Talk:India/Archive 8

message: user:Himalayanashoka and all his sockpuppets are now permanently banned from Wikipedia.  Since he is likely to appear again as a sockpuppet, please keep on the lookout for further disruptions and please report to an administrator.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: just report the socks to WP:AIV as they come in. I doubt he'll have the tenacity of "the Great Rajput vandal" (who kept going for the best part of a year). dab (𒁳) 16:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Himalayanashoka Permanently Banned

message: I deleted the undiscussed addition of "against foreign rule" at the end of paragraph 2 (lead).  The addition is redundant.  The struggle for independence is never against domestic rule. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign Rule

message: Sorry, I won't be able to contribute to the ripe discussions above till 4 Feb. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On vacation 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capybara
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoberomys
vkvora 03:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   redundant, Rodent, Capybara, Phoberomy 

message: ----
I have prepared pie charts for demography section.(Linguistic & Religious breakup). You can find charts here. I suggest that these charts should be put in demography section to represent India's multi-ethnic characteristics.It fits well on left side of demography section without removing current featured picture.(At 175 pixels).--Indianstar 13:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look goodAJ-India 15:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The pie chart geometry is great.  Your colors probably need more brightness as in HSV color space; in other words, the colors should be in the top of the inverted HSV cone rather than the bottom.  It should probably also have some pastels (i.e. colors towards the center (and top) of the HSV cone, which have less saturation).  Also, it seems there is a preponderance of BIV colors (as in the spectrum ROYGBIV) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. Thanks. Let me see how it can be improved. --Indianstar 14:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Charts for demographic section

message: Please, change the colour for Red colour and black writing as the same is difficult to read.vkvora 17:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Charts and colour

message: PLS Listen
Regarding Ayyavazhi issue,
So, citations and third party sources are not valid here. But some thing is valid if the majority belives it. Then it is better to conduct polls, and instead of sub-heading 'reference', we can keep the result of the polls. Then in the article, the sentence 'India is a democracy' may be cited inline some thing as, out of 100, 65 people yes; 25 no; and 10 neutral. If some body attempt to give any citations, all the other users should ride away him!!!  
That is the way things are going here.  Friends see the above discussion. Some people are opinioning that a futhur step to be taken against me. For what? For editing based on third party sources? Iam right from the begining  discuss for every my reverts or edits. Some people not even go to the discussion area. When ever they see 'Ayyavazhi' here. They simply revert, and in the edit summary just a note that, 'remove non-notable sect', ' reverted vandalism' or some other personal attacks. This even is comparebely, good. Some people not even do this. They simply revert without a word as reason.  
Regular users might have note; In every my edits I ask to discuss. Most of them don't care about. They usually two or three people unitedly revert without discussion, when I revert, then in 5 to 10 minutes, I found the tool bar in the edit section missing following by a message. When I refer I foung there that ' I was temporaliry blocked for 24 hrs.  I experience such blocks two such times. Mostly people come with the issues that it was not officially recognised or not even (he) heared of that. Inspite of my lack of time, I even answered to it elobrately. One user is asking that, "Do you have much free time?"  If some one is finding way to discuss elobrately (the disputes) than making personal attacks, he is considered as 'a person with no other works to do'.  What to say?
Then the notability; Even Jews and Zoroastrians are noted here, But Ayyavazhi with comparitively a large followers in India, on 'their conscience', a non sense! One more thing even administrator reverted with out discussion! 
They also say that he is the 'single person' to edit here (in the article) supporting Ayyavazhi. Solidly to say, See three districts are declared holiday for an Ayyavazhi festival. Immedietly don't say that Ayyavazhi followers are confined to these three dists. Ayyavazhi followers are present across south India (apart from citations I personally know). But these three dists, Ayyavazhi are densly populated.  Officially delaring  three dists as holiday is ever knew in Tamil Nadu, apart from some local holidays for some temple festivals. The report on declaration on Daily Thanthi clearly states that "these three districts are densly populated with Ayyavazhi followers. Inspite of such a large number of people, No ones is here at present to write about Ayyavazhi. That is the situation of the social and economical infrastructure of Ayyavazhi society. I even explined it elobrately in Talk:India/Ayyavazhi. 
Apart from all these, what about the Third party citations? I've many historical books (independent to Ayyavazhi) telling about Ayya Vaikundar and Ayyavazhi. But I know that all those books may be said as POVs here. And so only I cited with only University papers. I hope that people understand that a lot of factual things in India is beyond the reach of Internet. But the result I experienced here in unexpected. I travel across many book dealers to find university books for several days. I strongly hope that experts here don't oppose those valid sources. But now they are even rejecting those sources. It's wonderful! Presently, some 5 to 10 University publications (old and new) are not with me (which I know they exists). Iam in serching of those books. But here, if people out put such short-sided activites, as opposing even a book from such a credible university, 'University of Madras', then what to do? It's pathetic. They srongly holding themselves that "They not even heared about it". 
Also as a recent incident, pls take a look here, an user removed Ayyavazhi from the article and as a reason for the removal, in the edit summary he noted that, "removing the edits of Paul Raj who is on the edge of 3RR". Is this a reason for removing Ayyavazhi? Then what is the use of the discussion page and the valid citations? - Д|Ж|Д 18:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, writing extremely long essays that go nowhere and using arguments that have all been shown to be wrong and misleading by mutliple users on multiple different discussion and user pages will not get you nowhere.  I refuse to spend any energy on you as you will just ignore it and keep harping the same mute arguments over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... and over again. --Blacksun 19:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rightly saying, I don't understand what you are telling. - Д=|Ж|=Д Paul| 20:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern over citations 

