User talk:Fundamental metric tensor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!, please leave a message below. Thanks.

Contents

[edit] Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, use edit summaries, especially when you're changing numbers in data tables. —Kenyon (t·c) 05:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Isro budget.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Isro budget.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Empire

We've been through this before [1]. Not going to get embroiled into an argument with you, if you can't understand why your edits are utterly inappropriate. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Three different editors have now reverted your edits. I hope that tells you something. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Mariya here. Thanks for talking not warring.
One little quote is nice, but I could give you a qoute from a British Prime Minister about how Herr Hitler was a reasonable guy.
Does that make it a fair and balanced opinion?
Did Hitler get freedom for Germany after the unwelcome (to them) impositions of the League of Nations? Was Nazi Germany a "free" country - or was it an "independent" country.
See the difference?
Independence implies that a country is run by people in that country (usually, but not always, from that country).
Freedom implies something different.
Nazi Germany is perhaps the most striking "modern" example of the difference, but it also applies to some of the former Soviet republics - they are independent, but in at least one case there is a lifetime ruler. Not much freedom about that.
I understand your patriotism.
Patriotism is often a good thing in a malleable world
But it is not the stuff of reasoned debate, or consensus.
Editors from another country (I am sure you can guess which) have a lot of patriotism too.
Is Iraq, for example, independent, free, both, or neither? Can a country run by a brutal dictator be independent / have freedom? What about now? - Iraq has a locally elected government, who are technically in charge - so is that independence or freedom? Or neither?

The points you make about post-independance problems seem to be a case of "having your cake and eating it". Politician love such rhetoric - after all, "success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan".
Do you have any good quotes from "heavyweight" sources?
(as the ancient greeks pointed out, democracies tend to elect the popular rather than the able)
Anyway, again thanks for talking, not warring.
Mariya - x -
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 09:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentalwhateveryournameis, have you looked at, say, Encarta or Britannica's articles on the British Empire? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Quite a user name, isn't it. Pity I'm not clever enough to know what it means;)

Mariya - x -
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.249.0 (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi, again.
Some economists feel that the end of the British Empire was due to a lack of money, after the crippling cost of WWII. The easy money to be made in India had already been made, and it was no longer worth the while. There are "heavyweight" quotes available to support this, if you are interested.

Another view provided by some revisionist historians is that decolonisation had racial undertones. Had Indians remained as Imperial citizens, they would have had a lot of mobility in the Empire. Their growing wealth meant the likelyhood that more and more would be able to travel, so by ending British Rule, it gave Britain a much greater ability to restrict immigration. Again, a trip to the library will provide some heavyweight sources for this, particularly amongst more modern sources.
My personal POV (and it is just that - my POV) is that like the end of the Roman Empire, there was not one cause, but many (how's that for a "heavyweight" paraphrase of Gibbon - it doesn't get much more "heavyweight" than him!).
Probably best not to go too heavily on particular items - the massacre you refer to is, I assume, already in Wikipedia, because it shows up in a blue link. Is that not enough. Shall I bung in a few sourced references to Nazi collaborators amongst some Indians in favour of Independence? - now they were certainly morally dodgy!

The issue of the Bengal Famine of 1943, would appear, at least superficially, to be somewhat more complex than you suggest. The Wikipedia page makes reference to the primary cause being a cyclone on the 16th October 1942. The same page also suggests that the Indian economist Amartya Sen says that there was no overall shortage of food, but rumours of shortages and the subsequent hoarding behaviour of some caused a very uneven distribution of the food. It is difficult to see how this is the fault of the British. The British seem to have been a little slow in their reaction, but that is hardly causal to the start of the famine.

On the subject of the timing of the speed of British withdrawal, since Gandhi, in 1942, had insisted that Britain withdrew immediately, it is difficult to blame the British for withdrawing too quickly, without giving at least equal blame to Gandhi and his supporters. The problems of partition, and the border ethnic cleansing, were not caused by the British, but by the rival claims of two irreconcilable groups. The Muslims, as former colonial masters themselves, had no intention of being told what to do by the Hindu majority in India, and the partition was an attempt to reduce the inevitable bloodshed. How well it succeeded is a matter of opinion, but it is hard to believe that partition was worse than what would have happened if what is now Pakistan had remained part of a united India. I would remind you that muslims are supposed to respect Jews and Christians (as "People of the Book"), but that did not apply to other faiths. And you've seen how much respect muslims give the Jews! So what do you think would have happened in the Northern provinces of India?

