Talk:India/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions about India. 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.

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

pOLTICS

There should be talk of the rising power of communist parties who were even part of the goverment before the last election, Maoist control 33% of the country and Many Mainstream Politicians fear the rise of communist parties —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.250.215 (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

military

third largest standing army or third largest standing military....pls correct this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.157.56 (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Names in Bengali and Tamil

I think besides Hindi the names of the country should also be written in Bengali and Tamil. This is because although Hindi is the official language of India the national anthem Jana Gana Mana is written in Bengali (the second major language of India by number of speakers) by Rabindranath tagore (and probably India is the only country whose national anthem is not written in its so called "Official Language") and Tamil is the first language to be given the status of classical language of India. -Pravata (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add the Tamil and Bengali scripts now that i have opposed your addition. Once someone opposes your addition, discuss and add ONLY AFTER consensus is reached here. That said my reasons for opposing the addition of the scripts

a)The script is already given in two union level official languages. And link is provided for other official 8th schedule languages. This arrangement is enough

b)Choice of Bengali and Tamil alone is completely arbitrary. There are three more classical languages beside Tamil. And regarding Bengali why stop with second highest number speakers, why not add Telugu which is the third highest. And so what if the national anthem is written in Bengali that has nothing to do with the official name according to the constitution.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As Sodabottle has pointed out, the two official languages of the Union have been listed in the lede, along with a link to the names in other languages. Adding any more languages will make the opening sentence too bulky and cumbersome, and further, there is no rational basis to particularly include any of the 8th Schedule languages there. As has also been pointed out above, several equivalent considerations could be advanced for other languages as well, and we'll be sliding down a slippery slope with no end in sight. Hence, let's not add any more languages to the lede than are already present. See also this archived discussion for additional information. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilization

This article claims that India was the home to the Indus valley civilization, while the article on Indus valley civilization shows that it existed on the banks of the Indus river, in present day Pakistan. 96.46.193.222 (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is in present day Pakistan but that does not severe its importance in India's history. Pakistan was created by the partition of India ; it cannot be considered the sole inheritor of the Indus valley civilization's legacy.--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

History

In the history section it says "Under the rule of Akbar the Great, India enjoyed much cultural and economic progress as well as religious harmony" which gives a wrong impression that there was no progress and religious harmony before Akbar's rule in India. Requesting editors to make corrections suitably.117.198.101.11 (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff, the edit was made in relation to above reasons. Kindly discuss or see the talk page before reverting any edits Pdheeru (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The statement doesn't imply that there was no progress and religious harmony before Akbar's rule in India. Plus it is well sourced (and a fairly well recognized historical fact). --RegentsPark (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a well source statement no doubt, but mentioning this gives an impression that Akbar's period was the first period in India's history that this kind of progress occurred. By mentioning about the start of religious unrest at the first place this statement can be added.117.198.99.120 (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No it does not give any such impression. Not unless you are deliberately trying to "read" such an inference from the statement. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Any person new to Indian history reading this page will have this impression after he/she has read the said statement. Why is this special mention of Akbar's rule having this kind of progress when such progress occurred in other ruler's periods also. Are we not being unfair to other rulers? Does this statement really need to be mentioned? Pdheeru (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting the following change in the history section; The statement 'Following invasions from Central Asia between the 10th and 12th centuries, much of North India came under the rule of the Delhi Sultanate and later the Mughal Empire. Under the rule of Akbar the Great, India enjoyed much cultural and economic progress as well as religious harmony' changed to 'Following invasions from Central Asia between the 10th and 12th centuries, much of North India came under the rule of the Delhi Sultanate and later the Mughal Empire which saw great cultural, economic and religious upheavals. Under the rule of Akbar the Great, India enjoyed much cultural and economic progress as well as religious harmony'Pdheeru (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary. The phrase which saw great cultural, economic and religious upheavals, even if sourced, is so vague and generic that it provides little valuable information without contextualisation. Further, I don't see how the existing sentence is in any way problematic in its construction, even at a first glance. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 08:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

POV edits

Requesting SpacemanSpiff to discuss matter before issuing warnings. Just threatening to block a user is not a solution. You cannot take such steps without discussing the edit in question Pdheeru (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Read all the Wikipedia policies you've been alerted to, as you and your IP above have shown, you're here to insert your POV, which is not done. —SpacemanSpiff 05:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff can you tell me why 'in the' is better or more relevant than 'by'.117.198.99.120 (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Some ground rules and guidlines first: The person initiating the change form a long standing postion should explain his/her rationale for the change, not ask the reverting editor to justify an existing text. Second: Wikipedia has strong rules against sockpuppetry, so please dont edit twice, as an IP and then as a logged-in user. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The IP and pdheeru are the same. I know about wiki sockpuppetry rules. Kindly see the history page. The reason for my edit is given. Also for the 'in the' and 'by' issue kindly see the source which clearly says 'by'. Hence the changes. Now your reasons please.Pdheeru (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

THis is my last reply to you, as you've continuously been POV pushing; the source documents exact dates and in that chronology uses "by". On the other hand, this article has one sentence with a generic time-frame for the peak of the rule, thereby "in the" replaces "by" as it provides a point in time view versus a continuity view that is shown by "by". —SpacemanSpiff 07:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is still not convincing. My view is that usage of 'by' is apt than 'in the' in this context. I may be wrong, but it will be better to get some more opinions on this issue from other editors and then decide.Pdheeru (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally feel that 'in the' is more relevant then 'by' as Maratha empire ruled most of India in the 18th century while when we use 'by' it shows that maratha empire ruled most of India from long back till the 18th century RahulChoudhary 14:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Potential superpower ???

The intro claims, that India, is considered to be a potential superpower. This is outrageous nonsense. India economy is only 11th in the world. It is the largest developing country on the globe. If this article wants to be taken seriously, it should correct the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.151.16 (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead merely reports what some claim. Did you see the word "considered"?--Sodabottle (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

See Potential superpowers, will understand what it means. KuwarOnline ^Talk 05:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The first sentenced of Potential superpowers concerning India says: "Several media publications and academics have discussed India's potential of becoming a great power eventually a superpower". Discussed not considered. This here is an encyclopedia not fantasy land. India has 1 billion people in massive poverty and malnutrition. You better have a look on its economy, its the same size like Spain. A country 20 times smaller (population wise). Is Spain a future superpower? No serious academic would claim that India has the capacity to become a superpower in the next 50 years. It has the capacity to become a regional great power, maybe in 20 years. But that does not belong in an introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.76.76 (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

But there is no time limit on what "potential" is restricted to. With such a large population, nuclear weapons, one day a seat on the UN security council, huge potential for growth, there is no Ifs about it. India will become a superpower one day, its a question of when not If. There may be a case for rewording that sentence though. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"India has 1 billion people in massive poverty and malnutrition." Wrong. India has 1.2 billion people, 0.2 billion of which are malnourished as of 2001-03 (it's likely to have improved in the past almost-decade) according the FAO. As for having roughly the same as Spain, that depends on whether you compare it by PPP, where India is the 4th largest economy and Spain the 13th or nominally where Spain is 9th and India 11th. In any case, Spain isn't a future superpower because its change is going in the other direction. Munci (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Disregarding the poverty/nominal GDP hyperbole (Spanish Superpower!!), the IP does has a point about the assertion's place in the lead. The "potential superpower" thing is not an universally accepted meme. What i mean is, it is not a non-controversial assertion. We can put this in the Economy or Foreign relations section. --Sodabottle (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, Wikipedia is not the place of lofty ifs and speculation. Its about proofen facts and realities. The potential superpower article itself is crossing the line and can be considered a fantasy playfield of patriotic ambitions. Every human being has "potential" every country as well but that does not belong in a reliable encyclopedia introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.10.52 (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, friends

I really don't think its worth mentioning the "Potential Superpower" status. Since India haven't reached that stage particularly on economically. It only ranks 11th in the world let it be the 3rd largest in the world by market exchange rates then we can boldly say that yes India is on verge of becoming the next superpower. So for now pls don't mention it, my dear friend I'm an Indian and who doesn't want that this country to prospers and become a global power. Thank You--Kkm010 ^as© 04:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the anti-superpower camp. Using the Spain example, well, Spain was the World's first "Superpower." This is a well studied example so population is not really a sufficient cause of "superpower-hood." Take a look at the European Union, if one uses "metrics" to purport Superpower status than what we would call the European Union is the most powerful block on Earth and for the foreseeable future. But do we consider them a Superpower in the traditional sense? No. They are introverted (simply put). One of the people discussing this said that it is an issue of "not if but when." This shows a complete misunderstanding of what Superpower means. And quite frankly indicates an Indian nationalist to me. Superpower is a relative comparison. You can't have dozens of superpowers. It is essentially a term, simplistically put, which means that one power has the ability to dominate every other power without the ability of any one power doing the same to it. So this means, outside of nuclear deterrence, you can't really have more than one or two "Superpowers." Technically, I would say just one but when it is close like in the Cold War you need a Hot War to figure it out, which most sane people would not want to be put to the test! Even now if England became militaristic they could dominate India again. The only legitimate discussion for another Superpower would be China, but even that is not secure. The idea of a China superpower is more supported by Anti-Western-ism than anything else. Their population has peaked while the world's only Superpower the United States continues to grow. Again, right now, if the United States wanted to and became militaristic they could make China their B-word. This will continue for the foreseeable future as well since China demographically will peak in the next few years. The only reason why we are having this discussion is the fact that the West is open and has tried to embrace both China and India whereas these nations continue to view things not in market and progressive terms but in racial and ethnic lines. It is quite a shame. The West is undergoing a radical change, which contrary to the common belief, is for the good. They are restructuring their economies to export and innovation rather than import and innovation. This will put a fundamental break to any continued evolution to a "superpower" status as they won't be subsidized by Western consumers. Also, Western populations are undergoing strong natural selection right know where those who do not have children are being selected out. This means that the other other West, the Europeans will begin to see their populations rise again with the associated GDP and in turn power within the next 100 years while the "developing" world will see declines. So you see "projecting" into the future anything is really difficult and opposing equally valid perspectives can be made.99.35.225.222 (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There are some very specific and subjective definitions of superpower being used here. This is a false basis for discussion. If India is identified elsewhere in Wiki as a potential superpower,that's who it should be handled here. using subjective and non-universal definitions of superpower is already a flawed approach, but since it's already in consensus in other articles, it seems even more of a moot point. This is not a political debate forum.204.65.34.154 (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi

When MK Gandhi started the freedom struggle he was not know as Mahatma Gandhi. The honorific 'Mahatma, was given later. Mentioning the full name Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi will be correct. Also mentioning his profession (lawyer) along with the full name gives a better insight into the key person in India's freedom struggle. I know no introduction is needed for the likes of Mahatma Gandhi, but we should be keeping in mind people new to Indian history reading this article.Pdheeru (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

.Pdheeru, here is some sincere advice for you: You hardly have a handful of edits to your credit. Maybe you should turn your attention to smaller articles which are closer to your range of interest and try to improve them first. When you gain sufficient experience as a editor then come back to this article. This article is a Featured article. Editors discuss and make edits only after there is consensus. You are simply trying to put in your personal prefereces and biases into a very important article; not an uncommon behaviour for newbies. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Deepak D'souza for your kind information I have been editing various articles in Wikipedia since 2006 as an IP. Please don't advice me on my experience. I know what a featured article is and don't try to educate me. If you have anything to tell about the edits I made you are welcome but your unsolicited advice is not.Pdheeru (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps what Deepak meant (in my opinion) was that this being a featured article, it is better to discuss edits, especially major ones like the one you did on the talk page. I would also myself be miffed at unsolicited advice, but the idea is to discuss a bit before major edits. Of course, you are most welcome irrespective of your experience to edit any article, but the processes like the one he suggested are important. prashanthns (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me about your experience. I cannot assume that an editor has extensive experience as an anon, even if I want to. But going by your editing style, your really need to pick up a better understanding of how to discuss and edit on Wikipedia. If you need any proof, just look at how many people have agreed with your edits. I give you well meant advice to help you become a better Wikipedian. If you don't need it that is fine. But you can definetly say that in a better way without being rude. Not a good way to make friends. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comming back to the topic in question, this article focusses on India, not on Gandhiji. so a detailed description of his profile is irrelevant here. He is most commonly recognized worldwide as Mahatma Gandhi and readers may not know his full name and some may even fail to make the connection. The fact that his honorific came later is irrelevant here. It is more useful in his bio. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If refusing unsolicited advice is rude, then so be it. If there is a better way of refusing advice kindly let me know. It really doesn't matter what you assume and don't about my experience. Had only your justification for use of the word Mahatma come earlier (as it should have been) it would have been a healthy discussion. Pdheeru (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

We are not giving a detailed description of Gandhi but only his name Pdheeru (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Pdheeru, addressing the substance of your proposal:

MKG was popularly referred to as Mahatma Gandhi almost from the beginning of his participation in the Indian Independence movement, and certainly during most of the relevant period (1915-45). See, for example this 1921 New York Times article, which already refers to him as Mahatma Gandhi ... and it certainly isn't the earliest such reference.
More importantly, while it is pertinent to mention the full name and other details in the biographical article, in this article on India (of which he is not the central subject) it is preferable to use the most recognizable moniker. An interested reader can click on to Mahatma Gandhi to learn more on the subject.
While MKG was a lawyer by education, that is not directly relevant to the role he played in Indian Independence movement. AFAIK, the only period during which he practiced law in India was during 1891-93, and that too, pretty unsuccessfully. During the years of his participation in the IIM, it would be more accurate to refer to him as a statesman, politician, activist, author, journalist, or even publisher than a lawyer. That said, I think any such labelling is unnecessary in this article, and we are better off simply describing what he did ("led millions of people in several national campaigns of non-violent civil disobedience.").

