Talk:India/Archive 38

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Removal of comments from Talk page

What are the thoughts of users regarding removing someone's legitimate comments from talk page? User Moreschi recently removed a set of perfectly legitimate arguments by another user regarding their thoughts on his manifesto regarding martial law on India page. Are we not allowed to air our thoughts freely on the talk page even as long as they are petinent to Wikipedia and India article? --Blacksun 17:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Simple. It is flagrant and disgusting abuse of his tools as Nick points out here. And talking down to editors like Dinesh who keep churning out FA after FA is as uncouth as it can get. Sarvagnya 17:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so do we want license to edit-war? Ain't going to happen. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
No it bloody isn't. It's an attempt to focus the debate on the real issues, rather than personalising it. I'm a bit disappointed in Nick; Moreschi is right, the foolishness needs to stop. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you mean, Guy, but I wouldn't have had any problems with the guidelines been enforced if it were some other administrator. Forcing your point down someone's throat uncivilly and without any kind of consensus was the locus of the dispute here. In any case, the appropriate development of the article is our aim and for that we need both Fowlers and Sarvagnyas to agree upon a consensual and neutral version of the article, which would be in the interest of the 'pedia. It would be relevant to note here, that it is always better to discuss changes before making them on the article page. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, someone reinstate his comments - just not right in the middle of mine. I find that really off-putting, just makes reading the page very difficult. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why I told you on your talk page that you should have refactored the comments instead of completely removing them. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Vote or Joke?

There were 11 images in the Image Rotation Template (in the culture section). Those are the images that have been stably rotated for over two weeks and the ones that people are voting on. Why have all these extra images been suddenly added to the vote? I am withdrawing from the vote unless the original 11 are restored. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The point of the rotation was to see if we can rotate images and to see if that would work out. We had agreed that we would discuss the images being rotated later on. This is what we are doing now Nikkul 21:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry, nothing is permanent on Wiki. You cant expect that that no other image will ever be added and these "stable"iamges will always be there and blah blah blah.

  • I was provided a link to go to if I wanted to add images. If I go there now, the culture section has disappeared.Its only the flauna rotation.
  • This is where we are discussing which images will be added to the rotation. Hence, this is the place to discuss the images. You are welcome to add images that you feel are good representations of Indian culture. But dont expect that everything is going to be premanent and no one should be able to images because they didnt before etc.
  • There was no deadline for having all images into the rotation before some magical god said "Stop" no more images from anyone... ever. Nikkul 21:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Nikkul. Saying those 11 images and none else should be part of rotation is ridiculous. Those 11 didnt get rotated "stably" for 2 weeks. Those 11 were put there and then people got too busy to add any more and anyway 11 was sufficient to carry out trials. Nobody spoke of any freeze. Except, of course, I said we stick to one per state so there is some limit to how much it can bloat. I added more comments too. And until now, I dont see any of the self-styled watchdogs weigh in there and make a bonafide attempt at consensus while they continue to fill pages with their pointless and specious takes on everything. Sarvagnya 21:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Even the one per state image can be rotated after some time (maybe a few months) to avoid it becoming boring. But that is something we can decide later.Dineshkannambadi 21:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. That is precisely one of my other suggestions on that page. I've suggested replacing the entire crop with fresh images every 3 or 6 months provided we get equally worthy replacements. Sarvagnya 21:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
"Avoid being boring" should never be a criteria for image selection. It only primarily becomes boring to us who spend way too much time on this page. For a first time reader it is more important that the most relevant images are shown. The reason we do rotation is because there are more than 6-7 images that fit the "most relevant" criteria. It is not meant to entertain us. The selection criteria needs to be extremely strict - unfortunately so far it has become free for all.--Blacksun 22:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It is for a reason that I added "equally worthy replacements". And even support having a pool not larger than 8-10 pictures at the most. And I have even proposed at some length how I propose to achieve it. So are you going to add some value to that discussion or just nitpick and complain? Can you for once move further than .. "ohh.. rotation is so wrong.. everything is so wrong.. i agree with rotation.. but not implementation... blah blah blah." Sarvagnya 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be a hard cap of three images per rotation of slot. This will force people to find the very best. If after some time we realize that we need even more images then we can raise the cap. Starting with 8-10 is not feasible as we don't have a system in place. Is that solid enough for you? --Blacksun 10:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with user:Blacksun. I should also like to remind editors that the very idea of rotation is an experiment on this page that had no consensus, but only a narrow majority (11 to 8) for rotation with strict selection at WP:PINSPC (but without FP quality condition). user:Blacksun voted "for" rotation; his concerns need to be taken seriously. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Blacksun, I agree that the discussion should be on a higher level, but I think we all are going to have to be patient until we come up with a more refined process for choosing images. At least we're discussing here. I added an invitation at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics to try and involve more editors, who hopefully aren't part of this blood feud. This is going to have to evolve, which was the understanding from the beginning of Saravask's implementation - but for now it's still a vast improvement over what was on the page previously. ॐ Priyanath talk 22:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Rotation is a must because no image can satisfy the condition "is a must for this section" given that both India and wiki are dynamic, though I am not suggesting any deadline or timeline. However, those images that have already hogged the limelight in other sections like Ajanta paintings, Taj, Bombay stock market should be considered for immidiete replacement.Dineshkannambadi 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It is very simple. Get a consensus for the removal of the Taj image on this page, and you'll get to remove it. Until then, expounding principles of dynamism for the wiki or "hogging the limelight" for the Taj, serves little purpose. Those things have been said before many times on this page, which, however, contends with many viewpoints, not all like yours. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have said earlier, all images should be rotatable. Taj does not get special preference (no offence to Shah Jahan and Mumtaz) just because its your pet.Dineshkannambadi 23:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So basically, to sum up Fowler's concerns, it was the concept of rotation that was being experimented with. There was an agreement that we would discuss the images in the rotation seperately at a later time. This is what we are doing now. Now we are discussing which images will go into the rotation. Nikkul 00:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not what I said. The original vote for rotation (by a slender majority) was for "Rotation of Images (with decision on image quality made at WP:PINSPC and with no "Featured Quality" condition on image)" (See here). As far as I am aware, only a handful of these new images have been nominated and discussed on WP:PINSPC, but rather are being crammed down our throats, all at once, in this makeshift disorganized process, in which anyone can add any image they want and have them compete for the limited time individual editors have at their disposal to attend to such tasks. Would you like me to demonstrate this by adding a dozen more images? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fowler, Do we look like pigs to you? It is not that hard for humans to picture a photo in the culture section. An image does not need to be in a rotation for two weeks in order for a human to picture what it would look like in the culture section. And no, no one is going to delete the pictures because this is where we discuss which images will go into the rotation and which images will not. You have no power in saying that those 11 images are the only ones that will be voted on because people have been able to "see" them in the culture section. This is where we discuss the images individually. There is no other place where we have discussed the culture images. Second of all, no one is cramming anything down your throat. And you are welcome to add images, no one has placed a restriction on you. Just as long as they relate to indian culture. Nikkul 08:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Also let us make it clear since Fowler has blurred the actual stats of the vote [2]:

  • 11 people voted yes for rotation.
  • 3 people voted yes if the images were WP:FP (Rajek & Knowledge & Gizza)
  • 2 people voted yes if the images were featured quality (Nichalp, Green Giant (& strict enforcement)).
  • 3 people voted no

So the vote wasnt 11 to 8 Nikkul 09:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image rotation implementation proposal

