your post. I agree with you. The sentence introduced by Cosmos416 at the very best belongs to some economic history article, and there too it needs to be accompanied by a discussion of the statistics' likely inaccuracies per the critique of Brian Haig. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

PS Well, Cosmos416 and others, have already edited the Economic History of India article and introduced many inaccuracies there. For example, Maddison is quoted twice and the second time called a "Cambridge historian." In fact, Maddison was an undergraduate at Cambridge, who after attending a few graduate schools chose not to go for a Ph.D., worked with the OECD in Paris, and finally at the age of 52, joined Groningen University in 1978 and stayed there until his retirement. Could someone please keep an eye on that article? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Learn

Look at the French article on India. Beautiful. Many sections and beautiful images. Need to learn from that and if adopting the style of it, by including more sections and the beautiful images, this article can be improved a lot. Chanakyathegreat 16:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What to learn? Misplaced Pages is not about creating sections and adding images. That's a beautiful article, I agree, but keep in mind that this is a featured article. Gnanapiti 22:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

External links of "General reference"

I feel the external links of the General reference section should be removed. They all give only information that would be present in this article (and other related articles) if it were complete, thus not respecting the first item of the list of Links normally to be avoided ("Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article"). However they could be used in references according to WP:EL#References_and_citation. Moreover Britanica requires registration, thus violating item 6 of the previously mentioned list of forbidden external links ("Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content"). BernardM 12:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I support retaining the General reference links (especially CIA factbook and LOC), since they do provide an independent and reputable source for trustworthy and comprehensive information, which expands upon the content of the article. Also, as per my reading of the WP:EL guidelines, these links are not "forbidden"; their inclusion simply needs to be given careful thought, which I think has been done in this instance. Any other thoughts or suggestions ? Abecedare 15:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Negotiation Cont'd

Folwer & Folwer,

“PS Well, Cosmos416 and others, have already edited the Economic History of India article and introduced many inaccuracies there.”

(1) Watch yourself; DON’T make FALSE incriminations against users. It can come back to haunt you.

(2) You’ve changed your argument 4 Times! (And continuously refuse to even show any hard proof.

(a.) First you said the facts were incorrect, I proved you wrong by providing 2 Reputable sources. (I never said I was relying on Maddsion, so STOP putting words into others mouth, Got it?

(b.) Second, you claimed it was Repetitive, I caught you in a LIE and you are trying to marginalize historical facts.

(c.) Third, you claimed that Dalrymple is not a historian, when in fact it says so in his Misplaced Pages Bio, on other Reputable sites. Another Lie you’ve been caught in.

(d.) Fourth, You have resorted to choosing which source is more reliable than the other…First, I doubt you have any credentials, and YOU are in NO position to critique people with credentials, and who are internationally known..

(e.) You listed and gave the impression that Brian Haig as being an “expert” in economics. He’s not an Economic Historian, he ‘s Psychology professor! Lol. Explain to all of us how a unknown psychology professor writing a criticism makes him the authority? And can you please list the “Other Experts” as well in detail. Which links sources, sentence number, etc.

So you just gave a complete lie. So I see no relevance in his criticism, he’s not even worthy enough to have an article about him in wikipedia, is well known internationally.

(3) I said that Maddison could be used as a Secondary Source, and I’m using the TIME magazine as the Primary Source, so your objections up til now have simply shown you really don’t want this quote in the article, because you like what is conveys.

(4) Another user has reverted and you keep making up new reasons in hope everyone else will give up. You sound remarkably similar to two USERS on here. Maybe we should do an IP check on a to find out what the real deal is.

(BTW: Maddison was former head of the ‘’’OEEC’’’, which is now called the ‘’’OCED’’’)

You are just finding new ways of to disagree, cause conflict, and instigative edit wars. In the end, you have no intention of Negotiating, or even showing any Solid proof.

Stick to the Quotation given originally, lets negotiate, stop trying to sideline it. If you don’t want to be a constructive part of the process, or even willing to be flexible, then don’t bother.

Edits: “Historically, South Asia was always famous as the richest region of the globe.”

Quotation by Historian William Dalrymple, in an Article for TIME magazine . http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1649060_1649046_1649026,00.html

Cosmos416 00:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Going on Google and doing a search on "Brian Haig" is not the best way of checking the antecedents of "Bryan Haig" (Can you tell the difference? It is spelled differently.) Bryan Haig, is a economic historian at the Australian National University and former editor of the Review of Income and Wealth. As for Maddison being "head of OEEC," first of all, I do know that OEEC changed its initials in the 1960s; however, Maddison was never Head of either OEEC or OECD. He was, as he says in his own biography (see the Angus Maddison page that I recently copy edited), head of the economics division and later promoted to Assistant Director of the Economic Development Department. Do you know how big the OECD is? This site will give you an idea. The big boss of OECD, in any case is called the Secretary-General and Maddison was in never in any danger of being even remotely considered for that post. As I have indicated above, I have added excerpts from reviews of four books by Maddison to another discussion page.

Sorry to be blunt, but please don't delude yourself that there is some negotiation going on here. Misplaced Pages doesn't work like that. As I said earlier, your statement that South Asia was historically the richest region on earth, is fraught with too many problems to belong to anywhere on the India page, much less the lead. Quoting Dalrymple or Time magazine, serves no purpose. Dalrymple is a popular historian, not an academic historian. (If you think he is an academic historian, then please tell us where he got his Ph. D. and which academic journal he has published articles in.) There is a legion of popular historians out there and all their pronouncements on the topics of the day are not worthy of Misplaced Pages. Believe me, when it comes to economic history of India, Maddison, problematic as he is, is a lot more credible that Dalrymple. Finally, I suggest you read Types of source material. "Primary" and "secondary" sources don't mean the first and second. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You keep making the WRONG assumption that the Maddison's work is inaccurate, while it is referenced in other scholarly research. Most Research will have some form of Criticism, but whether which side it falls on is not YOUR DECISION.

LAST TIME I'M GOING TO REPEAT MYSELF....

You've already changed your arguments at least SERVERAL times as shown above. This Quotation by Historian William Dalrymple, is the SOURCE, from an Article for TIME magazine .

“Historically, South Asia was always famous as the richest region of the globe.”

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1649060_1649046_1649026,00.html

Now can you show reputable sources that DIRECTLY REFUTE that QUOTATION? IF not, you don't have a case, still.

