Talk:India/Archive 17

message: ===Questions by :===
I'd like all of us, especially those favoring the Toda image, to answer these questions.
*Are the Toda's the only Indians whose culture has been studied by foreigners?
*Is their contribution to Indian culture soooooooooo strong that when one mentions Indian culture, their name pops up?
*There are tribes of witches see here that survive throughout India in small numbers. Over the years they have formed a culture and traditions. Their population is tiny. If one follows Fowler's logic, are we justified in putting an image of witches dancing around a fire as representative of India's culture?
*If small groups like the Todas can have their image on Wiki, then why cant the Chenchus, Konda Reddis, Kolams, Naikpods, Nishis, Apa Tanis,Khovas, Sherdukpens, Monpas, and all other tribes listed here? Who decides that the Toda's are going to have their image on Wiki and not the other tribes?
*Instead of putting an image that applies to small small small minorities, wouldnt it make more sense to put an image of something that represents all of India (like Hinduism)?
*Some editors are trying to represent all parts of India in the images displayed. Are the Todas spread out throughout India? Are the Todas representative of even South India?
*If they dont deserve to be mentioned in the section, then do they deserve to have an image there?
*Should the Toda image be present in a summary of a section when they represent .0001% of what that section is discussing? 
*Aren't there images that would better represent Indian culture than the Toda hut? Is there a paucity of images relating to Diwali, Cricket, literature, cuisine, dress (all of which are mentioned in the section)?
===Reply to Nikkul questions===
The logic in most of your questions in flawed Nikkul. I will demonstrate the fallacies by posting similar questions for the other images:
*Is Gandhi the only major historical figure that has been studied by foreigners? Is the Indian peacock the only bird studied by foreigners?
*If the Agni missile system isn't mentioned in its own section, does it deserve to have an image there? If the Secretariat Building doesn't deserve to be mentioned in its own section, does it deserve to have an image there? If the Bombay Stock Exchange isn't mentioned in its own section, does it deserve to have an image there?
*Why should we have an image of the peacock when it is only one of the ~1260 species of birds in India (let alone the number of animals in total)
*Do the Ajanta caves and Gandhi represent ALL of Indian history? Do they represent the Mauryan Empire, the Chola Empire, every one of the Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts?
Do the Taj Mahal and Tagore represent ALL of Indian culture? Does the Taj Mahal represent Hindu temple architecture, Indian cuisine and dress? Does Tagore represent Hindi and South India literature?
*Nehru isn't mentioned in the history section? Why do we have an image of him?
Now to reply to some of your questions, if we put an image of Diwali or cricket, that in now way would mean it "represents" Indian culture. One image can never represent one aspect of India. An image can only be an example of that aspect of India. As of now, the Toda hut is an example of tribal Indian culture (and they comprise 8.1% of the total population) and an example of rural India (70%). It is not the only example of tribal and rural India, but if it is replaced it should be replaced with something that does exemplify at least rural India. There is a fairly strong urban bias at the moment. The only images that can essntially represent "all" of India are the maps. :) GizzaDiscuss © 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gizza, you have to realize that approximations are not transitive.  The number 10 is almost 15, which is almost 20, which is almost 25, et cetera, but that cannot let you make a statement that 10 is almost 1,000,000.  The Todas represent 0.0001%, you claim that this representation is approximately enough to represent the 8.1% tribal population, and you claim that the 8.1% tribal population is approximately enough to represent the 70% rural population, and you're implicitly claiming that this is enough to approximately represent all of India.  At each step you're okay, (although I still find how 0.0001% can represent even the 8.1% tribal population very suspect), but your conclusion uses broken logic when you try to tie the steps up through transitivity.  10 is not approximately 1,000,000 even if each number N is approximately N+1. That said, I don't think anyone here is claiming we should find a image that perfectly represents India.  The debate is over preferring pictures that are more representative of India by orders of magnitude than the Toda pic. It's not a bimodal "doesn't represent India"  vs "does represent India", it's about degree and see WP:WEIGHT for more info. -- Thoreaulylazy 16:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No DaGizza is not saying that the Toda dairy represents rural India because tribal India is an "approximation" of rural India, but rather that it represents rural India because tribal India is a part of rural India (or at least non-urban India).  The relation which DaGizza is talking about is not approximation, but rather inclusion, which has the transitive property.  I don't know why you keep making these ridiculous percentage arguments.  Who does Tagore represent?  How many Indians are upper-caste Bhadralok Bengalis who have won the Nobel Prize and written a national anthem or two?  Zero at the present moment.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: Irrelevant Picture in a Featured Country Article