I still believe in the utility of the proposal. However, it is a complete mess right now. I think that it needs to start with very strict guidelines and methodology. I propose that we have at most -three- images per slot. I also propose that every thing is fair including Taj image. The guidelines of selection should be same as if there was no rotation. This is bit ambiguous and can be hammered out. I believe that a small and hard cap will allow us to develop this into something more concrete that can be expanded if needed. I also think that we should keep the knitty gritty of specific images to be selected on another talk page as not to swamp this one as is the case right now. --Blacksun 10:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I've said before that more important right now than fighting over specific images is coming up with a process and guidelines for rotation. I would be happy if currently non-partisan editors do this, and will be following Aksi's advice and taking a time-out from this page. I also believe a rollback to the 'stable' version is untenable - there was as much fighting over the previous image 'rotation' (taj and toda) as this. The well was poisoned long before the current brouhaha, and I believe one editor is personally responsible for the current (and long-standing) climate here. A look back in the history will show that the 'latecomers' are just the latest cannon fodder. There will be a new batch tomorrow if something doesn't change. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Too many votes

Vote against any more votes on this page

Votes against this vote

I hope you all get the point I am trying to make here. Wikipedia is not a democracy. I've been back here 5 days and this is the 3rd or 4th vote I am seeing on this talk page. This is not how things are supposed to be done here. I know you all don't get along with each other. I would suggest that all of you take a nice voluntary break from this article and try editing somewhere else for a week. This article is not going to remain FA in this manner. If you look from the outside, all this bickering really looks silly. It really doesn't matter much if it the culture section has an image of a hut or a mosque or a temple. Nor does it matter if a state has had the most no. of X awards. Do stop before things get uglier. You all are the most productive users left in the Indian project. Please spend your time writing more DYKs, FAs, GAs and doing more copyediting (not that you are not already doing all of this) than spending majority of your time on an already featured article. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I vote to support. This is the worst case of main article fixation I've seen recently. Relata refero 09:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem, ostensibly, is that there is no way to establish which is the right image to use on the article page. The only way this can be resolved is to have a selection of pictures (featured and/or good quality) that can be used in rotation. Otherwise, I do not see any other way for resolving the issue of having images that best reflect India, mainly because India is made up of diverse cultures and to represent them all that once or leaving anyone of them out is not possible. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly with Aksi.

The bickering/voting/rotation thing seen above is totally to appease different *editors* , rather than focused on the *readers*. The idea of rotation is ridiculous ... and a daily rotation is even more so. People won't be coming back daily to this article to see *today's rotated image*, rather readers would most likely come to the article once to get the information they need. If an image is good, have it in the article. If it isn't, then don't have it here. An unstable article is NOT worthy of being a featured article ... and with the ridiculous vote seen above, this article is becoming unstable day by day.

Also, Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and things are decided by consensus and policies rather than numeric superiority. --Ragib 09:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a very thin line that distinguishes consensus and "numerical superiority" in this case. How otherwise would you be able to decide whether an image is essential for the article while the other is not. Would you like to categorise images under "more-Indian" and "less-Indian"? If you have a better proposal, let's hear it out. On the other hand, I feel that this method of image rotation is rather inconvenient to have on regular basis and there are some images (as Fowler pointed out above; Taj Mahal) that should be always included in the article. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem, Ragib, is that there are many good images that are relevant completely. So how do you propose we show all of India's culture in two single images? Nikkul 09:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You do not need to show all of India's culture with the help of images. If anyone wants to learn about the culture of India, he should visit the Culture of India article. We do not and should not try to show everything about the culture in India article. Your proposal of image rotation is also not going to show the whole culture of India. As Ragib said, no one is going to come and check India's article every month. If you are targeting the readers, then select 1 image and move on, leave the section alone. If the target of your image rotation policy is not the readers, but the editors, then I would suggest that you move away from this article anyway. We are writing an encyclopedia for the readers and not for our own psychological benefit. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, by and large with Aksi, and have been saying this repeatedly over many months that this FA doesn't need the work; it is the sub-articles that need work. The problem, as I see it, is that, in the past admins like user:Nichalp, user:Ragib, user:Dbachmann, ... use to watch over the article. For the last three or four months there has been no one doing that. The problem began with Blnugyen's post on this page in late August 2007 (see here) on expanding the article and why it was in danger of losing its FA status. That seems to have given carte blanch to people who want to change it in ways they want to. The votes (to the extent that I initiated some) were undertaken to stem the tide of endless additions and chaos. The rotation idea and the two dozen images that have been added, all at once, is but the latest example of this chaos.
I would go even farther. Why not rollback to Nichalp's stable version of six months ago? I would be for it. My interlocutors? I very much doubt it. Or, even a rollback to the version of last month? I would be for it. I'm guessing my interlocutors would cry: WP:OWN Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Blnguyen's post started it? How intellectually dishonest can one get? Sarvagnya 00:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no need for a roll back right now. Right now, all of you should just leave this article as it is and let other people fix it as what all of you are doing is not that even though your intentions are good. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thats almost like saying that one guy will own the article for a year and when he leaves to get a breather everyone who got their hands dirty and did the dirty work should also leave. Its easy to stop by this page once a year and be sane.. but not when you've taken the trouble to thanklessly fight page owning, pov pushing and weaseling day in and day out. Sarvagnya 23:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Fine, I am happy to take a break from editing this article. I hope you will encourage others (especially user:Sarvagnya, User:Dineshkannambadi, user:Gnanapiti, and user:KNM) to do the same. I will provide below some statistics that I have already spent some time collecting on the inappropriateness of the Kannada writers edit (yesterday in the culture section), and, after that, I will lay off. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriateness of the Kannada Writers/Jnanpith Edit Yesterday

I did searches in four standard databases for secondary academic sources: (1) Catalogue of Major Academic and National Libraries in the UK and Ireland, 2) US Library of Congress On Line Catalog, 3) The JSTOR catalog of journal articles, 4) Google Scholar Advanced Search, as well as 5) Google Advances Search for University Sites (site:edu). (The last search was undertaken simply to gauge popularity in university settings.)

The Urdu poet Ghalib alone had more references and citations than all seven Kannada winners of the Jnanpith Award put together (in each of the five databases). Iqbal has many more. That late 19th and early 20th century Urdu Poetry is not mentioned in the culture section, but Kannada writers are, is therefore not borne out by the sources. Arranged below are the statistics: the five numbers following each writer represents the number of references that showed up in each database in guided (boolean) searches like "Kuvempu <and> Kannada" or "Kuvempu <and> Kannada Literature" or "Puttappa <and> Kannada" in the Keywords of the book or article description. The method was uses for all searches.

Kannada winners of the Jnanpith Award
Total for the Kannada writers
(245,616,105,31,112)
Mid-19th to Early-20th century Urdu poetry.

Those two representatives alone of late 19th and early 20th century Urdu poetry, is each more notable (in these databases) than all seven Kannada writers put together. And Urdu poetry has many many more poets ... The point I am making it that this gratuitous reference to the Kannada writers needs to be removed, unless one wants to accommodate the more notable writers first, and that would make the culture section very very long.

