Talk:Indian Century

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Shortened 2 Added Original Research tag 3 and NPOV tag... 4 that article is just.... 5 Hmmmm....maybe or maybe not.. 6 Chinese Century? 7 This article reads like an India versus China chest thumping excercise 8 Last paragraph 9 Piling On

[edit] Shortened

I've only done a quick reading of this article, but it seems to me that the reasons if provides for a new Indian Century are basically the same reasons being provided for the article Potential Superpowers—India. Would it be better to keep this article short like the article American Century, and then include links to others that describe the reasoning, similar how american century links to American Empire, Pax Americana, etc. Joshdboz 01:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

how about the chinese century article

[edit] Added Original Research tag

Claims made after claims, but no references to back it up. Bordering POV too. Heilme 11:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] and NPOV tag...

Balanced discussion? Heilme 12:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] that article is just....

The article sounds a bit like a promotion for India rather than presenting the facts and theories about the topic. 74.112.123.80 01:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Not "a bit" like promotion. It should be shortened, like the other "centuries" to who, when and where used the term, not to be essay on politics, social structure and history. Pavel Vozenilek 03:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmmm....maybe or maybe not..

Yeah, i've read it too...and done a some editing, a few minor changes. Hope someone expert will do some more and make it much better. For me, if China becomes the largest economy,the term 'Chinese century' should be used. Just for the sake of consistency. And that might happen; also note that China is slowly making good progress in other areas and fields as well, just as how India and other Asian countries are slowly developing their other areas.

==Hi There's a lot of "what if's" in this article. It's better to be titled "21st century should be India, and not China." Some support will be nice.

Hello mate. Dont tell me ur just going to change the title to that, and thus make it more like a promotion. Rather you make some changes to the body and talk about it in this discussion page.

[edit] Chinese Century?

We have an Indian Century article, and business magazines frequently mention a "Chinese Century", shouldn't such an article exist?

• Chinese Century/Asian Century/Indian Century

Yeah, your correct. Such an article(or term)should indeed exist along other related superpower material.

[edit] This article reads like an India versus China chest thumping excercise

Why so much comparisons with China in this Indian Century article? The Chinese Century article doesn't even mention India. If people want to do comparisons, perhaps they should do it in the Asian Century article. Hailing India as a multicultural mecca and China as homogenous juggernaut is just false. China isn't homogenous at all; only someone with very little knowledge of China and Chinese history would think so. --Mamin27 06:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last paragraph

The last paragraph in that article is completely un-wikipediaish! All those clauses, "lives of despair", "shanty-town", "achievement for the world", "lucky ranks of impoverished" and the last sentence especially make it sound like it wants to make us cry! I thought Wikipedia articles were supposed to be neutral! Is this some kind of joke? Are we supposed to be mourning while reading that text? And I've had a quick look at what's above, and it's all the same - biased and determined to make us sad! That's just not the point of a Wikipedia article! Also, suggest breaking article up into smaller parts - the big block that it is now is totally off-putting, like Pavel Vozenilek said earlier. Daniel Montin 18:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piling On

Joining with the various comments of a number of other editors, I'd only say that it is unfortunate that this article is in such a state, as I do think there is room on WP for a good article on the subject of an 'Indian Century'. The article, as it exists, really fails to meet a number of WP policies, and represents a lot of WP:OR and failure to adhere to WP:NPOV. This article really needs to be reconstructed from the ground up, especially to integrate information from the various sources that have been tacked on to the bottom of the article. Cuffeparade 09:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)