Talk:India/Archive 16

message: First, thanks Fowler&Fowler for the excellent effort. This page you have created would help immensely to build up the independence movement section in History of India, and also will help organizing the Indian independence movement article. Properly structuring History of India and IIM articles will help summarizing in India article. This approach is really praiseworthy.
Now, regarding the content of the page. We have to remember the content of the page is primarily intended for those two articles (History of India, and IIM), so coverage should include non-mainstream staffs as well. IMO, the "sporadic killing of British official" during Swadeshi movement is sufficient to cover revolutionary movements of early twentieth century. However, this non-mainstream movements need some more sentences later on also (1920s and 1930s).
In addition, movements for Indian independence from outside of India needs a mention. This include, probably among other things, Ghadar party and Indian National Army. Regarding the leaders named, I feel two more may be named,  Patel and Bose. Some staffs may be deleted, such as Gokhale's view on Hindu marriage. Otherwise, the page is a nice read, and gives a quite readable gist of the independence movement.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a section on Bose; Patel, however, really belongs to post-Independent India, and I'll let someone else work on it.  Still mulling over the Ghadar party.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Fowler's efforts are commendable. But I will say that Dwaipayan makes a valid point about noting the extremist movement around 1912-1915, especially Ghadar. The second point is that I dont think Quit India was crushed in six weeks (I may be wrong here, I will check), and the last point is the INA trials and Bombay mutiny.Rueben lys 20:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I will be adding footnotes soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bose section you added needs some shortening. For example, I doubt if women's Rani of Jhansi regiment really needs to mentioned in "History of India" article or even the IIM article. And the larger than life sentence, obviously, needs to be deleted. Otherwise, the section reads ok. However, durig integration into "History of India" article, it will need further reduction.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now integrated the comments of Dwaipayan and Rueben lys into the text.  The reduction of the text for use in different articles can be accomplished later.  I'd like to know first if we have an agreement on the content.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  I have incorporated your queries by either clarifying or changing the previous version.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will agree that it is a very good piece of work. But afew points very briefly:
*with regards to the INA trial, it says the decision for public trial was taken in 1946, I am quite certain the decision for INA trial was taken in 1945, before the end of the war, while the decision was announced in September (I believe, leading to the formation of the INA defence committee)*
*The trials began in November (Not being a nitpicker, but thought I should point this out). 
*The last thing,with regards to the mutinies, can it be somehow be summaries that the effects of nationalism (INA trials), racism, and rapid growth during the war played a key role in the mutinies by the Indian troops?
*Also,the first and major trial preceded the mutnies in chronology and context.
sincere apologies if this seems like nitpicking, but thought I should point these out. But I think Fowler has done a wonderful job here.Rueben lys 00:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Nice job F&f! Although it may require a few tweaks here and there for clarity, I think the content and references provide a solid foundation for improvements in the Indian independence movement -> History of India -> India articles. I agree with Dwaipayan below that the logical next steps would be to (1) expand the IIM section in the History of India article and (2) add the references that F&F and Rueben have dug up to current content in the IIM article. How does that sound ? Abecedare 02:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  Please let me know what is not clear (either here or on my talk page).  Please also see my reply to Dwaipayan below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS.  Actually please leave more detailed comments at the sub-page's talk page here.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fowler's [[User:Fowler&fowler/Short History Indian Independence Movement|Short history of IIM]] page

message: I propose to start organizing the Independence movement section in History of India. With Fowler's creation acting as a backbone,   this shall not pose a big challenge. i would request Fowler to go ahead and do it. And a request, Fowler, please do not tag the page as Under construction for such a long time as in the case of Partition of India!! Just kidding :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, whoa.  I am not done yet! :)  I'm busy these days, and typically only able to do drive-by edits; so, it will take another day or two before the text reads smoothly and the references are all in place.   (I will do that on my sub-page.)  Also, I've written the history as a sequence of topics, which I (or others) feel should be touched on. Eventually, transitional sentences etc. will be needed.  So, for now, if you have content or clarity issues, i.e. you feel something is needed or not needed, please let me know; likewise, if something is not clear, please let me know. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know you are not done yet :) And it is a mammoth task. Still, I showed some urgency. IMO, a whole lot of energy and time are misdirected during the talk page discussions and disagreements. Now that such a constructive effort has come into being, I cannot wait to see the result! Well, many more disagreements may come in our way in future. However, starting the job in itself is effective and rewarding. Also, History of India is due for an FAC in not-so-near future :) Regards. And thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Next action plan

message: This is regarding the sub-page that is being created.  I understand that it is not final yet but I have to strongly advise against using such terms.  Their is a very popular saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." News organizations throughout the world take extreme care at using this word.  For instance, Reuters has a policy of not using the word but simply reporting the facts and letting the readers judge.  It is strongly pushing your PoV to use such sensitive terms.  One can argue almost all revolutions had a terrorist aspect to it.  That does not mean we go and label French revolution as French terrorism.  The word terrorism is highly ambiguous and has a very uneven history of usage.  I hope people stay away from this can of worms and we do not have to waste another five thousand lines of debate.  --Blacksun 12:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replied to your post on the talk page of the sub-page here Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also see a more detailed quote here.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Using the word "terrorists"