message: user:Indianstar made a reasonable change in the geography section, which I have temporarily reverted in order to get consensus.  The geography section lists the Sundarbans among India's archipelagos (along with Andamans and Lakshadweep).  I had always assumed that the word archipelago was used for islands formed either by volcanic processes (like "hot spots") or as a result of (uneven) crustal plate movement (like Lakshadweep?).  The, Sundarbans, of course, is neither, but it is a delta with 50+ alluvial islands.  Do these form a real archipelago?  A quick search on the internet reveals that the usage "archipelago" for Sundarbans seems linked entirely to Amitav Ghosh's book, "Rising Tide," which apparently does refer to Sundarbans as an archipelago.  Ghosh, needless to say is a fiction writer.  Does anyone have a reliable source for Sundarbans as an "archipelago" that pre-dates Mr. Ghosh's brief foray into science? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hope by now you would have come to know that Sunderban is not archipelago.!!. Also you mentioned info about North east monsoon can be mentioned briefly??. Can you add info briefly.(I don't understand how to add info briefly when I have added only one sentence.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Indianstar (talk • contribs) 13:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sundarbans Archipelago?

message: Generally Ombudsman provide a check under Redressal of Public Grievances and in last 5-7 years good work is done.  There is no reference on ombudsman in India on wikipedia and will anybody add these information on ombudsman.vkvora 15:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ombudsman]] for Insurance, Banking, Telephone, Income Tax, Sales Tax, etc. 

message: "Millions of protesters would engage in mass campaigns of civil disobedience with a commitment to ahimsa or non-violence." - Should millions be replaced with hundreds of thousands or something more universal?  Otherwise, it should be wikilinked atleast because large number of people have no idea what a million is. --Blacksun 11:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, I noticed that it pops up at some other places in the article too and atleast one of the other case is not so easy to rephrase (20 million years).  So, maybe we just wikilink to the first occurance of million in the article unless someone has a clever suggestion. --Blacksun 11:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk page title indicates that we will have to use Indian English... I presume Lacs/Crores are Indian English and Million is not used widely in India. I will prefer to use International language... since lot of International readers does not understand Lacs/Crores.--Indianstar 15:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I know a lot of pretty educated and english speaking people in some parts of the world who get confused with millions and billions.  --Blacksun 08:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that's true, come to think of it.  Sure, please go ahead and wikilink the first occurrence of "million" and "billion".  Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sorry that I didn't read this discussion when I was editing the article earlier today and therefore de-wikilinked "million". I don't think the term needs to be wikilinked because (1) million, unlike billion, has a unique universal definition, (2) it is a common English non-technical word (unlike lakh, crore, dime, nickle  etc. which are used only regionally). However, having stated my personal preference, I wouldn't really object if other editors thought wikilinking million was worthwhile. Abecedare 11:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional ambiguity 

