Talk:India/Archive 15

message: I take strong objection to the positioning of "Foreign relations and the military", complete with a photograph of the ugliest things humans do to each other, so early in what is otherwise a worthy article. Thus, it's framed here as more important than geography, economy, demographics and culture. I see that an argument can be made that FR and the M leads on from "Politics", but then so does "(Political) Subdivisions". Apparently, the section was added, or least the photo was, only last year. Check who did it. Subtle reframing of WP is causing a scandal in Australia and probably elsewhere at the moment, now that we have the tools to expose politicians and organisations that try to skew WP their way.
So I'm making a plea that Indians present to the world, and themselves, what most people think are the really valuable contributions to humanity, before showing boys' toys that anyone can buy from the merchants with a bit of cash.
Slightly related to this, I'd be inclined to relocate flora and fauna further down; but I haven't thought that through fully.
Yes, I think you could gradually and carefully expand a few sections, with consensus. Geography seems slim. So does demographics. There are MOS breaches in the use of hyphens for year ranges.
The article might orginally been modelled on that for Australia, but let's not take that as a permanent prescription. India is a very different kettle of fish. Tony 01:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The military section (complete with the phallic obscenity) was the brainchild of some editors who felt very strongly about having it.  The same people who have allowed it to stand, however, fought tooth and nail to remove a beautiful picture of the Apatani tribals on the grounds that Indians don't look like that, and are also now champing at the bit to remove the picture of the Toda hut on the grounds that  Indian don't live in huts like that (see discussion here).  This, however, is par for the course.  The country itself is in the throes of a neurosis.  The Indian newspapers, for example,  (according to the NYT) have been writing story after story on the travails of a Bollywood actor who has been jailed or about to be jailed; however, not a peep has been heard about the 14 million people (without insurance or social security) who have lost everything in the recent floods.  Finally, as someone who along with user:Saravask wrote the Flora and Fauna section, I am dismayed that you want to move it further down. :) The Indian plant and animal world is something India can be truly proud of.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS In fact the RfC upstairs, echoes these themes.  The editor in question would like whittle down the roles of Gandhi and nonviolence and bulk up the (mainly nonexistent) roles of the various violent revolutionaries in the Indian freedom struggle.  Part of the problem is that the latterly teeming Hindu Right, which was twiddling its thumbs during all 62 years of the Indian freedom struggle (1885 to 1947), now finds itself left out of that struggle's history.  They can't really write themselves in; so they champion the "militants," the "terrorists," and other drifting relics as a counterfoil to Gandhi and nonviolence.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the militants in Indian freedom struggle had centrist ot leftist leanings, including Subhash Bose or Bhagat Singh. It is wrong to club them together with Savarkar. Fowler&fowler should not rest his views on a reaction to present Hindu Right. INC (Indian National Congress) took decades to understand that freedom struggle should be something more than annual cocktail parties. There was a long history of freedom struggles, beginning from Sanyāsi Revolt of ~1770 and many peasant and tribal revolts (culminating in 1857 rebellion in which millions of peasants also participated), which many "mainstream historians" ignore. Why textbooks prescribed by organisations like NCERT (National Council of Educational and Research Training) cannot be considered "mainstream view"? Gandhi symbolised the most important component of India's freedom struggle, but there were others too who should not be neglected. The whole group of Gandhi was defeated by Subhas democratically  in the election of INC President, which reflects the mood of mainstream India, and it was in response to this changing mood that Quit India movement was launched. Quit India movement was spontaneous, because the leadership was within bars before the movement started. A large number of Indians had volunteered for INA (after its foundation with the help of 40000 war captives) which the scholarly version cited by Fowler&fowler ignores. I think Fowler&fowler should favour a more balanced account of India's freedom movement. Bhagat Singh's group was insignificant, but the impact of Bhagat Singh was enormous. These are not my POV, but based on the consensus of leading historians responsible for framing India's history textbooks (NCERT). If this article needs slight expansion for reflecting well sourced facts, it should be done, carefully. -Vinay Jha Talk04:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am aware of Bose's political leanings.  See my original post here.  As for the NCERT books, I note they are high-school books. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Next thing I am going to hear is that Vinay Jha is a puppet of Kuntan. His name sounds very similar to a deputy puppet master of Kuntan. Confused boy, drop the nationalistic scales from your eyes and look at the professor. That might be enlightenment for you. 59.91.254.21 10:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No one wants to belittle the role of Gāndhi; Gāndhi taught a defeated and unarmed people to rise against a mighty empire. No other participant in the freedom struggle can match Gandhi's role. What Fowler&Fowler is missing is that NCERT textbooks reflect the consensus among topmost Indian historians on contentious issues. No single author can be authorized to reflect the academic consensus. No one has ever charged NCERT of nationalistic bias &c. A reader above has used derogatory remarks for me above("sockpuppet,boy") just because I asked for following the consensus and not some lopsided accounts. Jinnah's role also needs to be accounted for. He was forced to change his course after he was cheated by Nehru &c after 1937 elections. During the last decades of British rule, Gāndhi, Jinnāh and Subhās were most influential persons, in descending order, although the control of Gāndhi over Congress itself was weakining in his last days. We must not forget Gāndhi opposed partition but all his prominent disciples abandoned him. India was ruled militarily, and the importance of Naval Mutiny cannot be belittled. -Vinay Jha Talk11:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Vinay, just dont lose sleep over trolls calling you names.  Next time you see such trolling, just revert them or ignore them and move on.  Dont dignify their trolling with responses.  See WP:DFTT.  Sarvagnya 18:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Vinay, Yes simply ignore such attention-seeking IP trolls. As for, "No one has ever charged NCERT of nationalistic bias &c." - please read NCERT controversy.  Of course the NCERT textbook debate is off-topic here and hopefully will not be resurrected on this page :-)  Abecedare 18:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: That hideous military thing