Abecedare (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 206.70.248.253, 17 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} India has three global cities, New Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata. Also there were several other big metro cities like Chennai, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Ahmadabad etc. Indian cities are transforming in a faster rate to become a global destiny. 206.70.248.253 (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please detail your request in a please change X to Y degree. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.201.248.6, 22 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Castew discrimination in india is not anymore. it stopped decades back. please edit the "culture" section. in fact,, something new is in discussion of lately ie reverse discrimination because the upper castes (on paper) do not have rights and privileges the one with lower caste certificate has. India has 50 percent reservation in its education and government jobs. this has led to many people not having a lower caste certificate not getting proper educational and job opportunities despite being high in merit.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2006_Indian_anti-reservation_protests

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Caste_system_in_India#Modern_status_of_the_caste_system

71.201.248.6 (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia cannot be used to source itself for statements such as this (and it is not considered a reliable source in any case). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Names in other Indian languages

I have added the names of India in other official languages of India listed in the 8th Schedule as collapsable list. I think it is necessary. It has not been rejected in the talk page. Previously the attempts which were made to include the official languages were not added as a collapsable list, so the article looked very awkward. But if I include them as a collapsabla list, only those want to see it can see it by clicking on the show option. So I think it is unnecessary to remove my edition. -Trinanjon Basu (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, you've got to get consensus before you add this. And also, a civics lesson. None of these are official languages. The official language is Hindi, with English being a subsidiary official language. Adding another twenty simply doesn't make sense and is entirely undue. Do not add again unless there's consensus for adding them. —SpacemanSpiff 16:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

All the twenty-four languages are the official languages of India. Hindi and English are the official languages of the Union, means they are to be used for official purposes at the Central level. The languages listed in the 8th Schedule are the recognised official languages of India. These can be used as the official languages of any of the states and Union territories. -Trinanjon Basu (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

THat's the whole point, they are official languages of the States and Union Territories, where those language scripts are included. —SpacemanSpiff 16:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Spiff. 8th schedule is the official languages of the union. They are only for States and UTs. The same issue has been discussed before and rejected.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Spiff here. Its unnecessary to add the 20 odd languages in the article. Shovon (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I request all of you to have look at the articles South Africa and Singapore. -Trinanjon Basu (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

None of the two articles are Featured, whereas, India is. I could not find the *name* of the countries written in the scripts of the official languages anywhere. Shovon (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Spiff there is no need to add this. and you cannot add something to a Featured Article before getting the consensus RahulChoudhary 10:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does it matter whether Singapore and South Africa are featured articles or not? If both these articles are selected as featured articles in near future will the names mentioned in different languages be removed. And Shovon has not found "*name* of the countries written in the scripts of the official languages anywhere." Then what has he found on the top of the Infobox written in different scripts. I think these are all false but clever argument with intention to outwit. I do not want to do anything by force but I think it is illojical not to include these languages. Please look at my Sandbox page and see how the Infobox looks after adding the languages. It makes no difference except the show option appearing at one corner. So please consider my opinion. -Trinanjon Basu (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no "false and clever" arguments out here. Each article talk page defines what goes in and out of the article. In this article, long standing consensus is that only two scripts - Hindi and English, signifying the two official languages of the Republic of India belong. In the case of Singapore and South Africa, they have more official languages and have decided to add them all. And it's not just a case of whether it's directly visible or not, there's also the article size, and this one is already too huge for it to load on slow connections, and adding a twenty four course alphabet soup is a disservice to our readers, especially when most of them have no interest in it. Besides, the first line already includes a link to the list of names that any interested reader can click and get to. Simple as that. —SpacemanSpiff 14:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Famines in India

Zuggernaut has added the following line to the history section: India suffered a series of serious crop failures in the late 19th century, leading to widespread famines in which 15.3 million people died

I think this line is somewhat vague and should be reworded. my concerns: a)Famines during british rule weren't limited to late 19th century though they become more numerous. the last one lasted a couple of years into the 20th century b) the death count of 15.3 million is treated as an absolute, but it is a composite figure arrived at tallying the lower end of various estimates. c) "crop failures" alone didn't cause the famines. it was a bit more complex. monsoon failure - > drought -> crop failure -> free market grain policies -> inadequate relief measure -> great famine. (Timeline of major famines in India during British rule)

I know it is a bit too much to expect to capture the complexity of the issue in a single line, But still feel this line could be reworded.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if I could add significant content to a FA without a consensus, hence the hesitance and the resulting vagueness. I'm always glad to draw on multiple sources, reword and expand. I will do so shortly. Here's a potential source that shows how famines increased under British rule and how British propaganda citing population density, "famines cannot be "caused", etc has been trashed: [1]. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Careful about that source. He draws on William Digby, who isn't exactly a neutral scholar - he had lots of axes to grind. I wish Fowler & Fowler (the editor who wrote the majority of the famine articles) was around to help us with redrafting the section. I am fine with the "millions of deaths", but the lengthier explanation is now written from a Indian nationalist perspective (IMO). Lets see what other editors think.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello there folks,

Guess you are discussing about this "India suffered a series of serious crop failures in the late 19th century, leading to widespread famines in which millions of Indians perished." Well, India did see a lot of famines, even after independence, right until the green revolution. In my opinion, there is no hiding from that fact. Surely, no one can easily put a number to the death toll. But I do know that starvation deaths were a commonplace during those days... Some may debate over the exact reasons behind those deaths though... If you want me to comment as an Indian I would say that we can't change what happened before but accept it... our future is what we can mend! :)

Thanks a ton for putting so much time and energy on this article...

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This edit [2] lacks neutrality and is clearly POV pushing. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I did have that deja vu feeling (all over again)! See Talk:India/Archive_25#Indian_Famines. At that time, the rough consensus was not to include this material in the article because of WP:UNDUE. The causes of the famines, the reasons behind the number of deaths, etc. can not reasonably be discussed in a summary article and leaving the impression that the Raj was to blame for both the famines as well as the deaths is where the WP:UNDUE comes in. There are plenty of scholars who believe that at least some responsibility lies with the fact that India was colonized, but their arguments are nuanced (Amartya Sen, for example, blames it on lack of political participation, Gilmour on ineptitude, etc.). The point being that there were complex causes for the famines, complex reasons behind the number of people who died, and discussing all this in a summary article is just not possible. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I got interested in this topic after making changes per WP:Bold to British Empire and the resulting discussion Talk:British_Empire#.22More_than_10_million_Indians_perished....22_-_WP:SYN_violation. Clearly this is an important series of events in Indian history and needs mention in this article, the important thing being to keep it brief and avoid WP:UNDUE. That's the reason I limited my very first addition to just one short sentence.[3]. However User:Sodabottle does have a point and we may need to allocate a couple of lines to cite precise reasons for the disproportionate deaths during British rule. At the very least we should provide number of deaths and the causes behind those deaths in the article. Do we have consensus on this? Zuggernaut (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I was not involved in any previous discussion and dont have the time to read it as well (not because i disrespect previous consensus). My view is I dont see any problem adding a couple of neutral sentences about the famines. --Car Tick 22:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand there is a debate going on BritishWatcher! Though I did not write the article, that section stated facts! It also had citations! It deserves to be there till the debate is conclusively completed! How can you initiate a debate and remove a stanza without any reason? You may not have liked the stanza, that is your PoV!

That apart, like i mentioned earlier, the stanza had enough credible citations to be there... Please do not revert it till it is concluded that is deserves to be removed...

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a featured article. Someone inserted material which a couple of editors have big problems with in its current form and think it lacks neutrality among other things too. He was bold, it got reverted and now we must discuss it. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know this is a featured article... The author, whoever he or she may be, has stated as credible citations as anywhere in the wikipedia domain! I can see that a couple of editors have issues while a couple of others do not, with the write! That does not mean that line deserves to be removed because a couple does not like it. Do not revert the article. Let the debate be over and then lines can be added or removed! I can see a couple of statements in the stanza may not be appropriate... we may comment then and give reasons to do so.

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The content that's been added is definitely undue here. I'll wait for work on RegentsPark's suggestion to comment any further. —SpacemanSpiff 12:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Even I agree the content is undue. However, it contained truth and has to find a place somewhere within or outside the article. The point here is, we need to follow rules like {{Wikipedia:Consensus}}. My interpretation of the rule is as follows (from the flow chart) -

Case 1 - The content is not credible -> In that case anyone can remove the content and then start a debate

Case 2 - The content is credible -> Reach a consensus (remove the lines which fall under case 1) to remove the content.

We need to understand that what one or more of us like/s or dislike/s does/do not change facts. Those lines represented facts. Neutral Point of View is also a matter of interpretation. I may find something neutral, for example, while others may not! In such a scenario we need to figure out of citations are from acceptable sources. It has been quoted earlier in the discussion that a certain scholar is not particularly neutral! Is that a PoV or can that statement be backed up with quotations from people considered neutral widely? I don't like MANY statements in wikipedia as well, including the lines under debate. That does not mean I'll raise objections and simply remove line/s without any reason! I've removed lines before and from articles where my participation may have been viewed as biased! and I found that as long one is just and impartial in even raising objections, a broad consensus follows automatically. It should be our unflattering endeavor to ensure that wikipedia reflects "facts" and not just what a group of individuals (country, community etc) thinks. Let us ensure that in creating consensus we are not ignoring (or compromising on) the truth! That's the last thing we need, in my opinion!

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Several editors (User:Jezhotwells, User:CarTick, User:Amartya ray2001, User:Sodabottle and I) have already agreed famines merit inclusion (a brief 2-3 lines). I would request interested editors to focus and comment on the content proposed here Talk:India#Step_3_-_Concise_compiling. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. We need to have the famines during the British rule as well included in the article. After reading the other comments may be we need to work on the language but it should reflect unequivocally that people died during bad policies during the Raj. That is what I understood from Zuggernaut's citation sources. If someone thinks otherwise please provide citations to prove otherwise. I'll see if the draft provided by Zuggernaut can be modified and paste it here. Let us ensure that this is not an attempt to hide facts!

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

History section

I have added a POV tag to the disproportionately large paragraph that has been added to the history section about famines in India. It's not even close to being written with a neutral POV and might I also say even if it was, this amount of attention to this subject in what is a potted history of India is way too much detail. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops just saw the discussion above. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted to the pre-famine version. We can work out the exact text to be added here in the talk page. Famines were major events in 18 and 19th centuries and merit a couple of lines in the history section.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Famine, starvation deaths during British era

I'm proposing a simple four step process to come up with fair content that's not prone to POV labeling as was done by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick [4] who Wikihounded me for my changes to British Empire on the same topic. [5]

Step 1: Reliability of sources - establish validity of sources provided below.
Step 2: Focus - agree on what content to focus on
Step 3: Concise compiling - put the content together in concise 2-3 sentences.
Step 4: Policies - ensure Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:SYN, etc are met.

I have provided several sources with links to Google Books below. Most of the content has been typed out verbatim with the only exception that not everything is contiguous. Typos and other errors, if any, are mine. URLs are provided for quick verification.