message: The logic in most of your questions in flawed Nikkul. I will demonstrate the fallacies by posting similar questions for the other images:
*Is Gandhi the only major historical figure that has been studied by foreigners? Is the Indian peacock the only bird studied by foreigners?
*If the Agni missile system isn't mentioned in its own section, does it deserve to have an image there? If the Secretariat Building doesn't deserve to be mentioned in its own section, does it deserve to have an image there? If the Bombay Stock Exchange isn't mentioned in its own section, does it deserve to have an image there?
*Why should we have an image of the peacock when it is only one of the ~1260 species of birds in India (let alone the number of animals in total)
*Do the Ajanta caves and Gandhi represent ALL of Indian history? Do they represent the Mauryan Empire, the Chola Empire, every one of the Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts?
Do the Taj Mahal and Tagore represent ALL of Indian culture? Does the Taj Mahal represent Hindu temple architecture, Indian cuisine and dress? Does Tagore represent Hindi and South India literature?
*Nehru isn't mentioned in the history section? Why do we have an image of him?
Now to reply to some of your questions, if we put an image of Diwali or cricket, that in now way would mean it "represents" Indian culture. One image can never represent one aspect of India. An image can only be an example of that aspect of India. As of now, the Toda hut is an example of tribal Indian culture (and they comprise 8.1% of the total population) and an example of rural India (70%). It is not the only example of tribal and rural India, but if it is replaced it should be replaced with something that does exemplify at least rural India. There is a fairly strong urban bias at the moment. The only images that can essntially represent "all" of India are the maps. :) GizzaDiscuss © 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gizza, you have to realize that approximations are not transitive.  The number 10 is almost 15, which is almost 20, which is almost 25, et cetera, but that cannot let you make a statement that 10 is almost 1,000,000.  The Todas represent 0.0001%, you claim that this representation is approximately enough to represent the 8.1% tribal population, and you claim that the 8.1% tribal population is approximately enough to represent the 70% rural population, and you're implicitly claiming that this is enough to approximately represent all of India.  At each step you're okay, (although I still find how 0.0001% can represent even the 8.1% tribal population very suspect), but your conclusion uses broken logic when you try to tie the steps up through transitivity.  10 is not approximately 1,000,000 even if each number N is approximately N+1. That said, I don't think anyone here is claiming we should find a image that perfectly represents India.  The debate is over preferring pictures that are more representative of India by orders of magnitude than the Toda pic. It's not a bimodal "doesn't represent India"  vs "does represent India", it's about degree and see WP:WEIGHT for more info. -- Thoreaulylazy 16:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No DaGizza is not saying that the Toda dairy represents rural India because tribal India is an "approximation" of rural India, but rather that it represents rural India because tribal India is a part of rural India (or at least non-urban India).  The relation which DaGizza is talking about is not approximation, but rather inclusion, which has the transitive property.  I don't know why you keep making these ridiculous percentage arguments.  Who does Tagore represent?  How many Indians are upper-caste Bhadralok Bengalis who have won the Nobel Prize and written a national anthem or two?  Zero at the present moment.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Nikkul questions

message: please put Taj Mahal's Photo in Culture section........it is more good and a nice article can be written on it !(unsigned)
::::
What are you trying to say??? KnowledgeHegemony 17:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please put Taj Mahal's Photo 

message: Well, it has been a week after the RfC began.  I just read through all the comments.  I also wondered what high-school students in India are reading about culture.  As I had expected, their books were more sophisticated than I had thought.   Here is chapter 8 "Culture in India" from NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training) text-book, "Structure of Indian Society."  Notice the choice of words, "Culture in India," not "Culture of India."  Please read through the chapter.   This is not the New Series written after the change of government in India in 2005; the book was actually written in 2002 under the BJP government.  Notice, how much emphasis it places on Folk and Tribal culture. I will propose something later.  
  
Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PPS  As well as chapter 3: Social Institutions-Continuity and Change in the new series which talks about, caste, tribe, etc.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fowler, the book reference you provided is a book on sociolology that itself says it focusses on the basic structure of the Indian society and on the social change development in India (per chapter 1, pg 6, it doesn't say it looks into Indian culture. It describes Demograpic (ch2), Building blocks of Indian society,castes tribes etc (Ch 3), socio-cultural dimensions of the market as an institution, chapter 5 on social inequality, chapter 6 (pg 7 says) deals with the strength and weaknesses of cultural diversity (communal and casteist issue etc), it looks at community identity (p 116), ideas of secularity, communalism etc. It is not a study of culture . 
However,  you're right in that chapter 6 it tries to examplify what constitutes cultural aspects of the different communities of India, but if you see again, it uses pictures of food, clothes, religious events (festivals as I interpreted), etc. I might have overlooked, but I saw no mention of distinct rural or Urban culture. I think this is actually more supportive of the view that music food, dance, clothings, customs etc are more representative of culture than the image of the Toda hut.
If you're suggesting that the cultural diversity be expanded under different subheadings, that is not the point of the mediation (I think most editors agree the section deserves to be expanded, as does the article). I haven't looked through the link you provide, but The issue of the RfC is wether the image of the Toda hut is significant and representative enough to deserve as much space as it does over those of other more prominent stuff that exemplify cultural aspects of India, and if not should it not be replaced with these oter images. You do realise the end result of all this bickering has been a waste of time when somebody could have written a replacement text. I get the feeling there is more storms in teacup going on in this page because useful contibutions are being "disallowed". Also on the issue of FA status and article space, note that the Battle of Normandy is more than 1MB long.Rueben lys 00:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One week after the RfC and what high-school students in India are reading