message: I think the Taj Mahal photo belongs better in the History section than in the Culture section.  The main article "History of India" shows the Taj Mahal photo, but the main article "Culture of India" doesn't display it.  By 'main article', I mean the articles listed as such in the respective sections of the India page. Comments? -- Thoreaulylazy 22:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Taj Mahal

message: I should like to remind people that two weeks ago, doubts were being expressed, for example by user:Sarvagnya, about the authenticity of the Toda image, whether it really was even that of a hut, since its door was deemed by the doubters to be too small for any adult human to enter.  After I provided references testifying to the smallness of the Toda doors in general, and the sacred dairy doors in particular, that line of questioning died down.  However, soon the refrain changed to one of wonderment about why architectural features were being mentioned in the Toda caption, when none were mentioned in the the Taj Mahal caption.  Well, guess why?! I am therefore changing the Toda image caption to one that addresses their contribution not only to the culture of India, and the culture of the world, but culture in its most general anthropological sense, i.e. "the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another."  The Todas, along with the Andamanese, were two of the foundational cultures of the field of Social Anthropology, through the works of two of its founders W. H. R. Rivers and A. R. Radcliffe-Brown.  In addition, the Toda's preeminent art form, extempore song, was important in the creation of the new field of Ethnomusicology in the 1980s.  Before you rush to throw that Wikipedia rule book at me and accuse me of POV, OR, etc. etc., be aware that all this is well documented, in the caption itself and I will be adding more references to the Toda people page. In addition, during the last decade, the Toda have become the center of an effort at culturally sensitive environmental restoration.  I have provided references for that on my subpage: User:Fowler&fowler/The Toda.  I would also like to remind the new generation of critics who are now quoting UNDUE WEIGHT etc. (and I don't mean user Thoreaulylazy, whose acumen I rather enjoyed) that 11 of the 15 country Feature Articles on Wikipedia, take an approach of combining "High Culture" and "Folk Culture" as the combination of the "Taj" and "Toda" images does.  (Only 3 or 4 of the country FAs take an approach like that of United Kingdom: Culture being touted by user:Priyanath.)  Perhaps you would like to throw the rule book at them too.  Here, by the way, in collapsible box format, is the list of those country pages:
Expand to see culture in 11 of the 15 country FAs:
of the 15 country Featured Articles other than India, only three or four focus on "high culture" in their pictures, the rest (11) are more like India:
*Canada: Culture (First image is of a Kwakwaka'wakw totem pole and traditional "big house" in Victoria, BC.  Note that the Kwakwaka'wakw have a total population of 5,500 and a total of 250 speakers of their language.  The other image is of a Mountie ...)
*South Africa: Culture (1) Robbin Island (now a UNESCO WHS) and 2)Decorated houses, Drakensberg Mountains)
*Pakistan: Society and culture (Kite flying in Lahore) 
*Nepal:Culture 
*Bangladesh: Culture
*Belgium:Culture (One picture each for "Fine arts" and "Folklore")
*Cambodia: Culture and Society (In spite of the many available images of Angkor Wat, they chose a picture of the "exterior of the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum, Phnom Penh."
*Cameroon: Culture
*Chad: Culture
*Indonesia: Culture 
*Libya: Culture
One more, Japan, is sort of in the middle:
*Japan: Culture and recreation (one illustration of the well-known wood-block print accompanied by text: "Japanese arts include crafts (ikebana, origami, ukiyo-e, dolls, lacquerware, pottery), ..."
Two, others, (not FAs), demonstrate other approaches:
*Myanmar: Culture
*New Zealand: Culture
  Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Fowler, but the Undue Weight has to do with a comparison to other much more relevant images that express truly relevant images of India's great Culture. See my comments above. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: @Fowler - It doesn't really matter what the other FAs are doing - your argument is akin in fallacy to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  The Behnam 22:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Toda and Culture

message: Both the newly-minted FA Peru and an older one Germany have "labeled area maps" in their "States" or "Regions" sections: See Peru#Regions and Germany#States.  These maps allow the user to click on a state, region, or even a city and go directly to its page.  The Germany page Germany#States has the Wiki-code for this (I believe).  Could someone look into doing this for India#Subdivisions.  I think it would be very helpful.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Labeled Area Templates

message: Article has sections, but no subsections at all. Try restructure. Readability will be better if article is in tree structure, theoritically. Thanks. Lara_bran 14:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Negative. This is a summary of main articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Positive. Though, I am not quite sure about implementing a tree structure but restructuring is important. Like moving Geography above subdivisions.
A good example of Headings and sub-headings is the Brazil article. --KnowledgeHegemony 18:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brazil is not featured, and also see the comments logged for this article's FAC. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Atleast its a GA. Its GA only because of poor prose and not because of structuring. KnowledgeHegemony 07:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least 1-2 sections should have subsections, if not all (like Brazil). Currently article makes me frown when i look at the contents table. Thanks. Lara_bran 03:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A compact toc makes the article much neater. Besides featured articles are wikipedia's best, on showcase. GA are not, and should never be used a comparison metric. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article is flat 