Potential sources

Source: Dutt, R. Palme (2006), India Today (1940), Read Books, pp. 131–2, ISBN 9781406798463
Content: Even more significant was the rising export of food grains from starving India. Source: Benjamin Orange Flower; Charles Zueblin, eds. (1910), The Twentieth century magazine, vol. Volume 2, Twentieth Century Co., p. 437 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
Content: This poverty of India is caused by the British plunder and legalized pillage and destruction of Indian industries. The famines in India, are the result of British exploitation, and are not, as may be supposed, caused by lack of rain or lack of production, or by over-population. It is an economic famine of an enslaved nation caused by merciless plunder of at least $175,000,000 a year, without a cent in return. People are generally misled to think that India was always a famine-land; but it is not a fact. Before the advent of the British rule in India, famine was occasional, but the British plundering policy has made it chronic. The area of famine districts is increasing yearly, and not a year passes that millions do not fall victims of the dreadful calamity. We produce below statistics taken from Sir William Digby's "Prosperous British India". Rev. J. T. Sunderland, in his work The Causes of Famine in India, like all impartial writers, has conclusively proved that neither "failure of rains" nor "over-population" is the cause of famines in India. He has stated that the real cause of famine is the extreme, the abject, the awful poverty of the Indian people caused by "enormous foreign tribute," "British Indian Imperialism" and the destruction of Indian industries. Sir William Hunter, K. O. S. I., the historian of India, formerly of the Viceroy's Council, says: "The government assessment does not leave enough food to the cultivator to support himself and his family throughout the year."

Famines before British rule-duration 700 years
Century	Number of famines	Location
Eleventh	2	Both local
Thirteenth	1	Around Delhi
Fourteenth	3	All local
Fifteenth	2	Both local
Sixteenth	3	All local
Seventeenth	3	General; area not defined
Eighteenth (to 1745)	4	Northwestern provinces, Delhi, Sindh (twice), all local
Total	18	Deaths not reported by source

Famines under the British rule in the 19th century
Years	Number of famines	Deaths
1800 to 1825	5 famines	perhaps 1,000,000 deaths
1835 to 1850	2 famines	500,000
1850 to 1875	6 famines	5,000,000
1875 to 1900	18 famines	estimate 26,000,000
Total estimate	31	37 million

Source: Sen, Amartya (2001), Farrukh Iqbal; Jong-Il You (eds.), Democracy, market economics, and development: an Asian perspective, World Bank Publications, pp. 12–14, ISBN 9780821348628
Content: Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to prevent them, and a government of a democratic country-facing elections, criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers-cannot but make a serious effort to prevent famines. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule right up to independence (the last famine was in 1943, four years before independence, which I witnessed as a child), they disappeared suddenly, after independence, with the establishment of a multi-part democracy with a free press.
For example in India the priority of of preventing starvation and famine was fully gripped already at the time of independence (as it had been in Ireland as well, with its own experience of famine under British rule).

Source: Sen, Amartya (2009), The idea of justice, Harvard University Press, pp. 338–343, ISBN 9780674036130
Content: The Bengal famine of 1943, which I witnessed as a child, was made viable not only by the lack of democracy in colonial India, but also by severe restrictions on reporting and criticism imposed on the Indian press, and the voluntary practice of 'silence' on the famine that the British-owned media chose to follow (as a part of alleged 'war effort', for fear of aiding the Japanese military forces that were at the door of India, in Burma). The combined effect of imposed and voluntary media silence was to prevent substantial public discussion on the famine in metropolitan Britain,including in Parliament of London, which neither discussed the famine, nor considered the plicy needs of dealing with it (that is, not until October 1943 when The Statesman forced its hand). There was of course no parliament in India under the British colonial administration.
In fact, governmental policy , far from being helpful, actually exacerbated the famine. There was no official famine relief over the many months in which thousands were dying every week. More than this, the famine was aggravated, first, by the fact that the British India Government in New Delhi had suspended the trade in rice and food grains between the Indian provinces, so that food could not move through legitimate channels of private trade despite the much higher price of food in Bengal. Second...

Consensus

Please provide your comments in the relevant sections below for form a consensus. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Step 1 - Reliability of sources

I find all sources reliable for the following reasons: they are third-party (independent), published sources, fact-checked, accurate, there are no unverifiable claims, they perform an in-depth study relevant to the context. All of them are either university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines or journals. None of them are self-published. All sources are secondary or tertiary sources building on previous work. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Step 2 - Focus

I propose that we foucs on:

Definition of famine in this context, i.e, it is something that is easily avoidable and made possible by the suppression of freedoms of movement/transportation, expression, by the lack of infrastructure and due to taxation without representation)
Provide the number of famines that occurred in the 700 years preceding British rule. Compare this with the number of famines and deaths in the British era.
Show that the poor Indian peasant was taxed while no investments were made in Indian irrigation works. (I have not looked for sources that show the collected revenue being sent to Britain to fund it's fledgling industrialization. I do remember reading in the past at as much as 30% of capital for the British industrial revolution came from India)
Show that suppression of freedom of movement/transportation, freedom of expression, etc caused deaths.
Show that famines disappeared with the British

Zuggernaut (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Step 3 - Concise compiling

Originally proposed content: Famines in India before the arrival of the British were few and local and they affected comparatively a small number of people, for example, from the 11th century to the 18the century, there were only 18 famines in India. Under British rule, a total of 31 famines were recorded for the 100 years between 1800-1900 with a death toll of about 37 million, primarily due to starvation. India continued to suffer from famines under the British Crown, right up to independence in 1947 after which they vanished with the establishment of representative democracy and a free press.

Based on the feedback received from User:Redtigerxyz and other editors, I am revising the originally proposed content:

Revision: Between the 11th century and the 18the century, famines in India were few and local and they affected comparatively a small number of people. Eighteen famines were recorded during this period in India. Under British rule, a total of 31 famines were recorded for the 100 years between 1800-1900 with a death toll of about 37 million, primarily due to starvation. India continued to suffer from famines under the British Crown, right up to independence in 1947 after which they vanished with the establishment of representative democracy and a free press. Zuggernaut (talk)

Step 4 - Policies

Zuggernaut (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken about what the purpose of a summary article is. It is not a simple matter of reporting what reliable source say. It is fairly easy, for example, to find reliable sources that lay the entire responsibility of the famines on the British rule but that doesn't mean that we include it in the article. Everything included here must be put in perspective. So, what you need to do is to look at all histories of the famines that took place in the 19th century; sort through all the differing views on why these famines occurred or why the x number of people died; and then present a 3-4 sentence summary that includes all the major viewpoints. Simply presenting what the few sources that support one view say is insufficient for a summary article. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well put, RegentsPark. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 02:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been around Wikipedia only a few months so I apologize if I am unaware of all policies (I know of WP:SYN, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and a few other guidelines). I've mostly worked to GA level so I'm having difficulty understanding the term "summary article". Is it a synonym for FA? Also, please provide a link to the policy applicable to:

...look at all histories of the famines that took place in the 19th century; sort through all the differing views on why these famines occurred or why the x number of people died; and then present a 3-4 sentence summary that includes all the major viewpoints. Simply presenting what the few sources that support one view say is insufficient for a summary article.

Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO, we should have two lines about Famines of the 19th century in the history sections indicating a) they were many in the late 19th century b)they caused millions of deaths. The cause of famines and how the british govt handled/mishandled it are contentious issues and can be explained in detail in the Famines in India article.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this appears in the history section, I am OK including all recorded famines (data goes back to 11th century). I also feel it's necessary to mention that famines on the scales seen in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries were never seen again after independence. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's true that there has been no famine in India since 1947. Even if it is true, who's to say whether it's coincidence or causation? In your mind you've clearly linked the two causally, but that's just your own original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 05:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Everything related to this work-in-progress is sourced from the sources listed above Talk:India#Potential_sources. I would request you to browse through that section to find the relevant text/source. I've provided all available URLs and even typed out text. Please feel free to ask for an explanation regarding OR and the like after you have carefully reviewed the sources. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, there is a wide range of views on this subject - and you have cherry-picked a few sources which agree with your own personal views. I agree with the editors above that the history section here should not be pointing fingers, and instead all relevant views (including ones you wont like) should be covered in the indian famines article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 06:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

These sources meet all Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR, WP:Sources, WP:SYN, etc. I don't see this as finger pointing - it's just a recounting what secondary and in some cases tertiary sources state. The community should be glad to include other views on the subject. I request that your provide your sources to balance the alleged cherry-picking. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with User:Zuggernaut... If other arguments are to be considered then I can raise objection on almost every line written in wikipedia! As long as statements are backed up with credible citations we must and have to accept it. If you have an objection raise with backed up with better citations. Considering the fact that the objections and the subsequent actions are not as per wiki - consensus and other policies and that the section was properly sited, I'm escalating the issue to dispute resolution. Amartya ray2001 (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Following a request at WP:EAR and taking a look at this, it would seem that adding a large amount of material which could be better covered in Famine in India is unnecessary. One or two short sentences about famines (not just those during British rule) may merit a place in the History section, with a link to the Famine in India article. I would suggest that editors focus on improving that article, which is in a rather sorry state, rather than destabilising this article in a matter which might lead to its being delisted as a featured article, which would not be a good outcome I suggest that Amartya ray2001 re-reads WP:CONSENSUS, which is the policy that applies here. Suggest that you invite comment from WP:WikiProject India. If you really disagree with other editors and cannot or will not work to achieve consensus then you may open a request for comment. Instructions at that page. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Jezhotwells - I appreciate your critique. Can you explain your comment that the article is "in a rather sorry state" and specify the areas where the article is weak? That'll be a lot of help improving the article. Also, if you closely review the debate, you will find that your comment about what the content about famines should look like is redundant. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Famine in India is in a sorry state because the majority of content is about famines under British rule, not before or since. The first reference is to a Wikipedia article which is NOT a reliable source. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out, I will put that on my to-do list. Since we are discussing other relevant articles, I would like to point out that I find a related article British Empire very biased. It completely ignores the view that the British Empire was despised, not just in India, but universally. Gandhi called it an evil Empire and a curse for India. The plethora of the secondary and tertiary sources describing the British Empire in that manner have been left out of that featured article. Perhaps the legacy section of that article should be labeled as a {{POV}} section. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I checked the disputed content about the famine. The content seems WP:UNDUE in this WP:SUMMARY article, however it merits mention in Famine in India and British Raj, although both POVs - those blaming the Raj and those not doing so - need to be covered.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Several editors disagree with this viewpoint - User:Jezhotwells, User:CarTick, User:Amartya ray2001, User:Sodabottle and I support the inclusion of a brief 2-3 lines relating to the famines which from a series of major events in Indian history. I invite your comment on the proposed content in this section Talk:India#Step_3_-_Concise_compiling. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) with Jezhotwells: The current draft has a strong, leading POV and blaming tone, which needs to be neutralized. Also a 3-sentence para about Famines is still too much detail (UNDUE) for me in the summary section. At most, there is a strong consensus to include the sentence, 1 line stating just the facts about the deaths and famines in the 19-20th century is enough. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Famines are a significant part of Indian history. All available data (going back to 11th century) should be summarized. I find the exclusion of certain specific data as a tactic to promote a pro British Empire view point. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a minor point further up the page it saids that the British did not invest in irrigation etc., whilst not wishing to get into a debate that blames the Empire for everything, the British (actually the Indian administration) spent a considerable amount of money on flood defences to help alleviate famines caused by lack of rain. See Sukkur Barrage for one example (only about Rs 200 million spent). MilborneOne (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Several prominent historians and Indians have analzed the situation in-depth. IMO, Gandhi's terse statement something to the effect - On the balance, the British rule of India was evil - is apt. I would extend that to the famine discussion. The British build a barrage here and a railway track there, only when it suited moving capital from India to Britain to fund it's fledgling industrial revolution, while India starved Zuggernaut (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That would appear to be a rather POV statement, and not particularly useful for this discussion. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is why these discussions dont really achieve anything with such strong POVs, 200 million rupess in the 1930s on one project is not a small amount but as it associated with the evil empire it has to be dismissed. As a non-neutral view is unlikely in this discussion not much point with continuing. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just paraphrasing Gandhi and it's a mainstream view in a country of 1.2 billion. But I agree, not point going that route as far as this discussion is concerned. Sorry about that. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) Frankly, we have about 6 lines on the entire 200 year history of British India which focuses on political transitions, as does the entire history section. To this you want to add '3-4 lines' on the 19th century famines. I'm no fan of British rule in India, but I am a fan of this encyclopedia and can see no reason, other than an attempt to paint British rule in a bad light, to include even one line on famines in this article. The notion of history as political transition is a fairly well accepted one, other material should go in other articles. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that feedback. We're all fans of Wikipedia, IMO and that's why we are here. There's agreement to include content about the famine amongst several users as stated above. We now need to work on keeping it concise. Critique on the currently proposed content (Talk:India#Step_3_-_Concise_compiling) is welcome. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the level of agreement for inclusion that would amount to a consensus. I'm also interested in an explanation why something that is not a political transition should be included in a section that confines itself solely to those sort of historical events. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have raised the fact User:Zuggernaut has been canvassing to try and influence the outcome of this debate on the Admins noticeboard here. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to that frivolous complaint. On the contrary, the complaint is an attempt to stifle the mainstream POVs held in India, a country of 1.2 billion as this reliable source shows [6]. I have invited people to join the debate and will certainly continue to do so within Wikipedia policies. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly why i raised this matter on the ANI, i thought you would continue to canvass as you do not seem to think you have done anything wrong, but you have. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Let the admins decide. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

RegentsPark had a point when he said:

Frankly, we have about 6 lines on the entire 200 year history of British India which focuses on political transitions, as does the entire history section.