As regards the massacre, it would be appropriate, would it not, to contextualise the event in any entry. Why do YOU think that the British acted as they did? Then we can discuss from there.

So, I am sure you will agree, it is not just a list of some facts that give a balanced view. It is all about context.
Anyway, enough from me. I hope I have given you a little to chew on.
Mariya - x - (logged in to my usual system this time!)
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 19:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

History is an overlapping set of narratives with no single, clear objective truth (or if there is one, it is very difficult to fathom in almost all cases). Some authors will disagree with (or not mention) the points I have made. Other authors will agree.
The scientific process is, after all, a competition between competing theories to find the most robust.
One of the most exciting (and annoying) things about history is that while it should be fixed (after all, everything in history has already happened), it isn't. New evidence comes to light. Existing evidence is re-examined and compared. Even social attitudes to past events change the focus on what previuosly happened.
One interpretation of the British Empire is that it was primarily defensive, giving Britain (and her new Protestant religion) protection from the Spanish. Foreign trade allowed both the Dutch and the English the power to resist Catholic domination in the 1600's. Later threats included the French and rivalry with the Dutch. The British were interested in India to prevent the French and or the Dutch from getting it. British involvement in Canada and Australia also prevented or reduced French expansionism. So the British were essentially just protecting themselves, and on the way made a major impact on the lives of millions of others.
Essential the same argument has been made about the Roman Empire (especially before Julius Caeser and the conquest of Gaul), and has also been made (and by some still is being made) about the Islamic expansion from a limited area of the Middle East to major world influence.
However, that is just one set of interpretations, and many would argue with all of them and or some of them.
Others see empires/colonisation as successful conflict resolution, with the ruled/colonised just being lifes losers who are trying to excuse their own defeat, and if they had had the chance would/could have done the same. Nietzsche was stong on this - re "Beyond Good and Evil".
But now we are straying into political philoshophy (which overlaps history to a greater or lesser extent depending on your point of view), and it would only be fair to read other political philosphers too (e.g Plato, Machievelli, Locke, etc.).
I certainly don't know the answers (just repeating other people's opinions), but I hope you enjoy your journey.
Mariya - x -
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 06:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Social

So how is life in Texas? Never been there myself. Only really been (apart from day-trips) to Michigan myself.
Good luck with the studies. What are you studying? From your username, it sounds like Mathematics.
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 05:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalism

The statement clearly states that it is not a majority view. --Neon white 13:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

India isn't singled out. The paragraph mentions, irish nationalism, religious zionism, pakistani nationalism etc. --Neon white 20:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The article refers mainly to the Republic of Ireland rather than the island as a whole, although there does exist irish nationalism in northern island. I don't think the paragraph is unduly weighted towards hindu nationalism, it only briefly mentions the existence of hindutva parties. There's nothing is the text that suggests it is the dominant expression of india. I think that the BJP is unquestionably hindu nationalist. --Neon white 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Removed citation for holidays on India page

Hi! The result of your edit was this. In the difference between your and the previous version, your edited version contained a lot of rubbish (probably incorporated due to some error). See the Citation number 103, in the "Notes". There was definitely some error. that is why your edit was reverted. You can add the citation. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Empire

Hello FMI. You may remember you posted on my talk page a few months ago on balancing the article on the British Empire. I see from your above discussions that you probably have looked through literature pertaining to some of these issues. I noticed particluarly your earlier discussion with a fellow-editor, User:Mariya Oktyabrskaya on the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre, 1943 Bengal famine, and the British leaving India. On the first and the last issues, I will point you to Hindu-German Conspiracy#Political impact and the Indian National Army#Impact (both of which I wrote mostly, so take this suggestion with caution).