message: I have removed two of Nikkul's horribly photoshopped images. They are far from naturally looking and to my best option they look disgusting. =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One who tries to improve an article is better that one who complains about other' attempts. If you think they look disgusting, why dont u use your 'professional' skills rather than compain about it. Nikkul 18:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to bait me? Wikipedia is not the place to try extraordanary skills. Adding clouds to the BSE image etc... This is not the appropriate forum for such creative work. Please use flickr or deviant art as a test bed instead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Nikkul, I just read your dialogue with the owner of the NorthBlockNewDelhi image, and I was really impressed with how you worked out the licensing with him! I do think the non-photoshopped versions are better for encyclopedic content though. Brightness/contrast adjustments are fine, but beyond that might give people a different impression than if they were physically there. -- Thoreaulylazy 23:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Nikkul. I think you efforts were misdirected rather than malicious. Abecedare 19:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Please get this straight Nikkul. We are an encyclopedia, not a site for eye-catching images. If we can muster an encyclopedic image which is also eye-catching, that's always a bonus. You attempts to photoshop went overboard. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to say but 'Nikkul- bashing' is how this Talkpage works and will be working (thats what I make of my stay on Wikipedia). You'll have to get used to it. Don't be discouraged. Just keep on moving. (But I must say, your removal of important stuff from the lead under the disguise of "grammar" was very disappointing)KnowledgeHegemony 14:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Knowledge. Actually, I was correcting grammar and stuff and then I previewed it and before i saved it i saw that I could make other changes in the actual words and once i got into it, i wanted to save the information. my appologies. anyway, i'll be adding the pictures soon. Nikkul 21:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed horribly Photoshopped images 

message: Considering the incessant disputes and accompanying tags, shouldn't be remove featured article status from this article? Some sections aren't even well-sourced.  The Behnam 16:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I advise you to read Copy editing and sourcing.      Since we need volunteers, perhaps you would like to volunteer to copy-edit a section like "Government."   As for the tags, they went on this morning.  But since you seem to be convinced that it doesn't deserve its FA status, why don't you request a review (with a view to eventual decommissioning of FA status) at Wikipedia:Featured article review?   Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm more concerned that an article with continued long-standing disputes has been left in FA status.  The Behnam 21:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any significant disputes. There's a lot of talk, but mostly about minor issues. dab (𒁳) 21:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that I view the months-long image discussions as somewhat major since pictures can say a lot.  The Behnam 23:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why you are shying away from asking for the review.  My understanding is that it is the only way to de-feature the article.  I am inviting to get the ball rolling.  Why the reticence now? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ludicrous. None of the disputes claimed have anything in violation with the salient points of WP:WIAFA. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:WIAFA..."It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject" - considering that images have long been disputed we can't be certain about this criterion.  The removal of the Toda hut, however, does help to resolve this problem.  The Behnam 00:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to chicken out that easily, The Behnam?  I'm champing at the bit to see you see your inimitably worded review being filed.  Oh, and by the way, are you still free for the helping out with editing the government section, or are you going to be a Monday morning quarterback for a few more Mondays yet?  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's basis for dispute has been brought up by Nikkul and his sockpuppets to begin with. I don't see any qualifications on your part to yet have taken part in getting any wikipedia article featured, so to bring about the suggestion that this article needs to be delisted on a rather trivial ground is a matter of non-consequence. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's simple - with the Toda image gone and not likely to return (at least not without violating consensus and ignoring strong arguments), the problem is solved.  The article is much improved by the absence of the Toda hut, don't you agree? Honestly, I'd prefer just one image (that of the Taj Mahal) since I don't think that the section is large enough to warrant two, but unlike the struggle to remove the Apatani and Toda images (which were very inappropriate in the article as they were), the matter of one or two is not major, and hence shouldn't threaten the quality asserted by FA status.  The Behnam 03:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: if only people with the dubious distinction of over a 1000 edits on this talk page alone could take note... Sarvagnya 11:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. PRC was defeatured for the same reason. See this. Saravask 22:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA status 

message: I have largely re-written the Geography section, and added the relevant sources.  Please let me know what you think.  Here is the previous version of the section (before I began to work on it earlier today) and here is the final version.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[India#Geography|Geography]] section complete

message: Now that we have harvard-style citations the referencing has become inconsistent. This is one of the reasons why Geography of India was defeatured.(archived FARC discussion). We'll have to do something about it. KnowledgeHegemony 08:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, no!  I hope I wasn't the one who added a few Harvard style footnotes in Geography of India!  Anyway, let me look into the matter.  Thanks.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever, it may be but Geography of India is now history. Consistency is very important actually its point 2c. on Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. So either we have to make all harvard all remove harvard altogether. --KnowledgeHegemony 16:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, 2c. in turn refers to 1c. which seems to favor the Harvard system.  I personally think that the Harvard system is the best for many reasons: (i) it doesn't clog up the main text (wikitext) with long boxes that make it impossible to decide what is text and what is footnote, (ii) it keeps the footnotes short and can be more specific, i.e. provide different page numbers for different footnotes corresponding to the same text, with minimal repetition. (iii) it provides a solid set of references that the reader can refer to (rather than looking for references in a jumbled mass of (foot)notes.  I will begin to convert the references in flora and fauna to Harvnb format.  The Harvard system may seem more complicated at first, but it really is less work in the end, especially in a long article that needs clarity. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent referencing 

