Jump to content

Talk:India/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

"Śakuntala" and Mysore Palace (continued)

Is the "Śakuntala" image a representation of Kerala, the home state of its artist? Saravask, who created the rotation template and wrote much of the Kerala FA, clearly didn't think so; otherwise on October 23, he would not have made this revert. In case this is not clear, let me explain: while the summary mistakenly points to the Toda image as an example from Kerala, it implies that it does not regard "Śakuntala" as also representing Kerala; otherwise, a few edits later, Saravask would not have allowed user:Sarvagnya to re-add the Trisoor/Pooram image (see here).

A week later, on November 1, user:Sarvagnya deleted "Śakuntala." What was his justification? His edit summary says: "one pic per state - rm shakuntala image. the trissur pooram is more typically picture postcard Kerala." The "Śakuntala", however, was there in the rotation template first. (In the straw poll, "Śakuntala" received more votes than Tagore.) Why then did user:Sarvagnya unilaterally add the Trisoor/Pooram image if he thought "Śakuntala" already represented Kerala? And why did he then wait one full week to delete "Śakuntala"? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

PS I have reverted user:Sarvagnya's unilateral deletion of Śakuntala. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
It is a gross disrespect of other editors to remove Sakuntala image. It is one of the few images that actually was voted on and had 6 (for) vs 3 (against). How can you remove that image and replace it with something NO ONE HAS EVEN BOTHERED TO VOTE ON?? This is disruptive and arrogant. --Blacksun 09:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive

This page needs to be archived ASAP. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I just added the archive bot User:MiszaBot, which will archive all discussions older than thirty days now. GizzaDiscuss © 06:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, in line with WT:INB, I changed it to ten days since this is a very active page. GizzaDiscuss © 06:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[2] Ha, it has dropped from ~ 276kb to ~ 47. GizzaDiscuss © 03:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Culture Of India Additions

"Indian cuisine is characterized by a wide variety of regional styles and sophisticated use of herbs and spices. The staple foods in the region are rice (especially in the south and the east) and wheat (predominantly in the north)."

I think having two lines to describe the cuisine of india is rediculious. There is so much variation and diversity that we need to mention. The sad thing is that actual dishes that r popular havent even been mentioned. Only four ingredients have been mentioned.

There has been a lot of talk of expanding the culture section and I think this is one example of something that needs to be expanded.

Nikkul 22:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Culture can be expanded to an infinite length. The shorter the sweeter. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
If we mention more dishes than are already there, we would have to take regional balance into account. Thats means that if we add dosa from the South and fish from Bengal, we would have to add five or six more popular dishes for every region of India. The current two sentences would then be bloated to at least six unless we list them, but then it won't flow. GizzaDiscuss © 05:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ajanta Image

I am opposed to the Ajanta image because:

  1. It is very unclear - I used to think my monitor was the reason I couldnt see the image, but after getting a new HP tx1000z, I still have a hard time making out the image.
  2. Theres already a Maharashtra image - Few people have gotten upset regarding the regional balance.
  3. Image isnt really mentioned in text
  4. The caption doesnt relate to history

Proposal:

I would like to suggest replacing the Ajanta Caves image with the Taj Mahal image under the caption: "The Taj Mahal was built in 1648 by the Mughal dynasty" (or something similar) because:

  • The Taj Mahal is more a historic artefact than a current cultural thing
  • It would give us more room in the cultural section.
  • The caption right now relfects Taj's historic nature

Let me know what you guys think. Nikkul 19:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


  • I am completely and irrevocably against this idea. The Taj Mahal does not belong to the history section. If the Taj Mahal had not been built, the history of India would have been no different. The culture of India, however, would have been different. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If the Ajanta Caves had not been carved, India's history would not have differed at all. Similarly, if the Taj had not been built, it would not have affected present day Indian culture. Nikkul 23:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, you do have a point in your first sentence. I disagree with your second sentence. The construction and the continued presence of the Taj Mahal have had a profound influence on Indian culture (on later styles of architecture, on popular styles today, and on how Indians think of their culture). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Well again, im talking about politics section image.. It should be Image of Indian parliament right? Unanimous? Lara_bran 15:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been saying this for a long time that the Taj image need to be replaced because the world knows about it and there are other hidden architectural marvels that need to be there in this article since the world must know about other Indian architecture and culture. Here is one video from the discovery program. The lost temples of India. The video is about Rajaraja Chola and the temples he built.[3] Chanakyathegreat 11:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

BSReddy changes

Is there a consensus to accept or reject the changes made by BSReddy? WhisperToMe 06:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is my case:
Hindi, English are official langauges for the union government of India. Telugu , Kannada , Bengali, Hindi are official languages for respective state governments in India.
If Telugu which is spoken by 80 million people is official language in of the indian states then how come only hindi, english would be classified as official languages of India.
I have no problems if english and hindi are listed as official languages of union govt of India.
Andhra pradesh is part of India. So if a decision is made to list union govt's official languages as official languages of India , then telugu is also an official language of India
India is comprised of its people , its state govts and its union govt, not just its union govt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.214.142 (talk) 06:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The U.S. has no official languages at the federal level, yet Louisiana, a state, has French as an official language. That does not mean that the French for "United States" should be listed in the main article, since French is only official in Louisiana - No other states have French as an official language. WhisperToMe 06:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
A country has a national langauge(s). A govt has official languages(s).
India does not explicitly declare any language as its national language(s).
A state govts official language or a union govts official langauge should not be written as official languages of that country if there are multiple official langauges in the state and union govts.
either explitly state whether it is state or union govt or include all official languages of the states and union as offical languages of that country.
India and US are different. India is no new found land. Bsreddys 06:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hindi and english are official langauges of the union govt of India.... and not whole of India
But then why are they listed as the only official languages of India(but not union govt of India) Bsreddys 06:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
If telugu is spoken by 80 million people and if they are indians and telugu is official language of one of the states of India then how come telugu is not official language of India??? yes I would agree if you say telugu is not official language of union govt of India. Bsreddys 06:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
India is not same as union govt of India. union govt and state govts and its people together form India.
Hence you cannot just only include hindi and english as official languages of India.
FYI India also does not have any language(s) declared as its national langauge(s).
an official language need not be accepted as national language but a national language in general would be its official language or one of its official languages. Bsreddys 06:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Also scheduled languages makes no sense ?? are they scheduled for some event or something ??? Bsreddys 06:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
And one of the user says official is implicit in scheduled languages. I dont think so. There is every need to make it explicit. There is official ness in whatever comprehension when a language is official recognised by union govt of India(by means of including it into the eigth schedule) and when a language is official langauge for one its state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsreddys (talk • contribs) 06:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Official_languages_of_India

wiki details on official langauges of India. Bsreddys 07:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You guys came too late...There was a whole arguement that took place last month. Go find it read it. personally i think we should go to the official site of india and list the languages that it says there. there are hundreds of languages which r spoken by Indians which do not need tobe listed. If you want to seewhat languages areofficial in Andra Pradesh,go to the page that says Andra Pradesh. Dont come here!!!!! this is the india page. if the government says Hindi and English and X and Y areofficial languages of India, then Hindi English, X and Y ARE official languages of India. Nikkul 07:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear BSReddys: Nikkul is correct and so is WhisperToMe. Besides you have violated 3RR many times over. I have left this message on the presiding admin's talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to seewhat languages areofficial in Andra Pradesh,go to the page that says Andra Pradesh. Dont come here!!!!! <----------- Nikkul... you dont have to me tell me dont come here... mind your words... I am an indian I will come here... who are you to tell me dont come here ???? you get lost from here.... you dont come here ....