I am not an expert on the Bengal Famine, so I cant help you there, but I believe, based on the references I found while writing the two articles, that the Amritsar massacre happened because the entire Hindu-German Conspiracy (you may know this as Ghadar conspiracy, or Ghadr rebellion) happened, especially becasue it happened through WW I. Incidentally, you will find in Nigell Collet's The Butcher of Amritsar mentions of parts of this conspiracy, notably the Kabul Mission and Provisional Government of India, and it was against the percieved influences of these Mischief Makers that Reginald Dyer spent most of the latter haf of his war. The Rowlatt Commission was established mostly as a consequence of the threat percieved from the Ghadarite and the Berlin committee people in Afghanistan , which the Indian independence movement till recently only referred to as "the sedetious conspiracy" (which again was the Indo-German Conspiracy).

As for why the British left India, you might find Peter Fay's The Forgotten Army... and Lawrence James' Raj:The making and unmaking of British India quite helpful, since both addresses the fact that Quit India was suppressed by using the army, but after the war, the nationalist fury in the forces around the INA trials made repeating such an effort impossible. Ronald Hyam's Britain's Declining Empire: The Road to Decolonisation 1918-1968. Cambridge University Press., ISBN 0521866499. may also put this into context. I wont go into axis collaboration and all that since this has been addressed in the Indian National Army article. I will say however, most historians would agree that the events around the INA and the INA trial and Bombay mutiny had a significant part to play in the British decision to leave India. Your high school NCERT history book wont say these, but I would suggest looking up peer reviewed journals, most notably the Pacific Historical Review and the Journal of Asian Studies.

As for your earlier query to me, in the Hindu-German Conspiracy references section, you will find Percy Sykes' 1921 lecture South Persia and the Great War reprinted in The Geographical Journal that year. Although quite long, you will find there mentions that the British enterprise in Persia was based (if I remember correctly) on deceit and other not very honourable stuff. As for some of the other aspects, I would suggest Verney Lovett's 1921 book on the History of Indian Nationalist movements, which also deals with the not very honorable enterprises and also puts to rest any theories of pollitical progress as goodwill. It was a carrot-and stick policies to stave off unrest and stimulate the moderatists while at the same time suppressing and white-washing the terrorist movement. Incidentally, Lovett sat on the Rowlatt Commission and should be able to disabuse any notion that Rowlatt commission was for any reasons other than addressing the revolutionary problem brought forth by the Ghadar Conspiracy.

Sorry to have gone on rambling, but hope this helps. There are excellent articles in JSTOR.Rueben lys (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello FMT, yes, you are right, quite a lot of accounts of the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre do suggest that it was an isolated incident by a demented Dyer, but you will find a number of historians including eg Richard Popplewell,(1995, Intelligence and Imperial Defence: British Intelligence and the Defence of the Indian Empire 1904-1924., Routledge, ISBN 071464580X), Lovett (I have mentioned the book above), Hugh Tinker (reference in the Conspiracy article), as well as Sumit Sarkar agreeing that it was part of a larger effort in response to the Indo-German Conspiracy and the revolutionary movement in Punjab and Bengal. The Rowlatt act itself was an extension of the Defence of India act 1915 which also passed in light of the threat from the conspiracy.
In response to the "Granting" of independence, have a look at Ronald Hyam's book I suggested earlier, as well as most books by American historians which deal with the last years of the Raj. You will se quite categorical views that if the INA trials and the mutinies like Bombay mutiny did not happen, the Raj could have gone on for another 15-20 years.

Lastly, I did not mean "Your High school NCERT text book" as Your in particular, I meant NCERT history book in general (if you see what I mean). Hope this helps. Good luck with editing, I am sure we'll meet again.Rueben lys (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star

Hello RJ, I think the reference I had given for Sanskrit etymology of star already states that star derives from Sanskrit although it doesnt mention Sitara explicitly. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello FMT. If the sentence had only said it was derived from Sanskrit then I wouldn't have a concern. But I can't be sure that it, historically, was derived from "sitara". That's why I'd like to see a reference for that point. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Constitution of India

Thanks for your comment. I will appreciate if you can contribute anyway. Can you give me a link to the NCERT book? Thanks. Sumanch (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edits

I am going through a brain freez. Can go over the edits and recomend or do any modifications to help me. Thanks.Sumanch (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Influence

I agree! Right now this section is just a list. I think it will be a good idea to write a para discussing the influences in general and spliting it into an article of its own. And, thanks for the changes.Sumanch (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] List of Indian states by the etymology of their name

In the meaning section, states with Pradesh in their name have been described as Land of. I think Province of will be more suitable because pra . desh means sub . country. I dont think State of is as suitable as Province.