Therefore,

1) The article deserves a little more extensive history section.

2) Famines during the British rule is still important. I'm not saying what Zuggernaut suggested is completely accurate or deserves a place in the article... But, parts of it does make sense... I'll try to make a draft and preset it here... I would request everyone to act and modify that draft alone. We have discussed a lot of other things in the article than the main issue, which is, how to better Zuggernaut's suggestions!

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) The point is that this is a summary article and that details should be directed to sub-articles. If, for example, we include a statement about famines that ascribes responsibility of these famines to British rule, then, in all fairness, we would need to extend the analysis of British rule to include all significant positive and negative aspects of that rule. In other words, we would have an entire section devoted to something along the lines of 'Economic and social effects of British rule in India' which is probably better suited to the British Raj article. Additionally, we would also need to place these famines in the context of India's perennial inability to adequately feed its people. Put all this in, and fairly soon, the article would be unmanageable. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've made a draft version here ... I would request everyone to take a look at it and let's talk about it there... After we reach a broad consensus we will publish it on the main page. I've tried to be as neutral as possible with credible citations... If you have an objection, please be specific. For example, if you object to a certain statement, specify the statement and then state your reasons.

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Famine content - next phase

My comments on the Admin Noticeboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amartya ray2001 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Majority of the editors have expressed a desire to include content related to Indian famines in a concise way in the 'History' section of the article. I have taken in to account the concerns of the editors ("blaming tone", neutrality) and revised the originally proposed content. The current form looks like this:

“

Between the 11th century and the 18the century, famines in India were few and local and they affected comparatively a small number of people. Eighteen famines were recorded during this period in India. Under British rule, a total of 31 famines were recorded for the 100 years between 1800-1900 with a death toll of about 37 million, primarily due to starvation. India continued to suffer from famines under the British Crown, right up to independence in 1947 after which they vanished with the establishment of representative democracy and a free press.

”

Please provide feedback on:

Whether all policies are being met
Comment on language, can better words/constructs be used to convey the message in an even briefer way?
Any other critique

Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Like I said above, I don't see the level of consensus you need to include this material in the article. The history section contains political transitions, the inclusion of this information is out of place and unnecessary. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you define, "level of consensus?" I see there is enough level of consensus in favor of modifying and adding Zuggernaut's draft.

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not support addition of text as presented mainly because it projects a non-neutral point-of-view. A few minutes search found numerous reports of famine in India after independence so clearly not true either. "12m Indians facing death from starvation" (1966) "Pope as appealed to the world to help famine-stricken India" (1966) "50 million in India face famine after drought" (1972) "Rains reach India but famine continues" (1973) "Several Indian states reeling under the scourge of famine.." (1974) To say famine dissapeared on the day of independence is misleading. MilborneOne (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

MilborneOne ... I agree with you on that... I have never said that the section on totally was neutral at all. Even I don't support it in it's entirety ... As a matter of facts, India has malnutrition related deaths even today! However, that does not change the fact that in history, when the brits were ruling, there were famine related deaths! and the history section needs to reflect that fact! People died... and we cannot exclude that from the article... I'll even say that if need be include the fact that there are malnutrition related deaths even today. In a recent judgement the Supreme Court of India ordered the government of the day to distribute food for free to the poor... Hopefully, I'm being able to make the point clear.

MilborneOne - Can you provide sources for your claims that compare with the number of deaths due to starvation (37 million) during the British era with post-British India? The content I've provided comes from a WP:reliable source (see the section above this one). An example of a reliable source could be a study that compares starvation deaths between 1800-1900 with post-British India. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Draft completed, comments welcome

Okay, I've made a draft version here ... I would request everyone to take a look at it and let's talk about it there... After we reach a broad consensus we will publish it on the main page. I've tried to be as neutral as possible with credible citations... If you have an objection, please be specific. For example, if you object to a certain statement, specify the statement and then state your reasons.

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly a big improvement from the original changes proposed. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok a couple of points, there should be a mention of world war 2 which is notable for the history section anyway, but also clearly had an impact on independence too.

As for... "The Raj was marked by an increase in the number of large-scale famines in India. Although famines were not new to the subcontinent, these were particularly severe, with tens of millions dying, and with many critics, both British and Indian, laying the blame at the doorsteps of the lumbering colonial administrations" - First sentence is fine, First half of the sentence is ok, but replace "with tens of millions dying" to an estimate from reliable sources. But " and with many critics, both British and Indian, laying the blame at the doorsteps of the lumbering colonial administrations"" sentence is rather problematic. We should state the main reasons for famines, ofcourse this should include mentioning failure to act by the colonial authorities, British economic policies which did damage, but it should also mention the main environmental causes as well as the fact some efforts were taken to try and reduce the famine and suffering. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear BritishWatcher,

Thanks for the comments... Yes, I forgot WWII. It impacted history a great deal, indeed. I'll include a line or 2 about it. Let me think how, how much and where to add them.

Reasons for people dying: Well, let me put it this way, failed rain etc., undoubtedly played a major role. But what may have aggravated the issue is the fact that there were no bail out packages from the crown - the government. Now, this is just my guess. I think, to find a neutral source with the exact analysis of the causes will be difficult. In those days we never had many independent sources (except for the government) to keep records of an then analyze these thing, like we have now. If you or anyone else is aware of a reliable and neutral source, please let me know :). But, the sources do tell us, accurately enough, the number of people dead. We won't publish it till this issue is resolved. I'm very tired tonight but will research on it as well, tomorrow.

Stating the number of people dead: We can do that! But this article has been, so far, very mildly written. Should we quote the exact figures going into multiple tens of millions? Though the toll was over a rather long period of time. I think Famine in India has done a good enough job. Interested people can click on the link and read more. We just needed to ensure that this article did not miss any fact. But that's just me. I've taken the feedback positively and will wait for further opinions.

Many thanks,

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about something along the lines of .

"Although famines were not new to the subcontinent, The Raj was marked by an increase in the number of large-scale famines in India. Despite efforts by the colonial authorities to reduce the impact of the severe famines caused by (enter environmental reasons), British economic and trade policies contributed to the problems and an estimated (number) died in the famines between (year)-(year)."

The Famine in India article does mention the government did respond with some measures, we should mention that fact along with the policies that contributed to the problem and made it harder to prevent. As for the numbers, it depends on if several neutral sources all state the same sort of figure, and we do need to highlight clearly the estimate covers many decades. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

yes i agree... how about:

"Although famines were not new to the subcontinent, the Raj was marked by an increase in the number of large-scale famines in India. Despite efforts by the colonial authorities to reduce the impact of the severe famines caused by numerous crop failures, British economic and trade policies towards colonial India contributed to the problems resulting in the death of an estimated 45.6 million people, within British territories, between 1760 - 1944." + all the citations needed to substantiate the number?

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Id put "droughts and crop failures" rather than just crop failures. Also saying "resulting in the death of" makes it sound like that was all down to the economic/trade policies, something that is not true. simply saying "contributed to the problems and an...." is more neutral. On the figure, do we have multiple sources suggesting that figure? If there is a range, then it may be best to say both ranges or go with your original suggestion of with 10s of millions dying. "within British territories" is problematic, and location needs to be more clearly defined due to numerous other British territories in the world during that period. It also needs to state "died in famines between..." BritishWatcher (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't seem to be able to disagree with you BritishWatcher! lol ... Here is the final draft with all the changes you pointed out. I think it's most neutral. If an attempt is made to dilute it further then we will need to compromise on facts...

"Although famines were not new to the subcontinent, the Raj was marked by an increase in the number of large-scale famines in India. Despite efforts by the colonial authorities to reduce the impact of the severe famines caused by numerous drought and crop failures, British economic and trade policies towards colonial India contributed to the problems and the death of tens and millions of people, throughout British India, between 1760 - 1944." + all the citations needed to substantiate the number?

I'm introducing these lines in the sandbox draft. And you are right about the History section being too small, as well... That is why I expanded it.

Thankfully,...

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

that final sentence is still very problematic as it basically reads that economic/trade policies contributed to the deaths of 10s of millions which is not what happened, and certainly not neutral. They contributed to the problem (making things worse) but not to all of those deaths. It would be clearer if its.. "Despite efforts by the colonial authorities to reduce the impact of the severe famines caused by numerous droughts and crop failures, British economic and trade policies towards colonial India contributed to the problems and between 1760-1944, tens of millions died within British India because of the famines." BritishWatcher (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, this seems fair enough to me. Will make the necessary changes. Also working on WWII...

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Amartya - It's a very good, neutral draft. My comments: the famines were caused by the policies of the British government. There is no coincidence that the Irish suffered a similar famine in the exact same period. It was so devastating that it changed their nation for ever. 30% of the Irish population was starved to death - imagine that, 30%! In India this number was 10% over 100 years of a series of famines. Take a look at the suggestions of genocide in the Irish famine. There are claims in that article (with proper sources) that the British deliberately pursued a policy of mass starvation. Amartya Sen (see section above) has studied the Indian situation and the conclusion he's drawn is critical - once those discriminative policies of the British were reversed, the "economic" famines in India stopped. There are sources that clearly state that British propaganda blamed the famines on lack of rain, population density, crop failures, etc. Western authors (probably English) have shown these to be lies. That's something we need to include in the article - they way to do it, IMO is to define and differentiate between "economic famines" and those that happened after independence. After independence people were eager to rush food to affected areas and thus the deaths were on a minuscule scale as compared to when the British were running things. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Zuggernaut ... I know too little about Irish history to comment. But the lines look MUCH better and neutral after including BritishWatcher's ideas. We MUST thank him for the solution... :)... The idea here is not to undermine ANY regime. India lost it's independence because of it's own failures, in the first place, if u ask me (very personal opinion)! But, since we are writing an article on it, we HAVE to do justice to the millions of people who died. I would do the very same while writing about Kashmir, for example. There is nothing personal about it.

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Just looked at the article in your userspace, some of the break-ups of the paragraphs might not fit the featured article criterion. So, we just need to be careful about that. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Zuggernaut thanks for noticing. I may need help on that. I'm not particularly good with artistic stuff :P ... please feel free to fix that part in the user page :D...

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Amartya - that shouldn't be a problem - the important part is getting the content right. Once we are ready to go, we can insert it the right places to start with and then split into separate paragraphs if they get too big. I just learnt that small paragraphs don't make it even to a good article level. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"the" is usually not used before a proper noun...

...unless the proper noun is a geographical term, or a plural term or refers to an establishment. "Tata Nano" is neither. --King Zebu (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agricultural produce - did we have a debate on this? (this is another debate)

Major agricultural products include rice, wheat, oilseed, cotton, jute, tea, sugarcane, potatoes; cattle, water buffalo, sheep, goats, poultry and fish.

what is cattle, water buffalo, sheep, goats, poultry? In my opinion it should be, cattle - milk and meat, water buffalo - milk, sheep - meat, goat - milk and meat, poultry - egg and meat. Unless it's a nuance of English I'm not aware of (in which case my apologies in advance for raising the issue), the sentence look ridiculous (not intending to undermine its author)!

also,

From the 1950s to the 1980s, India followed socialist-inspired policies.

socialist-inspired policies is called Welfare economics... India is a welfare state.