Hindi and English are official languages only for the union govt of India... not whole of India. And "scheduled languages" dont mean anything ... 75.36.214.142 17:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to seewhat languages areofficial in Andra Pradesh,go to the page that says Andra Pradesh. Dont come here!!!!! <----- Dear flower, You have already seen the calibre and potential of Nikkul. If the founder fathers were all like Nikkul this country would have disintegrated long back.

and regarding whispertome, he does not even know what are national langauges of India. He even pasted on my talkpage that hindi and english are national languages of India ... which is not correct and far from truth. A person who knows about india should be moderating this site... my 2 cents ... my 2 rupees ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.214.142 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


Dear BSReddys: Nikkul is correct and so is WhisperToMe.

> Dear flower, You have already seen the calibre and potential of Nikkul. If the founder fathers were all like Nikkul this country would have disintegrated long back.

and regarding whispertome, he does not even know what are national langauges of India. He even pasted on my talkpage that hindi and english are national languages of India ... which is not correct and far from truth. A person who knows about india should be moderating this site... my 2 cents ... my 2 rupees ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.214.142 (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Standard Urdu has approximately the twentieth largest population of native speakers, among all languages. It is the national language of Pakistan as well as one of the 23 official languages of India. <======= I got this from one of the wiki reference. So what is urdu ? is it one of the official languages of India?? It makes no sense to just quote the official langauges of the union govt as the official langauges of the whole country. Also India has no national langauges.

As a large and linguistically diverse country, India does not have a single official language. Instead, the Constitution of India envisages a situation where each state has its own official language(s), in addition to the official languages to be used by the Union government. The section of the Constitution of India dealing with official languages therefore includes detailed provisions[1] which deal not just with the languages used for the official purposes of the union,[2] but also with the languages that are to be used for the official purposes of each state and union territory in the country,[3] and the languages that are to be used for communication between the union and the states inter se.[4] 75.36.214.142 20:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User BSreddy / 75.36.214.142,

All im saying is that you shouldnt expect to see the official language of Andhra Pradesh listed as the official language of India if India doesnt list that language as official. If you want to see the the official language of AP, then go to the AP page where ull find the official language of AP as said by the govt of AP. Here ull find the official language of India as said by the government. Also, learn to sign your comments. This is an encyclopedia not a gathering of India's forefathers.Nikkul 04:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

BS Reddy, do you have any sources to back up your claim or is it your personal interpretation? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


Based on hindi and english being official langauges for the union government you are trying to extrapolate them to be the official languages of the whole country.

Based on Telugu being in part of the "official languages commission" of India and based on it being the official language of state of telugus with 80 million population I am extrapolating to be one of the official languages of India . Because India is made of union govt and state govts... not just union govt.

And dont tell me not to come here. I am a telugu Indian and I will come here. If at all you guys go and visit hindi prachar sabha site. OK

63.119.227.6 17:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As you can see here, Bsreddys (talk · contribs) was blocked for 48 hours at 00:40 on the 29th of October. That he is editing as an IP at 17:58, is a violation of the block. At the very least the block should be increased by another day. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Only person doing any extrapolation is you. Everything we have said is backed by scores of respected sources, both Indian and foreign. And please, learn to sign in. --Blacksun 09:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
He can't (sign in); he's still blocked. (Notice, he was signing in earlier.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

BS Reddy, we're inviting you to a civilized conversation. Please cite reliable and independent sources that contradict the fact that Hindi and English have been given official status by the Constitution of India as the official language of the Union. The page, may we add, is the article on the Union of India. Unless you can come up with reliable sources to cite your claim, I suggest you stop wasting everbody's time on your personal ideas. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Reddy, it's not worth trying to convince here in wikipedia that the Official languages as announced by the central government of India contains all 24 languages. The official viewpoint of the central government is still very biased in this regard and is not anything secular/equal.[4][5] The rules favour and gives priority to Hindi and English. No provision is made to make sure that the remaining languages recognized as official languages are given the same status as Hindi and English. If you wish to protest write to the prime minister and various ministers of the central government and other political parties rather than trying to correct it here, because you are wrong. The equality in this regard is still not there. Chanakyathegreat 12:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Religious demographics

The demographics subsection says that Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains make up about 98.9% of the population. That leaves 1.1% for the rest. This includes Jews, Zoroastrians, Baha'is, Sarna and others. Later it says that Tribals are 8% of the population, and in the Tribals article it says that Sarna is their majority religion. WTF? 124.185.197.226 05:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing Image rotation templates