message: I would also like the India page editors to look at this pagehistory utility.  Please type: India and then wait a few moments.  Notice that the total number of edits made by the "For Toda" team is almost ten times the total number of edits made by the "Against Toda" team.   Notice also the large number of drive-bys, i.e. people who don't really work much on the India page but every once in a while come by and make a big splash.  The last three disruptions have been caused by drive-bys.  Rueben lys, Priyanath, and Throreaulylazy.  When "in house" editors disagree like for example, Blacksun, or Indianstar, or others have done, it seldom causes any disruptions.  user:Sarvagnya is, of course, by now a serial drive-by, the sum total of whose contributions to the India page are two ugly sentences: "Many classical dance forms exist, including bharatanatyam, kathakali, kathak, kuchipudi, manipuri, odissi and yakshagana," and a similar beauty about festivals.     He held up work for many days in January with trying to get "yakshagana" in this list.   After all that I found out yesterday, while I was reading the Britannica article on South Asian arts that the Sangeet Natak Academy (the principal official organization for music, dance, and theater, confers classical status on Indian dances.  In the Britannica article which was from the late 70s only six dances were listed and Y. was not in it.  Casually perusing the SNA web site, I discovered that they now award annual awards and fellowships in nine dances: bharatanatyam, kathakali, kathak, kuchipudi, manipuri, odissi, sattariya, mohiniattam, and something called chau.  But Y. is not on that list.  I have written to them to ask for a reliable source for the classical status.  But my point remains: How come these people never want to help out with any real work? If this problem is not resolved, I see the India page getting bogged down in more and more recondite problems.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I need to dignify this benighted trash with a response?  oh.. sheesh.. i just did. lucky you!  huh. Sarvagnya 05:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a free for all. If you want to have your contributions feature in a developed article, you need to deliver quality. F&f may come accross as rude sometimes, but without his constant criticism, this article would look much, much more dilettantic. You should thank him. dab (𒁳) 11:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately for you sir, Wikipedia is a free for all to whoever wishes to make a constructive edit and nobody, not fowler not my dad not George Bush owns it. I can and I will contribute in a manner I am capable of. If it is not up to the standards expected, improve it. And he comes accross as rude not sometimes, but all the times.And I should thank him for what??? For repeatedly being disruptive and picking fights and deleting other users contribs williy nilly??? Rueben lys 11:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well said Nikkul 02:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: ..."I am not taking part in this discussion of the Toda Hut image anymore because I am too tired of it. If any poll of some sort comes up about images in the "Culture" section, bitte (German for please) count me in it by reading what I have put in earlier posts (e.g. Mysore Palace discussion and others). Thank you"June 15... Quote from mysore palace discussion: "my alternative would be to replace the Toda Hut image with the Sari fabric image, partially because of its FP status (which is not a requirement but certainly a bonus), because of its high relevency to the text, and because of the beauty of the picture itself."(hence user favors replacing image with mysore palace. Nikkul 02:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "I agree with Indianstar. There has been a lot of back and forth about which images are appropriate for the India page. One has to look revisit all the images on the India article. We can start with the what Indianstar has pointed out." he agreed with indiastar about what indiastar had said b4 "Current images does not fit relevance to contents and regional balance criteria.(E.g There are two tribal related images " when one agrees with another who opposes the image,he also opposes the image Nikkul 02:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the disruption being caused by the drive-bys?

message: I proposed nearly a month ago adding a new section on Science and technology. I haven't had any responses to that. I will wait for a couple of weeks and if no suggestions are put forward, I will use Science and Technology in India as a template to add a new section. Rueben lys 00:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to add information.  Addition of pertinent info can never be a bad thing for an encyclopedia... in fact, the whole point of an encyclopedia is to have information.  So, go ahead and add all you've got and we'll take it from there. Sarvagnya 06:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Rueben, count me in to make contributions to this section. I dont think you need to wait sufficiently to get things moving. Science and Technology is a must where we can talk of Vedic Mathematics, Raman Effect, Ayurveda and the like. I am a late entrant in this article but have been closely watching the goings on. I think its time to move on to better things than dog kennel (read Toda Hut) related discussions -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 16:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this needs to be discussed more.  I will sound out the others.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think we are ready for a religion section (or, in fact even a sub-section).  Many other things need to be stabilized first.  Anyway,  why don't we have a vote on it first?  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New section needed on Science and Technology