I know my interlocutors will try and pooh-pooh this data. "One of Fowler's inane exercises," they will say. But this is serious. These writers are simply not notable enough (per secondary sources) in contrast to a Ghalib or an Iqbal, and there is no reason why Wikipedia should give them that notability. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to convey my agreement with your note here. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Even if they were notable, it reeks of something straight out of trivial pursuit. Hindi writers have gotten the award 6 times. Maybe we should write it with some sports commentary flavor; "Kannada writers, the current leading champions with 7 wins, are closely followed by Hindi writers with their 6 wins. Who will win in the end?" The suspense, the drama. Please.--Blacksun 12:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I dont Phoo Phoo your clever "number of hits on google" arguement. I am just amused, seeing a clear religious inclination emerging in your debates, of which I advice you against. The languages these writers, Iqbal and Galib wrote in is hardly considered native to Indian soil, though I am sure their writings are highly cherished. The influence of Urdu/Persian on Indian history is at best minimal to Indian culture (16 century onwards) and this does not compare competitivly to a great language like Kannada language which is not only native to India, but has evolved on Indian soil for over 2000 years, has influenced Tamil, a classical language of India, has been an administrative language for almost 1600 years and has a proven "extant" literature from the 9th century, with numerous references to Kannada writers from as early as 5th-6th century. Why should Galib and Iqbal get the same stage as the seven gems of modern Kannada.
You see Mr. Fowler, the arguement can easily take a different angle.Dineshkannambadi 14:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous - I am shocked that you cannot fathom such a simple and obvious case. --Blacksun 16:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I just want to have this in quotes, in case someone wants to refactor their comments later. User:Dineshkannambadi has just said: "I dont Phoo (sic) Phoo (sic) your clever "number of hits on google" arguement (sic). I am just amused, seeing a clear religious inclination emerging in your debates, of which I advice you against. The languages these writers, Iqbal and Galib (sic) wrote in is hardly considered native to Indian soil, though I am sure their writings are highly cherished. The influence of Urdu/Persian on Indian history is at best minimal to Indian culture (16 century onwards) and this does not compare competitivly (sic) to a great language like Kannada language which is not only native to India, but has evolved on Indian soil for over 2000 years, has influenced Tamil, a classical language of India, has been an administrative language for almost 1600 years and has a proven "extant" literature from the 9th century, with numerous references to Kannada writers from as early as 5th-6th century. Why should Galib (sic) and Iqbal get the same stage as the seven gems of modern Kannada."
What soil is Urdu native to? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Iran? Arabia? It was created smack in the middle of India, in an around Delhi and UP. Muslims (according to 2001 Census of India) comprise 13.4% of India's population and a large majority are speakers of Urdu. Many more than there are Kannada speakers.
Lastly, it is not Google hits, but respected academic databases: 1) Catalogue of Major Academic and National Libraries in the UK and Ireland, 2) US Library of Congress On Line Catalog, 3) The JSTOR catalog of journal articles, 4) Google Scholar Advanced Search used daily in research all over the world. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Notability cannot be decided by comparing hits on JSTOR and Google. If that were the criterion, the Toda Hut image should have been kicked out of the article long time ago. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 15:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
That was the whole point about the Todas, that they did have a large number of secondary sources. Toda culture, from the mid-18th century, has been one of the most studied cultures and their study led to the founding of the fields of Social Anthropology and Ethnomusicology. See earlier discussion on these Talk: Archives, where I have produced the JSTOR and other references on them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Lets do a simple search on Google scholar for "Toda Tribe" and "Rabindranath Tagore". You were vehemently for the inclusion of the former over the latter. The search yielded 1890 results for Toda tribe (note that the words are separated) and 3510 results for "Rabindranath Tagore" (almost twice as much as Toda with the individual words joined). Going by your own argument in this section, you should have favored Rabindranath Tagore over Toda, isn't it? -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 16:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Are we talking about text or images? Where in Wikipedia policy or guidelines, does it say that notability of images is decided by reliable secondary sources? If there were a decision to be made about including a line of text on Indian literature/music and choice was between Tagore and, say, extempore Toda songs (a folk art form, which have been written up in the literature), I would obviously choose Tagore. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Did't you notice this: Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic) as in WP:IMAGE#Pertinence_and_encyclopedicity. The link pointed to is WP:NOTE which essentially indicates that all rules of notability for text are relevant for image as well. Moreover, if you really believed that notability of images need not be backed by secondary sources, why did you take the serious effort of searching about Toda in Google, JSTOR and God knows where else and try to present it as a proof of notability? -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits
I collected the references for the Toda people article and merely provided the link to them on the Talk page (now in archives) here. Try producing half that many references for the Mysore Palace. On JSTOR, there is only one, which while complimentary to the architecture, is hardly complimentary to symbolism created by the "puppet sovereignty" of the Wodeyars. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Blah, blah and more blah. So, so what? Isn't this sufficient evidence that you used the secondary sources to prove notability of Toda image in this article? And where did Mysore Palace come into picture here. I have never used any secondary sources or searched in JSTOR, Google to prove its notability. So dont take this discussion on a tangent. "Puppet sovereignity"? All rajahs under British Raj were not any better... So stop your blatant sarcasm -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 18:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry to say this Kannada language edit tends to reek of regionalism, or, at the very least, regional competitiveness. Winning seven Jnanpith by contemporary Kannada literature does not deserve to be mentioned in the India article. The sentence is extremely skewed. Many language literature can be mentioned for some or other of their uniqueness/ achievement. I am removing the sentence. And they deserve to be mentioned on the article of literature in India. Not here.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
And what would you call, the syncretic tradition of the bauls of Bengal is a well-known form of the latter, isn't that regional and skewed as well? Would you be good enough to remove that? -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 16:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I would. Thanks for bringing this to attention. And also, the names of each state associtaed with classical dance forms may be removed. However, same treatment is not needed for the folk art forms, I guess.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The states mentioned in respect of the classical dance forms are there to provide ready information (without the reader having to click on every link), not to indulge in oneupmanship. It is a pretty diverse group. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have geone ahead and remove a sentence extolling Tagore's Geetanjali in Bengali. It gives a sense of giving importnance to only one vernacular literature which is not faire. It deserves to be be in the article Indian literature.Dineshkannambadi 16:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha...Dinesh did a masterpiece here. He has removed the Tagore Nobel prize sentence writing in the edit note "removed sentence extolling modern Bengali literature only but not other modern literatures." Of all the people, I could hardly expect that from you, my friend Dinesh. This shows how blinded even learned people become when touched a raw nerve! Tagore is only Bengali literature? His Nobel Prize winning is a achievement of Bengali literature only? No friend, Tagore represents pan-India. Incidentally his mother tongue was Bengali so he wrote most of his works in Bengali, But what won him the Nobel Prize was the English version.
Dinesh, give some gap, probably some hours. Then think coolly. And contemplate your edit. You are the no. 1 FA creator for India at present. With your knowledge and reflective capacity, I am sure what will feel you is shame. In a kind of revenge edit, you just removed the literature Nobel Prize from India. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This is ban worthy trolling. I am questioning the quality of all his FA articles now. How can we trust this guy to stay neutral?--Blacksun 16:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
All FAs pass through a stringent process which you should be knowing about. If you have any questions about them, you are welcome to discuss them in their corresponding talk pages. It is easy to criticise, but try to come up with an FA and the effort involved, and you would understand the sweat involved. Moreover you seem to have participated and given a "Strong Support" for Dinesh's article's FA review here. What does that show, Mr. Blacksun? You want to question your own judgments? How do we trust you now when you can do a compete U-turn by praising an editor for the quality of his article but bring him equally down for the same reason. Your comment above deserves an unconditional apology -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 17:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I already said it twice that I was wrong to make that comment. Do you want me to say it one more time? I made that comment in haste and immensely regret making it as I have always held highest respect for Dinesh. It was no doubt a stupid comment and I should be embarrassed about it. I would take it back if I could but well.. I can't. --Blacksun 20:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Questioning the quality of his FAs? Well, walk the talk now if you have it in you. All his FAs have a talk page and you can take your "questions" there. Although it wouldnt be the first time that someone has trolled on those lines. Or better still, let me see you write an FA. Do you have it in you, macho-man? Show us that you can be more than just an arm-chair critic. Sarvagnya 17:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem admitting when I say something wrong. You can sit there and milk it all you want - but I made that comment in haste and regret saying it. Enjoy. --Blacksun 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
No, this is NOT a ban-worthy trolling. This was done in a momentary loss of rational thinking. Blacksun, keep the good faith. Even the most learned people sometimes lose their mind, as we've seen in multiple instances of communal disharmonies in our India. Thankfully, the good faith soon returns, and peace prevails. That's the spirit. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You are right. I was about to delete it before you responded. Hopefully people will chill and realize what they are doing. --Blacksun 16:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Assume good faith, people. You guys have to stop jumping on each other when someone screws up or makes an unfavorable edit. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes Nishkid. We are assuming good faith, and keeping the spirit alive :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I am pleased to see so many admins and experenced editors chipping in and igniting a 'sense' of hope for better, productive and civil discussions. Hope this trend continues in future. Coz' sometimes discussions do get ugly when people start accusing others of trolling, incivility and personal attacks. Some people do get personal here and make personal remarks (thereby creating an atmosphere of bad faith). Hence I request them to visit this page often and let some 'wisdom' prevail. KnowledgeHegemony 17:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't looked into this issue in detail so I'll only make a general statement. Specifying regions in subjective sentences should be avoided because of the regionalistic tensions it creates and because there is already so much to write about India as a whole on this WP:SS article. An example of what I won't consider to be subjective would be mentioning which state has the lowest population density. Of course there are exceptions but they should be limited and rephrased. Rather than say, write Bihar is the poorest state, modifying it to Bihar has the lowest GDP per capita is less harsh, more accurate and can be cited. It will still anger the middle and upper-class Biharis who read this article but we can't WP:CENSOR such important information.
The suitability of Jnanpith appears to be more contentious so request all Kannada and non-Kannada editors to remove their natural, hidden bias towards Karnataka, whether pro or anti, when discussing this issue. (There is a good chance I won't have internet access for the next two or three weeks since I'm in India right now). GizzaDiscuss © 07:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fowler's specious arguments