Cosmos416 16:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If the quote is Historically, South Asia was always famous as the richest region of the globe, why do you want to add it to the India article?. Wouldn't it be better to put it in South Asia, after all, this region includes several countries besides India. --Victor12 17:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you insist on this quote here, shouldn't we add the exact same quote and claim to Pakistan and Bangladesh too? After all, the quote and all references are to South Asia, of which "Republic of India" (this article) is a part. Please focus on the subject of *this article* which is the modern republic. Any pre-1947 references to "India" doesn't mean the modern republic, rather a superset consisting of RoI, Pakistan and Bangladesh. --Ragib 18:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Cosmos416 (talk · contribs) has NOT read the reference he's trying to add, I request reading it again ... it says Historically, South Asia was always famous as the richest region of the globe. South Asia is not India alone. Per WP:V, we can't add such a subjective claim without any reference, and if you add a reference, it must actually support what you are claiming. Further addition or misquoting of this would just be plain trolling. Thank you. --Ragib 18:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Critical Attention all concerned associated with WP:IND

The article India, is now in a not so good condition. There are a lot of visible flaws in it. I think it would be bad to put it in WP:FAR. I am pointing out some of my concerns:

• Inconsistant use of ciations in Lead, going with the trend it would be better not to have any citations in the lead.
• Many parts of the article are not ciationed properly, mainly Government, Politics, Foreign relations and the military, Geography, Culture
• Missing section- Transport, Media
• Elaborate-
  • Climate- Temperature (create a seperate section) take data from Climate of India, it is a FA,
  • geography-political geography, neighbouring countries, latitude, longitude, timezone, size
  • Sports (better to create a seperate section)
• Link to sub articles, see also, adding of appropriate templates.
• The section 'Subdivisions' may be turned into prose. Name the largest state and district in terms of area/population.

This are my premilinary observations. Pls discuss the matter in Talk:India and improve the quality of the article. In short my main concerns are verifiability and compehensiveness. Amartyabag 15:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Amartyabag - it is always useful to have more (constructive) independent views of the article. Here is my quick response to a couple of points you raise:

• As WP:LEAD specifies the lead is not exempt from the verifiability requirement. So if it presents some facts (that are disputable) and not explicitly repeated later in the article (eg the 7000 km coastline), they need to be cited. There is no consistency requirement to cite everything or nothing in the lead. That said, I agree with you that one or two citations from the lead can perhaps be moved to later sections.
• The topic of additional sections (on Sports, Media etc) has been thoroughly discussed in the past and the current consensus is that more sections are not desirable or warranted. Of course, if you or any other editors feel strongly about this issue, it can be reopened, but hopefully only after the earlier discussions have been read and considered by the proposer.
• As per WP:SS, a summary style article need not cite every detail that is referenced in the sub-article, so we don't need to reference many of the undisputed facts in this article - especially since several of the sub articles are themselves FA. But if there is anything in particular that you think needs referencing, it should be relatively easy to find appropriate references on this well-covered subject.
• I didn't understand what you meant by "Link to sub articles, see also, adding of appropriate templates.". Can you clarify ?

Cheers. Abecedare 16:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think certain templates like Countries in Asia, SAARC, etc may enhance the article. Amartyabag 10:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That has in fact been tried earlier and I had happened to argue against it. You can look at the discussion in the archives and see if you disagree with the points made. Thanks. Abecedare 14:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind a review. Good things come out such reviews (generally). Ofcourse, it will pass it and never be further listed in WP:FARC. So lets see whats the outcome. Perfection comes with criticism. KH 14:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we going to keep Toda hut image in the article for the centuries to come? As if the hut image is representing the whole cultural scenario of India. Gnanapiti 15:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the Toda hut doesnot represent culture of India properly. I will propose some of the photos of festivals like Diwali can do justice. I will propose the photo

from South India. Easteren and NE is not represented by photos. Amartyabag 06:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

One more thing I can suggest, which I think can end this debate about the use of photos in the culture section. Lets select 1 photo from each state (if available) related to the culture of the state and we can change these photos every fortnight (15 days), much importance can be given to any picture of festival which falls during the period. What all other think about this??? We can have a straw poll, to have a consensus on this matter. Amartyabag 06:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Amartyabag, please read through the extensive discussion on the subject of images in the talk page archives (particularly 22-25) before reopening this Pandora's box. IMO this topic always produces more heat than light, and our efforts may be better directed at improving some other project pages than playing around with the images here, which will likely effect the reader's experience only at the margins. Abecedare 06:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A reminder to all- Sport in India and Culture of India are in bad shape. KH 16:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Economy of India

I am not a registered user of Misplaced Pages, so someone who is might want to edit the following bit in the article on India: "Although income inequality in India is relatively small (Gini coefficient: 32.5 in year 1999- 2000) it has been increasing of late. Despite significant economic progress, a quarter of the nation's population earns less than the government-specified poverty threshold of $0.40/day."

This recent article shows that more than 77 percent of Indians(836 million) live on less than .50 cents per day: http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSDEL218894

While the official Indian government figures state only 26 percent of Indians are living in poverty, international figures, such as the World Bank list anyone making less than 1 dollar a day as living in extreme poverty: http://en.wikipedia.org/Poverty

That would put, at the very least, 77 percent of Indians in the "extreme poverty" category.

I think it is important that Misplaced Pages adds the information from this most recent Reuters article(and the report it cites) in order to give a more even-handed look at poverty in India rather than simply cite/repeat official Indian government statistics. I don't have a Misplaced Pages account, so I can't really do this myself, but for the sake of credibility, I hope someone does take into account this new news article and report.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.138.65 (talk) 18:56, August 15, 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. Although Reuters is not always a quotable source, I agree that in this case it is reliably reporting something the Government of India itself has recently stated. I agree oo that a change will need to be made on the India page, but it would be good to actually see the report. Do you have a web site for it? I know that it was reported in today's New York Times (not the exact statistic, but the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's reference to it yesterday). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the classification "extreme poverty." That is simply a ridiculous jump of putting two and two together. The notion that you can apply a universal $1 a day number to classify poverty universally is also ridiculous. Their is a very good reason why the government of India has its own poverty line. Even national poverty lines are fuzzy and do not give a clear picture as cost of living can change dramatically from one part of country to another.--Blacksun 09:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This, as you will yourself recall, has been discussed on these pages before. Please read the discussion here on the Government of India's poverty line. As for "extreme poverty," I agree that it is not for us to characterize it, it is enough to provide the numbers (per capita daily income etc.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the actual report can be found here: http://nceus.gov.in/Executive_Summary_08082007.pdf

It's actually a very interesting document. Some good information that could be used for the India page(s). It is also probably the most recent report of its kind.