message: left|thumb|Oval-roofed sacred dairy of the Toda people of the Nilgiris, whose sacred rituals and extempore music were important both in the creation of Social Anthropology a century ago, and of Ethnomusicology in the 1980s.
The "Toda hut" image is a Wikipedia Featured picture that, along with an image of the Taj Mahal, has accompanied the text of the  culture section of the FA India  since January 2007.  (Since the image has been removed for this RfC, it is no longer on the India page itself, but can be seen in its context, in the page history here).  The Toda people, whose sacred dairy is featured in the image, have contributed not only to the culture of India, but also to Culture as defined more broadly on the Wikipedia Culture page.  Although a minuscule fraction of the population of India, the Toda have    since the early nineteenth century attracted disproportionate scholarly interest, and remain one of the most studied ethnic groups in Asia.  They are, along with the Andamanese, among the "classic" cultures of Social Anthropology, known through the works two of the field's founders W. H. R. Rivers and A. R. Radcliffe-Brown.  In addition, the Toda's preeminent art form, extempore song, through  M. B. Emeneau's monumental Toda Songs, was important in the creation of the new field of Ethnomusicology in the 1980s.  Although their traditional lifestyle of buffalo herding was affected during the years 1970-95 consequent to the state government's promotion of agriculture, they have during the last decade become the center of an effort at culturally sensitive environmental restoration.  The Toda lands are now a part of The Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, a UNESCO-designated International Biosphere Reserve, and also part of a larger area under consideration by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee for selection as a World Heritage Site.World Heritage sites, Tentative lists, Western Ghats: Nilgiri Sub-cluster, April 2007  The Todas culture is a superb example of India's diverse folk culture, which, thankfully, is still surviving, if only barely so.
However, from the time of the image's appearance on the India page, it has also drawn criticism, especially from editors, who feel that the image of a "grass hut" is not appropriate to India's ancient and  glorious culture.  These editors would prefer to see more "mainstream" images like that of a temple on the UNESCO World Heritage List, or that of Rabindranath Tagore, India's only Nobel laureate in literature: examples of High culture, rather than  the Folk Culture exemplified by the Toda people.  These editors claim too that the Toda image is not representative of India, since, the Toda population of approximately one thousand constitutes too small a minority to deserve attention (much less pride of place) on the India page.  They feel that there are more appropriate images of India's culture that rightfully belong to the culture section instead.  However, when I examined other country FAs, I discovered that eleven of the (total) fifteen combine images of "High Culture" and "Folk Culture," in ways akin to the "Taj Mahal" and the "Toda hut" combination:
Expand to see culture in 11 of the 15 country FAs:
of the 15 country Featured Articles other than India, only three or four focus on "high culture" in their pictures, the rest (11) are more like India:
*Canada: Culture (First image is of a Kwakwaka'wakw totem pole and traditional "big house" in Victoria, BC.  Note that the Kwakwaka'wakw have a total population of 5,500 and a total of 250 speakers of their language.  The other image is of a Mountie ...)
*South Africa: Culture (1) Robbin Island (now a UNESCO WHS) and 2)Decorated houses, Drakensberg Mountains)
*Pakistan: Society and culture (Kite flying in Lahore) 
*Nepal:Culture 
*Bangladesh: Culture
*Belgium:Culture (One picture each for "Fine arts" and "Folklore")
*Cambodia: Culture and Society (In spite of the many available images of Angkor Wat, they chose a picture of the "exterior of the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum, Phnom Penh."
*Cameroon: Culture
*Chad: Culture
*Indonesia: Culture 
*Libya: Culture
One more, Japan, is sort of in the middle:
*Japan: Culture and recreation (one illustration of the well-known wood-block print accompanied by text: "Japanese arts include crafts (ikebana, origami, ukiyo-e, dolls, lacquerware, pottery), ..."
Two, others, (not FAs), demonstrate other approaches:
*Myanmar: Culture
*New Zealand: Culture
The questions, then, that I would like to request comments on are:
#Does their population size of one thousand, a small percentage of India's one billion,  rule out the Toda from having their image displayed on the India page?  
#If not, then does the display of that image, constitute and example of UNDUE WEIGHT? 
#Is the Wikipedia culture section only about High culture?  If not: do the Toda people constitute a notable enough example of India's folk culture to merit inclusion in the culture section?  Alternatively, does the inclusion of the Toda image constitute a violation of WP:IMAGE#Pertinence_and_encyclopedicity, which recommends, "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability" (relative to the article's or section's topic)?
#Does the balancing of images representing High culture and Folk culture–as displayed in eleven of the fifteen country Featured Articles—a useful heuristic for choosing images, or is it all original research?  (See Abecedare's remarks here for a more eloquent description.)
#Does the Toda image's Featured Picture status, which none of the proposed replacement images have, count for something?
#Is it appropriate to regard this as only an India-page dispute and resolve it by a quick head count, of editors who have weighed in on it in the last two or three days, including those, like user:Priyanath, user:Sarvagnya, and user:The Behnam, who have little or no history of actually editing the India page?Yesterday, user:Priyanath made his first non-revert edit to the India page here. Or is it more appropriate to see this as an instance of a wider problem and to invite Wikipedia-wide expertise as this RfC hopes to do?
#Should the Toda hut image be replaced by that of Rabindranath Tagore or of Brihadeeswarar Temple or of some other "more appropriate" symbol of India's culture, as is being advocted by user:Priyanath?
Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Statement by {{user|Fowler&fowler}}:'''