message: Flower, you reverted my edit[] in the Indian History section. Can you please give me an explanation? 
I had written this covering the Indian History from the start of the independence movement and ending with the declaration of republic in three paragraphs. This section was based on facts and whenever I made a claim, I provided reference. I will appreciate your response.
Sumanch 02:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it because it was unencyclopedic (i.e. poorly written, poorly spelled, and full of biased statements); besides, there is no consensus yet to expand the history section.  You are welcome to discuss what you are  up to on this talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by {{user|Sumanch}}

message: I think sections on Science and technology in India and on Education in India would be eminently suitable additions.Rueben lys 13:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New sections needed

message: The above points are not argue only about the INA or Bose or Rajagopalachari, or Nehru or anybody else who feels left out, but to emphasise that the prose in the article, as it is, gives a factually wrong interpretation (Starts in 1920, ends in 1947, with nothing by peaceful people walking down the road in processions). That should be addressed.And that is why I tried to include the notable eventsRueben lys 16:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this will include the early movements,Khilafat and Non-coop movement, 1929 call for Purna Swaraj, Dandi March, mention briefly the leftist radicals around late 1920s. State the pollitical reforms that came in 1930s, diisions within the Congress in late 1930s, say opinion was divided about the war, quit India happened during the war, INA was formed during the war, the Simla conference after the war, and INA trials and bombay mutiny in 1946.Rueben lys 16:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Point to note

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).  Can anyone look into doing this for India#Subdivisions.  I think it would be very helpful.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Labeled Area Templates

message: Hi. Prior to this, I've never even editted this article or its talkpage. Is it possible that someone created a redirect to an article that I have on my watchlist, and moved this page to that redirect? Can someone check? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 17:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was just wondering the same thing. It'll be something to do with the recent pagemove vandal. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't edited on this page either, and there it is on my talk page! Wiki glitch? ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 00:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why is this page on my watchlist??? 

message: Can anyone verify whether the ISBN code of Malayala Manorama Yearbook mentioned in the reference is correct, because the Manorama Yearbook 2003 that I have doesn't mention any ISBN code(surprisingly). Rather an ISSN code is given 0542-5778. I searched on Worldcat and Google Book but got 'no results' KnowledgeHegemony 16:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay so being a periodical Manorama has an ISSN code. Accordingly, I am changing the code. Though I am wondering how did that false ISBN code creep in. KnowledgeHegemony 09:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything about this periodical, but the 2003 yearbook is a book and (at least) Amazon does give an ISBN, which is: 8190046187.   For the 2005 Yearbook, the ISBN is 8189004042.  Since the 2005 numbers are different from the 2003, they must not be ISSNs, which as numbers for a periodical should have remained the same. From, the information, on Amazon, the citation should be: Matthew, K. M. (ed.)  2003.  Manorama Yearbook 2003.  Kottayam: Malayala Manorama.  .  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the helpKnowledgeHegemony 15:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISBN code mentioned maybe incorrect 

message: Please modify or rvv if you feel. No problem :)KnowledgeHegemony 17:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test edit to External links