message: I propose adding a religion section which right now exists only as a part of demographics.  Religion is an integral part of human life; more so in India.  Also, India being the place where various streams of religious and philosophical thought coalesced, it makes sense to treat it at some length.  Religion in india is more than just the oft-repeated 80% hindu, 15% muslim, 2% christian and 3% - the rest statistic.  These religions (including the likes of Buddhism, Jainism have co-existed in India for over a thousand years, perhaps something that no other country in the world can claim.   Religion has dictated social and political thought processes in India since ages and continues to do so (this in fact, is true in almost every other part of the world, perhaps in varying degrees)  A crisp section, tracing the evolution and dynamics(social and political) of various strands of religious and philosophical thought will surely add to the quality of the article.  As also will some information of how the coming together of various religions led to enduring developments in the area of fine art, culture and philosophic thought.  The Karnataka article has Religion as a subsection of "Culture".. though it is far(very) from perfect, I feel it is a start and could perhaps serve as a template for the India article. Sarvagnya 06:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we are ready for a religion section (or, in fact even a sub-section).  Many other things need to be stabilized first.  Anyway,  why don't we have a vote on it first?  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion section

message: Jewellry should be Jewelry  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.174.121 (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misspellings 

message: For those wondering about the image. The dwelling in question is located within the city limits of Mumbai in the Sanjay Gandhi National Park on the way to the Kanheri Caves. Tribals do inhabit the park. So this is for all those out there who feign their ignorance about tribal India. Fowler's guess is pretty close, and the lush environs is because it was taken in the month of August. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's amazing! I'm impressed by the raised foundations and the shingled roofs. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This has nothing to to with tribes or 'tribal india'.  Houses like this with tiled roofs are commonly found all over the south(i havent seen much of north, so i dont know) both in rural and urban(outskirts) areas.  A more 'affluent' (and 'two-storeyed') version of the same type of 'building' would look like this or this.  The two pictures are from Chikkamagalur in Malnad where these houses with tiled roofs is the norm.  In fact, it is the signature style of all of Malnad.  Such constructions are equally common in Kerala and some parts of rural Tamil Nadu and Andhra. Sarvagnya 01:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Malnad a hill station?  I ask because such construction, especially of the kind shown in your photographs, would typically (in north and northeast India) be associated with hill-stations, and would likely be a British influenced style. (If I had to guess the provenance of the buildings, in your first photograph, I'd say 1930s British inspired.)  It is found hill rural areas as well, but that too is a budget version of the urban style.  The rural style (as seen in late 19th century British photographs of Himalayan villages) was different.  Anyway, very interesting.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: PS And no, neither Nichalp nor I was implying that the style had anything to do with tribal India, I was just expressing surprise that it has appeared in tribal India in the first place.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Malnad is a generic term used to refer to all those districts of Karnataka that fall in the Western Ghats.  Yes, hills, streams, waterfalls and coffee estates dot the landscape wherever you go; Karnataka's tallest peaks are in the region(in fact, quite close to Chikkamagalur) but Chikkamagalur for example, isnt usually counted as a hill 'station' like Ooty or Darjeeling.  Madikeri's got to be Karnataka's most popular/famous 'hill station'.  As for that style of construction, its typical of all of Malnad, even the non-hilly parts of Malnad.. like coastal Mangaluru.  And even outside Malnad, the style is quite common in rural areas of Karnataka and the rest of Southern India. Sarvagnya 05:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tribal house 

message: To: Rueben lys, Dab, Dwaipayan, Nichalp, Da Gizza, Abecedare, Sarvagnya, Hornplease, Knowledge-Hegemony, Priyanath, any others I might have missed.  I thought it might be good to get our minds of the bickering and focus on something else: History.  As many of you probably know the new NCERT books (for high-school students in India) for history and other fields have been coming out for some time now.  They were written up in the New York Times about a month ago.  They are available 
free on-line (go to: http://www.ncert.nic.in and then look for online textbooks) and I have added links to a number of chapters below.  Obviously, they are not reliable secondary sources, but they are based on reliable secondary sources; just go to the last page and see their references.   It seems that after 60 years of independence, (as with the Indian economy), the official historiography in India, after many ideological incarnations, finally has been floated on the market of international scholarship.  For example, in the Indus Valley Civilization chapter, there is no more of the tongue twisting mumbo-jumbo of Saraswati-Sindhu-Gagghar-Hakra.  It is simply Harappan or Indus.  Same with many of the other topics.  No more the "First war of independence," it is now simply the "Revolt of 1857."  Finally also, after 60 years, there is a belated acknowledgment of the partition and its emotional cost.  I am leaving them for perusal below.  Their structure is not always linear, and they don't always focus on one topic, but they still might be useful as a general benchmark.  It would be great if you could take a look at them, and feel free to leave comments about how Wikipedia might benefit from them.  They are quite sophisticated for high-school.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would serve only to undermine Wikipedia's credibility if High school level textbooks are used as reference. There have also been newspaper reports about various inaccuracies in these books. In any case, I suggest NOT to use school level textbooks as references in any form here, when we have a sea of scholarly references available. Thanks. --Ragib 02:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: See NCERT controversy. Not that the new books mentioned by Fowler fall under this, but NCERT books, like the school text books in most South Asian countries, are often re-written according to the current Government. Also, this shows that NCERT books are often not RS, as they contain misstatements. So, it is urgent that we keep ourselves limited to scholarly work when looking for references. --Ragib 09:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of the "NCERT controversy". Just because the BJP government turned "education" into a farce doesn't necessarily mean each subsequent government is doing the same. We'll have to rely on academic reviews of these books just as for any other publication. dab (𒁳) 10:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: let's wait until we can cite some reviews of these books. If they are good, we can cite them here. If they are just another round in childish state propaganda, we can cite them at NCERT controversy. Deciding this is up to academic reviewers, not to us. dab (𒁳) 15:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New NCERT Books and History Section