From the 1950s to the 1980s, India followed socialist-inspired policies. The economy was shackled by extensive regulation, protectionism and public ownership, leading to pervasive corruption and slow economic growth.[128]

This makes it appear as if socialism leads to corruption and slows down economic growth. With is not true and neutral. China is the best example. India is corrupt even today. If you ask me, India is corrupt because Indians are corrupt (I'm an Indian, btw and this is a personal opinion. If u don't like it, ignore it... :) ). We need to work to improve these sentences.

Manish Kumar,Mundka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.234.18 (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I would request your opinion on this:

Currently, India's economic system is portrayed as a capitalist model with the influx of private sector enterprise.

Influx if the private sector is true but does that make the economy capitalist? The government of India does not call it's economy capitalist!

The rest of the Economy section appears to be neutrally written.

Demographics

The last 50 years have seen a rapid increase in population due to medical advances, <leading to higher life expectancy>, and massive increase in agricultural productivity due to the "green revolution".[143][144]

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish Edits

YellowMonkey thanks for changing the status of the page mate... There has been a LOT of rubbish edits indeed! Please consider blocking some of these vandals! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This is in good shape!

Aside from the "rubbish edits" issue I see mentioned above, I must say this article is in good shape. The linking practice is excellent—such specific, narrowly focused targets. Well done. Tony (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

China vs. People's Republic of China

As per Wikipedia:NC-CHN#Political_NPOV,

As a general rule of thumb, the official political terms "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" and "Republic of China" or "ROC" should be used in political contexts (that is, to describe the existing governments or regimes) rather than the imprecise and politically charged terms "China" and "Taiwan."

The above assertion clearly depends upon the context in which the term "China" is used. Firstly, if the above logic is to be used, then both People's Republic of China and Republic of China should be stated as India's neighboring countries since specifically stating that PRC is a neighboring country of India undermines the territorial claims of ROC. Secondly, for this very purpose, given the context, the term "China" is specific, neutral and accurate as it neither undermines ROC's territorial claims and by providing an interwiki link to PRC, it establishes the fact that PRC is in control of the concerned territory bordering India. Just to note, another featured article, Japan, uses the term "China" rather than People's Republic of China in its lead section.

I'm no expert on this terming controversy, so if anyone still objects to the usage of the term "China", then he/she is free to revert my edit. --King Zebu (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd still prefer the official political name, but can accept the usage of "China".--The Taerkasten (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree TaerkastUA. I would prefer to use the full official name as well! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You have this correct, as does the Japan article. Using the formal names is generally only necessary when there would be confusion, which is almost always only situations on political articles within the Sinosphere. In common use, readers understand China/Taiwan as separate countries and referring to PRC/ROC only confuses. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I can accept China but do note that it is not non-political. For one thing, it implies that Tibet is a part of China which is a POV. PRC, on the other hand, implies that Tibet is a part of the political entity PRC, a less POV statement. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the full name is important, in order to adhere to a NPOV. I don't think common name should apply in these circumstances.--The Taerkasten (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a compromise: How about the use of the People's Republic of China in the first instance, then "China" as per common use, thereafter?--The Taerkasten (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable solution. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess. However, note that using People's Republic of China in the first instance and using "China" elsewhere will definitely undermine the very existence of Republic of China. But as I said before, I'm no expert and will not comment on this issue further. --King Zebu (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think TaerkastUA's solution is fair enough... Amartya ray2001 (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Northeast India vs. northeast India

This is in reference to this edit.

Northeast India is nothing but a geographic term, similar to southern Africa. Therefore, there is no need to capitalize the term. The term is rarely capitalized elsewhere -

US keen to help northeast India tap its potential

Moderate earthquake hits northeast India

BSNL to lay optical cable in Bangladesh

The Tribes of northeast India by Sebastian Karotemprel and Dipali G. Danda

Microearthquake seismology and seismotectonics of South Asia by J. R. Kayal

--King Zebu (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I really don't care if it's Northeast India of northeast India or northeastern part of India as long as the territorial integrity of the region is honored. However, it is not a practice in wikipedia to make changes to a featured article unless a consensus is reached and that will have to be honored. Therefore, please don't make any change unless and until ppl agree with u, here! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Amartya, I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know when to seek consensus and when to not. Moreover, several sections of this article (from the Foreign affairs, to Economy, to captions of almost all images in Flora and Fauna and Culture section) were largely edited by me. Maybe, you should read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle before suggesting others to always seek consensus. And as F. Scott Fitzgerald would say, "cut out all those exclamation marks." --King Zebu (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

King Zebu I'm glad you have been on Wikipedia for a long time! But that does not give u the right to change anything on a featured article without consensus. Amartya ray2001 (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read that Wikipedia supplemental essay I provided above? And as per Wikipedia:Be bold, I will continue to fix problems in this article rather than raising consensus on the talkpage every time. You can consult administrators or other experienced Wikipedians to get some more insight over this issue. --King Zebu (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Zebu. You don't need to always seek consensus while editing. In that case, a simple change like Northeast-->northeast will take a month. Shovon (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion Shovon ... But that is something most of us don't agree with! Everything in this article is there for a reason and we had pages up on pages of discussion on every word of it... We prefer to keep things that way! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Who are the we you are referring to here? And, did you go through this? Shovon (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You will need to read the rest of the page to understand the definition of "we"... I'm not going to fall under unnecessary debate. Nothing will change in this article unless discussed with everyone! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sports

This is in reference to my edits to the Sports section.

Only mention India's achievements in ICC administered tournaments. The main article is not the place to give a detailed highlight of India's cricketing achievements.
Do not mention personal achievements of some selected sports-persons. Again, the main article is not the place for this. Today Vishwanathan Anand's records were mentioned. Tomorrow, someone will add the achievements of Mary Kom or Sushil Kumar and the list will keep growing. There is a separate article (Sports in India) for this.
Finally, read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style) and Wikipedia:Main article fixation.

Thanks --King Zebu (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well actually all international cricket including Asia Cup is ICC-sanctioned/reviewed with umpires, referees etc. But anyway Asia Cup isn't importnt YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

ISRO

And so is Border-Gavaskar Trophy. Almost every international cricket tournament is sanctioned by the ICC, but not necessarily directly administered by it. Again, the main article is not the place for listing India's performance in all major cricketing tournaments. --King Zebu (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh please! Cricket is a over hyped game in India. Now, this is my personal opinion; which means, if you add or subtract something about it, i won't poke my nose! I think we need to mention more about the local and indigenous games like Kabaddi, Kho kho, etc! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 59.164.5.124, 29 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I have to add some information about space sciences of India.So please accept my request

59.164.5.124 (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to state specifically what you want inserted to the article and then it may get added, ensure any material is sourced. Edit request does not unlock the article, simply is a way of getting something to be inserted or changed by an editor who can edit the page, only way to be given access to edit this page which is semi protected will be to register an account, and youd have to wait 4 days before you are able to edit semi protected pages. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done - for the moment. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

to add to what BritishWatcher said, please make yourself known and create an account! thereupon, discuss what you want to add, get a consensus and we are all add that together! we will let u have the honor of saving the confirmed text... :D Amartya ray2001 (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 data

Why do people use 2010 data for GDP instead of 2009? We are not even half way through 2010, and every country's using 2009 data, stop this childish and ridiculous behaviour. This information is not about "look better'

＊＊Ahem＊＊　We would appreciate a signature, thou anonymous one. --HFret (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Should 'famines' be included in the article at all

I completely disagree with any inclusion of famines in the article. I can see that you (Amartya ray and zuggernaut) prefer not to discuss issues that relate to what should or should not be in a summary article, but perhaps you should try to take the trouble to do that first and then, assuming you get such a consensus, worry about the wording. Please explain (a) why the article should make specific mention of famines rather than a complete evaluation of British rule in India (b) why hunger related issues should be detailed only vis-a-vis British rule, and (c) why a summary article should go to lengths discussing issues that are, by definition, controversial and have no simple answers. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Because 45.6 million deaths is a major component of the complete evaluation of British rule in India... Please let us know specific reasons to highlight why such tragedies should not be included in the history of a country?

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am only supporting the inclusion of this new paragraph if the wording is neutral, but also the history section itself is expanded more so it does not look out of place. Amartya ray2001s proposal seems like a good start to improving the history section which is pretty shockingly short for a featured article. Zuggernaut bringing up Ireland all the time does not help though. The proposal linked added a lot more content than this one paragraph under discussion above. Mentions of famines post independence and the positive developments under the Raj help ensure this remains neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I support Amartya - these were a major series of events in Indian history and should be included. If Ireland has such information we should too. In fact the Ireland article has complete graphs of population decline due to the famines. If there are such graphs for India, we should form consensus and include those too. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Because the history of a country is largely told in political terms and because selectively highlighting one aspect of a political era is not encyclopedic. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear RegentsPark,

We have included every aspect we could think of, both praising the regime and otherwise. If you think we missed a point, WWII for example, please let us know... I'll be glad to include it... :)

Regards,

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Zuggernaut,

In my opinion you made your point. This is a discussion about Indian History and let's think and talk ONLY on those lines. This is not about Ireland or any other part of the world. India and just India. We will have a debate on other subjects on the respective talk pages.

Gratefully your's,

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree we should focus on India. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have a moment to spare from your self-congratulatory wit, perhaps you should try reading the Ireland article. Famines are well integrated into the narrative there (for example as a cause for the historical event known as the great migration). That article does not simply say 'see how the Brits killed us off'. --RegentsPark (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear RegentsPark, I just read it :) and found the following instances of "famine" scattered throughout the article:

The population of Ireland is estimated to be 6.2 million people, with just under 4.5 million in the Republic of Ireland and just under 1.8 million in Northern Ireland.[3] This is a significant increase from a modern historical low of 4.2 million in the 1960s but still much lower than the peak population of over 8 million in the mid-19th century prior to the Great Famine.[6]

200,000 civilians are estimated to have died as a result of a combination of war-related famine, displacement, guerilla activity and pestilence over the duration of the war.

The winters destroyed stored crops of potatoes and other staples and the poor summers severely damaged harvests.[40] This resulted in the famine in 1740.

The population of Ireland rose rapidly since the 16th century until the mid-19th century, but a devastating famine in the 1840s caused one million deaths and forced over one million more to emigrate in its immediate wake. Over the following century, the population reduced by over half, at a time when the general trend in European countries was for populations to rise by an average of three-fold.

The Great Famine of the 1840s caused the deaths of one million Irish people and over a million more emigrated to escape it.[44] By the end of the decade, half of all immigration to the United States was from Ireland. Mass emigration became deeply entrenched and the population continued to decline until the mid 20th century. Immediately prior to the famine, the population was recorded as 8.2 million by the 1841 census.[45]

Mass emigration followed in the wake of the Great Famine in the mid-19th century and continued until the 1980s.[107]

That's one way of writing it and I'm sure that as well is a good way. It however does not mean that other styles are bad... Instead of mentioning famine throughout the contour of the article, our article has mentioned just a couple of lines about it at just one place. I think the later (the idea we are discussing here) is a MUCH milder and effective way of putting the point across. Not to unduly embarrass any particular regime is the line most of us have taken so far this article is concerned... So far, someone killing someone is concerned, if you read the concluding part of the section it can be observed how even the government of Independent India is not doing anything better. I don't see why we need to be hypocritical about what happened in history! What has happened has happened and we need to represent it exactly the way it happened! That is only being neutral!

So, let us not discuss about bending or misrepresenting facts. If you have citations saying famines did not occur during the British rule or before or after that or less people died or the sources represented in the article are wrong, please suggest better sources with other data.

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of this style or that but rather one of integrating it into the historical narrative. Your current approach of 'see how bad the Brits were' is not integrative. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in the history section aslong as its done in a neutral way and its clear famines happened before British rule and after independence. What are your thoughts on the latest suggested paragraph in the section above when taken ontop of the proposed other changes in Amartyas draft which adds to other parts of the history section to ensure this is not out of place. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RegentsPark on this, I can't see why this content needs inclusion in this article. While Amartya ray2001's version is definitely better than the earlier ones, it's still not complete. There are two important aspects missing: To quote Stein (page 262)

The full causes of the tragic loss of life were more historically significant, and they were multiple. From the time of Governor-General William Bentinck, wider market networks for food commodities had emerged as a result of improved road and river transport, railways added to this trend by mid-century. Forward grain contracting logically extended market relations, so that in places where food was usually in surplus and exported, exports continued even when shortages occurred, prices soared and starvation deaths were reported. The government was slow to interfere with the effects of market and contractual relations, but was finally forced to intervene by criticisms in Britain as the toll of deaths became known there.