Oh, by the way, if you(or anyone else here) is a dedicated researcher of these topics and wants to transfer portions of some of these reports onto Misplaced Pages, here is the NCEUS website. Some other good reports on it: http://nceus.gov.in/

Here is one more link that gives a longer synopsis of the report than the Reuters version: http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/10/stories/2007081056671600.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.83.138.65 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Will take a look at it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

PS I am a little mystified why the gentleman in the Hindu newspaper report is smiling. Seems a little grotesque for a report that is so somber. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Their are various agencies that come out with such data and often it is conflicting depending on their methods. Here is an article where the author makes some very valid points about various holes in the way this particular data was collected and analysed: http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage.php?autono=294226&leftnm=4&subLeft=0&chkFlg= --Blacksun 09:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, NCEUS report (according to the NY Times) is being taken very seriously by the current government (which includes at least two very capable economists, Manmohan Singh and Montek Ahluwalia). As for your link, I don't know who Mr. Jain is, but as a columnist for the "Business Standard" he has a likely ax to grind. I agree though that the report should be read and the statistic first stabilized in a daughter page like Poverty in India before it is included in the India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a good chance that the NCEUS report is pretty on the mark. Indian government organizations aren't exactly known for painting India, especially India's economy, in bad light. The NCEUS report is a rarity among official Indian government reports. Especially when it comes to poverty--instead of adhering to international standards, like the World Bank's measure for poverty(either 1 to 2 dollars per day per person), India has come up with its own standard for poverty that has to do with...caloric intake, ignoring issues like shelter, infastructure, health care, etc when assessing the expenses and needs of the poor. Too much of the "we need to paint India as a superpower" mentality. Unfortunately, the Indian government's official line on their levels of poverty have been universally accepted in statistics, including Misplaced Pages. I mean, it's a little bizarre. Misplaced Pages's article on poverty cites the international standards for poverty, on one hand, but on the other, quotes the official Indian government party line on poverty in articles on India...even when the Indian government comes out with stats like 77 percent of its population lives under .50 cents a day. Here are a couple of articles that discuss the problems with the poverty stats given by the official line: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11489 and http://www.indiatogether.org/2006/mar/ddz-povline.htm

All in all, I suspect counter articles to the NCEUS as written by shills of specific interests that don't like what the report might herald. But as you said, the Prime Minister is not only not dismissing the NCEUS report, he's taking it quite seriously.

P.S.: Yes, the picture of him smiling was odd, when you consider the report he was delivering.

I noticed that you provided no real counter arguments except bunch of unsubstantiated b.s. like "Indian government organizations aren't exactly known for painting India in bad light." In fact, it is normal for Indian government agencies to RAISE growth rates few years down the road after more accurate data analysis is done. That would point towards modest reporting not exaggeration. However, it really does not matter whether you label 77% of the population as extremely poor or not because the reality is not dependent on what you might propagate on Misplaced Pages. --Blacksun 15:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you've cited one article that calls into question the finding of an Indian government organization as *exaggerated*--a report that has received wide acceptance in the press and the Indian government, including the Prime Minister, as your basis for ignoring the report, but in the next breath, state that Indian government agencies tend to be *modest* in their reporting. And that you call my remarks "unsubstantiated B.S.", while you cite a single article written by a virtual unknown with tenuous, at best, arguments against the widely accepted NCEUS report as a reason to keep the NCEUS statistics off of Misplaced Pages and to call into question previously reported rates of povery in India. If you had any real interest in the topic, you'd do a little research on your own--I gave links to just two articles that call into question the hype around poverty eradication and poverty stats given by the Indian government(and here is another: http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/08/news/international/pluggedin_murphy_india.fortune/index.htm); there are dozens more articles and books on the very same subject. But, as you said, it won't matter what you propogate on Misplaced Pages; reality is reality. Indian poverty won't disappear just because you or some guy in some magazine say so. I've said my bit about this topic and I have no Misplaced Pages account, nor do I have a greater investment in this topic than what I've said thus far, so I'll leave it to better heads to decide whether the NCEUS report is kept out of the India article or not and hope the facts don't get hijacked entirely by one person. Until then, I'll wait for you to declare on Misplaced Pages that India's poverty rate has dropped to 0%, citing some obscure and unreliable journalist on...Business Standard. Then we can all go out and celebrate this new "reality"! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.83.138.65 (talk)

...is being taken very seriously by the current government (which includes at least two very capable economists, Manmohan Singh and Montek Ahluwalia)...

• For starters, MS and MSA are hardly the only quotable economists on this issue. Also, 'taking it seriously' from an academic standpoint isnt the same as using it to pass judgement about poverty levels. Neither MS nor MSA extrapolate the findings of the NCEUS report to claim that poverty levels worse than what the Govt., of India says it is. Like Blacksun points out and as commonsense tells us, a single $-a-day yardstick for the entire world is ridiculous.

...I don't know who Mr. Jain is,...

• Whoever he is, as a columnist for Business Standard, he is infinitely more quotable than you are.

... but as a columnist for the "Business Standard" he has a likely ax to grind...

• Logic please. Sarvagnya 20:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of a source when the writing poor

Can a source be reliable when the writing is poor? Here is an example.

Exercises for high-school students. Please correct the following sentences inadvertently provided by Mr. S. Jain, columnist for the Business Standard, in his column India whining. Mistakes of grammar, usage and internal consistency are indicated in italics. Here are two examples. The exercises follow in the compressed section.

• Example: "A full critique of the NCEUS report will require much more space than this column affords, ..." ("A full critique of the NCEUS report will require more space than is afforded to this column, ...")

• Example: "Since the unit records of the 2004-05 round of the National Sample Survey (NSS) were made available to the NCEUS, the chances of it having read the data wrong are low." ("chances of it reading the data wrong are small.")

Expand to see exercises based on writing in Mr. Jain's column:

Exercise: ... while the NCEUS paints a picture of Indians wilting and dying, and recommends various measures including an elaborate safety net. Exercise: "But if you look at the consumption figure thrown up by the NSS, it is usually smaller; sadly, over the years, it is getting even smaller." Exercise: To use numbers, assume India’s consumption was Rs 100 in 1993-94—using the growth thrown up by the NAS, this means 2004-05 consumption was Rs 142." "The ADB argues that inequality is resulting in a lower level of poverty reduction and is hindering growth, ..." Exercise: "When the NCEUS put out its latest report last week, not surprisingly, given its findings, the reportage was extensive." Exercise: "It points to poor human development indicators in countries like India, but countries with both better and worse inequality levels have better human development indicators—so, inequality in itself does not lead to worsening indicators. Exercise: "How you should do this—add all of it only to the rich, or evenly, and so on—is a matter of debate. But if you add it evenly, and several experts accept this as kosher, you get a number very different from that suggested by the NSS/NCEUS. Exercise: "So, before rushing out to announce yet another welfare scheme, take a look at the data—not just on poverty, but on the employment and income growth that is being generated without the government’s assistance."

How seriously does one take such a "source" when its prose would not pass muster in a half-way decent Misplaced Pages article? User Universe=atom will vouch for this I'm sure. Such a source, in my view, can't hold a candle to peer-reviewed research in academic journals, or even well-written newspaper columns. Contrast this now with a different column and columnist (that I found as a result of clicking on of the links above). I don't know the columnist C. P. Chandrasekhar either (and their writing might not be perfect) but I can tell at a glance that s/he writes clearly. The columnist writes in order to communicate. Mr. Jain's writing, in contrast, is strained and full of attempts at literary elegance, when its simple sentences are poorly written and lack clarity. The world of newspapers, such as it is, is full of "sources" that can lined up to support the most outlandish assertions. Clarity in the writing is, consequently, ever more important; lack of clarity hinders the evaluation of a source's content.