I think List of Indian states by the etymology of their name should be merged with States and territories of India.Sumanch (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:West India page

I believe it will be good to take the India locator map itself for West India page. Most of Wikipedians(which are non-India or Indian with little geographical KB) do not understand states from their map shapes. Mostly people recognize India map (even non-Indians). For more understanding you may highlight the West Indian states with separate color than rest of India and use it as West India Locator map. But I would vote for this base map only as it is the most used map, has been a FP and widely accepted. Its better to refer to such a thing than a new one for good understanding. gppande «talk» 17:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi,

You reverted my edit after I added Hindi and Portuguese as official Languages. Well, I think Portuguese is not an official language of Goa anymore. You were right. However, Hindi is a co-official language of Maharashtra, Diu & Daman, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli. I get this information from the link below.

http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/newsletter_cyberbulletin/india_inde_e.htm

Hence, I shall add Hindi again but not Portuguese. Gujarat does not have a co-official language though. Gujarati is the only official language of Gujarat. If you think Hindi should not be listed as an official language, we must first make sure it is not. 122.167.32.107 (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Second-class citizen

Since you are an Indian and closer to the situation than I am, I will not argue your change to the page. In school, we were usually given India's caste system (lower castes and outcastes in particular) as an example of second class citizenry, so that went into the page. We have had trouble in the past, with different minorities (including teens) insisting that their group was being persecuted, and thus should be included as examples in the article (more often than not, the "problem" was their group was not indulged, or given first priority over others, in a society), or that a given group was not persecuted, despite the facts. In the end, we (Mariskell and I, who co-created the article) decided to stick to historic examples, and the page has luckily stayed pretty calm since them.

The text ran that the caste system has been described as creating second class citizens. This technically is still true (describing something doesn't necessarily make it the way it is described)... but like I said, I will not argue the point, and I will thank you for your input on the matter.

I have read and heard at different times that under British rule, the caste system was either supported, or repressed, by the British government in India. Could you please tell me which is accurate? Did the policy change over time? Thanks. Zephyrad (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] North India...

Hey, Congrats... Finally, someone stood up to clean up this page...! I literally died fighting politics... :( Keep up the good work...!Mugunth(ping me!!!,contribs) 06:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map for North India

We created that map from this svg file. Use InkScape to edit it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:India-locator-map-blank.svg

Mugunth(ping me!!!,contribs) 04:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Corruption in India article

The article is still not complete, many more works need to be done in the article. However I don't see anything wrong in the statement "It is prevalent within every section and every level of the society". It's not biased. What our eyes are still able to see is a really bad picture created by the actual situation and supported by the statistical data. The corruption rate is really high in India. And the statement is supported by PUCL which is a reliable source. But I am completely agree that comparison with other countries is very much needed. Not only that, a separate section is needed titled "Efforts for combating corruption" or something like that. The article should be divided in the following sections:

  • Causes of corruption
  • Overview
    • Corruption in Government agencies
    • Corruption in religious institutions
  • Effects of corruption
  • Whistleblowers
  • Measures for combating corruption
  • International comparison.

By this format, the article will be completed IMO. I have not enough time now, I will work on it later after researching some more on the topic. If you have the time, you can go ahead and at least add the contents on combating corruption and international comparison. Just a quick search of the Transparency International website will helpful for the comparison with other countries. At present I am marking the article with {{expand}} tag so that readers can understand that the article is still not complete. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] North India

Please refrain from making disruptive edits to articles, especially as you have done to North India. The article is already rated as B-Class and enjoy consensus from various editors. Kindly engage in civilised discussion on article talk page why you would like to change the article drastically by removing sections which throws light on cultural and socio-economic condition of North Indian states. Sections removed without consensus amounts to vandalism. --Himhifi 10:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


User:Himhifi, remember, you were blocked temporarily for not following consensus on this article and for adding vandal warning templates on other users' pages? I'm reverting back to the previous version...Please raise the issue on talk page, and stop adding this vandal warn templates on co-editors talk pages.Mugunth(ping me!!!,contribs) 11:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)