message: # Lack of Notability. WP:IMAGE#Pertinence_and_encyclopedicity states that "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)." Wikipedia:Featured article criteria states that a Featured Article "has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject." In fact, a Featured Article is held to higher standards than the typical article, and in that case these issues of pertinence to the placement of the image, and the image’s notability, should be more strictly applied, rather than less. No mention is made in either case of any priority attached to using featured images in featured articles. 
# The Todas are a tribe of 1,400 in a nation of one billion, and thus do not represent any relevant or notable aspect of India. Their huts, while very interesting, have no claim of special notability in Indian Culture. The photo is a beautiful featured photo, and is appropriately placed in articles where it is relevant, such as Toda people and Vernacular architecture. There is also no mention of the Toda people in the article, so the image clearly does not meet the requirement of "notability (relative to the article's topic)." While the Toda are representative of the tribal demographic of India (8.1%), their culture is not especially notable.
# There are many images which are much more notable and relevant to this article. The toda hut image means that images representing extremely notable features of Indian Culture are not allowed in this article, due to limited space. Rabindranath Tagore, for example, who's image Fowler keeps deleting, is Asia's first Nobel laureate (the 1913 Nobel Prize in Literature), a poet, artist, and musician, and extremely notable in India's cultural heritage. Can any reasonable argument be made that a hut is more notable that Tagore? There are many other images which much better represent India's great cultural heritage: temples, sculpture, art, music, etc. The hut would probably not make the top 100 of a list of notable, relevant, encyclopedic images that represent India's culture. This is the biggest shame here - that truly relevant and notable aspects of India's culture are being deprecated by the insistence of Fowler that the hut is more relevant and notable than the others. 
# Consensus in this discussion is 5-2 in favor of removing the hut from the article, at this point. Behnam, Nikkul, Sarvagnya, Thoreaulylazy, and myself all strongly oppose the relevance and notability of the hut for this article. Fowler and Nichalp are the only voices supporting it.
#:Sorry to break this thread, but the two of us are not the only ones who "support" it. A lot of senior Indian editors, with far greater contributions to the article have also supported its inclusion. Please see the archives. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Statement by {{user|Priyanath}}:'''

message: I support removing of Toda hut image.  My reasoning is simple:  The Toda hut image is really not that crucial to the article.  In fact, the decision to include it is a subjective one.  This means that it is not worth the division it has been causing for more than a year now and all the "discussions" we have had related to it. --Blacksun 11:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Blacksun, Do you really think that the Toda image is the problem?  I refer you to our potential post-Toda problems.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reasoning is flawed. You can not keep a bad image because there are other better images to replace it. A few people have suggested a temple or Diwali image (even Priyanath). But most have opposed the Toda image Nikkul 00:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nikkul - I haven't mentioned a Diwali image. I did offer some temple images, only because of their architectural significance. I think a temple image may not be the best choice, unless it's solely for  historical, cultural-architectural reasons (as opposed to highlighting the particular religion). I also think that there needs to be more than just pictures of buildings to show the culture of India. That's why I keep coming back to Tagore - his image makes sense on so many levels - poet, artist, dance, musician, India's first Nobel, wrote the national anthem, etc. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah i know you havent proposed the diwali idea, but other ppl have. thats why i said temple   or   diwali. anyway cheers Nikkul 06:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Fowler, I see what you are saying.  However, Toda image has been a major issue every few months for over a year now.  Other images get some rebuttals too but none come close to the heat generated over Toda image.  That coupled with the fact that it is a subjective choice, I do not find it necessary to sticking to toda guns when it is clearly not liked by a lot of other editors.  Some might call it caving in - I would disagree with that assessment though.  Finally, as someone posted (supported by a link), Toda's do not live in the Toda huts anymore (for the most part).  The image in its present status arguably stereotypes the Todas.  Question is quite simply: Why should we keep fighting over an image that cannot be deemed as crucial to the content of the article?   A little flexibility is called for.  Is it possible to have random display of images from a selected pool or some type of rotation?  I am not sure what is the policy regarding this. --Blacksun 08:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I have been on Wikipedia since October 2006; I don't remember the image appearing on the India page until January 2007 or thereabouts.  There were no specific objections to the Toda image until Nikkul started his campaign to refurbish the pictures, by first going after Apatani and then Toda (both Featured Pictures).  Before that there were calls for changes in general; of these, I myself, twice started discussions on having rotations every six months.  (Someone like Chanakyathegreat or Ganeshk will testify to this).  What perplexes me is that the "Against Toda" team doesn't say, "We are tired of looking at the same images.  Give us new ones."  That, of course, will apply to the Taj Mahal as well, which is a lot more hackneyed than the Toda image.  Instead, with the exception of Sarvagnya who has objected to the Taj image as well, they mostly repeat, "We don't like the Toda image." And they then add what I think are spurious reasons about the image not being representative.  The point, for me, is that Indian culture, like any culture, is complicated.   60 percent of it is still rural or tribal.  How is Tagore a representative of that India?  More generally, the Wikipedia rule book aside, images are not chosen only because they are representative; they are chosen sometimes because they point out a contrast, or oftentimes for their graphic quality or their art; in other words, something that makes you sit up and notice.  Whatever else you might say about the Toda image, it is undeniable that it provokes curiosity; when you click on it, you find yourself examining the size of the door, the blades of grass, the murals, ....  It was the same with the Apatani image, people may have thought it was ugly, but they likely spent spent more time examining it than they will ever the beloved face of Bengal's poet laureate.  As for the Toda not living in huts any more, that is an old link.  Please see my sub-page here (including Tarun Chhabra's powerpoint) for an updated picture.  I am all for flexibility and rotation, but that needs to be done generally by first figuring out some principles.  What I don't like is people targeting the Toda image.  Why not go after the Taj first?  Or, since most of the "Against" are newcomers to the India page, "Why not help with editing the Government section?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blacksun is correct, toda hut is an entirely subjective choice. The extreme support shown by a few people for an image that is so obscure and non-notable suggests there's something more going on here than meets the eye. It will continue to tie up editor's time as long as it's here - because it eliminates much better images that demonstrate India's Culture. It is not critical to this article, and trivializes both the toda (who no longer live in rattan huts) and Indian Culture. But why are we arguing over the hut? The discussion here should be more along the lines of 'is Rabindranath Tagore (or fill in the blank with another notable feature of Indian Culture) so non-notable to Indian Culture that his image should be eliminated to show a toda hut? ॐ Priyanath talk 15:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The extreme support shown by a few people for an image that is so obscure and non-notable suggests there's something more going on here than meets the eye. There is nothing extream about wanting to project a complete imgaje of a dynamic and diverse country, not just a white washed version of someone's imagination as to what that should be. Thanks Taprobanus 15:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that two photos of buildings, the Taj Mahal and a hut, give a complete or diverse image of Indian Culture. I am assuming good faith on the part of others, I just don't understand how these two buildings give a more complete and diverse image than, say, an artist, poet, and musician like Tagore. Or many other possibilities. You'll have to trust me also—I'm not trying to project a whitewashed image of India, but one that is true, diverse, and complete. If there were room for one more image, or an image gallery, that would be a solution. The hut image as part of a gallery with others would show that India's culture is more than (a) buildings and tribes. It's people, art, literature, dance, music, and a whole lot more. I think the most relevant parts of India's diverse culture are being severely short-changed here. ॐ Priyanath talk 23:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Comments by: {{user|Blacksun}}'''