message: It's for a long time the Taj image is there. I am replacing it with the Bodh Gaya image. Give an opportunity to readers to know about the other Indian architectures. 
Chanakyathegreat 12:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your change.  The Taj Mahal is an icon of Indian culture.  Perhaps you want to petition for your image to be ADDED, but I can't see there being consensus for the removal of the Taj Mahal. 13:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: readers interested in Indian architecture are advised to visit Indian architecture (doh). --dab (𒁳) 15:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I respectfully disagree, on many levels.  Bodhgaya is not as iconic as the Taj Mahal.  If it is, you need reference to back that up.  My assertion is backed by the fact that the current consensus, as determined by the historical record of this article, indicates that the Taj Mahal is among the most important icons of Indian culture.  If something is the most important, or best, or whatever the criteria is for having an image in an article, then there will be one image that meets those criteria best.  That will most likely not change with time.  The concept of "rotation" is simply broken.  The article should be in its best shape possible every time someone visits it-- not arbitrarily changing from time to time. Rangek 19:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I did not say that Bodhgaya was not notable, or important, or anything.  I merely said it is not as iconic as the Taj Mahal.  Not having the Taj Mahal image on the India page is like having an article on lions without a picture of a male lion with a full mane.  Most lions don't have manes, but that picture of the dominant male with a full mane is what people think of first when they think lion.  As dab stated above, "readers interested in Indian architecture are advised to visit Indian architecture".  Rangek 16:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacing Taj image 

message: (To KnowledgeHegemony), why is improving on what we already have a hindrance to adding new stuff? If somebody (or a few editors) start cleaning up the article for prose etc, why does everyone else have to stand back and lose creativity? Do you see how the WP:CONSENSUS interpretation and team work in this article has destroyed its wikiness on which it relied to reach the very FA status that the "core" editors are trying to protect? It is bordering on a group ownership. Consensus can be good thing only when applied wisely. There is a difference between being protective and being possesive. I am honestly concerned.Rueben lys 23:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the page needs most in light of the recent RfC (continued) 

message: This article is all that Wiki should not be.
* This article is being owned, possessed, protected, squatted by a "core group" of editors who do not want to involve any one else into making improvements to this article. They are willing to change their loyalties in the manner of "I also supported this idea few days, months, years back, but I do not think it is a good idea now", just to be disruptive and ensure constant opposition to change
* You need to beg, salute, plead these editors for any changes you want to make.
* The attitude of these set of editors is demotivating and alienates many editors who may have genuinely good suggestions and comments on improving the article. It is a pity that admins take no note of constant personal taunts and put-downs that some editors here are involved in.
* Most of what is talked is gibberish and nonsensical and a plain effort towards disruption
* People want to spend GBs on discussion on whether a sentence needs to be added to the article - such a waste of time and energy.
* Childish Wikitalk on you better agree to me, else I will be pushing everything to Rfc, ANI or ArbCom gives a feeling of what the heck...
Good bye guys, I have better things to do on Wikipedia article mainspaces than to get involved myself in this nonsense. The constant opposition is simply not worth the effort. Hopefully (that is a big hope), when things are better in future, may be I would be willing to contribute to this article. Till then, enjoy your fights and bickerings over few bits of data. Believe me, I will be shocked if my rotation idea sees the light of the day. Anyways, I am not bothered, fortunately Wikipedia gives me other good avenues for satisfaction. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I'm an American citizen living far far away from India (Los Angeles) but I think I know what Indian Bureaucracy feels like after spending time on this page. lol Nikkul 07:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do have to agree. Comments such as this: "As I have said repeatedly earlier, there are lots of India-related pages that need help, and yet, you still keep insisting on working on a page that is a long-standing featured article and doesn't need help; why don't you help with the pages that need help?"  are not encouraging. There was also mention that we should stop editing the article since it has already gotten featured(its in the archives somewhere, i couldnt find it but its there). I do think that a couple of editors feel they own the page. I think certain admins are themselves involved in sarcastic taunts. If you'd like I can def find proof. I think the few editors who feel they own the page dont want to see change. And I think they value certain things like featured image status over relevance. I def see alliances . I dont see how anything will get done if we just point to the archives. Nikkul 07:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for quoting me. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why doesn't anything make sense in this article 