As for user:Sarvagnya's sentence, "For starters MS and MSA are not the only quotable economists on this issue ..." I don't know which economists he has in mind, but the ones I know of who have written on this topic (including some of happy memory) like V. K. R. V. Rao, K. N. Raj, Jagdish Bhagwati, T. N. Srinivasan, Amartya Sen, Partha Dasgupta, ... are unlikely to be in Mr. Jain's camp. They are also infinitely less quotable in grammar books. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

bah! Sarvagnya 22:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

English as Second Language Speakers in India

You will recall that last week some folk tried to insert a sentence about India having the largest number of English language speakers of any country in the world. The number of speakers, it was claimed, was 350 million. Well I looked into it and discovered that the number is grossly exaggerated (more than three times the actual number). I have since corrected the page List of countries by English-speaking population. India does not have 350 million English language speakers. The number is more like 85 to 100 million, which includes both people who speak English as a second language and those who speak it as a third language. India has the second largest English speaking population after the US. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like your data came from 1991 Census. I would be interested in last census data if it can be tracked down. It is quite possible that their is a significant increase. --Blacksun 09:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My numbers, which are really the latest numbers of TESOL-India (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, India), are approximately 55 million more than the Census of India's numbers from the 1991 data. TESOL-India's site, India: World's Second Largest English-Speaking Country explains Misplaced Pages's bloated numbers, i.e. the difference between the 350 million number mentioned on this Wikpidedia page and the more plausible 100 million number:

I agree that it would be best if we had 2001 statistics, but for some reason it takes the Census of India a long time (a decade?) to work up the statistics. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Dull?

I dont know if others feel this way now, but I know in the past many of us thought that the pictures and the article were a little dull (for example the Ajanta Caves image is unclear, the Agni pic is a lil dull, the Toda image doesnt represent all of India) Does anyone else feel that way? Nikkul 14:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Ajanta image, if you believe it is dull I recommend you to send the image to Misplaced Pages:Featured_picture_candidates#Nomination_for_delisting since that is the first criterion. Personally, I don't think the Ajanta or the Agni image is dull. As for the Toda Hut, there is no image that represents all of India apart from a map of India. Do you want the entire page to be full of maps? :) Gizza 03:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If no single image can represent India's culture, how is it that you think the Toda hut is representative? Also, is it even a hut?! Some time ago, somebody suggested that it was actually a temple. As for the Deepawali image... yes... I also think it'd be more representative than the Toda 'hut'. But Nikkul, which is the image that you're talking about? Sarvagnya 20:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

See my comments in the Talk:India#Critical Attention all concerned associated with WP:IND section above. This may end the debate about the use of photos. Amartyabag 05:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me just point out that I was the one who brought up the Diwali photo thing before, so I would totally be with you in replacing the Toda hut picture with a Diwali picture. In fact, i have already gotten pics of diwali to be posted here. Here are my suggestions: Nikkul 15:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Replace the toda hut pic with a Diwali pic because:
  • 1- Toda Hut does not represent all of India; only a tiny number of indians are Toda's
  • 2- Even Toda's dont live in those huts anymore. They live in modern homes as someone else had pointed out earlier
  • 3- The Toda image does not represent any one region of India
  • 4- Diwali is celebrated all over India by more than 800 million people

• Replace the Ajanta Caves image with the Taj Mahal image because:
  • 1- The Ajanta Caves image is dull and can barely be seen
  • 2- The Taj Mahal is more historical than Cultural for Indians.... It's more an artifact from history than a part of modern Indian culture
  • 3- This will leave us with an option to add another image for the culture section

Please feel free to comment on any proposal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikkul (talk • contribs) 15:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Shoot me now.--Blacksun 15:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

People keep saying that Toda image is not representative of India because India doesn't live in huts. The image is not about housing in India; rather, it is about decoration and art. (I won't repeat the argument, since user:Abecedare has written so eloquently about it in an earlier discussion in these pages). The Toda image is also about the painstaking care displayed by the Toda people in the hut's upkeep and maintenance. That clearly is not representative of urban India, most of which seems to have steadfast disregard for upkeep and maintenance. It, however, is representative of rural and more traditional India, where not only is upkeep a fact of life, but also where even today (according to 2001 census) 65% of the country resides. As for the Taj Mahal being symbol of something, I think on the contrary, it is culture, not history. The latter would be exactly the same today, had the Taj been constructed or not; the former, however, would be unrecognizable without Mughal art (and its nonpareil symbol, the Taj).

BTW, I am not suggesting that nothing be changed. Here are three featured pictures that could perhaps be put somewhere in the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is unfair for the Layman to think that a majority of Indians wake up in Toda huts as is shown in the culture section. It is a misrepresentation of Indian culture since 99.99% of Indians do not live in Toda huts Nikkul 17:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Bose and the history section

Reuben Iys has lately been trying to supplement the history section with his version of Subhash Bose's contribution to the freedom struggle. There is an idiosyncratic version of recent Indian history out there, which assigns to Bose a lion's share of the credit for liberating India from the British. This has been discussed on this page many times before. Bose has of late been championed even by the Hindu right, in part because he is a convenient counterfoil to Gandhi. In fact, Bose was never thought of contemporaneously as being anywhere on the right, his "alliances" with Hitler, the Italian Fascists, and the Imperial Japanese notwithstanding. His followers in the Congress party (when he was still in the Congress) formed what was considered the "left wing" of the Congress. After he broke with the Indian National Congress, he formed the Forward Block party, which, (after his death and) for many years after independence, sided with the various Communist parties on most issues in the Indian parliament. Among, mainstream historians, as has been pointed out on these pages before, the consensus is that the various students groups that arose in response to the Quit India Resolution and the various communist and labor parties that drew many new recruits during the years 1942-46, caused more nervousness among the British than Bose ever did. If a consensus decision is made to revise the "freedom struggle" subsection, then those groups will need to be mentioned long before Bose makes an appearance. Such a major re-interpretation needs to be discussed here (and a consensus arrived around it) before it can be introduced into the history section. I will add a link to a previous discussion to Bose on the pages soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

PS Here is the link. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC).

I do not wish to champion Bose. What I do wish to do is to point out that there was more than one movement and philosophy in the freddom movement, and the movement did not start in 1920s (thats factually wrong). Also the fact that a number of defining movements arose especially in the last decade of the freedom movement, of which one very strong one was the Quit India, and the other was the Indian National Army. After the war, the British Indian armed forces stopped supporting the Raj's efforts, and the mutinies it inspired were a very strong factor, which even the Congress expolited at the time/ The version of the movement that we see today in India is a very narrow and enclosed version that only talks of Congress and Gandhi, whereas there's more to it than that. I do not have any interest in making Bose a hero, but I have read a lot on this in the last two years (I will reference this a number of authorities of history if you wish) that the ultimate death nail was not the Quit India but the swaying of the alleigance of the armed forces. Also the old version makes a point not to say anything about any event, movement or views before, during or after Gandhi, which gives a wrong impression. The independence movement existed long before Gandhi arrived. In fact a reason why the Amritsar massacre happened was because the British were jumpy after the 1915 Ghadar conspiracy. Please dont look at this as a PoV edit, because its not. I wish this page on India not to be a political statement (particularly in the History section), but to give a complete and true picture (as much as possible). By all means, you have to have a balanced view, but that would mean a different version of the movement than was there earlier. Regarding old discussions, I haven't seen this discussion in the archive. And I dont know who you're claiming as main stream historians. But I have personal correspondence opinions and published accounts of a number of eminent historians that I am sure will prove point.Rueben lys 21:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the Republic of India. The history section is highly compressed with exactly two sentences devoted to the Indian freedom struggle.