Fowler doesnt know the first thing about notability. He keeps bringing up this 'relative' notability nonsense every second day. Currency in secondary sources was only meant to be used to establish 'notability' - not 'relative' notability. Arguing that X is "more notable" than Y because X returns n times more hits is almost juvenile. By that logic, we wouldnt go much further than film stars an sportsmen on any article. For that matter, I'd wager a Debashish mohanty or a dhoni would win hands down against say, a Dhanraj Pillay or perhaps, a P T Usha. But we know better. Dont we? By Fowler's logic, William Shakespeare will perhaps end up as more notable than all Indian writers put together. Heck, even a Sidney Sheldon or a 'Harry Potter' would beat us hands down. By his logic, an Iqbal can take on two Ghalibs! LOL.

Ludicruous as comparing Ghalib and Bendre/Kuvempu is, do I need to point out that Urdu draws from a 55 crore pool while Kannada has all of say, 5 crores... and by that logic, Hindi should have had what? 50 jnanpiths by now.. but it only has 6.. one less than Kannada. Hindi's 6 is certainly "more notable" than Kannada's 7 eh?

Anyway, thats not the point. The point is Fowler repeatedly dumping his fallacious and specious arguments on this talk page even after it has been countered and discarded over and over and over again over many months now. If it is not trolling and disruption, I want to know what it is.

Having said that, the line about Jnanpiths was admittedly unwieldy. But all that it required was for us to explore ways of stitching it in better... not the willy nilly reverting that Fowler indulges in and has indulged in for over a year now. Sarvagnya 18:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You are not getting the point. The question was whether "getting an award" makes a poet/writer more notable than all other non-awardees, even if the non-awardees died long long ago before the award was even introduced! What Fowler most likely intended to imply was that the impact of a poet... not the medal-count, is what matters. And rightfully, the impact is demonstrated via literary journals. Shakespeare's literature is not notable/mentioned in academia in the context of India, hence your "example" is not valid. Also, Jnanpeeth per capita of X language speakers is not something people find very interesting in a top level country page.
Finally, personal attacks are bad ... :) --Ragib 18:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
That was never the point. Nobody said that. People certainly know better than to say Karanth is greater than Ghalib coz Karanth got a Jnanpitha and Ghalib didnt! And my note about Fowler's specious arguments doesnt have to do with just this recent flare up. It is about all his arguments for over a year now... starting with his comparison of various Indian festivals. And even his recent argument about muslim demographics. He points out that 13 or 15% are muslims while he leaves it unsaid that a high percentage of them are not urdu speakers at all! Just because people are too fatigued to keep pointing out every sneaky half truth that he plants in every line of his 20 kb posts doesnt mean people are just lapping it up gleefully. For all we know, people are just rolling their eyes.
"Shakespeare's literature is not notable/mentioned in academia in the context of India, .." - thats not the point. stop missing the woods for the trees. My point is simply that ghits and jstorhits are not meant to be used for any exercises in establishing "relative" notability in the first place. "Relative notability" as a concept itself is spurious. period. By his logic, if we were to have two lines about Urdu poetry, Iqbal could jolly well hog both. Secondary sources are for establishing "notability".. NOT "relative notability". Once a person or thing is established as "notable for encyclopedic purposes', they remain so. For that matter all Jnanpith awardees are "notable for ency purposes" many times over. Just as Ghalib is. Just as Iqbal is. Just as Purandara Dasa is. Just as Meera Bai is. Just as Kabir is. And what personal attacks are you talking about? Not sugarcoating one's words is not PA. I couldnt get more matter-of-fact. Sarvagnya 19:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Ghalib, Kuvempu, Tagore, Tulsidas, Iqbal — everyone, and Nobel, Jnanpith, Sahitya academy award, Bharatratna—everything, are notable in their own regard. The point is what to be included in this India article, not in the Indian literature article. Let's ask our common sense. Name a single political person from India. The answer most commonly is Gandhi, he is the father of nation. Name one contemporary poet in India. It is Tagore, the author of our National Anthem and the sole literature Nobel laureate in India. At least, Nobel is a much more well-known, internationally recognized award than Jnanpith or Sahitya Academy, and I hope there is no argument in that regard.
There are several authors/poets in all the languages of India, notable and famous in their own regard. Many have own different awards. And they go on to enrich the Indian culture. The creations in each and every language are treasures of our country, whether or not award-winning. But in the two-sentence section on contemporary Indian literature, what should be mentioned? Nobel or Jnanpith? No ghits or jstor-hits are needed to solve this problem.
And if the argument is to include both, then again, several such instances would come up. And the article itself would become an encyclopedia, rather than an article in the encyclopedia. Why the heck Jnanpith? Why not Bharatratna (in some other part of the article), why not similar awards in theatre, cinema, dances, sports? Let's common sense prevail, and keep up the good faith.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Again.. missing the woods for the trees. We dont need ghits or jstor to decide nobel vs jnanpith? Well then we dont need ghits to decide between Ganesh Chaturthi and the "two eids". You think of festivals in India and you think either of Ganesha Chaturthi or Deepawali. You dont think of Christmas.. do you? You dont think of Buddha Jayanthi. Do you? You dont think of Vaisakhi. Do you? But then Fowler soapboxes relentlessly with ghits of various festivals and the presiding admins give him barnstars. Taj Mahal is Muslim and Mughal architecture but South Indian architecture is simply "South Indian architecture"? Why cant it be Jain or Hindu or Buddhist architecture? Or Hoysala or Chalukya or Chola architecture? Or why Taj simply be "North Indian architecture"? Why the sickening political correctness only with religion? And if awardees like Kuvempu (say) ought not be compared to Ghalib("who died long before the award even existed!") then how come we were made to endure a pointless cockfight between 'awardee' tagore and 'non-awardee' kalidasa. How come Fowler weasels away that Indian vernacular architecture "ranges from the Toda huts to the Bengali huts" and nobdoy bats an eyelid? How come a pathetic hut squats on the page for a year and people contrive to get all misty eyed and make specious cases for it. Or do you think of Toda huts when you think of Indian architecture? Even Indian rural/tribal architecture? How come on sports we cover the entire gamut between hockey to gilli-danda and nobody bats an eyelid while on literature you deem it fit to stop at the Nobel? Nobel isnt even an Indian award, government or non-government. What next? The Booker is more prestigious than the Jnanapith? Phalke award and Bharat Ratna not being mentioned isnt reason why Jnanpith shouldnt be mentioned. If anything we should explore ways to mention all of them. I am sure nobody would have even noticed if we'd mentioned Phalke and Bharat Ratna. Just because we mention Jnanapith, something less of a popstar than the Phalke or Ratna, all hell breaks loose. Just because an idea seems difficult or clumsy to implement isnt grounds for rejection. Talking of trivial pursuits, the likes of Blacksun didnt find the dubious nonsense that Indians taught the world to eat chicken trivial. Why? They didnt find the trivia that trousers came to India from Arabia trivia. Why? Just when something from the south is added all hell breaks loose... simply because the average north indian is utterly ignorant of everything south of the vindhyas. Addition of a Baisakhi or a Gharbha never needs explanation. But addition of a Ugadi or a Sankranti has to be defended as if the editor was a criminal in a courtroom. A Bhangra gets a free ticket into the article but a Yakshagana needs to be justified. Why? Because bollywood has sold its soul to a bastardised mix of hip-hop and bhangra. Thats why? Because in-house filibusters havent heard of it. Thats why? I could go on and on.. but it is hypocrisy and systemic bias like this that has brought things to its sorry state. Sarvagnya 20:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! This post by sarvagnya speaks some good issues. Yes, the systemic bias is there all over the wikipedia.