message: I posted above too, but since this page has a habit of getting GB of new text per day I am posting it here too:
I do not like the Tagore image. I personally find it dull and showing the picture of the person has ZERO utility. Maybe a good image that depicted a famous work by him, but who the hell cares what he looked like in context of the culture text? There are far better choices than Tagore image, including the Toda image. The RFC was never FOR the Tagore image and I personally did not vote for its inclusion when I voted against Toda image. --Blacksun 09:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  How about replacing Tagore with Sakyamuni Siddhartha Gautama, which is a near-feature picture quality image?  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Tagore image does not gel well with the rest of the page. It seems abrupt and out of place. --Keynes.john.maynard 14:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Tagore image emphatically meets WP:IMAGE#Image choice and placement: "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)" and the placing of images "near relevant text". The Buddha image doesn't come close, in a section where Buddhist iconography, sculpture, or worship isn't even hinted at. And there is nothing at WP:IMAGE that recommends featured or near-featured images at all, much less over relevant and notable images placed near relevant text. ॐ Priyanath talk 23:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagore image does not make sense 

message: The sentence on classical dance forms in the Culture section of the India page was changed sometime last November to include Yakshagana: 
Reliable sources, however, consider Yakshagana to be Folk Theatre and not Classical Dance.  According to the signed Encyclopaedia Britannica article, Sivaramamurti, Calambur, J. A. B. van Buitenen, Edward C. Dimock, C.M. Naim, A.K. Ramanujan, Nazir Ali Jairazbhoy, Balwant Gargi, Pramod Chandra.   "South Asian arts: Techniques and Types of Classical Dance" From: Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 12 Oct. 2007, "Four distinct schools of classical Indian dance—bharata-natya, kathakali, kathak, and manipuri—exist in the 20th century ... In 1958 the Sangeet Natak Akademi (National Academy of Music, Dance and Drama) in New Delhi bestowed classical status on two other schools of dance—kuchipudi, from Andhra Pradesh, and orissi, from Orissa."  Yakshagana is not in that list. The Britannica article was written in 1979 (so it is dated) in terms of what might be the classical dance forms in 2007, as designated by the Sangeet Natak Academy; however, in the section "South Asian arts: Folk Theatre" it does say:
The Sangeet Natak Academi website itself says, (see here): 
Lastly, the Sangeet Natak Academi website lists eight classical dance forms: Bharatanatyam, Kathak, Kathakali, Kuchipudi, Manipuri, Mohiniattam, Odissi, and Sattriya, one folk dance form, Chau, and Creative Dance/Choreography as the areas it makes its major national awards in (see here).  Since both Britannica and the Official SNA consider Yakshagana Folk Theatre and not Classical Dance, I am removing it from the list of classical dances in the Culture section.  If and when there is a section or paragraph devoted to the "Folk and Tribal Culture of India," we can reconsider its inclusion.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yakshagana is a classical folk art form and it includes dance among other things such as music, spoken word etc. Thanks, - KNM  Talk 16:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I understand that.  But the reliable sources, consider it Tradition and Folk Theatre and not Classical Dance.  Tradition and folk theatre includes dance and music, and many others like Jathra, Prahalad Natak, Therukoothu are just as old.  (See yakshagana.com and click on "introduction." and read quote: "Being a theatre form, unlike a dance form, it is more plural(istic) and dynamic.") Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy solution would be to add text about tradition and folk theater.  It is definitely culture worthy.  --Blacksun 23:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Yakshagana]] 