As you can see, the interpretation is more nuanced than any version we could add without making it undue to this article. Also, point to be noted is that in 1880, the "Indian Famine Code" was created, and it still serves as the basis for famine relief in India. One can not integrate all these aspects into this article without being prejudiced towards one issue or the other, so it is best left out. Also, this article is a summary style article, not meant to delve into details, that is best left for the linked articles. The article is meant to "highlight the highlights" and the famine bit, whether we personally feel one way or another, does not get that level of importance amongst historians, e.g. four pages in 408 pages of content in Stein's A History of India. Our section is about 600 words long in an article where WP:SIZE matters. Should this content go in History of India, British Raj and other related articles? Yes, but there again, it needs to be done in the context of those articles. I'm going to be off-wiki for a few days, so I won't be able to respond quickly. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is meant to highlight the highlights,indeed. And the famines are an intrinsic part of it just like all the religious violence, casteism, naxalism, terrorism and regional separatist insurgencies, especially in Jammu and Kashmir and Northeast India . We may not like it, but truth is always bitter. We need to take a stand, to be with truth or not to be with truth! I for one will side truth. Let this document reflect truth and facts and not be written for appeasement. I may be see as trying to push just point. But that's not true. This is a point I noticed first. If there are other points which were significant and true, like the effects of WWII of the independence of the county, I would push those too.

We need more participation on this. Are there just 4-5 editors working on Project India? I had written a note on Wikiproject: India in compliance with the canvasing guidelines.

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with spif and park.it will unnecessarily increase the size of a article which is already too long RahulChoudhary 13:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is actually fairly short. Almost half of it is taken up by the citations and reference list. The history section is incredibly short. Whilst i agree a whole paragraph in that section at present would be too much, if the history section is expanded as proposed and includes text in a neutral way which mentions progress under the raj as well as the fact famines happened before and after British rule i dont see the problem. The excessive famines are certainly notable for a mention on this article, at present there is simply one line in the economic section saying india hasnt suffered one for a few decades. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BritishWatcher ... This is an article about a big country in terms of history, population and size. It may seem to be an idiotic argument to make a large article for it's flagship page but if you think about it, this article is far too small for any country. I'm saying add/accept what I've written... But we need to extend it with facts represented in a neutral manner. There are a LOT of facts missing from it. There is a huge scope of extending it.

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Any changes should keep the following in mind.

Restricting or limiting content is a bad idea. But take a look at WP:Article size
Article should not lose FA status
Information should be added bit by bit and paragraphs should be split after they are large enough.
Getting in to details of British rule is a can of worms so Gandhi's all-enveloping comment should be kept in mind - there was some good, some bad from British presence in India but on the net, British rule of India wasn't good (mild language is mine).
Addressing SpacemenSpiff's comment "One can not integrate all these aspects into this article without being prejudiced towards one issue or the other" - we need to use numbers to take out the prejudice/subjectivity - just mention number of famines/deaths before, during and after independence.
Amartya Sen is a very relevant and credible source - noble prize winner, economics, Indian, experienced the Bengal famine first hand. His work should be give value in quoting on Indian starvation deaths.

Zuggernaut (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Zuggernaut can you please give me those Amartya Sen sources?

Many thanks,

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The same as the ones mentioned in the section above. Here they are again:

Sen, Amartya (2001), Farrukh Iqbal; Jong-Il You (eds.), Democracy, market economics, and development: an Asian perspective, World Bank Publications, pp. 12–14, ISBN 9780821348628
Content: Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to prevent them, and a government of a democratic country-facing elections, criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers-cannot but make a serious effort to prevent famines. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule right up to independence (the last famine was in 1943, four years before independence, which I witnessed as a child), they disappeared suddenly, after independence, with the establishment of a multi-part democracy with a free press.
For example in India the priority of of preventing starvation and famine was fully gripped already at the time of independence (as it had been in Ireland as well, with its own experience of famine under British rule).

Sen, Amartya (2009), The idea of justice, Harvard University Press, pp. 338–343, ISBN 9780674036130
Content: The Bengal famine of 1943, which I witnessed as a child, was made viable not only by the lack of democracy in colonial India, but also by severe restrictions on reporting and criticism imposed on the Indian press, and the voluntary practice of 'silence' on the famine that the British-owned media chose to follow (as a part of alleged 'war effort', for fear of aiding the Japanese military forces that were at the door of India, in Burma). The combined effect of imposed and voluntary media silence was to prevent substantial public discussion on the famine in metropolitan Britain,including in Parliament of London, which neither discussed the famine, nor considered the plicy needs of dealing with it (that is, not until October 1943 when The Statesman forced its hand). There was of course no parliament in India under the British colonial administration.
In fact, governmental policy , far from being helpful, actually exacerbated the famine. There was no official famine relief over the many months in which thousands were dying every week. More than this, the famine was aggravated, first, by the fact that the British India Government in New Delhi had suspended the trade in rice and food grains between the Indian provinces, so that food could not move through legitimate channels of private trade despite the much higher price of food in Bengal. Second..."

Also, regarding an earlier comment from you - yes Indian politicians don't help as much as they should but they screw up (and big time) because of their ineptitude and incompetence and not for the same reasons as those of the British.Zuggernaut (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks... Let me read them. Amartya ray2001 (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Zuggernaut,

This is in reference to your following argument:

Also, regarding an earlier comment from you - yes Indian politicians don't help as much as they should but they screw up (and big time) because of their ineptitude and incompetence and not for the same reasons as those of the British.

The version present here states the following:

1) India is an Independent country country now as opposed to an imperialist colonial rule then.

2) The Supreme Court of India took cognizance of the fact that food rot in government silos and ordered the them to distribute the food for free to millions of its poor.

3) The country is doing well otherwise.

All these clearly indicate that the present day starvation deaths and farmer suicides and the pre-independence ones happened due to different reasons. I don't think we have to explain everything is great detail. Like earlier stated, this is a flagship article and should highlight the highlights. Pre-Independence famines and Post-Independence malnutrition are definitely highlights of highlights just like religious violence, casteism, naxalism, terrorism and regional separatist insurgencies, especially in Jammu and Kashmir, Northeast India and those wars with China and Pakistan. Let me once again reiterate that ignoring these two facts will be doing great injustice to the article and will cast a serious shadow of doubt on the authenticity and neutrality of the article.

Furthermore, brief mention also needs to be made about the effects of WWII on the Independence Movement and many similar and extremely aspects on the country. This may be a featured article but very incomplete as well. Do we want it to be featured at the cost of keeping it incomplete?

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

hey, since no one is talking about it anymore, should/may i take this as a consensus? Amartya ray2001 (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Er, no. No one is talking about it because repeatedly saying no is not efficient. There's no consensus at present to add this. —SpacemanSpiff 07:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought the consensus was already there and we were working on the draft. Sorry, I got busy with Famine in India and left this midway. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought what Zuggernaut thought too... I see about 2 ppl agreeing to make the changes, a couple against it and one who is not being able to make up his mind. I think that's consensus enough. But I'll tell others (ppl who have been working on this for longer) decide about it, as a matter of courtesy. I've done my job of writing something true, yet widely acceptable! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was more than 2 - early on in the discussion these had expressed support - (User:Jezhotwells, User:CarTick, User:Amartya ray2001, User:Sodabottle and I) but I'm sure there were more who expressed support as the discussion progressed. Nonetheless - it should not be the count that matters, rather the quality of the discussion which clearly indicates consensus. I would say go ahead and make the change. I would have joined but I am busy trying to improve Famine in India and related categories. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So, according to Zuggernaut, Jezhotwells, CarTick, Me, Sodabottle support the motion while I can see that Rahulchoudhary003, SpacemanSpiff and RegentsPark are clearly against it. Now, I'm too naive to understand complications. Furthermore, I respect the editors who worked MUCH harder on this article than I did, hitherto. One of those editors is Sodabottle. I trust him and know that he is clearly neutral. I would therefore humbly request him to take charge and lead us to a conclusion over this matter. His decision will acceptable to me because I know he will deal with it in an impartial manner. I, for one, don't want this issue to be un-necessarily escalated, as far as possible... I know for sure, we are capable enough to resolve it on our own! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid i haven't followed this discussion for quite some time. But a quick look at Regents' arguments show he has a point about political vs non political history. (and amartya i wasn't involved in bringing the article to the current status, it was before my time and so i too am a noob about the old debates. Regents is the veteran here). Yes i would like to add a line on famines in the History section, but two of the established editors are raising valid concerns and as consensus is not vote counting, we better leave this as such and concentrate our energies on "Famines in India" as Zuggernaut is doing. In my brief time in Wikipedia, i have learnt to live with the fact that not everyone thinks like me :-). Amartya, you and Z have done some amazing research on Famines. Please leave this be and concentrate on Famines in India.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Amartya's reasonable views would certainly be helpful on the Famines in India page after some recent additions have damaged the article's neutrality. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Anything BritishWatcher perceives as even the slightest of criticism of the British Empire is quickly termed as a POV. An editor points out that BritishWacher has a single purpose agenda on Wikipedia. [7]Zuggernaut (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It is you who adds questionable material to articles, creates questionable categories and got caught canvassing. I get involved in many different issues, so i do not have a single purpose agenda and on areas i feel strongly about i am careful not to make edits that are biased. I may voice very strong opinions on the talkpages of some articles, but i leave the article itself alone which is what WP:NPOV requires. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Your canvassing allegation was frivolous. More and more users have been pointing out your pro-British Empire POV - an American editor humors it here [8], an Australian editor, as mentioned above pointed it out here [[9]. A third researcher from Bolivia does so here [10]. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Editors on the admins noticeboard told you your actions were a violation of canvassing rules, it was blatantly obvious you were advertising in a way to advance your position in the debate. So i find it funny you dismiss it as frivolous. If you wish to do what you did again because you do not think it was against the rules, i will take it to the Admins noticeboard again. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright guys, let's discuss Famines in India under Famines in India. Let us not bring it here! BritishWatcher you know it for a fact that I've developed a LOT of respect for you. Can you therefore help us ascertain if there is a census? If no, then we will just move on! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sodabottle I appreciate your feedback. But I for one can't see how it is a political write? A LOT of people died in India due to hunger and the British were ruling at that time. The then incumbent government policies had to play a major part. Thats all the version version says! In fact, I think it will be more political not to mention it! If you think this is bad, I'll show you how I'm ripping apart the flaws of independent India in my personal blog. If BritishWatcher & you want I may even take a look at Famines in India. Regards, Amartya ray2001 (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the history section of this article is at present incredibly short and should be expanded, i also believe that famines clearly are an important part of history and should be covered in more detail than at present. There does not appear to be consensus for change at the moment, it would be helpful if all of those involved here were prepared to consider working together to try and redo the history section, and we should certainly use some of the things from your draft. Part of the problem appears to still be people opposing the addition simply to the current history section (which i agree would be problematic). Zuggernauts actions do not help though, it would be far easier for me to simply say i think there is no need for change, but i do agree a change is needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the history section is too short. I think that it is worth keeping in mind that this is a summary article, and that readers who want to know more about the history (or the government, culture, etc.) of India should be directed to other articles. A detailed history of India is available in History of India and that's where the focus of adding historical material should be. This particular article is one of the best on wikipedia. Each section is approximately the same length, all major aspects of the nation are covered, there is very little POV material, and mostly everything in the article is referenced to mainstream sources. Expanding the history section will skew the article by making that section larger than the others. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I'll have to agree with BritishWatcher ... because 1) Should we ignore facts just because it may effect the cosmetic look of the article? 2) Mentioning famine is a NPoV. We made it into one. 3) There is no mention at all about Famines in India and it need to some it at some part if this has to truly be a summery article. Thought we discussed about it before, already! why are we discussing the same thing again and again? Should we have a vote on this? Amartya ray2001 (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of size, Culture is almost 2x the size of history... And why should it not be? A country is defined by it's History and culture. We therefore need to make the History section proportional to Culture, if size is the matter here! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not a question of 'ignoring facts'. There are many historical and other facts that relate to India and it should be quite clear that we can't possibly include them all in one article. Generally, we write a top level summary article that covers the main points and then leave the details to sub-articles. And, it is not a mere cosmetic issue that the different sections should be of more or less the same length. A well written article is one where the material is balanced and is not overwhelmed by one aspect or another. The article is about India and is not about "the history and culture of India with some other information'. Perhaps you are right about the culture section being excessive in length, but the correct response is to reduce the length of that one section rather than increase the length of one other section. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear RegentsPark, that's what we are discussing about. More of us feel that the famines form a part of the main points and merits a mention in this article. India is a 5000 yr old country, it is obvious that more facts deserve to be included. However, this is not a debate about those other facts but just the famines. Amartya ray2001 (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some confusion about what is a fact. It is a fact, for example, that there was a rebellion against British rule during 1857-59. It is a fact that there were numerous famines in the 19th century. It is an opinion that these famines were a result of British rule. I think we should stick to the facts in this summary article and avoid opinion as far as possible. Conflating famines with British rule converts an opinion into a fact, and that is not a good idea. Another example of opinion is the identification of the Gupta period as a 'golden age' (it is also very poorly sourced - encarta and a government website don't make for good sources on historical matters), and, IMO that reference should be removed as well. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Slums