In the Straw Poll for Rotation of Images a majority voted for - For Rotation of Images (with decision on image quality made at WP:PINSPC and with no "Featured Quality" condition on image. But no WP:PINSPC quality procedure has taken place now that 2 weeks are over. Hence, in respect of the the "Consensus poll" I am removing the templates. Continuing with it (ie.without the quality check) is a mockery of the civil discussions which took place on the matter and the people who voted. Hence I am removing it for now. Once the correct procedure is followed we can put the templates back. KnowledgeHegemony 14:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Let us decide on where to discuss the images. I think we need to have all the images on display somewhere on a talkpage and then under each image, there should be a discussion. Do let me know where this is takin palce. Nikkul 21:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added the image rotation templates back to the article. Pending further discussion and consensus to remove image rotation entirely, we should discuss ways to improve it. Which images do you oppose User:KnowledgeHegemony? There are a few that I believe are still non-relevant, as I've said before, which I have not removed because I believe that we came up with a good compromise. What do you suggest as a way of improving the images? Or should we put the Tagore image back in place, which was the last image in the Culture section before this very workable compromise was installed? A great deal of discussion and compromise went into image rotation, let's not throw it all out. I still believe it is the best of our choices, and we should work at improving it. ॐ Priyanath talk 19:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • user:Priyanath, I won't revert your edit (in light of the Śakuntala image's reappearance in the rotation template), but I'm afraid many questions need to be answered. Nowhere was it agreed to, as is stated here that the Śakuntala image represents Kerala (on account of Kerala being the home state of its artist Raja Ravi Varma), and more importantly, nowhere was it agreed to that if it did represent Kerala, it was inferior in such representation to the later-added Trisoor/Pooram image; indeed the latter addition was never discussed on the English language Wikipedia.
  • Why is an image of the Mysore Palace, a Maharaja's 1912 extravagance, a representative of Karnataka, when there are many more famous representatives around, two of them World Heritage Sites?
  • Until the Śakuntala image, the choice by six votes to three over the Tagore image, is secure in the rotation template without threat of deletion by the minority opposed to it, and the questions raised, both above by user:KnowledgeHegemony and user:Blacksun about the Mysore Palace, and here by user:Blacksun, are adequately answered, this problem will continue to plague this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that certain images are more representative of aspects of culture, rather than geographic regions — and therefore we can have more than one image for a certain region in those cases. For example, Tagore represents literature rather than Bengal, and an image representing Bengal could (and should) be added. I think there's enough support for Sakuntala to keep it. Even though it doesn't have my support, that's part of the compromise we each need to make in order for this to work.
  • Mysore Palace is notable and widely visited. It's no more of an extravagance (actually less) than the image holding permanent place in the culture section, the Taj Mahal. I'm for keeping Mysore Palace.
  • If we're going to discuss inappropriate images, then we should be discussing Toda first. If we're going to be more tolerant, and accept choices that have significant support, then we should accept that the current system of rotation is working far better than the previous approach. Yes, it needs some fine tuning, but it is definitely a huge step in the right direction. ॐ Priyanath talk 19:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your conciliatory words; meanwhile, unbeknownst to you (?), user:Sarvagnya has once again deleted the Śakuntala image from the rotation template.
  • You still haven't answered my main question: why is the Mysore Palace more notable than the other more important monuments of Karnataka? Do you have any reliable academic sources? As for "extravagance," I used the word, not in its secondary meaning of "exorbitant" (in expense), which the Taj certainly was, but in its primary meaning, (OED) "excessive, irregular, fantastically absurd." which the Taj most certainly is not.
  • The Toda dairy image had more votes than Tagore, it had numerous reliable secondary academic sources attesting to the importance of the Toda in culture, and it is a Featured Picture. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, these things should be discussed before getting into more (endless) revert wars. Sarvagnya isn't alone in doing that, by the way. The length of rotation, originally set by Saravask at 24 hours, was never discussed before you arbitrarily changed it. I think the next step is to come up with a process for looking at images. Saravask, when he added image rotation, suggested "We're starting this new thing the way WP:FA began: at first, articles were hand-selected by good-faith contributors based on "refreshing, brilliant prose". Then, as more people got interested, the consensus-based WP:FAC and WP:FAR processes matured." It may be time to develop that process, and should perhaps be discussed on the India Project page rather than here. I think it would be helpful to draw in some editors who haven't been part of the toxic environment here during the last year. I think that discussion (process) is more important right now than (the same editors as always) fighting over every image. ॐ Priyanath talk 19:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the template rotation back to daily. I didn't "arbitrarily" change it, as you put it, but as a part of my post here, echoing Ragib's, which made the point that for the active editors of the India page, who go to the page several times a day, hourly change would be the best way of simulating (during the trial period) the experience of an average reader, who goes to the page several times a month. As for Saravask's analogy of "refreshing brilliant prose," it would be great if it could be applied here; the problem here, however, is that the pictures (with the exception of Toda, or Apatami) are neither refreshing nor brilliant, as evidenced by their poor performance in the FPC process. So, what are we attempting here? Replicating what already exists, namely the FPC process, but lowering the standards several notches? And then relying on the consensus of people who, in the throes of their parochial compulsions, seldom choose to display the pictorial expertise they might possess? What is taking it to project India do? If you want to judge brilliant pictures, you start by first acquiring brilliant pictures. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(Incomplete) English translations of the National Anthem and Song

This article has been frozen from editing, so I can't do it myself, but can somebody please remove those two (incomplete) English translations of the National Anthem and Song? You can't just take the first line (not even a complete sentence!) of a poem (both the anthem and song of India are composed poems after all), translate that to English and call it the names of the National Anthem or Song. The poems ARE known as "Jana Gana Mana" and "Vande Mataram" respectively, yes, even in English, and it's utterly foolish to just translate the first line and put it out there below the real names of those poems. If English-speaking readers can't understand "Jana Gana Mana" and "Vande Mataram", well, that's just too bad, but that doesn't mean you go around putting in your own little bit of original research into this article and call it the names of the National Anthem and Song of India. In any case, please look at the articles on Pakistan and some other countries with non-English principal languages. Nobody's been translating the first line and putting in their bit of original research in THOSE articles, so why all this love for the India article, huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.2.107 (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Major City

In Major city Gurgaon need to be add. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Gurgaon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.42.120 (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it merits any attention because it has a relatively small population and it has no significant cultural, religious or historical site. If anything, Ahmedabad might be added, but I think the list is good as is. Sseballos 23:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Image Rotation

Are we going to discuss the images that make the final cut for culture rotation? I think we should discuss it here since this page is the india page. Also, has the discussion started about each image? and Where? Nikkul 18:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Amba Vilas, Taj Mahal & the Hindu error

I recently wrote to the Hindu Readers' Editor asking them about their policy regarding errors in their archived online pages. The reply I received included their admission to have erred in a story which was talked about earlier in this talk page. The excerpt from the letter contains the response of the electronic division of the newspaper to the Readers' Editor.

The discussion that he has linked to in wikipedia has to do with the Amba Vilas Palace (the Mysore palace) where one editor has linked to a story in The Hindu ( http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/17/stories/2007081755371000.htm ) in which we *have* committed an egregious error: The headline says: "Mysore Palace beats Taj Mahal in popularity" while the copy says "Better known as the "Mysore Palace", the Amba Vilas is among the most visited monuments in India and attracts more number of tourists than the Taj Mahal. Well, almost. [...] The number of visitors to the Mysore Palace in 2006 was 25,25,687 and as per the Archaeological Survey of India figures while the figure was 25,39,471 tourists visited the Taj Mahal in Agra. "

Thank you

K. Narayanan The Readers' Editor, The Hindu, Kasturi Buildings, 859 -- 860 Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002 India