message: User Indianstar would like to add some text on the Political integration of princely states etc. to the history section.   His original addition, which I reverted, was: 
The main problem in the history section is space.  Right now only three sentences are devoted to the entire Nehru era 1947-64.  Political integration, while obviously important, is only one of the many important events of the Nehru era.  (Actually most of it happened before independence, with the joint efforts of both Mountbatten and Patel.)  Britannica, for example, devotes 5 pages (200 lines) to the Nehru years and only 10 lines to political integration.  Here is the list of topics covered in Britannica for the Nehru era in increasing order of years.
# Gandhi and communal violence after independence. (1947)
# The accession of princely states by Patel and Mountbatten. i.e. Political integration. (1947)
# Nehru's stress on secularism. 1948-
# The republic 1950.  The constitution.
# States Reorganization Act (The linguistic division into states.) 1950s
# Kashmir 1948-
# Panchsheel, Non-alignment and International Relations. 1950s
# India-China war. 1962.
# Industrial progress during Nehru era. ("India had become the world's 10th most advanced industrial nation in terms of absolute value of output ...") (1950s)
# Bhoodan and Gramdan movement (1950s)
Political integration gets about 10 out of 200 lines.  Goa gets one line.  Pondicherry etc are not mentioned.  Most of the other topics get more lines.  The problem is that in the History section of the India page, we have only 3 sentences devoted to the Nehru years (on the basis of available space).  How do we propose to add content about political integration, when we don't mention anything about the other topics?  BTW, almost all the major history texts, have a similar distribution of focus.  I am happy to provide a list of texts, if needed.  The history section provides the link to History of India page at the outset.  All these topics are treated in more detail there.  I don't see any need for adding political integration or any other topic—that would be getting into specifics—which are treated in the History of India page.   Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Integration of Princely States and other territories

message: User Afghan Historian had made extended additions to the description of the Indus Valley Civilization in the History section of the India page.  The text added by her/him is: 
The current version simply reads: "The first known permanent settlements appeared over 9,000 years ago, and gradually developed into the Indus Valley Civilization, dating back to 3300 BCE in western India. It was followed by the Vedic Civilization which laid the foundations of Hinduism and other cultural aspects of early Indian society."  Since the addition is significant (i.e. one large paragraph has been added to a description that only has two sentences in the history section), I have reverted the edits.  I feel that the current description is adequate and that user Afghan Historian should explain why such detail is needed in the India page, when the Pakistan page, and indeed even the Indus Valley Civilization pages don't have it!  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking of the Pakistan page, (an FA), read the last line in the lead "Pakistan is a declared nuclear weapons state". If we draw analogy for the indus valley civilisation from that, this line can, and I feel should be replicated here (to be consistant, and informative).AJ-India 17:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I gave the Pakistan page example because Pakistan has most of the famous Indus Valley Civilization sites.  (Obviously India has IVC sites too, but Pakistan has more, certainly the more well-known, like Mohenjo-daro and Harappa.)  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not questioning your giving the Pakistan example. I agree (by and large) with this particluar revert. My only point was that we can add the Nuclear line, as it is there on an FA article (Pakistan), as you cided it aws an exammple (thus probably agree with it).AJ-India 16:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Extended Additions by [[user:Afghan Historian]] to History Section