Can I delete all references to poverty in India, this page will be seen accross the globe so we must represent our country better, pls try and change all pics that show us in a bad light, change them to skyscrapers or modern military. We are the most powerful most developed country in the world, the world needs to see it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtjdajtjda (talk • contribs) 07:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In short, no. Wikipedia articles need to present a balanced and accurate picture of the topics they cover and this means acknowledging that while India is rapidly developing many Indians continue to live in poverty. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's always amusing to see members of the feudal ruling class not be able to see the slums right around them, and their own virtual slaves YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jtjdajtjda, though the way you put the request across is appreciated, poverty and unplanned nature of cities are a fact in India. Philosophically (and probably even otherwise) speaking, a country is how its majority are and our are poor, period! Now, your emotional request merits an emotional answer. I know you are unhappy and maybe even saddened by what you see around. Many of us started off poor but either by access to opportunities or sheer accident of birth we have succeeded in elevating ourselves a few levels. This was supposed to be a cascading effect, a chain reaction, (the state would provide opportunities to some and they would pull other poorer peer citizen up) but never took off! May be, we reaped the benefits and are now kicking the ladder away? :)

We are the most powerful most developed country in the world ... As much as I would wish that was true, we need to live with reality. We are more developed compared to 1947 or even the '90s but hardly enough to be called so, yet. Amartya ray2001 (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC) PS: Make sure you value labor... :)

My observation on the Map

I can agree with one of these maps but not with both!

It's about PoK ... though it shows PoK as a part of Pakistan (please read the Pakistan article), the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir is shown as disputed here... It will only be fair, I think to either show PoK disputed even in the Pakistan article or show the Indian Administered Kashmir as a part of India! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I would request people to respond to this. We need to escalate the matter otherwise! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No comment on the Pakistan map (which also appears to show PAK as disputed - see the crossed lines), but I agree that the map of India should show the state of J&K as non-disputed. A standard map of India which uses the LOC as the primary international boundary would be much better. Are there alternatives available? --RegentsPark (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Pakistan map does show AJK and Gilgit Baltistan as disputed - look closely at the map and you'll notice a dotted line pattern similar to the one used on the map of India. Consequently, I see no reason to show J&K as non-disputed in the Indian map - this way, neutrality is maintained on both sides. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear SBC-YPR, agreed... But, it still does not have a legend (explaining which part is what). We need a legend there. Thanks for your comments and observations... :) Amartya ray2001 (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

When you click through to the map itself, it tells you what the numbers and letters stand for. However, I'm not sure I like the disputed territory idea (either here or in the POK map). Should we be shading Arunachal Pradesh as well? Better to stick to realistic maps. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

RegentsPark are you talking about the India map? That map has the legends. We need legends in the Pakistan map. Arunachal Pradesh is a dispute between India and China! we will discuss that in length if and when there is a map related dispute between those two countries. Let is focus on if we should have proper legend on the pakistan map. Otherwise we need to remove the legend from the Indian map as well. Amartya ray2001 (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If our only concern is legends on the Pakistan map, then shouldn't that be discussed in Talk:Pakistan? That's where that particular map is used. Why is it necessary to discuss it here? --RegentsPark (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

RegentsPark yes! But it is linked to India as well! because we are talking about an area contested by both these countries. Amartya ray2001 (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Since I am editing the Pakistan Map (simplifying) I thought I might as well jump in here. My stand has always been to shade the entire Kashmir region as disputed AND included in both maps, if not all three. Both countries have claim and the area should be shaded as disputed (probably with opacity at 0.5) to indicate a disputed region. In the latest version I have not included Gilgit and AJK as disputed (yet) because the area in focus highlights the Pakistani administration units. — sch@jee 11:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly there is some sort of bias here, of all the articles on wikipedia about countries only Indian and Pakistani articles seem to be showing disputed territories in the political map on article. I must note here very few countries in the world are totally free from territorial disputes but the political map in these countries only show the territories claimed by that particular country with no references to disputes. I do not see why this should be an exception for India and Pakistan. The disputed map can be added in the article about the territorial dispute.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I would request people to respond to this. In this example that I gave Russia is shown without any territorial disputes. Also even in India's map only the disputed regions of Kashmir are shown and the rest of disputed regions are not shown. Why is this Kashmir dispute been given a special place?? I would request other editors to have a look at this List_of_territorial_disputes.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Pstenos, 8 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Minor (descriptive) grammar error in the "Culture" section: please change "the nuclear family are becoming more common in urban areas" to either "the nuclear family is becoming more common in urban areas or "nuclear families are becoming more common in urban areas."

Pstenos (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Pstenos: Done. Thanks for taking time to point out the typo. --Lovysinghal (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 210.94.41.89, 16 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} India is emrging Super Power

210.94.41.89 (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide a reliable source and detail the change you would like to make in a 'please change X to Y' manner. You may also want to compose the content where you have access to a spelling and grammar checking tool. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Staana is a Sankrit word !

Staana is a Sankrit word which means place!!!! one only has to look it up in the dictionary! its even mentioned on the HIndustan page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Hindustan.

Does anyone object to my edit ??

thank you . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhruvekhera (talk • contribs) 05:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It is both a Persian and Sanskrit word (Stan is Persian, Sthan is Sanskrit). Check the article on -istan.

--92.4.112.133 (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Official language(s)

There are some small inconsistencies across articles:

Standard Hindi says, in the lead section, that (Standard) Hindi is "one of the official languages of India".
Hindi–Urdu grammar says, in the lead section, that (Standard) Hindi is "the official language of India".
This article seems to explain in most detail that Hindi is the official language and English the "subsidiary official language". Whether this means that the wording in Standard Hindi should be used, or the wording in Hindi–Urdu grammar should be used, or something more elaborate is required in both places is not clear to me. Perhaps someone knowledgeable could bring all these into sync? 86.173.171.166 (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Hindi was constitutionally designed to be the single official language of India, but later English was given equal status to Hindi. So the Hindi-Urdu grammar article is wrong. You can read about the complex language policy Languages with official status in India and Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu (the middle sections explain the policy and how it came to be). --Sodabottle (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Bose and the revolutionaries

I have removed the mention of Bose and the armed revolutionaries in the indian independence movement from the lead. They were added by Nuclear warfare in the article and in the lead. I don't think they belong in the lead in the same line as the nonviolent movement. Their contribution to the independence struggle is only minor when compared to the nonviolent movement. So, yes for the article, but no for the lead, where we can't make this distinction--Sodabottle (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry about it, I mistakenly pressed the rollback in my watchlist, but then stopped the edit by pressed Stop on the browser. I checked my contributions, to check if it had happened or not. My contributions did not show the entry, so I assumed it did not happen. I did not meet to revert Sodabottle's edits. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Aryan claim

I undid an edit by User:Rhadamanthus222 because the source doesn't fit WP:RS. There are other problems with this insertion as pointed out in edit summaries of prior removals. User:Rhadamanthus222 needs to discuss and make a case here before adding the content again. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Guys, there's proof aplenty that the term 'aryan' ORIGINATED from the vedic people (in India) to refer their culture AND people. I cannot let this significant of a proven claim not be in the history section of India. I'll add in 4 citations for one statement if you ask me to. Can you all please help me? I'm trying to add a legitimate claim. I have : Vedic people originated the term Aryan to refer to their culture.^[1] Many other references include http://www.getcited.org/pub/102123547 and http://www.winchmark.com/planetfreebook/Classic_collection/classic_books_author_F_PDF_edited_filenames/Frawley.%20Dr%20David!The%20Myth%20of%20the%20Aryan%20Inv.pdf . 3. http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/AMythofAryanInvasionsofIndia.pdf 4. http://wsu.edu/~dee/ANCINDIA/ARYANS.HTM I have more if needed. Thank you for your support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhadamanthus222 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to find and appropriate article for this content and use mainstream sources. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This is "appropriate" and DIRECTLY supports the claim I make. In addition, these articles can be found on even google scholar. They are mainstream as can get. If you cannot give me a valid reason, I will add the claim again immediately. Rhadamanthus222 (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

if "something is correct" were the only criteria for inclusion, we would now have a 1000 pages India article. --CarTick (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Now you are twisting the reason for not including my information. First, there's isn't enough sources, then it's complex and after I satisfy both of those requirements, now it's this? I'm adding one sentence (one claim) for an extremely significant, popular and general factoid about India's history. This addition is without question more than reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhadamanthus222 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the Republic of India of 1950. There's no need to go in to the details of ancient Hindu terms and concepts here. You may want to check if the content fits an article on Hinduism. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me correct you, this article discusses concisely the history of ancient India in one of the first subsections. The majority of the other sections are devoted to the 'Republic of India of 1950'.→Rhadamanthus222 (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Rhadmanthus, this info belongs in the "History of India" article. This is an extremely short summary style article. we can't delve into etymology of the word Aryan here. I was the first one to revert you and i cited this same reason - undue here. Now three editors have disagreed with you, don't add the information unless consensus supports it.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added literally two words that play a significant part to identify the vedic culture. Nobody is 'delving into etymology'. And there is absolutely no 'consensus' here. It's just 3 random people who come visit this page, not the real consensus of people who edit India. Stop bullying people into keeping the article exactly how you want it. I'm adding in a reasonable and significant FACT according to the guidelines.Rhadamanthus222 (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, even if one editor contests your editions you have thrash it out here before restoring your edits read WP:BRD and lay off the personal attacks. The "random people" you are referring to have been editing and maitaining this article for a long time. You are the newbie here. When an issue is in discussion in the talk page, you should not add that back to the article. What you are doing is edit warring. You have been reverted by four different people now and have reinserted your text eight or nine times already. This sort of behaviour will get you blocked from editing. Make your case here. Right now people are disagreeing with you on two fronts 1) The "two words" is undue here in the summary style article 2)The sources you are using - david frawley, goel et al may not stand up to WP:RS and there are counter arguments to their claim, which we won't be able to present clearly in this short article. This thing belongs in the History of India or Vedic Aryan article.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I would request all editors to cool down and try to reach consensus. I would suggest User:Rhadamanthus222 not to make any further edits till consensus is reached. Also User:Sodabottle must stop calling someone newbie as it is a personal attack. Now about the topic, according to CIA factbook 72% of Indians are Aryans. This definitely suggests that Aryans had been a major factor in the history of India. I would request the editors who oppose the move to add 2 words in the history section to provide a reason that why the history and roots of 3/4 of Indian population is so unimportant that it cannot get a negligible space of 2 words in Indian article.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