message: There's several things here - so lets get the simple ones out of the way first.  That has to do with arguments in favour of the toda pic.
* "it is a featured pic" is a non argument.  it has been refuted a million times, but it keeps being raked up over and over and over again.
* "...counterpoint and counterpoise/contrast..." - that like Blacksun and others (including myself) have pointed out is purely a question of aesthetics and therefore, emphatically subjective.  Those bandying that line surely recognize that but seem to hope that people will simply buy what they think is a reasonable and sound argument if they keep repeating it enough times.
What they dont seem to realize is that, while their "contrast" argument may very well be a 'reasonable' argument in the real world, it is NOT so on wikipedia.  In the real world, I could make a case that a rose is more beautiful than a lily and might even be able to bring around a majority to support my view and sense of aesthetics.  On wikipedia however, I wouldnt stand a whiff of a chance with such arguments.
That said, the problems here go much deeper.  The biggest lie that routinely makes the rounds around these parts is that this is a summary article.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  A summary article is one where each section is a summary of a reasonably comprehensive and well written child article.  I'd like to see someone show me atleast one section which can reasonably claim to be a summary of a half decent child article.  Until we fix that, these problems will continue to sprout.  And article expansion will be both a means and an inevitable result of such a 'fix'.  So it is high time people stopped acting like the article would blow up with the slightest expansion of the article.
All those waxing eloquent about Toda and tribal culture in general, would do well to go and add some of that info to the Culture of India article.  At the moment, that article has ... hold your breath.. 0 bytes dedicated to Todas and Apatanis put together.  There is in fact, no mention of tribals at all!  If these tribes cant find a place in a child article, they shouldnt find a place in what is claimed to be a summary article.  If Bose, who is a million times more notable in the context of the Indian independence movement than the Todas are in the context of culture, has to fight for even so much as a mention in this article, I dont see the Toda pic making it into the article in a million years.  For that matter, I'd even argue that since Gandhi, the pacifist face of the IIM is shown, we should also have a pic of Bose, arguably the 'non-pacifist' face of the IIM!  counter point and counterpoise folks, counter point and counterpoise!  
Each time a newbie tries to add something to this article, he is driven, nay hounded away by the Fowlers and the Saravasks and the Nichalps who jump in with their staple "this is a summary article" nonsense.  And since their Toda pic fails because of that very argument, they now want us to buy into their sense of aesthetics.  Neat.
I have not only pointed out how cliched the Taj pic is.. but as far as I can remember, I've (along with Arvind) been the only one who's complained of systemic bias on this and other articles.  I am all for giving non-mainstream(which often times simply is the "out of sight, out of mind" syndrome at work and not relative merit) things and people more visibility on wikipedia but not like this.  You cant throw crumbs in the form of a pic and be done with it.  Its condescending.  Its almost like saying.. "hey.. this is a summary article.. so the NE(for example) is mostly backward and cant elbow the BSEs and the SEZs out of the economy section.. they pretty much dont fit in any section coz they're either non-"mainstream" or at the bottom rung of everything.... so just to give them some room and just to make sure there's a superficial balance, lets drop some pics and be done"  That seems to be what is guiding the addition of pics like the apatani and the toda pic.  And that is what I wouldnt allow.  The right way to do it would be to start a "Scheduled castes and tribes" subsection of "Demographics" and then write a 4-5 line paragraph about the SC and Ts and then pick a suitable picture like the toda or the apatani one to accompany the subsection.  Throwing a pic here and a pic there and claiming to have taken care of systemic bias just doesnt fly. Sarvagnya 01:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you are saying that if a section on the tribal peoples of India is included (with some mention of Todas) you would support having the Toda pic in the article ?  Sinhala freedom 03:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Summary style is an official guideline of wikipedia. I'm afraid you do not understand the merits of having an article in summary style. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Comments by: {{user|Sarvagnya}}'''