message: I tried to put up the Hindi name in the introductory para (a change from Sanskrit), because Hindi is the primary official language of the Union, but the change was reverted back to Sanskrit. This is very, very offensive and I am going to put back Hindi again. Some Indians might well be very anti-Hindi and will tolerate anything other than Hindi, but here they have no right because Art. 243 clearly states that Hindi shall be the official language of the Union and not Sanskrit or even English (though exceptions to that are also listed). Further, the Constitution itself recognizes the short-name "India/Bharat", so there is no need to translate India as "Bharat Ganaraajya", but simply, "Bharat". Also note that nowhere the Constitution or any other laws state that the various Scheduled languages are "official" languages of the Indian Union.Cygnus_hansa 21:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindi

message: Article states that Thar desert and Himalayas are responsible for India's climate. Can somebody clarify how Thar desert is responsible for India's climate?. Article also says  that Thar desert is responsible for south west monsoon. No credible evidences(Like other encyclopedias, Indian meteorological sites etc) ratifies that statement and they give different logic for south west monsoon without mentioning any role for Thar desert. --Indianstar 07:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is a connection.  From June until August a broad warm belt develops in the South Asian region—extending from the Iranian desert to Tibet—approximately along 28 N latitude.   This belt "contains two intensely warm centers, one hovering over the Thar desert and the other over southeastern Tibet."  These two centers drive the southwest monsoon.  See: Chang, Jen-Hu.  1967.  "The Indian Summer Monsoon" Geographical Review 57(3):373-396.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1967 Book may be minority view. Monsoon sets initially in Kerala. Does it mean kerala is responsible for Indian weather. Many credible pages explains about south east monsoon process and none of them assigns significance to Thar desert.  . Also monsoon is one part of the weather. How can we say Thar desert is responsible for Indian weather.  Also statements about Katabatic winds is totally disconnected. (Mountain prevents Katabatic winds, so what? what is the end result?. Is it responsible for increasing temperature or decreasing temperature or humidity) What we are trying to communicate to common man who reads the article? --Indianstar 14:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Thar desert plays an important part in SW Monsoon. To quote the NCERT book for Geography, ``In Summer, a low-pressure area develops over interior Asia as well as over northwestern India. This causes a complete reversal of the direction of winds during summer .... These are known as the SW Monsoon winds.  --Abhask 22:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Monsoon forms in several parts of the world. Desert is not mandatory for monsoon formation. There is no desert in east and south india but those areas receives rainfall through North east monsoon. So many examples can be quoted to justify these claims. Books quoted by you also does not say anything about Thar desert. Monsoon winds hovers around north western india where Thar desert is also located. It does not mean Thar desert is responsible for monsoon formation.--Indianstar 04:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, to me it looks quite evident from the sources that low-pressure zone develops in NorthWestern India (where Thar Desert is located) in summers and this low pressure <along with that in interior Asia> is resposible for the winds to flow <remember the basic geography rules? The origin of winds?>. And hence the SW winds flow. If there wasn't a low pressure area in Thar dessert, at least the directions of the winds would not have been the same. But, yeah - it is not the only thing responsible for the quantity and quality of SW monsoons - other factors like proximity to water, low-pressure in interior Asia, etc also contribute. Abhask 22:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Information about India's climate

message: I have copyedited the first four sections of the article, for language, grammar, phrasing, formatting etc; with no intentional/significant content change. I don't think I have lengthened the article at all (I support efforts of keeping the articles at a readable length), and I have tried to leave informative edit summaries. Feel free to revert any particular edit if you think it is incorrect or not an improvement, but please don't do a blind revert on seeing the large number of edits by me. Here is a diff of all me recent edits (except that the two templates were not my additions). Thanks. Abecedare 10:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for you copy edits.  Cursorily reading through the history section, I found most edits to be OK, but some will probably need to be changed—not reversed, but changed—since the version you edited had already accumulated little errors from the last stable version.  Once we discuss the RfC, I hope we can come up with some reasonable "policy" about large changes.  I won't revert your edits, but, for now, I'd say, that it is probably a good idea to copy edit only a section or two at a time, not four, especially if the copy edit is thorough; that way, the work of the "double checkers" remains manageable.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edits 