message: Rueben states: "(Undid revision by User:Blacksun. Per wiki, WP:VERIFY, and WP:OWN, WP:BOLD (per talk page banner) these were justified and desirable edits)"
Let us take few examples of Rueben's justified and desirable edits:
1) Science and technology in India forms a major commitemnet for both the Govt and Private sector in India.
Even if we ignore the obvious typo, what the hell is that sentence supposed to mean?  How is that even remotely a quality sentence?
::It is supposed to mean that both the government and private sector have made the improvement of sceince and technology infrastructure as a major goal. I think it is pretty self-evident!Rueben lys 11:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, the word forms should be changed to is or has become. The setence you wrote above explains it better than the current sentence. GizzaDiscuss © 11:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim is made by the High commission of India in London, which claims it is the third largest in the world, and gives those exact figures. So you're alleging  that the India government is lying, or dont know anything about this but still making a fuss.Rueben lys 11:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I actually do claim that the High commissioner is not a credible source then.  If we did have one of the largest scientific infrastructure and manpower, we would not be so far behind in the matter where it counts: patents, peer reviewed journal publications, and number of PHDs.  Just because the High Commission of India in London says something does not make it true. I am sure one can come up with irrelevant statistic but the fact is that we are fairly behind in current science if you consider the most widely used metrics: Publication and citations of those publications.  Ignoring this is nothing short of dubious.  If you do not believe me just open the recent Nature journal article where they are talking about state of Russian science.  In it they have a nice list of countries and metrics associated with their status in Science.  We were not doing that great.  --Blacksun 01:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the shoddy sentence structure refers to argest scientific and technological infrastructure and manpower. I don't believe you can have a "large infrastructure" and "large manpower" but rather a "lot of manpower" and "highly developed infrastructure." Also why the comparisons from 1947 (Just curious, we could use 1997 data for example) GizzaDiscuss © 11:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The sentence says "one of the largest", which probaby could be changed to "amongst the largest". Or incorporate your text instead.Incidentally, the comparisn is to 1947 figures because that was the only figure found on the HCI website to be compared to.Rueben lys 11:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, sourced from the [dst.gov.in Dept of Science and Technology] of the government of India.Rueben lys 11:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: While nobody is going to claim that the passage was FA quality or even anywhere near FA-quality, I certainly see 'potential' in it.  The additions certainly dont qualify as nonsense and I would certainly give passages like that atleast a few days to a couple of weeks before I nuke them.  This is the kind of 'revert on sight' that has put off people from contributing to this article for over a year now.  This article has remained immutable for far too long and its time we got a little WP:bold and see how it goes.  There is always a stable version we can rollback to if we lose our way. Sarvagnya 01:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed before - I am sure Fowler can dig it up.  Some of the most respected editors and biggest names on Wikipedia were of the opinion that massive changes like this to a stable FA article like India should be talked on the discussion page first.  In fact, I think I was one of the few who was not too happy with it.  The changes made are nothing short of drastic and POOR QUALITY (saying its not near-FA quality is being generous).  It is not reverse on sight - I never reverse things unless it is completely out of place.  --Blacksun 01:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a science and technology section was proposed on this very page a few days ago and didnt meet with any extraordinary opposition.  So there certainly is reason to think that people are not opposed to the idea, atleast 'in principle'.  And there are always going to be some 'to set the ball rolling' edits which will be less than perfect.  That is no reason to revert them or we'll never set the ball rolling.  If everyone here could just take a deep breath and hold tight for a couple of weeks to a month, there will be 'material' changes in the article for the better.  A short-term state of flux and temporary bloat in the article is inevitable if we have to expand/improve the article.  Its time we came up with a 'new and improved' Wikipedia India article 2.0  And with all due respect to the likes of Nichalp, while there are good edits and bad edits, but there are no "biggest names" in wikipedia, atleast not in this context.  Also, the "no edits without discussion" line has been refuted several times already.  Short of changing wikipedia's very fundamentals, such arbitrary moratoria on adding info to the article dont fly.  Sarvagnya 01:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason that a reader should suffer through bad quality for "a week or month" when the same process can be done without that happening.  There is a very good reason why we have tools like sandbox.  Also, when you state "While nobody is going to claim that the passage was FA quality or even anywhere near FA-quality" - I beg to differ - Rueben finds them desirable and justified as per his edit summary.  Why should I have any faith in either of you? - If you were looking for a unified way towards working on expanding the article, you just lost one supporter. And no, I did not mean Nichalp when I said "biggest names" in wikipedia.  --Blacksun 01:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And there is no reason why an article shouldnt be used as a sandbox once in a while(like once in two years or something).  There is a very good reason we have  tags meant for article space on wiki.  Feel free to use them.  A sandbox is very useful when creating articles from scratch.  I use it all the time.  But in some cases, where there are more people standing by and willing(hopefully) to contribute, there is no reason to invoke wiki-red tape and not 'build' it where constructive criticism will be forthcoming real time.  Also, given the history of ownership on this article, no editor is going to spend weeks in his sandbox, do his very best, bring it over here for display only for his contributions to be summarily dismissed.  Edits with potential are meant to be fixed, not reverted; atleast not without giving them a fair chance. Sarvagnya 02:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very hard to give constructive criticism when edits have been made to almost every section of a stable FA article.  It becomes even that much harder when the edits have typos and unverifiable claims.  On top of all that when you defend such edits as desirable and justfied you end up with even less room for cooperation.--Blacksun 02:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Blacksun.  The changes being made are ridiculous, unsourced, and shabby.  I only reverted only once because it seemed that Otolemur wouldn't take no for an answer.  I am glad Blacksun reverted his edits in toto.   Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Otelmur shouldn't have to take no for an answer. His edits had a good reference, the main article had afew reference, quite simple to read through and add to this one. I am terribly concerned now in light of Fowler's earier comment above about having to read a book or have a scholarly degree in something before being allowed to write. Wikipedia is a wiki, it is not a conference of  Neurosurgeons nor the journal Nature that only Albert Einstein and his student should be allowed to "publish".Rueben lys 11:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What's left to say folks. This page is soon going into the dumps. The only thing that makes sense to me is the India/Sandbox solution.
As for the subsectioning:
Personally, I am not happy with these developments:( If you want to include subsections everywhere or else remove subsections. But if that is what people want then History, Politics, Culture, Government, Geography should also have subsections.KnowledgeHegemony 13:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm also concerned about the possessiveness being shown to this article. Yes, the recent addition has typos and poor writing, but is definitely worth considering, rather than dismissing out of hand. Articles do improve when new editors are welcomed rather than attacked. Even though this is a FA, it's a very poor one, and needs a fresh look. So what if it gets messy, that's Wikipedia. And the article is improving with the recent attention it's been receiving. ॐ Priyanath talk 17:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bloated articles is not necessarily improved. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. One with more references, and information that is less vague and listy are the improvements I've seen so far. ॐ Priyanath talk 19:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simply Ridiculous 