First, the festivals. If you ask about festival in India, it is deepawali and eid (not Ganeesh Chaturthi, which is regional). Indeed, the festival paragraph can be written as follows: "Many of the Indian festivals are religious in origin, although several are celebrated irrespective of caste and creed. There are a few pan-Indian festivals such Deepavali and the two eids. Multitude of other festivals are celebrated according to regional demographics, such as Holi, Onam, Vijayadashami, Bihu, Durga puja, Christmas, Ugadi, Sankranti, Buddha Jayanti and Vaisakhi.'

Next, architecture—personally I am naive in this topic. I don't know if there are such architectural traditions as Hindu architecture, Jain architecture etc. The present link South Indian architecture takes you to an article which describes all the styles, such as Chola, Vijaynagara, Chalukya, Rashtrakuta etc. No nobody thinks about the Toda architecture when Indian architecture comes into mind.

Literature—Ancient literaures in Sanskrit (pan-Indian) and Tamil (south of Bindhya) covered. In contemporary literature, only the most famous and Nobel-winning person, and the author of the national anthem is mentioned. It stops here for the sake of brevity, there is the indian literature article for the interested person. Nobel is an internationally-recognized award and much more important any Jnanpith or Sahitya Academy award (with due respect to all the awardees). Jnanpith, Bharatratna, Phalke recipients should not be mentioned because then article will blow up in size. However, naming that Jnanpith is highest in literature in India, Phalke in cinema, Bharatratna highest civilian award may be incorporated (just the names of the awards). Any more suggestion to include in the literature paragraph? It includes epics (mahabharat), Kalidas, Sangam, and, Tagore among the contemporaries. May be a general sentence like, "Individual Indian languages have own set of authors who won several national and international awards, for writing in their vernacular as well as English" ? (Sounds very lame, though).

I am not mentioning the chicken-episode because I am not aware of what happened.

Regarding your complain of North Indian bias, to me it's not there (I am not exactly a North Indian). In culture section, I see classic dance forms, folk art forms are represented from all iver India, no North-South-East-west divide.

Better, we could invite some non-Indian wikipedians to have a look, and see their reaction if they think the article over-emphasizes north Indian aspects as opposed to South Indian. Comments? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dont set up straw-men. Nobody asked for every Jnanapitha award winner to be named. Nobody is that stupid. Sanskrit is pan-indian okay. But how did you assume that Tamil is representative enough of "south of the bindhya"?! I'll tell you how. It is another of the notorious north indian stereotypes of all india south of the vindhyas. Everything south is madrasi, right? And neither Kalidasa's works nor sangam can claim to have the same impact (on Indian society, culture and specifically literature) as the Ramayana or the Mahabharata. And what do you mean there's no bias. If there is no bias glaringly visible its probably because the likes of me have wasted hundreds of thankless hours fighting for the smallest of additions and deletions. Several dozen man-hours had to be spent to get Ugadi and Sankranti and Bihu into the article... but I didnt see that the same effort was required for a baisakhi or a holi. Why? Guptas get a free ticket but the Rashtrakutas and Chalukyas have to weather some resistance. And until I added the Rashtrakutas and Chalukyas, it was just all Cholas and Pandyas and Cheras... more south=madrasi crap. Before I added Ugadi and Sankranti, it had to be just 'south=madrasi' Pongal. And I was told that it was because Pongal had more 'brand recollect'! I am still wondering what that meant. A country article is an extremely important article and this one represents a sixth of humankind. It requires that the article be constructed with more care to represent things fairly than with just an eye on FA-ship. Sarvagnya 21:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

section break

Well, since there are six Jnanpith Hindi winners, all from UP, and four Jnanpith Urdu winners, also all from UP, why don't we have a statement to the effect, "The literature of Uttar Pradesh is most represented among the winners of the Jnanpith Award, a prestigious literary award in the country?" That is clearly head and shoulders above any other state. (I am giving this as an example of how other notable statements can be made too, if you down the path of citing awards statistics.)
As for Indian architecture, here are the section headings of the Britannica signed article on Indian architecture:
  1. Indus Valley civilization (c. 2500–1800 )
  2. The Maurya period (c. 321–185 )
  3. Early Indian architecture (2nd century –3rd century )
  4. The Gupta period (4th–6th centuries )
  5. Medieval temple architecture
  6. Medieval temple architecture: North Indian style
  7. Medieval temple architecture: North Indian style of Orissa
  8. Medieval temple architecture: North Indian style of central India
  9. Medieval temple architecture: North Indian style of Rajasthan
  10. Medieval temple architecture: North Indian style of Gujarat
  11. Medieval temple architecture: North Indian style of Karnataka
  12. Medieval temple architecture: North Indian style of Kashmir
  13. Medieval temple architecture: South Indian style
  14. Medieval temple architecture: South Indian style of Tamil Nadu (7th–18th century)
  15. Medieval temple architecture: South Indian style of Karnataka
  16. Medieval temple architecture: South Indian style of Maharashtra, Andhradesa, and Kerala
  17. Islamic architecture in India: period of the Delhi and provincial sultanates
  18. Islamic architecture in India: Mughal style
  19. European traditions and the modern period
Of these, only Mughal architecture, and South Indian architecture are mentioned in the Wikipedia paragraph on Indian architecture (culture section). Do we hear people from Orissa complaining that they are excluded? How about Gujarat? Are they complaining? And central India? (Sanchi, Bodhgaya, ...), Kashmir? They could complain too about a bias? Are the people from Goa complaining? They too have a World Heritage Site? Are the Anglo-Indians complaining? Their heritage too has a few world heritage sites in India? Most people understand that in a highly compressed FA choices have to be made.
Is it that there is a bias? Or simply that POV edits by different people, which may have gone unchallenged on other pages, when attempted on the India page, have foundered on the rocks of WP:RS. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Foundered on the rocks of WP:RS? Like how? Like your chicken and fowl tale? Sarvagnya 22:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see References for Chicken Taxonomy and Domestication. The latest reference, from World Poultry Science Journal (June 2007) says, "Chickens from the Harappan culture of the Indus Valley (2500-2100 BC) may have been the main source of diffusion throughout the world." I removed the mention of the domestication of chicken (in the vignette accompanying the paragraph on food) on account of user:Nichalp's comment about not having little known facts (for which certainty of the attribution is not 100%); not because of certain out-of-date references to the contrary furnished on these pages, references that were hurriedly culled from the web and then prematurely celebrated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1) This wasnt the ref that you'd cited in the article though I couldnt care less where you "hurriedly culled" this ref from.
2) Neither this ref nor what was already there seems to talk of chicken as cuisine.
3) Domestication of chicken has nothing to do with eating of chicken. Man was eating meat since long before Harappa. Man was eating meat(and very plausibly chicken) since his early days in Africa or perhaps since the chicken's own early days in south east asia. So stop taking people for fools. Thanks.
4) Dont you ever tire of embarrassing nichalp and riding piggyback on his fair name every time you get caught on the wrong foot? Sarvagnya 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are the responses to your points:

1) The original references were the two books of K. T. Achya.

  1. Achaya, K. T. (1994), Indian Food: A Historical Companion, Delhi: Oxford University Press. Pp. xvi, 322, ISBN 0195644166.
  2. Achaya, K. T. (1997), A Historical Dictionary of Indian Food, Delhi: Oxford University Press. Pp. xvi, 347, ISBN 0195642546.

They are sitting in my shelves, and I am happy to quote from them: Reference 1. (p.18) (entry) "The Harappans knew the domestic fowl, but its remains are few, and it is not depicted on any seals. Even though domestication may have occurred outside the orbit of Harappan civilization, perhaps in the Gangetic Valley (citation provided here), the Indian jungle fowl Gallus gallus is considered to have been the progenitor of all domestic poultry in the world."

This has been the commonly held belief for some time (based on historical and (scanty) archaeological evidence.) For example, Stanley Wolpert's book, India begins with, "All of us, who wear cotton cloth, use the decimal system, enjoy the taste of chicken, play chess or roll dice, and seek peace of mind or tranquility through meditation, are indebted to India." (Cotton is also (or at least was also) commonly thought to have been first cultivated in India, and more importantly, cotton cloth first thought to have been woven there.) With advances in ecological genetics in the 1990s, the same questions began to be tackled by geneticists. The first such attempts for chicken, which got some publicity, and made their way into popular books, traced the origin to Thailand. And this is what was found by user:Amarrg in his popular references, which I referred to above as "out-of-date." Out-of-date, because, that phylogenetic evidence was soon improved and the domestic chicken is now considered to have "multiple maternal origins" (i.e. multiple centers of origin, based on mitochondrial DNA markers, which are inherited through the mother.) The current thinking is that although it may have been domesticated independently in China, Southeast Asia, and the Indian subcontinent, the one that spread to the rest of the world (Americas, Africa, Europe, Middle East) is the domesticated Gallus gallus of the Indian subcontinent. And this is basically what the references I provide in the link say.

No, I didn't change anything. I provided the updated DNA references in my exchange with user:Amarrg including the references to the multiple maternal origin, and main diffusion from South Asia, but you all seemed too busy celebrating what you thought was your coup to pay attention. The references have been on the link page at least since early November. (See the history of that page.)

3) "Man" was not eating chicken before it spread from South Asia to the rest of the western world. Humans likely were eating wild birds, but they weren't chicken. In other words, in (say) 2500 BC, in Africa, there was no chicken. There may have been wild fowls, pheasants, wild ducks, turkeys, ..., but no chicken. There obviously was something to the taste of the Indian jungle fowl Gallus gallus, otherwise its domination today in poultry wouldn't be so total. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

section break

Well, if you saw bias in the past, and corrected it, that's great work done! And thanks to the great work done by everybody, the article is still one of the best.
Your question about easy incorporation of Holi and Baisakhi as opposed to Ugadi and sankranti, I did not know about that. If that has been the case, my personal empathy is of course with you. That should not have been the case.
I have really no memory from whatever I read in the school text books about the ethnicity of Chola, Pandya, Rashtrakuta, Chalukya, or any other South Indian empires. I thought they had built really great empires covering many areas of present day Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. I am sorry for this ignorance. I never thought of such great empires as tamil empires or kannad empires. I thought of them as Indian empires with great achievements.
Kalidasa and sangam do not have same impact as ramayana and Mahabharata. True. But the works of Kalidasa and tge Sangama literature represents some of other ancient Indian classics. I do not know about similar ancient classics in other languages (My native language is Bengali, and I am sure there is no such ancient literary works in bengali language). Is there any comparable staffs in other languages? What are they? Probably in Kannada language there are some. You can throw some light.
Now your first sentence. No body asked for every Jnanpiith winner to be named. Good. Then why do you think some wants a group of Jnanpith awards winner mentioned? If we are to expand the literature section at all, try incorporating some work or person that/who is either very well-known internationally, or, the work had some great impact in at least some region in India. Even then, contemporary authors can hardly be mentioned, because every region has so many significant works. And literature, unlike festivals, are less regional in nature.
And your last bit, "represent things fairly". To me, the article is fair (I may miss something due to my ignorance). To you, the article is biased (you may over-emphasize something due to your ignorance). That's why my suggestion to invite some un-related wikipedians to read and say if there is any North-South bias there.
You may have some other suggestions. Please provide them. And please try to check the divisive intention that you tend to bring in the article. First, North-South, and now, even Tamil-Kannada. If someone previously had incorporated some bias with cunningness, we need to fix that (indeed you have fixed many of those, thanks). And that cannot be fixed by zingoism/provincialism. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Now, I'm being divisive! I fight to fix stereotypes and that makes me regionalist/jingoist etc.,! One year ago, an ip added all the languages now in the infobox into the infobox. But no. It got reverted! Guess by who? Wasnt hard. Was it? And then a year later after tonnes of soapboxing, the same freaking edit with some cosmetic changes gets brought back into the infobox. The newbie ip, in the meanwhile got driven away for good. Another editor, probably a Christian by faith, gets branded a "Hindutvavadi"(much to his consternation) and driven away by Mr. Fowler. Why? Simply because he dared to commit the crime of adding Bose, an extremely notable freedom fighter and Bharat Ratna to the article and that, in some strangely warped Fowler worldview constitutes a Hindutva POV! The same warped worldview perhaps, in which noting that the Indians taught the 'edibility' of chicken to world gives him a vicarious thrill. Extrapolate it and we'll next be noting on this article that ".. contrary to popular perception..." "Hindu" rishis were meat-eaters (note how the rishis suddenly become Hindu when they eat meat but not when they write the scriptures.. er.. Skt., literature)
And what do you mean I'm dividing along Kannada-Tamil lines?! South is not Tamil and Tamil by itself is not south. It probably would be like approximating everything East and north-east to bengali or assami. Perhaps worse. You cant simply choose to perpetuate stereotypes just because you want to "keep it simple" or for "sake of brevity".
You add something to the article to correct a bias and it gets reverted with "rv. this is an FA. every edit should be discussed first". You remove something to correct a bias and it gets reverted with "rv vandalism". Is this a joke? And what discussion? One filibuster owns the article with relentless soapboxing and the admins simply either twiddle their thumbs or just start throwing their weight around. No wonder it finds itself in FAR. Sarvagnya 23:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I see many these arguments centers around Fowler's way of editing, almost owning the article, and huge amount of talks in this talk page.