--Not pointy 17:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What was/is the error? If you read the article completely, the headline is still consistent with the content. - KNM Talk 17:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the numbers closely, you'll see that the Taj had just slightly more visitors than Mysore Palace, rather than the other way around. Essentially, they are relatively equal in popularity based on those numbers, so it wasn't an 'egregious' error by any stretch of the imagination. It is interesting to see that they are both such popular attractions, however. ॐ Priyanath talk 18:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have seen the numbers and that is why I said, "if you read the article completely, ....".
The article clearly states this: Sources said if the combined figures of the ticketed tourists and those who enter the main gate but not the Durbar Hall were counted, the number of tourists visiting Mysore Palace would easily outnumber those visiting the Taj Mahal.
In whatever way we look, this is in sync with the headline which states, "Mysore Palace beats Taj Mahal in popularity". So, from above mail from The Readers' Editor, I am not clear what was/is the error. - KNM Talk 18:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I didn't read the article completely. So it looks like Mysore Palace is more popular, and the headline was correct. ॐ Priyanath talk 19:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, Mr. Pointy.. what's your point? If you dont have one, stop bothering us. Your time is perhaps better spent handing out worthless barnstars to your guru. Who else would accept barnstars from you, anyway. Sarvagnya 19:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In journalism, such a mistake is an egregious error: both the title and the subtitle (especially the latter) are inaccurate. The title says: "Mysore Palace beats Taj Mahal in popularity," the subtitle adds, "Official figures indicate that more tourists visited Mysore Palace than the Taj Mahal in 2006." The "official figures" certainly don't say that. More troubling, however, is that the entire story, by way of later citing unofficial figures and estimates for 2007, is looking to report one point of view. They quote (very ungrammatically) the Archaeological Survey of India; but, the reporter did not even check the ASI website, otherwise he/she would have discovered very quickly that the Mysore Palace is not a ticketed monument of the Archeological Survey of India. (In fact, as I say above, the ASI has no interest in the Mysore Palace, because the latter, having been completed in 1912, is not old enough yet). It didn't occur to them to ask, "Who is compiling these figures? And are they reliable?" It didn't occur to them to look at an earlier story (by a few weeks) from their own newspaper, which quoted an official of the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage as saying, “the Taj has always been the most visited and most popular Indian tourist destination. People abroad consider the monument synonymous with India.” It didn't occur to them to do a Google search and read (as I did) this story, published July 25, 2007, from the Indian Express, which also cited official figures, and which did not have the Mysore Palace in its top five most visited monuments. The point user:Not pointy is making is simply that the Hindu is not a reliable source here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ajanta painting

Why is'nt this image a part of the image rotation program?Dineshkannambadi 03:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well.. we will get there. We've started rotation with the Culture section for now. Sarvagnya 03:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Even other sections such as Business and Polity needs rotation. Business is not just about the stock market. Its also about what drives it. Bangalore is the Technological Centre of India, Hyderabad is not too far behind, Chennai for manufacturing, Goa for Ship building.... Images from these locations should also be displayed. Regarding Polity, Delhi may be the capital and the North Block may be the location where the power centres reside, but these people draw power and support from regional centres. No reason why Bangalore's Vidhana Soudha, Hyderabad's Assembly house just to mention a few, should not appear on a rotation basis.Dineshkannambadi 03:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to the inclusion of the image of the nuclear missile on the the India page. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You will just have to wait. We need to perfect the way we dorotation. Once we perfect theculture rotation, wecan move on with others. Nikkul 20:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Indian architecture

I noticed that only Muslim and Hindu architecture was mentioned. For the sake of secularity, for which India is known for centuries, I have added the most popular Jain monuments at Shravanabelagola, recently voted the most popular among India's seven wonders. We also need to address the issue of Buddhist architecture at Sanchi or Bodhgaya.Dineshkannambadi 18:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We had discussed about Mugal and South Indian architecture. So I added Jain architecture. There is no need to discuss if we should secular in religion.Dineshkannambadi 18:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no mandate in Wikipedia to be "secular" (which you interpret to be even-handed with respect to different religions) in any discussion of notability. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no mandate not to be secular either. Just our sense of fairness.Dineshkannambadi 19:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? The mandate is for notability and reliable sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And you are saying Jain architecture is not notable?Dineshkannambadi 19:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It is enough to mention Indian architecture, not detail everything in that article on the India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but there is no mention of Hindu architecture, which dominates Indian architecture. Second of all, there is no reliable way of saying that "a jain monument was voted as an indian wonder" There was a vote of 100,000+ people for the new 7wonders ofthe world, but even that is not considered valid on wiki, so saying a jain monument was voted best is not a good reason. Second of all, jain monuments are not soooo popular that they need tobe mentioned in a summary of Indian architecture. If ur saying that something needs to be added, it will be mention of Hindu influence in Indian architecture because it is sooooo thorough in India. Nikkul 20:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, wikipedia is not secular (giving all religions equal weight) it is a display of reality on the ground. For example, if youre reporting on Saudi Arabia, you will report mostly on Islam and not on other religions. This is the reality on the ground. In India, most of the country is Hindu. Nikkul 20:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sir, If Indian culture needs to be displayed realistically, without any prejudices, its all the more reason to discuss Hindu, Muslim, Jain and Buddhist architecture. Each have influenced Indian culture and each is inseperable. I have authored a FA on on type of Hindhu architecure, and am in the process of another and I fully realise what I am writing is true. Todays population based on religion counts to and means nothing, if one really wants to justify any topic on "Indian architecture". Dont forget, the oldest known/surving monuments in India are perhaps Jain and Buddhist.Dineshkannambadi 21:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed all mention of Muslim art? what does this sentence tell you, such as the Taj Mahal and other examples of Mughal architecture and South Indian architecture in the culture section. Does it seem like greek architecture?Dineshkannambadi 21:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry, I think you are prioritizing Jainism over anything else. Currently, no religion is mentioned in the text ( I Hope u realize this) If we're going to keep it like that, you are going to have to stop adding stuff about jainism. But if you are going to add religion into the topic, you will have to mention Hinduism before you mention anything else because of its thorough influence on indian architecture. Also, your edit keeps saying that some Jain monument was voted the best in all of India. This is POV and you can not have this. You can not say one is better than the rest cuz thats pov. Nikkul 23:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sir, the above comment you made really shows you dont know much about Indian architecture. Do you? I am not patronizing Jainsim or its architecture. I just understand better its influence on Hindu architecture and vice versa. Some of the earliest Hindu structures worth its mention are from Aihole , Karnataka (5th c). Some of these structures are directly related to Jain Basadi's and Buddhist Chaitya designs from where the designs were derived.Dineshkannambadi 01:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Culture Rotation

Where can we add images for the culture rotation? Also,where can we discuss images that are currently in the rotation? Nikkul 20:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I dont understand it either. --Blacksun 11:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Me neither. And no one has explained why the Mysore Palace continues to be on the rotation template in spite of several attempts in four different section above to point out the myriad problems, not least of which is that there are other more notable examples from Karnataka, two of them World Heritage Sites, and that, in addition, the palace is not even in the top five most popular tourist sites in India, let alone the most popular as is still claimed (in spite of The Hindu editor's apology.) (See Section1, Section2, Section3, and Section4.) There has never been any vote (let alone a consensus on the Mysore Palace image). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I had asked several questions about rotation and about adding images to the rotation. I was answered with a link. When I click the link, the only rotation is the flora one. Where is the culture rotation? Where is the vote? Nikkul 18:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Awards and honours

  • The same US National Endowment for the Arts that was quoted by user:KNM as saying that the "Jnanpith was India's highest literary award," also says here about writer Sirshendu Mukophadhyay, "He received India's highest literary honor, the Sahitya Akademi Award, in 1989 for his novel The Human Field."
  • According to this Hindu report, the noted writer Manoj Das (in January 2007) "received the country's highest literary honour - Sahitya Akademi Fellowship."
  • The Penguin Books Asian Studies Catalogue, says about R. K. Narayan's The Guide, "Narayan's most celebrated novel which won him the National Prize of the Indian Literary Academy (Sahitya Academy), India's highest literary honour." See the bottom of Sahitya Academy Awards: English page.