message: I can't see the Toda hut picture be the root cause of this discord and I find it sad that the picture is turning into a battleground.  It looks very unique and surely must enrich the article, that is not to say the other pictures don't.  I have certainly gotten very curious about Todas from looking at it. We must remember the tribal people are largely voiceless in many parts of the world.  I am not sure how true that is within the regions of India. One thing that makes it all the more poignant is that it sounds like there is about a 1000 Toda speakers left which usually implies the culture is heading towards extinction within a few generations.  I think Sarvagnya proposes a very reasonable solution, that is to have a section on the tribal people and have a picture accompanying it. Would there be any opposition to that ?  Sinhala freedom 04:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's an excellent idea!!! If the tribal people are so notable (and I believe they are), then of course they should have a relevant mention in the Demographics section, with a photo of.....the Toda Hut! Then the Culture section could have a photo relating to.....Culture. ॐ Priyanath talk 04:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Sinhala freedom,  There are lots of compromise ideas, including some I wrote up at the time I wrote the RfC, but I think it is best for the RfC to run its course, rather than change its focus.  At least in my statement I asked some questions, I would be happy if people addressed those.  Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out the thread of discussion. I will get back to you with my thoughts and answers on those questions.  Sinhala freedom 04:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, since you brought up a compromise, I went back and found what I had written.  Here it is:  "Tentative Proposal, which I will bring up on the Talk:India page after the RfC is over: We should expand the culture section by 30%, but about four-fifths of the expansion (i.e. 25% of the culture section) should be devoted to the culture of the Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes of India.  Since according to the 2001 SC-ST Demographics Table the SC+ST add up to 16.2+8.2 = approximately 25% of the population, and since their culture is largely outside the mainstream culture of India, it is reasonable that we do this.  That means that the current text below (which is all about the mainstream culture will be expanded at most by five percent."  Some thing along those lines, but in the culture section, not in demographics.  That also means the most expansion will be in the realm of tribal/rural culture.   As for your remarks above, the Toda population has been constant for about a century (around a thousand), so they are not disappearing.  The reasons why they have attracted attention are complicated.  Starting in the 1650s the Toda came to attract the attention of the Europeans in India.  They became an especial focus of ethnographers from 1850 onwards, W. H. R. Rivers being the most prominent.  There's even a book chapter, "The Western Romance with the Toda" by Anthony Walker from a few years ago.  It has nothing to do with the motivations Sarvagnya was postulating upstairs, but mostly due to their unique culture.  The Nagas, and the Andamanese attracted similar attention.  The Toda, btw, have not really been poor in the sense that the urban poor or rural poor are.  They have a low maintenance lifestyle.  But they have not had malnutrition, anemia, etc like the rest of rural India.  Anyway, more another time.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: PS.  I should add that my proposal above is not a compromise proposal, but one that, in my opinion, should  be implemented regardless of the image choice, which I hope will remain: Taj + Toda.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Comments by {{user|Sinhala freedom}}: Potential Compromise'''

message: My personal view is that Tagore's image is an excellent choice, but it's given with the caveat that I  haven't contributed at all to the article -- Samir 02:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The caveat you mention is of no consequence and bothers no one except Fowler, bogus as his argument is anyway. Sarvagnya 04:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your arguments are not logical. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A short break

message: Following are my comments. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Comments by {{user|Sundar}}:'''