No one is saying that the Indian freedom struggle was monolithic, but simply that in a compressed section only certain things can be mentioned and choices have to be made. Bose's contribution is simply not notable enough to merit mention. As I mention above, the 2007 Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, devotes 19 long pages to the Indian freedom movement and has this to say about Bose:

That is not the description of a signal role in the freedom struggle. This is not just the view of Indian historians, it is the mainstream view. The Britannica article, for example, is written by Stanley Wolpert who is hardly an "Indian nationalist" and whose Nine Hours to Rama was banned in India for many years. Again the Indian freedom struggle has a total of two sentences in the compressed history section and only Gandhi is mentioned by name, Nehru isn't, Tilak isn't, Gokhale isn't, Lajpat Rai isn't, Dadabhoy Nairoji isn't, Patel isn't, Jinnah isn't, Suhrawardy isn't, ... why then Bose? If Britannica's signed history section devotes one unflattering paragraph to Bose out of a total of 19 long pages on the Indian freedom struggle, why should we give seven sentences to Bose out a total outlay of two? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You're saying in you're first line that

, yet that is exactly what you're version is saying. You're insisting that the version be compressed enough not to include anything but the Congress's role in the freedom movement, and the version is essentially starting and ending with the Gandhi inspired movement from 1918 to 1942 and then concluding that that was the only thing in the Indian independence movement which seems a bit hippocritical to me. I am sure the Encyclopaedia Britannica does not say much more about Bose, but as I said, I am nit here to argue about Bose or his role. I am saying there's a lot lot lot more to Indian independence movement than your version makes out there to be. The encyclopaedia also puts Bose's speeches in inverted commas, which essentially tries to prove these were actually propagandist statements. The encyclopaedia also does not have anything to say (as far as I can see) on the Bombay mutiny, on the role played by the 1915 Ghadar conspiracy on the Amritsar massacre, on the Bombay mutiny, Red Fort trials, etc, but this is what it has to say on the Indian National Army:

I have quoted extensively from the encyclopaedia Britannica artice here, so you can check this. If you tell me you still think that this is not to be included in the article then I will be forced to assume that you're making a Bad Faith edit and will seek a Request for mediation because it will be you making a PoV edit, taking a monolithic view on the Indian independence movement, preventing other editors from making a positive contribution of facts in favour (possibly) of your views and opinions. Rueben lys 00:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Encyclopaedia Britannica does not have an article on the Indian National Army. It has a short biography of Bose and there is the one paragraph in the India page (in the 19 page history section). The quotes you have compiled above are from the Britannica Student Encyclopaedia which does not have signed articles by historians, but are written by the editorial staff. Please see Misplaced Pages policy on tertiary sources here. Second, your quotes are saying what is well-known: that after the INA failed to "liberate" India, and its leaders were tried for treason by the British, the Congress (somewhat cynically) exploited the wave of sympathy for the INA "generals" to do some PR work for itself. Your quotes don't say, for example, that Nehru attended the trials with Bhulabhai Desai and (along with the Congress) ended up alienating Wavell (the viceroy) even more, which some historians think proved crucial in giving Jinnah the advantage that eventually led to the partition. INA did have a brief flash of glory during the trials, but Bose was long gone by then, and there is no evidence that the British worried about it any more than any mass disturbance in India. It was certainly not on the scale of the Direct Action Day (let alone the Quit India Movement). My basic point remains that there are many more important topics in the Indian Freedom Struggle than either the Indian National Army or Bose himself. Those issues will need to be added before Bose or INA can. If you want to make a contribution, try the History of India, which BTW is silent on Bose! Why should Bose be added here, when he hasn't made it to the History of India page yet? This article is about the Republic of India and has a highly compressed history section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are several aspects in the independence movement (see Indian independence movement). The big question is what to mention in the extremely compressed space in the article India. IMO "militant nationalist movements" or "organisations" need to be mentioned (no individual names though).

History of India is not really a very up-to-the-mark article. So it need not be compared here. Of course that article needs improvement. That's different issue. Can you, Rueben, propose a compressed way to mention what you are trying to (INA), with good references?--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should "militant organizations" be mentioned? Balgangadhar Tilak isn't mentioned. Neither are: Lala Lajpat Rai, Jallianwallah Bagh, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, ... Surely Jallianwallah Bagh was of much more sympolic importance in the Indian Independence Movement than the INA trials, which happened after the British had already decided to leave India (after the Cripps mission). There is no evidence in the reliable sources that militant organizations (INA included) made any tangible difference. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not have any ready reference at hand. So my argument may be ignored. Still, I am putting forward those.

Militant organizations played notable part at least in the first 30 years of 20th century. Probably the most publicized instance is Bhagat Singh and the associates (and there were several, less publicized events/organizations/personalities). However, these were definitely far less significant than INC. So, I do not propose to mention any particular name or organizations. But that there was a separate (and probably the only separate) kind of movement/notion/ideal/stream other than INC should be mentioned, in as compressed way as possible.

As F&F has mentioned, independence movement was not monolithic. That is precisely why a mention of the other stream should be there.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:UNDUE, the emphasis that we place on different contributing factors leading to India's independence should reflect the weightage reliable sources place on them. If editors think that the current version presents the independence struggle as a monolithic effort led by INC/Mahatma Gandhi, we can certainly consider rephrasing the relevant two sentences. IMO for this summary-style article the militant movements could at best merit an additional phrase/half-sentence, but certainly not a detailed discussion of this length.

In either case, can we please discuss the specifics here and arrive at a consensus for the language and references that are needed for any additional content, instead of edit-warring on an Featured article ? Thanks. Abecedare 04:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are the bare outlines of the 19 pages in Britannica devoted to the Indian Independence struggle (beginning in the 1880s):

Except for two pages, p7 and p13, the pages are long with many long paragraphs. The only militants that are mentioned are in the struggle between the militant (Tilak) wing of the Congress vs. the moderate (Gokhale) wing of the Congress on page 6. "Terrorism" is mentioned in two lines in the context of the partition of Bengal on p7. Bose is mentioned twice, once in a short paragraph introducing the Forward Block on p15 and the second time in the unflattering paragraph quoted above. The Ghadar party gets one paragraph including a mention of Har Dayal. No mention is made of the INA, the INA trials, Bhagat Singh, Chandrasekhar Azad, or any of the other "revolutionaries." In contrast, Pherozeshah Mehta, Dadabhai Naoroji, Surendranath Bannerjee, Gokhale, Jinnah, Tilak, Nehru, Suhrawardy, Liaqat Ali Khan, Patel, and of course Gandhi get a lot of coverage. I said above that the Indian freedom struggle wasn't monolithic, what I meant was that from the 1920s onwards there were fractures in the movement, with the Muslims becoming wary and ultimately splitting off. However, in other ways, it really was a monolithic movement, the Indian National Congress was really the only turbulent mainstream of the movement from its start in 1885 until 1936 and then it was both the Congress and the Muslim League. There was really nothing else that made a tangible difference. People like Bhagat Singh, who killed an official or two here or there, made great romantic heroes, but winning India its independence took mass organization, political skill, and persistence over many decades.