Are we now also going to figure out which state has (or has had) the largest number of Sahitya Academy Fellows and list that statistic too on the India page? How about film? The Dadasaheb Phalke Award is the nation's highest award for lifetime achievement in film. Are we going to say that the award has been awarded an equal number of times (ten) to West Bengal and Maharashtra? How about the Sangeet Natak Academi's Ratna Sadasya (Fellow), which the highest honour in the country for dance, music, and drama? Are we going to figure out which state has won the most? Or which of the three fields: dance, music and drama has won the most, and mention that? How about the Bharat Ratna, which according to its Wikipedia page is "India's highest civilian award, awarded for the highest degrees of national service. This service includes artistic, literary, and scientific achievements, ..." That award has unfortunately yet to be bestowed on a literary luminary. It has, however, been awarded for artistic achievement to Satyajit Ray (West Bengal), Ravi Shankar (Uttar Pradesh; WP has incorrectly mentioned West Bengal because of his heritage), M. S. Subbulakshmi (Tamil Nadu), Bismillah Khan (Uttar Pradesh), and Lata Mangeshkar (Maharashtra). So, should we also mention that the award has been awarded an equal number of times (two) to West Bengal and UP? Or, if you don't like regional characterization, should we say that it has been awarded four times for music and once for film? The point I am trying to make is that it is best not to go down the path of mentioning contemporary awards, unless you want a very very long culture section, and there is as yet no consensus for that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Slight correction ... actually, Ravi Shankar hails from Narail, East Bengal (now part of Bangladesh). His father Pandit Shyam Shankar served at the court of Udaipur, serving the Maharaja of Jhalawar. --Ragib 07:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ragib. Glad to be corrected! Complicating it even further is the Government of India's own web site, which lists Ravi Shankar with "United States" (probably just current residence). This, of course, would make any mention of the breakdown of the Bharat Ratna even more convoluted. Twice to West Bengal, once to East Bengal/Bangladesh/United States, once to UP, and once to Tamil Nadu! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Quote:"This, of course, would make any mention of the breakdown of the Bharat Ratna even more convoluted. Twice to West Bengal, once to East Bengal/Bangladesh/United States, once to UP, and once to Tamil Nadu! "

?!?!?! You are just seeing one page of the site! There are 40 awardees with 7-8 from each TN, UP and WB!! KnowledgeHegemony 09:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant only the awards to artists. There were five such awards (out of the 40). Sorry, maybe I didn't make that clear. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll on Inclusion of Contemporary Literature

The paragraph on literature in the culture section has in the past had a sentence or two on classical literature and a sentence on the modern period (post-1857) which refers only to Tagore. Some users have now added a sentence on contemporary literature which talks about the Jnanapeeth awards to Kannada writers. I am personally against the inclusion of such sentences because it opens up a Pandora's Box of other candidates. Why for example, is a Ghalib, Mir Taqi Mir, or Muhammad Iqbal not included? Why not Kabir or Tulsidas? Why not a Munshi Premchand? Why not a Bankim Chandra Chatterjee? Why not a Subramanya Bharathi? Surely, these writers are more famous than the Kannada awardees? And speaking of more contemporary literature, why is Indo-Anglian literature not included? A G. V. Desani, R. K. Narayan, or Mulk Raj Anand, all published by Penguin 20th Century Classics (not Penguin India or Oxford India), which these Kannada writers are not? (And, yes, Penguin does publish works in translation.) You get the point. The Indian literature paragraph can easily be made very long just trying to accommodate a handful of the most notable writers, which gets nowhere near including these latest luminaries. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No offence meant, but with what wisdom do you conclude that the Jnanpith awards and the award winners are not valuable to Indian literature? What is your qualification or expertise on the matter? The usage of "Kannada gang of seven" clearly shows a bias, that is best kept out of wiki.Dineshkannambadi 14:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say anywhere that "they are not valuable to Indian literature." Just that they are not as notable as many others like Ghalib, R. K. Narayan, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, or Tulsidas, who are all conspicuous by their absence. I agree that "gang of seven" is pejorative; I have since changed it to "Kannada awardees." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Again sir, your viewpoint. If these writers you mention are more notable, how come they did not get a Jnanapith award? Surely, someone should have noticed their greatness? I can name several Kannada writers other than the Jnanapith award winners who are no less than the ones you have listed above. Why only Tamil Sangam. Why not Vachana Sahitya and Haridasa sahitya, two unique literary idioms, not influenced by any other literary tradition, by virtue of which Kannada language has demanded a classical language status. You may delete an earlier statement, but your bias cant be deleted.Dineshkannambadi 15:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Three of the four writers I mentioned last didn't get the Jnanapeeth award because they were long dead by 1965 when that award was instituted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia works simply by stacking up reliable secondary sources. My expertise or yours is unimportant. I am confident any of these four, Ghalib, R. K. Narayan, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, or Tulsidas, have many more reliable secondary sources (academic peer-reviewed articles in internationally known academic journals) than the Kannada writers. For example, comparing Ghalib and U. R. Anantha Murthy (one of the seven Kannada awardees), on the British Academic and National Library Catalogue for books, the keyword, "Mirza Ghalib" turns up 394 entries (most secondary sources); "U. R. Anantha Murthy," (and its variant spellings), turn up 54 entries (most primary sources, i.e. his own books). The JSTOR catalog of articles in internationally recognized journals, has 354 articles on "Ghalib" and only 20 for "Anantha Murthy" (and spelling variants). On Google Advanced Search for academic sites (site:edu), "Ghalib <and> Urdu" turns up 596 (university) sites, whereas "Anantha Murthy <and> Kannada" turns up only 59. Finally on Google Scholar: Advanced Scholar Search, in the social sciences and humanities journals, there were 223 articles returned for "Ghalib <and> Urdu," whereas there were only 38 for "Anantha Murthy <and> Kannada." I think it is pretty clear, who is more notable in Wikipedia's definition of notability. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
In the US Library of Congress Online Catalog, the "guided search" (boolean) for "Ghalib <and> Urdu" (as keywords) turns up 601 references, whereas that for "Anantha Murthy <and> Kannada" turns up 37. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
We aren't talking about individual writers here, are we? We are just mentioning the fact that Jnanpith awards are the highest literary awards conferred in India and Kannada writers have won the highest number of awards so far. There is no point in dwelling this discussion upon individual names. Moreover, when we talk about Jnanpith awards, we are automatically referring to Indian literature after 1965. I don't see the problem in mentioning about nation's highest literary award in the culture section. Gnanapiti 18:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not the nation's highest literary award. It is not an official award like the Bharat Ratna or Param Vira Chakra, where there is an hierarchy. (I just corrected the Wikipedia Jnanpith Award page which committed the same error.) The Sahitya Academy Fellowship (which is awarded to the "immortals" of literature and literary scholarship and at any one time is limited to 21 individuals) is the nation's highest official literary award. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It *is*. The government websites such as this and this say, Jnanpith as the India's highest literary award. - KNM Talk 18:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Since when did the US Library of Congress's New Delhi office become an arbiter of Government of India's intent? A "nation's highest award" by definition is an official award like the Bharat Ratna or the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the US. You can say "one of the highest literary awards" and then provided sources, but you can only say "highest" when it is official and deemed as such, which this award is not. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
More references from reliable sources: BBC says, Jnanpith is India's highest literary award and Rediff too. Thanks, - KNM Talk 19:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The "nation's highest award" is by definition an official award decreed to be such. The Pulitzer Prize is considered to be the most prestigious American honor for literature, and you can say, "it is widely regarded as the highest literary honor in the US" etc., but you can't say it is the "nation's highest literary honor". As simple as that. Is there a Government of India source that says it is the Republic of India's highest literary honour? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, let us stop doing original research on what is considered as "nation's highest award". Your own logic below on mandate reliable sources is applicable on this topic also. I have provided a bunch of reliable sources which say Jnanpith is India's highest literary award. Here is one more from Times of India and another from Indian Express, and yet another from The Hindu. Just as a matter of fact, according to the notable person in that TOI article, "for any indian writer, receiving the jnanpith is the ultimate recognition as it is also considered the indian nobel prize for literature." I repeat, I have provided enough number of reliable sources supporting this fact and will stop now. Thanks - KNM Talk 19:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It is you who is doing the original research by imputing to the nation (and its people) an award that belongs to a private organization, no matter how prestigious the award might be. It is not just your mistake, the Jnanpith Award page itself had displayed (until I corrected it) Indian honours and decoration template, thereby fudging the distinction between a nation's award and an award in the nation. The bottom line is that the Jnanapeeth Award is not a part of India's system of honours and decoration, and therefore not an award of the nation, now matter how popular, prestigious, or coveted it might be, and notwithstanding BBC's statements. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Fowler, you wanted to see a Government of India source. Please see this. Website of Press Information Bureau of Government of India. According to this Government of India source, Jnanpith award is India’s highest literary award. Hope that helps. Thanks - KNM Talk 20:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
:) I didn't mean a press release by the Press Information Bureau (especially in the context of another award). You want me to show you what other stuff that same office publishes? I meant the official organization that awards literary awards, (in this case the Sahitya Academy) is pretty clear on what is the Republic of India's highest literary recognition. See their web page announcement here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That press release was officially from Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. Per WP:RS, we are not mandated to use only government website as references. I have provided literally all major newspapers from India, as the references. You asked for a government source. I have provided that as well. Do you mean to say, all the newspapers/magazines/portals I have provided above have wrongly mentioned this fact? Thanks - KNM Talk 20:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to use the Press Information Bureau's Overcoming Arthritis article for the Wikipedia arthritis article? The problem is not a dearth of sources attesting to the Jnanpith's importance, but simply that it is not the "nation's highest literary award," simply because it is not official. The National Medal for Arts is the United States's highest literary award (more generally for the arts), but the Pulitzer might be more famous and prestigious. What is so hard to fathom about this? Looking for more and more references, is simply barking up the wrong tree. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