When did calling someone a newbie become a personal attack?. It is a fact. He is indulging in edit wars without being aware of policy and calls people who revert him "random people who come visit this page" who are "bullying" him. When someone calls me a "bully" for following wikipedia policy, i point out that he is being unaware of wikipedia polcies, because he is a newbie. Now you come along and accuse me personal attacks!!. Please stop this pseudo-balancing act. We have a new editor who accuses others who follow policy of bullying. Thats about it.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And he is trying to add "which the indigenous Indian Aryans" to the article. You must be aware this "indigenous" claim is not without distractors. Adding this would mean we have to balance it out with the counter claims. And it would descend into the Aryan indigenous vs emigrants debate, which is why this article is not the place for beginning it. People have suggested adding it to other articles, where, counter claims (if any) can be added to give the whole view. I am perfectly fine with this being added to the History of India article. --Sodabottle (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

exactly. someone else would want to add "Dravidian" claims to IVC and where we gonna stop. The article is already about 125 kb in size and i have trouble, opening, editing and saving the article. perpetual additions have added 25 kb since April this year while a lot of India related articles are languishing with no attention. "Editing suggestions" for a "Featured article" (Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment) go "No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible." that is not to say, "featured article" deters us from correcting blatant omissions. --CarTick (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sodabottle, the problem with adding in the dreaded "Aryan" is that the british brainwashed the Indian mass about this word to divide them. Yes, I am refering to the now significantly disproven "Aryan Invasion Theory" that they pushed (the germans created it). The references I have put cite that they have scientifically proven the so called Northern "Indo-Aryans" are not much more genetically european than the so called "dravidians". (scientific references show genetic marker testing and also testing of congruency of skull shape) In reality, both are from the SAME macro-ethnicity. In the vedic age, from northern india (present day afghanistan!) to southern India (Kerela, Tamil Nadu), each person who followed the vedic rites WAS AN ARYAN, a nobleman (according to the linguistic findings). This is being proven more and more through scientific and lingustic testing. The references have ALL that data. And such an ENORMOUS finding DEFINITELY deserves two words or at least a sentence in the India article. More about it will be written in "history of India". Be rational about this, the word 'aryan' plays such a significant role in indian history, it must be mentioned in the article. Now I'm adding aryan as the cultural term used to refer to the vedic people which I have solid references for. The almost destroyed counter-argument of the aryan-invasion theory already has an article on it, people can be directed there. If you don't want to add it how I want to, there's plenty of solid data such as uplinkash mentioned (i.e. CIA factbook 70% indians are aryans) that we can put to add it in another tone. I apologize for any words that seemed out of line and I hope you understand you shouldn't call me a 'newb' either; we're equal. But please be reasonable and help me in this addition. Rhadamanthus222 (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that bringing in the "indigenous Aryans" opens up a whole can of worms and leads to issues that will not fit into an already packed article. From reading the Indigenous Aryans article I see that this is not a mainstream view. This does not mean that it is wrong, of course, but just dropping a couple of words into the article and presenting them as a basic fact gives it more credence than it deserves. As an alternate historical theory it may deserve coverage, but only where there is room to discuss the competing theories properly. --Beirne (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no "mainstream view" on this issue, there are only facts and two theories. The first theory is the Aryan invasion theory, this has almost been ripped from the roots from the research in the past two decades. The second theory is 'out of india' theory, which has a weak to moderate amount of evidence. Now, nobody is adding out of the india theory in this article. We're only adding a proven fact that the vedic age was propelled by people living in north to south india. This is it. There isn't much argument on this. And regardless of what anyone says. Aryans are so significant, they must be added one way or another to this article. We make the choice by reasoning and rationalizing how to add it in appropriately.Rhadamanthus222 (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. As editors, we ARE absolutely equal, but you still have a little more to learn about how things work here. (i don't mean it as demeaning. we all were once at that stage) The fact still stands that despite what you claim, there is more than one "theory". We cannot add it without mentioning the other. And however we go about it, it is going to bloat the article. And what you claim as fact is still not proven beyond doubt. It is still being contested. Thats the problem - we cannot cover the aryan/dravidian claim here without mentioning the out of india/migration/invasion stuff. It belongs to the article of its own, not here. --Sodabottle (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The evidence shows genetic marking between northern and southern indians to be almost the same (compared to northern indians vs europeans). Furthermore, research of the skull structure also shows northern and southern indians to be extremely similar (compared to northern indians vs europeans). In addition to this, there is absolutely ZERO record in any books of an invasion during the vedic period. All of this is comprehensively referenced with scientific and liguistic backing in the articles. This brings us to the very strong conclusion that aryans were a cultural or racial-cultural group that definitely established the vedic age. -- I have reason to belive that this article is not being handled neutrally. It seems many of the editors here are south-indians. South-indians were discriminated against for being "un-aryan" for a period (despite the fact this is now proven wrong). This seems to have made it sensitive to add such a glaringly significant SINGULAR word into one article. If this is the case, I will try to take measures to have this issue looked into. --- I feel almost lowly making this accusation, because sodabottle and others have contributed considerably to this article and I have much to learn. However, it escapes me how such a significant term is not added one way or another to the article. It is being shunned despite having so much of a history. Rhadamanthus222 (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What you call "glaringly significant SINGULAR word" is a still contested theory. What may look like undisputed fact to you is still not the "undisputed fact" as our own Indigenous Aryans article shows. Now you are manufacturing conspiracy theories. Me or CarTick being a south-indians has nothing to do with this debate. and what exactly does " I will try to take measures to have this issue looked into" mean? --Sodabottle (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Rhadamanthus, it's fine that you have lots of evidence, but I'm sure adherents of opposing views have lots of evidence, too. The problem is that we don't have space to cover all this in the article, and it is fairer to leave the issue out than to put in one view and leave out the others. --Beirne (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sodabottle, the Indigenous Aryans article has literally 5% of the information needed in it.. in addition to being one of the most biased articles I've encountered so far (probably from the lack of relevant information not mentioned). If you read articles on indo-aryan migration, ariana and such, you'll see how much more should be added to that article. Forget that, you are telling me that I can't add aryan because it's a 'theory' and there's opposing 'theories'. Well, there's one major theory, the aryan invasion... and that only theory has basically been debunked. A taste: (==Indigenous Indian Aryans==

a study conducted by the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in 2009 (in collaboration with Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Public Health and the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT) analyzed half a million genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 ethnic groups from 13 states in India across multiple caste groups.^[2] The study asserts, based on not identifying any genetic indicators across caste lines, that castes in South Asia grew out of traditional tribal organizations during the formation of Indian society, and was not the product of any Aryan invasion and "subjugation" of Dravidian people.^[3])

This leaves us with the information we had prior to that, which is that aryans were a cultural group that established the vedic age including the religion and culture. This is the fact, or if you'd like it, "theory". Based on your logic, the article of the history of the middle-east shouldn't mention jesus, because there is an opposing theory that pruports that jesus didn't exist! However, the stronger theory (or fact) is that jesus did exist, and therefore the stronger theory is accepted and mentioned. Aryans definitely existed, followed the vedic religion and established the vedic age in India. This is the most widely accepted information, and must be added to the article, period. Rhadamanthus222 (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Then go ahead and improve those articles, with the sources you have found. This article is not the place to establish anything, when there are opposing views. It doesn't seem like we are going to agree on this one. There is no consensus and so for now, your edit stays out. So far we got four editors opposing the inclusion and two for it, lets wait and see what others think. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

it takes more than one publication to "debunk" a theory. User:Rhadamanthus222 would be interested to read the sorry state of research, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. --CarTick (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest User:Rhadamanthus222 to add these sources on articles like Indigenous Aryans, Vedic period, Indo-Aryan migrations or Historical definitions of races in India. Though the sources report new findings of 2001 off the coast of Dwarka and multiple prominent historical research consisting documentaries and reports however this is not the topic for these research. However I would like to propose that the Indian article should at least consist contain some mention of the ethnicity of Indian population in the body or infobox.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ash, The demographics section mentions the aryan-dravidian linguistic divide - the earlier 74% figure you gave is for aryan languages and it is mentioned in the articles. Ideally ethnicity too should find a place in this section, but the trick is to create a couple of sentences that cover every nuance of the ethnicity issue.--Sodabottle (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I overlooked that section and did not notice that it was mentioned. I take back my proposal.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the current wording is fine. The progression from Harappan period to Vedic period, without attempting to get into the ethnicity of the people involved, is the best way to approach this in a summary article. Historians are reasonably confident that there was a Vedic period but are less confident about ethnic lineages. (I'm assuming that the edit in question is this one.) --RegentsPark (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And on the verbal question: arya is Sanskrit, but it did not originate in Sanskrit; it is at least Indo-Iranian (indeed Iran is the cognate); it may be Indo-European; its oldest attestation is in Mitanni. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of the comments that make claims such as 'arya' didn't originate in sanskrit are incorrect and unproperly sourced comments from poorly edited wikipedia articles (with weak or zero reliable sources). 'Aryan' originated amongst Vedic people (Hindus present day) in North to Central India (North India being afghanistan present day). Aryan had little to do with ethnicity, and was purely based on culture (this is why dravidians are also evidenced as being referred to as aryans). One of the first mentions of 'aryan' are in the hindu text Vedas. They say one is Aryan if he is born and raised with the correct sacrifices and rites. This is why ancient Indians referred to each as Aryans because they followed Vedic rites and considered themselves quite Noble. This term spread a little westwards to Persia (iran), where they also adapted aryan to refer to each other as a sign of respect, although persians (iranians) have nothing to do with the origins of Aryan. Of course, over time, the term aryan faded in persia because they were after all persians had their own terms (except for when a few select figures who eranian and such like zoroaster).

But during the world wars, Hitler started his conjuring up of COMPLETELY FALSE, made up crap about how blonde haired people are superior by evolution (which is proven false). Hitler said stuff like, blondes have smaller and sharper mouths just like birds so that they can sing better. He also altered and vandalized the great philosopher Nietzsche's book to say ridiculous things about germans being superior. Another myth he pushed forward was Aryan Invasion theory to make it seem blonde germans brought wealth to asia. Now, he was going through eugenics and was creating a hierarchy of superiority by race as most know (for example slavs are in the middle, jews are absolutely last, blacks were considered half-human). During the period, he had relations with the ruler of Persia (iran's REAL NAME) at the time, Reza Shah. Read about Reza Shah; this guy denied to remove german troops from his soil even though allies told him twice to do it; if you read books more extensively, he did many other pro-hitler things. Evidence shows he wanted to align with hitler. This SAME GUY also CHANGED Persia's name to IRAN because Hitler said he would put persians on a higher racial status if Reza Shah can make an image of Persians having an 'Aryan history' and mixed Aryan blood; this false would give hitler a reason to publicly side with the non-white iranians and not any of the other non-white peoples in arab countries and india. So Reza Shah CHANGED the name of Persia to Iran. Afterwards though, the allies invaded Persia and Reza Shah was stripped of power. Now, all of this leads to the ridiculously messy situation in present day where aryan is a term tossed around as originating from 5 different countries and 4 liguistic lines and possible racial lines and bologna. I don't have time to cite the world war and historical books of iran and india which give this information. You have to read a plethora of books to accumulate and cite this information, so my apologies for that. But before making absurd statements that aren't even cited by a reliable source, please consider reading extensively about history.

It is very important you understand I wrote this post only to personally make you aware of how complex history is. I am not going to use this particular post to support the current argument that we are involved in. Why? Because I haven't cited anything in here and it would take ages. So take this post only as a personal message and piece of information from me to you guys. Hopefully it stimulates you to read some historical books and delve more into the history of Ancient India. Thanks guys. Rhadamanthus222 (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

For reference, the history of arya and Iran can be found in detail in any book on comparative Indo-European; I commend Carl Darling Buck's Comparative Grammar; much of it may be found in the OED etymology of Aryan, which also remarks that the actual Vedic spelling is aria. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, I'm sorry, that actually made me laugh. There are almost a million books which deal mention 'aryan's origins. Anyway, I'll give you the most accepted and simple linguistic origin of aryan. The Vedas are regarded as probably one of three oldest written compilations EVER. I mean, this is thousands of years BCE. And the first mention of 'aryan' or 'arya' is in the Vedas. And they already clearly give the defition of an aryan being one who performs vedic rites and sacrifices. But wait, aryan's time of origin ISN'T when the vedas were written. It was in-fact even BEFORE that. How? Because Vedas were given orally for literally thousands to 10 thousands of years. God knows.. This shows you how old this word is rooted in Hindu history. Iranians have no mention of aryan until around 600bce when they started generally using the term. Whereas Indians (up to afghanistan) have been using it for literally thousands of years before 3000bce. It's most likely that hindu indians (afghanis present day) passed on the word over the border to the Persians.

With apologies, you're straying far into original research territory. Rather than long posts constructing a rationale for the inclusion of this view, may I suggest you provide instead a reliable reference that asserts that this is considered a mainstream and a dominant view. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my last post on Vedas is not 'original research' (even though I only wrote it to answer pmanderson). As for the post before that, I noted that I am not using it to support the aryan inclusion view. Anyway, it seems we're stagnant right now (although I've given genetic, linguistic, other scientific and anatomical references to support the aryan inclusion).Rhadamanthus222 (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

[1] ttp://intyoga.online.fr/signif.htm

[2] Indians are one people descended from two tribes

[3] Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study, Times of India

[1]

[2]

[3]