Even if there is consensus to expand the text on the Indian independence movement on this page from two sentences to (say) four or five, I can't see how the militants, revolutionaries, and the INA are going to make the cut. The reliable sources give them short shrift. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

PS Here are some more (searchable on Amazon) sources:

Even Bose's own grand-nephew, Sugata Bose, has this to say about the INA trials in his book listed above: "Having shrewdly assessed the public mood, the Congress made the release of the INA prisoners the main issue in their election campaigns." The INA briefly became important because the Congress used it (as I said above) somewhat cynically to do PR work for itself; how does that make INA's contribution intrinsically worthwhile? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You have quoted the bit about unsigned article, but not that

And you're further missing the point that I am not trying (nor anyone else) to rewrite the History to say it was the INA and not the Congress that won India independence, that's a totally different issue altogether. What I am saying is that the independence movement was certainly existent and very strong even before Gandhi arrived and the Congress began its Non coop movement. It was there before that. Also, Ahimsa was not the only method, certainly a widely used one, but not the only one. There were other extremely notable people in addition to Gandhi, of which Nehru certainly qualifies, as does Subhas Bose (who led the turnaround of the Congress into demanding Purna Swaraj in late 1920s, Bose favouring even more millitant approach later). I am also saying that the 1940s saw at least three defining movements, Quit India, Indian National Army, and later inspired by the INA and the Red Fort trials, Bombay mutiny and general public agitations, mass movements, strikes and mayhem in general.

You have deleted the reference to Edwards' The Last Years of British India, Cleveland, World Pub. Co.,1964, p. 93 which said

The Government of India had hoped, by prosecuting members of the INA, to reinforce the morale of the Indian army. It succeeded only in creating unease, in making the soldiers feel slightly ashamed that they themselves had supported the British. If Bose and his men had been on the right side — and all India now confirmed that they were — then Indians in the Indian army must have been on the wrong side. It slowly dawned upon the Government of India that the backbone of the British rule, the Indian army, might now no longer be trustworthy. The ghost of Subhas Bose, like Hamlet’s father, walked the battlements of the Red Fort (where the INA soldiers were being tried), and his suddenly amplified figure overawed the conference that was to lead to independence

You're insisting that the Britannica student Encyclopaedia reference is not admissible.So as other references,James L. Raj; Making and unmaking of British India. Abacus. 1997. p571, p598

Indian service personnel were at this time being swept by a wave of nationalist sentiments, as would be proved by the mutinies that occurred in the Royal Indian Air Force. In the after-effect of the mutiny, a Weekly intelligence summary issued on 25 March 1946 admitted that the Indian army, navy and air force units were no longer trust worthy, and, for the army, "only day to day estimates of steadiness could be made". . It came to the situation where, if wide-scale public unrest took shape, the armed forces could not be relied upon to support counter-insurgency operations as they had been during the "Quit India" movement of 1942.

Peter Fay's The Forgotten Army: India's Armed Struggle for Independence, 1942-1945. p 519 says

Auchinleck did not say, and probably did not believe, that the Raj had ceased to be the object of the Indian officer's loyalty simply because Bose and his renegades had come along. Colonel Wren had not supposed so either. Both believed that the shifting of alleigance was bound to happen, and would have happened sooner or later no matter what. Nevertheless it did not happen later. It happened then. In the autumn if 1945 India was swept by a storm of excitement and indignation, a storm that Bose and his renegades ignited. It was a storm the Indian officer, and the Jawan too, could not ignore. They did not ignore it. We have it on the authority of the Commander-in-Chief that they did not ignore it. In 1942, at the time of quit India, there had been no question of reliability. Now their own commander doubted it. Three years of campaigning, three years climaxed by victories in Europe and on the Irrawaddy, do not explain the change. Only that autumn storm can. It was the Indian National Army that forced the British hand.

As for your persistent references to the "unflattering" paragraphs on Bose. I am sure that is how it is written by the author you mention. I am not quoting anything here from Fay, James, Majumder,Lebra,Hauner, Fujiwara, Kurowski, and possibly a number of other historians of authority who will not just tell you totally a different story (of realpolitik and patriotism), they will also tell you that you're still swallowing World War II war-time Allied propaganda superimposed on refusing to see anything but evil on anybody who worked with axis powers. I am not quoting because my purpose is not to glorify Bose or his army, but to make an encyclopaedic entry of facts, which should make it clear that the Indian independence movement was not a gift from Gandhi and Congress to Indian people. Stuff happened, very notable stuff, that were intricately linked to the Raj's decision to leave (of which INA is just one of at least three), and these were of a scale large enough and popular enough and potent enough to find mention in an encyclopaedia article on India. Rueben lys 11:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversial claim

I have added the controversial claim tag chiefly for reasons talked in detail above. Fowler&fowler«Talk»'s interpretation of what is notable and deserves inclusion in the history section in the India article is skewing the facts to give the idea that the Indian independence movement started in the first half of the twentieth century, and consisted chiefly if not solely of the Indian National Congress and Gandhi. I edited this bit to reflect three very notable events that all my resources tell me are of stupendous importance. But Fowler's sources, which I believe is the Encyclopaedia Britannica and some other books on Concise histories of India, seems to be very concise, hence I believe reproduction from these would (and has) further compress this section to give an essentially misrepresentaed point of view. I also believe (without prejudice) Fowler has at least some PoV issue with Subhas Bose, which I must clarify is not the point of my earlier edits, although it does deserve to be mention in my opinion. As Dwaipayan suggested above, this section could be re-written, I am willing to do this not to a compromised version, but to a collaborated version. But till this is done, I believe the version as exists when I instituting this tag is an incomplete version that gives a factually totally wrong impression to the layman who would reading this article. And this is not acceptable. Rueben lys 12:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Amazing! How do you get that I think the Indian Independence struggle began in the 20th century. I just listed all 19 pages from the Britannica chapter on Indian independence movement written by Stanley Wolpert. The pages begin with the founding of the Indian National Congress in 1885, and address many issues that had already come to a head in the late 19th century ... BTW, I have not made a single edit in the history section myself. But I am aware that it is written in a concise style. Go back and take a good look at my Britannica outline. If you had to compress 19 pages into two (or even four) sentences, how do you think Bose will merit a mention? Simply, not in the cards. BTW, the five books I have provided links for are not just "concise" histories of India, but standard histories of India that are used as text-books all over the world. Obviously a 500 page "concise" history written by an internationally known academic historian(Stanley Wolpert or Sugata Bose) is a much better gauge of notability than a specialty book about the Indian national army, which obviously will have details about the INA. I think the two sentences could certainly be made more balanced, along the lines of: "The nationalist freedom movement in India began in 1885 with the founding of the Indian National Congress. Although other political leaders played a role in the freedom struggle, the major direction was provided by Mahatma Gandhi whose movement of mass civil disobedience based on non-violence proved decisive." Even if it is increased to four sentences, it would make room for Swadeshi movement, Tilak, Gokhale, Muslim League, Jinnah, and the Non-cooperation movement. Still don't see how Bose, INA, or the revolutionaries will make the cut. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a list containing the subject of each paragraph in the section on the Indian Freedom Movement in Encyclopedia Encarta written by historian Philip Oldenburg, of Columbia University:

• Movement for Independence

• • Rise of Indian Nationalism: (paragraphs) 1. Aftermath of 1857, 2. Formation of Indian National Congress, Dadabhai Naoroji, 3. Reformers: Bal Gangadhar Tilak, 4. Curzon, partition of Bengal, swadeshi movement, 5. Split in the congress between extremists (Tilak) and moderates (Gokhale), 6. Muslim League, 7. Reunification of Bengal, World War I
  • The World Wars and the Emergence of Gandhi: (paragraphs) 8. Indians in WW I (One sentence on Ghadar party: "A small, mostly Sikh revolutionary movement appeared briefly in Punjab." 9. Return of Gandhi from SA, pact with Jinnah, 10. Montagu-Chemlford Reforms, 11. Resistance to Rowlatt Acts, birth of Satyagraha, Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre, 12. Gandhi's non-cooperation movement, Congress's demand for complete independence, 13. Gandhi's Salt Satyagraha, 14. Govt. of India Act, formation of governments in states by Congress in 1937, 15. WWII, Pakistan resolution (1940), Quit India resolution (1942), Direct action day (1946), formation of interim government by Jawaharlal Nehru, 16. Partition of India, transfer of power, Hindu-Muslim riots, Gandhi as "one man boundary force." There is no mention of Bose, INA, Bhagat Singh, or any other militant. The only reference to extremism is indirectly to the Ghadar party in the one sentence quoted above . Doesn't that seem obvious now. Sixteen paragraphs and the only mention of anything other than the Congress is either to the Muslim League or the one sentence to the Ghadar party! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Article should be expanded

Since there was a bit of an argument over the content of the article, I went and checked the main text by moving it into word and doing a count. The main text is only 25k. That's not really much at all. Surely the article can just be proportionally expanded so that many things can be explained better; eg the stuff described above. If there is twice as much stuff, there will also be twice as much space to add the pictures everyone keeps on arguing about. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'd suggested several months ago. But the same filibusters who were active then seem to be taking toll of the article even now. Bogus concerns about 'article bloat' have been bandied from time to time and several well meaning editors have been driven away and their edits have been stonewalled no end. The simplest of edits are resisted on specious and bogus grounds and the article quality suffers. But hey! its a FA! its one of the best on wikipedia! yeah right. Sarvagnya 01:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a general comment that the FA standards have changed over time and articles that were FAed in 2005 and earlier would now fail FA. (The comprehensive and NPOV needs are about the same, but the references and prose required is much higher) and would be lucky to pass GA in terms of references and prose (that's for a baseline article). So to say that an old-days FA can't be improved is not true. Xiangqi (Chinese chess) was FA in 2005 and has been demoted. Chennai was made FA in 2005 and has lots of unsourced stuff and so forth and really should not be an FA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Nichalp (who took this to an FA) is pretty clear on a few things: new space should be used for new topics, (like we did with Flora and Fauna, Military, etc) not to expand on old topics like history. And that photographs, as far as is possible, should be featured pictures. The argument about Bose is not just about space. Even in twice the space (say ten sentences for the Freedom Movement) Bose won't gain mention. Encarta has 16 long paragraphs, with no mention of Bose. Britannica has 19 pages and he get one unflattering paragraph. Among academic historians, there is consensus that the Indian Freedom Movement had two mainstreams: the Indian National Congress (primary) and the Muslim League (secondary). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't have the expertise to judge any specific proposed additions on the grounds of historical notability, I just note that if the article is expanded then the real estate increases so there would be less unproductive debate over content over an article which is not all that controversial. If it was a full on history article about ethnic or religious wars and so forth or a politician, then one would expect lots of arguments, but since most of this article is not even about history or religion or ethnology, there should not be the same big arguments over and over again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

user:Fowler&fowler(did i get the spelling right, prof?) is requested to stop embarrassing Nichalp and read up on WP:OWN. Nobody, not even if they FAed an article owns the article. Sarvagnya 01:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Also a note that Nichalp has been more or less away/busy, and his latest 100 article edits date back three months. It would be inadvisable to simply say that he will "take care of it" whether out of deference to his accomplishments or on the other hand laziness or whatever. In the past two months four of his FAs have been FARed and three were delisted, and the other - Railways in India was a default no result almost, pending extra work anticipated (which did not materialise). Even the articles of the most famous, like Lord Emsworth (talk · contribs) with his record 58 are now routinely demoted since they are out of date with current standards and he has now retired. So the fact that Nichalp was responsible for the article will not make it immune. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally, the article could easily fail FAR right now because of the lack of citations. Although people say "that's obvious" the current FA way is to have all info in a given para to be directly attainable from all footnotes within that para. In summary form, this isn't necessary if the daughter article is inline cited, but in this case the article fails

• history - is only partially referenced and the daughter articles are partially and totally unreferenced respectively
• Government - only partly referenced. Daughter article has none
• Politics - totally unsourced. Daughter totally unsourced
• Foreign relations and military - partly sourced in root and daughter
• Subdivisions - totally unsourced: daughter article Subdivisions of India totally unsourced. See also Political integration is an FA which would be demoted if it was nomninated.
• Geography - partially sourced: Daughter Geography of India was delisted FA because of this (among other reasons)
• Culture - minority is sourced:Daughter articles are not sourced.