Vote: Against Inclusion of Kannada writers and Jnanapeeth Awardees in Literature Section

Vote: For Inclusion of Kannada writers and Jnanapeeth Awardees in Literature Section

My Opinion: I support the inclusion of one sentence on Jnanapeeth Award, preferably rephrased heavily. I think it is rather interesting - I never knew about it personally. The fact that it is a trust by TOI makes it notable in context of India. However, I do not support the sentence saying Kannada writers have won it more than anyone else. There is no point to that as it really does not mean anything except for a cool trivia. You can write about the fun little facts of which state has won it most in the article on Jananapeeth Award. Not here. Making a separate note since neither of the above two categories satisfies my pov.--Blacksun 15:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO, mentioning about Jnanapith and not mentioning Kannada is like mentioning Noble prize for literature in India and not mentioning Tagore. If Kannada cant be mentioned, so should'nt Tagore or Sangam. BTW, No offence meant to either Tagore or Tamil Sangam. I just want to see India represented more inclusively.Dineshkannambadi 15:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Dinesh, I strongly disagree with you. I also think you completely missed the point I was making. You need to really think about what additional value the fact that more kannada writers have won the award has in the context of Indian culture. The real answer is that it means nothing - it is just a source of pride and to some extent, chest thumping. I cannot support you on this matter alas. However, I will meet you half way in regards to mentioning the award and a general statement about them.

BTW, you do not do yourself service by making a statement like "not mentioning Kannada is like mentioning Noble prize for literature in India and not mentioning Tagore." Hindi writers have won it 6 times which is umm one less than Kannada writers?