message: I won't have time until the weekend to write in detail, but I've previously listed my thoughts on this Talk page.  One of the points I brought up is how Todas are not mentioned in the Tamil Nadu article, which is their home state.  I don't see how they can be included into the national-level page unless they at the very least possess notability at the state-level. Also, very few Todas themselves still have traditional Toda dairies; most have modernized, and therefore they themselves are abandoning the style. Many other folk and traditional styles are not being abandoned, so I would suggest focusing on those styles which will continue to stay in use for the foreseeable future. -- Thoreaulylazy 12:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Todas don’t belong just in Tamil Nadu, it is modern political construct, they belong to All of South Asia (India in particular)  and for those who have been interested in Indology they are one of most curious tribes. A tribe that has many aspects of mainstream Indian culture such as pastoralism, caste system, female infanticide etc etc all while being not even exposed to mainstream Indian culture in the last 2000 years. So in a sence there are South Asians  in an archaic sense that the rest of South Asians have forgotten how they came to be Taprobanus 13:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the level to which they are a "curious tribe" helps, as it needlessly plays on exoticism and is about as useful as using the Amish for the culture of the Unites States. -- Thoreaulylazy 19:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The Tamil Nadu article is quite a disaster at the moment - it doesn't mention any of the minorities indigenous to Tamil Nadu, and it ought not to be the touchstone by which we judge this article.  In any event, there's been something of a revival of traditions amongst Todas in recent years, including the building of more traditional huts.  Also, this isn't about exocitism - the issue is really about representing the diversity of India in a fair manner, rather than focusing on the stereotyped Great Indian Tradition (as the article is pretty close to doing).  FWIW, I think - as Sarvagnya says - that the text of the article also really ought to reflect diversity better than it does. -- Arvind 23:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thoreaulylazy, I'm sure that you're aware that wikipedia is an open encyclopedia in which content has been contributed from several sources and people. I don't see why there should be a justification to Todas linked to Tamil Nadu, its a simple case of Ignoratio elenchi. If this logic was sound it can be conversely argued that Vajpayee is non notable because his name does not figure in History of India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you also realize that the India page isn't providing any original information; it's a summary page, itself based on other summary pages such as History of India, Culture of India, and other summary pages which ultimately terminate at leaf nodes (non-summary pages).  I'm not arguing that the Todas lack notability for their own page; they have a page, and I agree they possess notability for that.  I'm merely pointing out that information is expected to propagate up this tree which culminates at the root India page, and not simply jump from leaf node to main summary page. Are Todas notable enough to be one wiki page out of millions of wiki pages?  Sure.  Are they notable enough to be in the national-level culture section?  No, because they're not even notable at the state-level, let alone at the Culture of India page. And this reasoning is sound because it does apply to Vajpayee as well; he is absent from the history section of the India page because he's also absent from the History of India page.  I firmly believe that the culture section of the India article should only summarize the Culture of India article and not editorialize by adding new information that's absent from the Culture of India page, such as Toda dairies. -- Thoreaulylazy 05:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, what you're saying is correct if we consider the ideal scenario for writing articles where the main India article *should* be a summary of daughter articles. Our ultimate goal is to get all daughter articles featured. In this manner, content present in the lead section of daughter articles is directly cloned into the respective sections of the main India article. However, since our ideal scenario is still far away for being realised, we have a reverse draft of what should be present. We've lost a lot of core featured articles in the recent past as the original article editors have been tied down with non-wikipedia activities ("life"), while the current crop of new editors who have no experience in writing a featured article, only want to promote their narrow divisive agendas on this page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Comments by: {{user|Thoreaulylazy}}'''

message: In reviewing the above discussion, I think the main stumbling block seems to be the definition of culture itself.  My understanding is that many in the "Against Toda" group (for example, user:Priyanath, user:Rueben lys, and user:Nikkul), tend to interpret "Culture" as  "High art"  "High culture," whereas many in the "For Toda" group thinks of it in broader terms, as expressed in the lead of the WP article Culture, and, for example, would include Folk culture and Tribal culture as well.  Would editors like user:Priyanath, user:Rueben lys, user:Nikkul and any others please let me know, very briefly, if you include Folk culture and Tribal culture in your definition of Culture (and more specifically, Culture of India).  As Nichalp has remarked above, we can't refer to Culture of India for our definition of culture because that page is in shambles.  In an ideal world, we should have firmed up that page first, but we didn't, and until that happens, we can't use that page as a benchmark for including or excluding anything. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the distinction is not as clear cut. Going back to Nichalp's earlier comment of nothing being uniquely Indian, I think festivals, especially religious ones, are a common thread, this takes the form of Ganesh chaturthi in Western India, Durga Puja, etc in Eastern India, Diwali in north and west, Harvest festivals in North west, Pongal etc in South India, Id especially in Northern and around old Nizami central India, and in Bengal. Performing arts, especially the dance forms mentioned earlier, are uniquely Indian styles. Indian music is also distinct style, of which you get classical styles ([[Ravi Shankar, anyone?), classical vocal, classical instrumental, raaga styles, south Indian gharana, and relatively noveau, Fusion (Rahmanesque. In terms of folk culture, you do get folk singers in all the parts of the country, you get folk music etc (which may be influenced to some extent by some tribal influences). I still cant see the Toda hut being representative of  any of these. These are not high culture or high art. Architechture and art really should come under Art and Architecture, but performing arts are usually not included in Arts, but form a distinct category. As for tribal culture, I can't see it as having influenced the larger Indian but it might have some (but small) influence in some of the rural cultures.Rueben lys 10:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry I gave the wrong link.  I have since corrected it.  No need to re-answer that.  I understand your answer and I think it was a good answer.  But since you didn't answer the general part of the question: "Would editors like user:Priyanath, user:Rueben lys, user:Nikkul and any others please let me know, very briefly, if you include Folk culture and Tribal culture in your definition of Culture (and more specifically, Culture of India)," would you care to answer that now, without the particular parenthetical reference to India?  Am I also correct in interpreting you to imply that you don't necessarily rule out Folk or Tribal Cultures from the Culture of India?  Thanks.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From appeal to aesthetics and fallacious arguments, we move to tenuous and tedious semantics.  duh.  Sarvagnya 11:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of Culture