There are also references which are not referenced uniformly. I don't know about the prose but there are many short paragraphs. One of the sources is India's UN statement, so it cannot be taken as spin-free. Some of the references are not ideal given the prominence of the topic; tabloids and sources not particularly of the highest quality like 18 and 19 - 18 appears to be a home-made website. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said or implied that Nichalp will take care of the article, that in his absence, we passively stand around, or that the India page rest on its laurels. Obviously, we are aware that Nichalp is occupied and the upkeep of the article is being managed adequately. Whether or not the article needs an expansion, and if it does, about what, should be decide by an RfC. The last RfC we had (in February 2007) about adding new material to this article is summarized here. It was certainly felt then (by the majority) that adding material willy-nilly (without concurrent discussion) is unwise. In my opinion, the article doesn't need an unstructured expansion. The expansion should be about things that have been decided by common consensus to be important, not about accommodating drive-by edits by the POV-pushers of the moment (which the Bose problem seems to be). I can see expanding the article to include sections on public health, poverty in India, the IT sector in India, urban-rural divide in India, wealth in India, natural disasters in India, ... I'm happy to do an RfC for it, if there is appetite. I have personally edited only the lead and the flora and fauna section, and you will agree that the latter is adequately referenced. I am happy to copy-edit the article for prose along with some other people (like Abecedare, Universe=atom, Gnanapiti, Saravask, Sarvagnya, and Knowledge-Hegemony, ...). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean you specifically, I was just generally observing the air of confidence about the concerns raised in the past about article deficiencies and was just pointing out that Nichalp isn't here to do the work if the article does get put in FAR and that those that have had a low survival rate. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just saw your post about citations. Well, maybe instead of worrying about expanding the article, the first priority should be to properly cite the different claims. Since I have access to academic databases, I am happy to help with that, if there are others willing to work on that as well. Why don't we focus on that instead of expansion? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I re-read your post and cursorily read some sections on the India page. I agree it definitely needs to be copy-edited for better prose. As I mentioned above, I am happy to work on the prose if others can help out as well. (Nichalp had in fact asked me to edit India related FACs for prose here. Unfortunately, I didn't have that kind of time, but I could certainly do it for the India page itself.) Also, I am happy to work on the citations. Are there other volunteers? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the citation and prose issues that Blnguyen raises are very valid concerns. The good news about the unreferenced bits though is that, as far as I see, there is nothing in the article that is unsourcable (and maybe that is what has made us lazy), but it does need to be referenced. Also given the vast literature available on the subject, it would be nice to not only look to add pro forma citations based on the first google hit/news article we find (such as sources 15/18/19/20/63 etc), but also to pay attention to the quality of the sources. At the same time we can take care of the reference formatting issues, perhaps by using the citation templates for consistency. I'll try to help in this effort though my time on wikipedia may be somewhat limited in the upcoming weeks.

Finally, I suggest that we separate the more contentious expansion, and content revision issues from these more straighforward "style" concerns, since the former will require careful discussion on a section-by-section basis. Cheers. Abecedare 04:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like this article may be due for review. However, I don't feel it is my place to pull the trigger on that. Rather I will just throw the idea out there for you all. Rangek 03:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Here a personal review on India article.

• Compared to articles like Japan, Canada or Germany this article is too short in its coverage of a diverse country like India.
• It can be further expanded (with only 25 KB of prose). Even the article on ex- US President Gerald Ford(FA) has closely 2.5 times the prose size!!
• Section: Subdivisions is just a list of states. Which is totally opposed to FA- standard aticles. MOS says listiness should be avoided.
• Section: Culture is a confusing piece of Music of India, Cinema of India, Indian literature, Indian cuisine, Sports in India, Public holidays in India, Indian architecture.
• No separate Sports,(or) Transport and (or) Media section.
• Section: Politics totally unreferenced.
  

Also Geography and Culture are not supported by references.

--KnowledgeHegemony 04:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I see a toning down of the "hey.. its an FA.. leave it alone" pitch, I propose that,

1. We FAR and de-FA this post-haste. The "its an FA" nonsense has been used consistently by paranoid watchdogs of the article over the last several months to frustrate not just content additions but also style improvements. Several well meaning editors (many of them ips) have been driven away. No constructive work on this article can take place as long as we have the "its an FA!" weighing us down.
2. Once we de-FA it, let the article be thrown open to additions of content(even unsourced), style and even POV for a atleast a month. Let people add whatever they want. Let them create whatever section they see fit. Let the article bloat to whatever size.. even 100 kb. We'll gaurd the article against nothing but simple vandalism. If people want, we'll live with a {{underconstruction}} tag through the period (though imo it'd be counter productive).
3. A month later, we'll have a confused mass of prose which we can then first start hiving off into the appropriate 'child articles'. If child articles dont exist we'll create them. And then, we'll start hacking down this article.
4. This is pretty much what we did (or happened) on the Karnataka article. It was in pretty bad shape.. about 35-40kb with citations. Dinesh would keep padding the History section from time to time and eventually the History section was occupying nearly a fourth of the article space(maybe more). Others, though not as prolific as Dinesh, kept adding content to the different sections. Then user:Amarrg came along and started adding content left, right and center. Nobody stopped him. Nobody stopped anybody, for that matter. And in less than a month and a half the article went from 35-40kb to 90+ kb. That is when we shut down and started working on prose, style etc.,.. And after a month of frenzied copyediting, the article was FA! (Admittedly though, it still has some prose and style issues which will be fixed in due course).

This seems to me to be the quickest and surest way to improve the article. Remember that the primary goal of an encyclopedia is to provide information. Everything else comes next. Sarvagnya 05:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum - Do a comparison of the statistics for Karnataka and India using the tool here. Scroll down all the way down to see the pattern of edits. Note the total number of edits on both articles. Karnataka has taken 2246 edits to India's whopping 13161 edits. Both articles were created within days of each other. Yes India might attract 10 times more vandalism as compared to Karnataka, but then the same is true also of the 'number of unique editors'. With all due respects to the likes of Nichalp, any which way we dissect and analyse the data, we see that several months have been wasted on the India article just resting on our laurels. Statistics can be interpreted in various ways, but I still dont think there is any justification for the fact that 9000+ 'major' edits later, the India article should be in the shape and size it is now. Sarvagnya 05:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Delighted that this hypothesized "toning down" granted you carte blanch to rhapsodize about how great literature is made. Perhaps you could return to the Karnataka article and start preparing for its next FAR and in your wake spin-off yet another generation of shimmering daughter articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Please don't remove my comment. If you can't understand figurative language, please don't assume it is nonsense. For an editor, such as yourself, whose ill-humored, carping, and nonsensical comments on these pages (including ones above directed at me), are a legion, it is presumptuous to decide what is nonsense. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea Sarvagnya! Wouldn't it be more prudent and fruitful to implement it on a user subpage, rather than the main article, which is in pretty good (though not unimprovable) condition to start with and is among the most viewed pages on wikipedia ? Abecedare 06:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

imo, doing it on the user subpage is not going to work because a user subpage can never attract the kind of attention that the article does. And in any case, like my edit summary said, I was 'thinking aloud' (above). If what I described above is too radical(it is not, imo), we could perhaps explore toning it down a bit. We'll perhaps go one section at a time. For example, it was pointed out that there is no section on sports. If we decide to have it, let us throw it open to editors to do what they want with it... in less than two weeks (or even a week, I'm sure) we'll have a pretty decent section on Sports. What say? Sarvagnya 06:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)`

Yes, this article must be expanded. Actually I was the person who posted about this matter some days back and I was told about of some nonsense WP:SS rules. If some one is interested one can see my comments above in Talk:India#Critical Attention all concerned associated with WP:IND.Amartyabag 12:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Expanding the text should not mean that we either abandon summary style or throw everything open. In particular, there are sections that are not included: Science and Technology, Law, and Sports are, for example, in the Germany FA and not in this one.

I think that the current sections can be expanded by at most a paragraph each, but that should be our last priority after writing new ones. Hornplease 12:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class India articles
• Top-importance India articles
• FA-Class India articles of Top-importance
• India portal selected articles
• WikiProject India articles