--Blacksun 10:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My Opinion Country's highest literary award must have a mention in the culture section, there isn't any doubt about that. Kannada writers have won the maximum number of awards which again is the fact which must have a mention in that section. Gnanapiti 18:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Correction It is not the nation's highest literary award. It is not an official award like the Bharat Ratna or Param Vira Chakra, where there is an hierarchy. (I just corrected the Wikipedia Jnanpith Award page which committed the same error.) The Sahitya Academy Fellowship (which is awarded to the "immortals" of literature and literary scholarship and at any one time is limited to 21 individuals) is the nation's highest literary award. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The government websites such as this and this say, Jnanpith as the India's highest literary award. - KNM Talk 18:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The US Library of Congress's New Delhi Office is a "government web site?" Which government? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That is a reliable source. Here is another one from BBC which clearly says, Jnanpith is India's highest literary award, and one from Rediff too. Thanks, - KNM Talk 19:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Jnanpith is the nations most coveted award.Dineshkannambadi 18:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So now it is "coveted?" Fudging already? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Please dont get personal. The Noble prize is no awarded by any govenment either. Its awarded by the Noble committee.Dineshkannambadi 19:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
But the Wikipedia Nobel Prize in Literature page does not claim that "it is the highest literary award in the world." Please read the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Dinesh, I am wonderstruck that after all these months and all your FAs you're still not aware of WP:DFTT. Seriously, do we even need a debate to prove that the Jnanapeetha is India's highest literary award? Ignorance may be bliss for some, but its not amusing anymore. Sarvagnya 19:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the basic problem here is some users who are unwilling to see India from todays perspective, but perhaps still live in the heady days of the Raj. We need to look beyond the Noble prizes and Pulitzer prizes given by foreign offices and committees (which incidently was never given to the most deserving, Mahatma Gandhi) . A link provided by User:KNM succinctly states the problem, that international exposure to literature is provided to only a few languages. Its very important for us to come together and represent the real India. This is the whole purpose of this article.Dineshkannambadi 20:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't disagree with everything you say, but you should then change Wikipedia policy first. I understand that it may not be the real India, but until the secondary academic sources deem certain things to be true, we can't include those things in Wikipedia, however much we may have the "truth" or the "situation on the ground" or the "mood of the street" on our side. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Small comment: You can't really use a post-1965 award to justify historical significance of any recent writer over writers from pre-1965 times. For example, I hope no one is saying that between Ghalib and a recent Jnanapeeth awardee, the latter is more significant or even as significant as Ghalib. Any section or paragraph on literature needs to focus on the whole continuum rather than bicker about awards and awardees. --Ragib 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of the Kannada 'gang of seven' and Ghalib were perhaps only a generation apart. Comparing them is hardly anachronistic. Certainly not half as ludicruous as pitting Tagore and Kalidasa against each other. Such inanities are best left to Fowler. Sarvagnya 22:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Sir, no one is trying to claim the significance or greatness of any writer here. The fact that Jnanpith awards are the highest literary awards conferred in Rupublic of India is not going to change. In fact the article mentions about Kannada literature as a whole rather than cribbing about any awardees or individuals unlike some people here. Gnanapiti 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont think we are tring to say which award is greater or lesser. If a Noble prize is a good enough reason for Tagore to be on the article (with due respects to Tagore), Jnanpith is equally prestegious and justifies Kannada writers to be on the article. Considering that none of us on this thread are wise enough to decide whether Tagore was greater or Kuvempu (and thank fully so), under no circumstance should a foreign award be given more importance than an Indian award. That simple.Dineshkannambadi 21:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the reason why Tagore is mentioned is not just because he won the Nobel prize, but because he is thought to be notable by the reliable secondary academic sources (as detailed above in the different academic catalogs). Much more so than Kuvempu or any of the other six Kannada writers. Listen, why waste time? Why not take me on and go for a Wikipedia mediation about Tagore and Kavempu as cited by the reliable secondary sources? Or Ghalib and Kavempu? Let the mediation committee decide. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Tagore or Kuvempu or Ghalib or Kuvempu? Are you the master of evading the discussions or what? Now you want a mediation to decide who is the greater writer among two, for absolutely no reason. The issue is straight and simple here. Jnanpith awards are THE highest literary honors conferred in the country and needs to have a mention in the article. Kannada writers have won the highest awards maximum number of times, which also needs to have a mention in the article. No one here need to argue about who is the greatest among above mentioned writers. That's not the issue here. Besides all these, if you want to go for mediation and waste everybody's time, please go ahead. Gnanapiti 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dont threaten me with mediation.Dineshkannambadi 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not threatening you by a long shot, but inviting you. It is very simple: Here are the catalogs: 1) Catalogue of Major Academic and National Libraries in the UK and Ireland, 2) US Library of Congress On Line Catalog, 3) The JSTOR catalog of journal articles, 4) Google advanced search for university sites (site:edu), and 5) Google Scholar. As I have already shown you above, Ghalib turns up, on average, an order of magnitude (ten times) more articles/sources than U. R. Anantha Murthy. Why is he then less notable than these Kannada writers? If you want a group, I can name: Ghalib, Mir Taqi Mir, Muhammad Iqbal, and Firaq Gorakhpuri, and I will wager that they will turn up many more reliable secondary sources in the above catalogs than all seven Kannada writers put together. I am happy to add Encyclopaedia Britannica and Encarta to it. The mediation would be about a) whether the five catalogs together with the two tertiary sources (signed articles by experts) constitute reliable secondary sources in Wikipedia, and b) whether the Urdu writers are more notable in such sources than the Kannada writers. Why the hesitancy? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You are the one with the problem with Jnanpith. So you go for mediation. I will handle it when it comes along.Dineshkannambadi 22:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation requires two parties. The problem is not just mine. By giving pride of place to the Jnanpith Awards, which were instituted in 1965, I feel that you and others are (at the very least) creating room for these seven Kannada writers who are not as notable (by Wikipedia's criterion of notability) as other writers like Ghalib, Mir Taqi Mir, Muhammad Iqbal, who are not mentioned anywhere in the culture section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't get why should it be mentioned that Kannada writers received maximum number of awards. Why give this award a linguistic or a regional nature? Anyways (even though I hate these regional debates with the "my region" got more awards undertone) I must say the equation is so tight that its not even woth mentioning the trivia that Kannada literature got maximum as Hindi and Bengali writers got 6 and 5 each.
But if thas the case soon sentences will come up in the sports section like
  • The Param Vir Chakra (PVC) is India's highest military decoration awarded for the highest degree of valour or self-sacrifice in the presence of the enemy. It may be awarded posthumously and, indeed, most of the awards have been posthumous. Most awardees were from XYZ regiment.
  • Arjuna award is the highest ward conferred for excellence in sports in India. Most number of awardees are from XYZ state.
  • Then Bharat Ratna is India's highest civilian award, awarded for the highest degrees of national service. This service includes artistic, literary, and scientific achievements, as well as "recognition of public service of the highest order." Most awardees are from Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.

Hence lets refrain from getting these narrow- minded linguistic and regional trivia on this page. KnowledgeHegemony 07:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Very well put. I entirely agree with you. I like the one about the Param Vir Chakra :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Support - Mainstream papers have noted this phenomenon, and it is the highest literary honor of india.Bakaman 04:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Too much edit-warring, new rules for a month

This log is ridiculous. Too much edit-warring, particularly recently, so new rules.

  • Any single-purpose accounts/IPs that turn up here on their first edit, make a revert or contentious edit, and then walk off, will be blocked.
  • Uncooperative editing is not permitted. Do not make an edit that you know will be reverted. "Uncooperative" means: any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance in such a way that a reasonable outside observer must know in advance it will be unacceptable to the other side.
  • Instant reverting without discussion will not be permitted either. If you simply have to revert, please wait until the issue at hand has been fully discussed on this talk page. Undiscussed reverts will lead to blocks.
  • Edit summaries.All edits must be accompanied by precise, informative edit summaries. These must clearly indicate if an edit contains something potentially contentious. In particular, all reverts (complete or partial) must be clearly marked as such.
  • Really blatant POV which obviously violates NPOV by simply declaring either side of the dispute right and the other wrong, may be treated like vandalism and reverted.
  • Incivility on this talk page, or in edit summaries, will not be tolerated, and will be punished heavily by block.
  • Anyone who violates 1RR within a 24 hour period will be blocked.