message: I looked at a bunch of country pages and it seems at least in my sample they split two to one between those that have subsections and those that don't.  Here they are with some parenthetical remarks of mine.
;With subsections:
*United_States#toc (long-ish) (the structure copied by Otelemur)
*Germany#toc  (FA) (long-ish)
*France#toc (long-ish)
*United_Kingdom#toc (sub-sub-sections!) (long-ish)
*New_Zealand#toc (reasonable length)
*Belgium#toc  (FA) (reasonable length)
*People%27s_Republic_of_China#toc (Former FA) (reasonable length)
*Brazil#toc (reasonable length)
*Argentina#toc (very long)
*Mexico#toc (too long)
*Russia#toc (sub-sub-sections!)
;Without subsections:
*Canada#toc  (FA)
*Australia#toc  (FA)
*Pakistan#toc (tourism, holiday, sports)  (FA)
*Bangladesh#toc  (FA)
*Peru#toc  (FA)
I am personally against subsections altogether.  The reason for this is that when topics are covered in paragraphs only, but not in subsections, the writer has to pay attention to coordination between paragraphs, has to develop broad themes for comparison (rather than saying in sub-section 8 above).  Consequently the prose is tighter (more coherent).
However, I also realize that sometimes there is a need for sub-sections.  If a section too long then an average reader usually prefers some guidance in the form of subsections, and I'd like to hear what others think.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Subsections make a particular section more easily understandable. For example in the section 'Economy', creating subsections titled 'Income, human development, and social class' and 'Science, technology, and transportation' would split a particular topic in more specialized parts; through the first subsection it would be easy to find the human development of that particular economy and in the next subsection it would be easy to find the factors behind the economy namely technology and transport. However, 'Science and technology' can be created as a separate section as in the articles Belgium (FA), Argentina etc. because science and technology plays a key role in determining the country's society, economy, foreign relations and even politics. 'Tourism' also can be created as a separate section. But the subsections in this article should be concise and to-the-point as detailed discussion will be in the main articles. And sub-sub-sections should not be created as this makes the topic unnecessarily complicated and lengthy. Otolemur crassicaudatus 10:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a travel guide.  As such, sections on tourism on a country page are almost always frowned upon.  Furthermore, having too many subsections can be noisy too.  They should be used only when their is a real need to do so.  --Blacksun 10:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Making a separate tourism section does not convert wikipedia into a traveller's manual. However I agree with your point of view that separate tourism section should not be created on a country page. This will make the article unnecessarily lenghty. As tourism is a part of a country's economy, so very concisely and to-the-point one or two lines about the tourism industry can be added in the Economy section. But subsections 'Income, human development, and social class' and 'Science, technology, and transportation' in the 'Economy' and 'Language', 'Religion', 'Education and health' in 'Demographics' section are needed. These subsections split the relevant sections into more specialised parts and make the topics more easily understandable. Otolemur crassicaudatus 11:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, lets see if we can agree on a few things.  Ottolemur, what Blacksun is saying is that a page like this, which on my screen, shows four sub-sub-sections on one page, is a bit of an overkill.  Don't you agree?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fowler&fowler (talk • contribs) 12:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: OK.  (That, BTW, was just an example.  It doesn't really matter that they are subsubsections, the point is that had they been subsections, visible four to a page, they would have created a lot of clutter.)  Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that we should never have subsections, just that there should be a minimal length for them and if they fail to be that length, they should really be absorbed in the main text.  Yesterday, I created an experimental edit which I immediately reverted for this purpose.  Please look at this section.  Do you agree that anything shorter than this Indian Independent Movement section (which would then allow more than two subsection headers to be displayed on the page) would really be too short for its own independent sub-section?  That is obviously my opinion, but I think we can arrive at some length principle like that.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the suggestions, but these are not recommended by Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. Instead of including all such information here, could you help the relevant articles instead? Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why subsections should or shouldn't be created