I was one of the guys who tried for incorporation of Bose (and the revolutionaries in general). Yes, the talks was really tiresome. And, indeed, I lack such huge number of references. So what I did? I had to admit that, with the present resources and the size of teh article, Bose cannot be incorporated. Indeed, later on, Fowler started building a user subpage on Indian independence movement.

Now, was I irritated by Fowler's continuous citing sources and loads of talks? Yes I was, quite a lot. But finally I admitted to myself that yes, Bose, in the present status of the article, cannot be mentioned. Because although his talks are full of eye-soring references, and staffs like that, usually he talks sense.

Regarding the North-South bias etc, I am not accusing you are the person who is bringing that. Rather, maybe you are the person who is helping remove the bias, along with others. But, apparently, the edits done by the you et al seem that the edits are being done for a particular purpose, to highlight Kannada language or to highlight something. And this has led to an apparent idea that most of the edits by the group will be unacceptable PoV. Indeed, at some times, they are. The way a prolific editor like Dinesh removed the Tagore Nobel bit today, in probable retaliation to my removal of Kannada literature's Jnanpith winnings, (mentioning in the edit note, that Tagore was overemphasizing Bengali literature) goes on to show the unfortunate blindness.

However, we've seen how brilliant contributor Dinesh, amar, KNM and you are, in several articles, including loads of DYKs and FAs. So why erratic behaviour here? Probably, you felt your state/language was less represented here, and tried to bring a balance, and in the process infused some over-statements. And this going over board is provincialism. I am saying it on the face here.

Yes, in the past, there may have been unfortunate and unethical ill-treatment of some parts of India in the article, and thanks to the excellent works of all the people involved, the article is still in good shape. We thank you for that.

I am talking about the present status of the article. Show me a biased opinion, and fix it. If it is a clear bias, no body will revert your edit. If you want to add something new, discuss it here, and if appropriate, add it. You are a much more regular editor in India article than I am, so you know the rule better than I do. Please keep the provincial sentiments away. You can still do a lot for Karnataka and India(which you are, indeed, doing in WP:KARNATAKA and WP:IND). Everyone loves his/her mother tongue/state/region. Going overboard has caused so many unfortunate incidences in real life, let the virtual world be free of that.

Sorry for being so harsh, but please be contemplative. You have to admit that in contemporary literature Kannada, Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, or whatever language—does not deserve seperate mention in India article. Tagore deserves for his own reasons. --Dwaipayan (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. KnowledgeHegemony 07:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate use of "highest" in Jnanpith Award

As I have mentioned Awards and honours section above, the Jnanpith Award is not India's highest literary honour. The expressions "highest civilian honour," (Bharat Ratna) "highest military honour," (Param Vir Chakra) are all used for awards handed out by the government of the day (and the rank "highest" is decided by that government). The Jnanpith, instituted in 1965, is an award handed out by a private organization. To be sure, it is very prestigious and you could say something like "widely considered the most prestigious literary award in India" (and provide citations), but you cannot use "highest." If there is an award that would qualify for this, it would be the election to a Sahitya Academy Fellows. Indeed, in the section above, I have provided examples of exactly such usage. The Jnanpith Award page itself, by including a lead sentence, "The Jnanpith Award is the highest literary honour conferred in the Republic of India," – which refers to the country by its official name – and by continuing to flagrantly display the Indian honours and decoration template, further confounds the confusion between a nation's award and an award in the nation. All the other awards mentioned in that template are official awards of the Republic of India, which the Jnanpith Award is not. Its inclusion in that template is the equivalent of including the Booker Prize or the Whitbread Prize on the same template with the Victoria Cross, if such a template were made for Britain.

More importantly, there are other awards, like the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, the nation's highest award for lifetime achievement in film, or the Sangeet Natak Academi's Ratna Sadasya (Fellow) in dance, music, and drama. Those have not been mentioned anywhere in the culture section. Indeed the Bharat Ratna is not mentioned anywhere on the India page. Why then the Jnanpith? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If were still talking about the edit that said Kannada writers won more awards than any other language. i Am totally opposed to that. If you say kanada writers are better than any other language's youre going to spark regional competition and split the whole article regionally. Dont try it cuz itll get rvd. Nikkul 07:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess now that the "Jnanpith episode" in relation to the India article is over lets move this discussion to Talk:Jnanpith and Talk:Sahitya Akademi. Enough of this on Talk:India. KnowledgeHegemony 07:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A Fly by Night FAR for India?

Although I am taking a break from editing both the main article and this talk page, I thought this is important enough to bring to people's notice.

Apparently, yesterday, this article was nominated for a Featured Article Removal review (please see here), which lasted 13 hours and 18 minutes. In the future, would the editor(s) who nominate the article for a review (Kaypoh (talk · contribs)) and those who participate in it, kindly announce its existence in a post here (or perhaps on the India bulletin board). I know that there is no Wikipedia requirement that this be done, but it is a courtesy that would greatly help, since the presence of an additional (mysterious) icon at the top of a talk page might go by unnoticed. Thanks very much and regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Culture Rotation Vote

The Trial period of the Rotation is over. It is now time to vote on images that will go into the rotation. Let us comment on images one by one. Please comment in the comment section only:


AKSHARDHAM TEMPLE

Users For::

Users Against:

User Comments:

  • The image is too low-res to be encyclopedic (i.e impart unambiguous visual information). Contrast this image with the Wikipedia Featured pictures – the Taj or the Toda images – below, and you will see the difference. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Where did this image and the Shiva and Diwali images come from? You can't keep adding images willy-nilly! Would you like me to add another dozen? Please delete all three images from this vote. Unless you have some consensus that they are even worth voting on, which in my opinion, they are not, there is not point having them here. Fowler&fowler«Talk»


  • This is a discussion of images that will go into the rotation. So you are welcome to add images if you feel they represent the culture of India. Also, there is no other place to nomiate and discuss the images in the rotation than here. Nikkul 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
No the vote is on the stably rotated 11 images that people have had an opportunity to judge during the last two weeks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Im sorry, there was no deadline to submit images before none more would be considered. This is Wikipedia. Nothing is final; you can always add and change Nikkul 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I find this picture to be both traditional and modern with both feet firmly planted in reality.Bakaman 04:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

BUDDHA

Buddha
Buddha
Alternative 2
Alternative 2

Users For:

Users Against:

  • Nikkul 18:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

User Comments:


TODA HUT

Toda Hut
Toda Hut

Users For:

  • A Wikipedia Featured Picture. Has already been elected. See my comment below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Users Against:

User Comments:

  • The Toda image has already been elected in the last RfC (see here) with 13 active votes cast in its favor and 10 against (and by 18 to 17 if you include previous mention of support or opposition). There is no need to redo this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Now that rotation has been running for a few weeks, it's good for people to vote/comment in the context of rotation. Some people may even change their votes from those previous mano e mano votes - as I did in voting for Shakuntala this time. So these votes here are for/against inclusion in rotation, and not the 'either/or' votes done previously. In other words, none of these images have been 'elected' previously for rotation. ॐ Priyanath talk 20:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, that vote was in favor of keeping the toda hut image alone and there was no consensus. Then we voted for rotation and there was an actual consensus. Now we're voting for images in the consensus. This is a brand new vote which isnt influenced by past situations Nikkul 20:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
To Priyanath: The argument is not logical. I don't see that anyone who voted "for" keeping Toda as one of two permanent images on the India page (culture section) along with the Taj, is now going to say that they are not even for it when it shares the time with 10 other images. Perhaps, you can leave a post on all those 18 yes voters and ask them to weigh in here if their minds have changed; otherwise their vote continues to count. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
No image should be permanent. All images are open to rotation.Dineshkannambadi 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, by "permanent" I meant "long-term" in the same mode that most images exist on most country articles like Australia, United Kingdom, United States, Peru, ... The rotation of images on the India page is an experiment, which had a narrow majority in its favor; it was not a consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This image seems really dull. Maybe its because I got a new computer and all the images looked dull on my old computer. But I feel like the image used to be more appealing before. For example, the grass seemed more green before and the Hut seemed like a more interesting brown color. Any comments?Nikkul 01:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it is the same Featured Picture it always was. If you think it is a poor image, you can always try to get it de-featured at WP:FP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly what we need. An ethnocentric, pastoral vision of a country.Bakaman 04:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't see how any image in the culture section represents a "vision of a country" rather than a slice of culture; otherwise, what "vision" does the "cuisine" image represent? As for "pastoral," may I remind the editor that according to the 2001 Census of India, the country is still 67-70% rural. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fowler, I hope you realize that rural is different from tribal. yes 67 percent is rural, but that doesnt mean 67 percent live in Toda Huts! Your argument is misleading. -- Nikkul (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

TAGORE

Rabindranath Tagore
Rabindranath Tagore

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:


CUISINE OF NORTH INDIA

Cuisine
Cuisine

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:

  • Possibly the worst image of the lot. Out of focus in the top half. Since when did chicken chilli become the representative cuisine of North India? Especially, when the dish is garnished with what looks like celery and scallions? Where was this picture taken? It doesn't have any meta data. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
"...doesn't have any meta data.". So? Sarvagnya 07:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You are right. The image was taken at Cafe 18 in Connaught Place, Delhi. However, I agree that this dish does not appropriately represent Indian cuisine.--Lokantha 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

MYSORE PALACE

Mysore Palace
Mysore Palace
Mysore palace at dusk - Alternate 1
Mysore palace at dusk - Alternate 1

Users For:

Users Against:

  • Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • --Blacksun 22:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC) This is clearly not the "best" and "most relevant" image that I had in my mind when voting yes for rotation.
  • --Lokantha 00:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • KeynesJohnMaynard 13:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User Comments:

  • The left third of the image is bleached. A poor quality image. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If the quality is really in question, which I dont think is, there is no shortage of alternate Mysore Palace images to go with.Dineshkannambadi 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Where are they? I haven't seen them. The one nominated for WP:FPC was abysmal. Quality is only one problem. No one has answered the numerous (four) discussions above why Mysore Palace is being included, when there are other more notable examples from Karnataka? See my post here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Alternate1, is, unfortunately, much worse. It is out of focus, has glaring JPEG artifacts, and purple fringing in numerous places. Sorry! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PRAYER FLAG

Prayer Flag
Prayer Flag

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:

The best image in the list. Lets have fewer images.--KeynesJohnMaynard 13:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

SHAKANTULA

Shakantula
Shakantula

Users For:

Users Against:

  • Nikkul 20:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Lokantha 14:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

User Comments:

  • I think Fowler added a comment which got accidently deleted while I was fixing the format of all the votes to make it easier. SOrry bout that please add ur comment again Nikkul 20:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

THRISSUR POORAM

Thrissur Pooram
Thrissur Pooram

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:

  • Again, the sky is over bleached. It is supposed to be some shade of blue, not white. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. --Lokantha 00:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Bleached--KeynesJohnMaynard 13:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

BULL TEMPLE

Image:Bulltemple.jpg

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:



KONARK

Konark
Konark
Konark Alternate
Konark Alternate

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:

  • See my comments on WP:PINSC, "This is a shabby image, out of focus and leaves out the important details. It has likely been sharpened in post-processing. If you want to see what is missing in the image, please see this image instead Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added an improved, unsharpened version of the same photo. ॐ Priyanath talk 22:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTUS TEMPLE

Image:Picture-47.jpg
Lotus Temple

Users For:

  • ॐ Priyanath talk 19:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • - KNM Talk 20:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • -- Sarvagnya 02:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • --Blacksun 12:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Good enough and its architecture makes it interesting.
  • Gnanapiti 17:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Users Against:

User Comments:

The other image of the Lotus Temple is far better.- KeynesJohnMaynard 13:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

MAHABHODHI TEMPLE

Mahabodhi Temple
Mahabodhi Temple

Users For:

Users Against:

  • --Blacksun 12:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC) I personally don't find it good enough quality wise.
  • Lokantha 14:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC) same here actually
  • KeynesJohnMaynard 13:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Quite True.

User Comments:


CUISINE OF INDIA

Image:PICT0633s.jpg

Users For:

Users Against:

  • --Blacksun 12:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC) It looks like a commercial.

User Comments:


SHIVA

Shiva. See another alternative: [1]
Shiva. See another alternative: [1]

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:

  • I'm all for an image that represents what this one does - a huge segment of Indian culture and population. I just think there might be a more artistic sculpture available - a bronze perhaps.ॐ Priyanath talk 21:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? This statue is not artistic enough?! Explain the bronze statue part too. --Lokantha 00:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I definitely wouldn't call it a work of art, even though it's a beautifully devotional representation of Siva. Here is an example of a Chola Bronze - poor photo, but right idea as art, religion, devotion all in one. [3] ॐ Priyanath talk 00:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Look at the size of this statue!! How can you compare it to the Natraja one? Smaller statues are definitely easier to mold compared to larger ones. And again, explain art, religion, devotion all in one. How does the Shiva image not depict these qualities compared to the natraja one? --Lokantha 00:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
'Art' is purely opinion, and that was mine. ॐ Priyanath talk 00:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm.. I agree --Lokantha 00:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

DIWALI

Diwali puja
Diwali puja

Users For:

  • Lokantha 20:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Users Against:

User Comments:


DIWALI 2

Users For:

  • Nikkul 20:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Users Against:

User Comments:


LOTUS TEMPLE

Lotus Temple
Lotus Temple

Users For:

  • Nikkul 20:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Shows much more of the lotus temple than the other image up top
  • ॐ Priyanath talk 21:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Comment I like this more than the other - the lighting is better, and more artistic for an building that is also artistic
  • -- Sarvagnya 02:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Gnanapiti 17:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • KeynesJohnMaynard 13:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Users Against:


User Comments:

AUTO-RICKSHAW

Autorickshaw
Autorickshaw

Users For:

  • --Lokantha 04:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Users Against:

User Comments:

  • Interesting image to add to culture section. A bit blurry but that's reasonable since the image was taken while in motion. Res is OK. But would be a nice option for the culture section. --Lokantha 04:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


Taj Mahal

Taj Mahal
Taj Mahal

Users For: :

Users Against:


User Comments:

Other User Comments:

How about this? Lokantha 14:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
How about this? Lokantha 14:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I am particularly against the display of a nuclear warhead capable missile on the India page. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. It just conveys the wrong image of a developing nation. And once the culture related image decisions are made, we need to work on other sections. Images in all sections should be on a rotation basis. No exceptions, unless absolutely necessary.Dineshkannambadi 20:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Ditto regarding nuclear warhead. I guess a section on military can't have an image showing Ahimsa, :-) but there has to be something better than the warhead. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How about an image of the Indian army or air force helping with the rescue work in the Andamans after the Tsunami of 2004/5? I remember seeing these on the web. They are government images, so copyright shouldn't be a problem. If you do a google image search, you should be able to find them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)