message: Please work out differences regarding User:Himalayanashoka's additions. We should take a look at Talk:Australia or Talk:Turkey to see how it is to be done. Thanks. Saravask 18:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont understand why we need to work out differences regarding a banned users additions?  Please dont protect the page for another ten days due to some sock puppet.--Blacksun 00:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to file a Checkuser request, but I saw that Fowler beat me to it. Per the results, I've just indef blocked two of the socks. Saravask 02:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can we have the page semi-protected ? Abecedare 04:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second the motion.  The sock army is back. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have placed a request at WP:RFP and yes User:Neutroindic has been confirmed to be a sock-puppet of User:Himalayanashoka Abecedare 04:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: what do you mean by "I hope to keep for at least a week"? You hope to keep the page protected for a week or more? I agree it is going nowhere at present, but it appears that people are too entrenched for page protection to do any good. The only way forward will be to enforce a process of mediation and compromise, and clamp down on WP:POINT and unconstructive diversions on the editor side. dab (𒁳) 11:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the page can be semi-protected as of now. Any thoughts?  Shyam (T/C) 10:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What caused the page to be fully-protected?? As an outsider to this dispute, can anyone give me the gist of what's happening??
--sunstar nettalk 15:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When is this week going to end? Or the hope to keep it blocked, so to say.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 20:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake. By the way, I havent listened to India.mid but I am reverting nonetheless on the basis of previous example.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 20:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: Why Tamil was removed from Classical language list? --Indianstar 16:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no role in this. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  lol--Blacksun 10:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tamil as Classical Language 

message: Somebody should check the map. The states do not always go with the numbers. There might be some vandalism there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:India-states-numbered.svg
AKoan 23:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, AKoan is right ! The map marks "Delhi" as a union territory rather than a state; and therefore the numbering of the states is off by 1, i.e. Gujarat should be 8 instead of 7, Haryana 9 instead of 8 and so on. Anyone have graphic skills to update the map ? Abecedare 23:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have corrected the India state map on commons (by reverting to an earlier version). It should be OK now. Abecedare 00:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors on the map 

message: Lalijm 23:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syrian Christians of South India And Creoles of Latin  America 

message: Dear Atulnischal, I'm not sure what grand plan you have in mind, but copying the section on Flora and Fauna from the India page and pasting it to create a new article and then referencing it on the India page itself requires some explanation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said below, I don't see the point of dumbing down Wikipedia.  WP is not a tourist brochure, it is an encylopedia.  Other encylopedia's use both "Flora" and "Fauna."  For example, here is Britiannica's page on Savanna.  The table of contents are: 1) Introduction 2) Origin 3) Environment 4) Biota 4(a) Flora, 4(b) Fauna, ...  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Your ([[User:Atulsnischal|Atulsnischal]]) article [[Wildlife of India]]

message: If you are interested in Environment, Wildlife, Conservation and Nature etc. please join in to contribute, even starting off with making new stub class articles will be a great contribution.
Sincerely
Atulsnischal 16:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need senior administrators or people who are long in Wikipedia to help us with the templates and for other further helps. Details can be seen in its talk page. IT's urgent. We want this wkiproject to be added to the exsisting WP:IND banner. Amartyabag  TALK2ME 05:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you would be better off contributing to the pages that already exist like contributing some text to Flora of India, instead of designing a grand plan for a Wiki project.  The Grand Plan is useless when the individual pages are mostly stubs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Invitation for [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas of India]] & Conservation'''

message: Kindly contribute to this article when you get time, and request others too.
Thanks
Atulsnischal 20:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the point of this article.  As of now, it is an exact copy-and-paste of the Flora and fauna section of the India page.  As for Atulnischal's contention that people don't understand complicated expressions like "Flora and fauna," my own survey indicates that even junior high school kids know about "flora" and "fauna."  Frankly, I don't see the point of dumbing down Wikipedia in order to appease some hypothetical ignorant readership. The pages Flora of India and Fauna of India both need work.  There is no point creating a new page Wildlife of India (which, incidentally, includes both flora and fauna), when the individual Flora and Fauna pages are still unfinished.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wildlife of India]]