Violation of the above conditions will be rewarded by block, and savagely so, until the message sinks in. Moreschi Talk 22:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

*cough* Please review the essential policies and guidelines that administrators are expected to abide by. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This is common practice (and yes, I and another admins have enforced these conditions by block) and a creative application of the rules concerning disruption and edit-warring. Don't like it, send your complaints to the ArbCom mailing list. Your way hasn't worked. Seeing as I have no personal involvement here, and I care about preventing disruption, I think I'll give this a go. Blocks will be used as enforcement - undo them at your peril. I doubt the arbitrators would take a kindly view of that. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh goodie, a Wiki-Musharraf. I hope I don't get banned. --Blacksun 11:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't mess the article around and you won't. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 12:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You will also be removing people's legitimate arguments on the talk page like you just did? --Blacksun 12:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate this no-nonsense approach. Many articles stuck in a cloud of general bad faith and trolling could do with such a course of action, but since the party enforcing this needs to be uninvolved, we can rarely gather the manpower required. The precondition is, of course, that Moreschi will not himself edit the article. I am confident Moreschi is capable of the WP:UCS required to pull this off. Too often, wikilawyering successfully obscures the fact that it is mostly painfully obvious who is being constructive and who is being disruptive. dab (𒁳) 12:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
No-nonsense approach - lol. Funny, how the same arguments are so easily found amongst supporters of dictators in real life. Equally amusing how the flaws of dictatorship in real life find their way back on Wikipedia. I refuse to contribute anything to the article if its being put under some sort of dictatorship. Not that it means much but hey :) --Blacksun 12:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. Wikipedia does indeed have many aspects of a dictatorship. We are not trying to build a community enabling general pursuit of happiness, we are trying to write an encyclopedia. dab (𒁳) 12:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link - I fail to see the point as I wasnt arguing that it is a democracy. Maybe if you have a link that says it is a dictatorship feel free to link up. Otherwise, dont bother. --Blacksun 13:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Although, interestingly enough that link does state that Wikipedia is "primary method of determining consensus is discussion" - I am pretty sure there are links on assuming good faith too. I personally don't find people coming here in their "khaki admin" outfit threatening to "savagely" use their "khaki powers", deleting other user's comments from talk page and waving the arbcom flag (see talk-history) over any sign of dissension as conducive to discussion or good faith. *Scratches head* Maybe blanket threatening people is way people do thinks where you come from - I personally find it impractical. --Blacksun 13:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
On the bright side, maybe now that the article is protected people will engage in discussion which is, as you note, the "primary method of determining consensus"?  :-) --Iamunknown 16:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I personally almost never make changes to the article itself except on rare occasions. I usually simply start a discussion in the talk page. I probably have 20x more edits in talk pages than articles. The interesting part is that now we have revert warring going on the talk page. Started by our self-annointed Wiki-Musharraf himself. --Blacksun 17:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There has been plenty discussion on the talk page. There has even been an RfC, initiated by me, (see here for summary]), which specifically addressed the question of adding new material to the India page. The majority view point (by 8 votes to 3) was succinctly summarized by bureaucrat Taxman:

This RfC has been repeatedly advertised on this page, yet, editors like user:Sarvagnya and a group of editors (user:Gnanapiti, user:KNM, and now user:Dineshkannambadi) routinely flaunt it. For example, yesterday user:Dineshkannambadi introduced a major POV addition on the Kannada writers (see here) with no accompanying discussion on the talk page and with casual edit summary, "The Jnanpith is also important and must be mentioned," which turned out to be grossly inaccurate, when compared to what was added: "Contemporary Kannada literature is the most successful in India, with India's highest literary honor, the Jnanpith awards, having been conferred seven times upon Kannada writers, which is the highest for any language in India." When, user:KnowledgeHegemony challenged this edit, it was promptly reverted by the group in a series of reversions that ultimately led to the locking down. The group has in the past been repeatedly taken to RFCU (see here), but has very little history of actually contributing to the India page (see this page, type: India, and then wait a few long seconds.) The major editors of this page: user:Nichalp, user:Fowler&fowler, user:KnowledgeHegemony, user:Ragib, user:Ganeshk, user:Sundar, user:Saravask, user:Abecedare, user:Blacksun have seldom had these problems with each other. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I beg you to look into why he is deleting legitimate comments from this talk page? I have no faith in him. --Blacksun 18:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me just say first, that Wiki already has a way of dealing with people who arent constructive like User:Dineshkannambadi was yesterday. We dont need another set of religious police watching what we do and threating us with blocks. This is a FREE encyclopedia. No one owns it so I hope no one tries to act like the big kid on the block. Nikkul 18:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. This feels like a bad coup. --Blacksun 18:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure it's a coup. If it stops the edit-warring, however, it's a justifiable one. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, you don't seem to be the problem. I am trying to facilitate constructive editing, not stamp it out. People are free to edit away (well, they will be once the brief protection comes off, surely from everyone's point of view this is better than lengthy full-protection), but to edit cooperatively. The sooner the article improves without constant edit-fighting the happier we'll all be, and for that to happen, we need cooperative editing. I realise it's a little bit paradoxical, but I have used this method before successfully to get people to talk to one another, and for the article to improve. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I know I am not the problem. I am sorry but I am not a big fan of the entire badass routine, as such I cannot say the same about you. --Blacksun 22:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Has anyone considered, you know, not actually fighting for a while? And perhaps even focusing on line-by-lin about the content, rather than hurling abuse at each other? Guy (Help!) 19:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Guy. Your're kidding, right? Care to take a peek into the archives and see just how much discussion goes on on this page? Line by line? Its discussed word by word on this page. In-house filibusters ensure that every kb added is preceded by upward of 200kb worth of discussion. You need to do some more homework first. Sarvagnya 20:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected, no point having that on now. Edit away! Interestingly, looking back through the history, the problems appear to be more uncooperative editing than outright trolling (though there is a bit of that), and an atmosphere where casual reverts are permitted. This isn't in itself absolutely fatal, but it's creating bigger problems (witness the edit-warring from yesterday spilling over to Jnanpith Award). Essentially, I think we need a bit of a culture change, with a little more discussion and less focus on instant reverting. I'm going to try to foster a more cooperative atmosphere (hmm, and I'm prepared to enforce cooperative editing by block. Pleasing paradox, don't you think?). Either way, please enjoy the editing experience senza protection (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit - except when the page gets protected, when no one can edit at all). Isn't my model preferable? Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Instant, undiscussed, reverting (all in the name of WP:BOLD) coupled with intellectual dishonesty is the bane of this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi is prejudiced against several users

Wikiraja, whose impressive wiki-resume includes multiple blocks for various things including but not limited to edit warring and socking and adding obscenity, not too long ago filed a RFCU arguing that I, dineshkannambadi, knm, gnanapiti, amar and others were socks.

Needless to say, it got thrown out. Unceremoniously. And guess who he turns for succour? Well our own Mr. 'Uninvolved' Wiki-ssharaf. And what does our benevolent admin tell the troll? He tells him.. "They are not socks. Just a bunch of nuisances...".. and then he offers more words of encouragement lest our troll get disheartened. He says.. "...sit tight for a couple of months and whistle for a wind".

Moreschi clearly harbors bitter and inscrutable prejudice against a lot of users here and ought to step away from this page. He says he doesnt care two hoots for the subject, anyway. Whats even more perplexing is the fact that none of us have ever interacted with him or edited the same pages. And yet, he sees it fit to label us 'nuisances' while at the same time pandering to a rank troll. He is clearly here with an agenda and people here arent idiots not to see through it. Sarvagnya 20:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright,I'm uninvolved as well, I'm willing to enforce what CM has laid down. Its time this endless disruption ends. —— Eagle101Need help? 20:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd forgotten that. I did send Wiki Raja a very vicious email at the time, telling him to stop edit-warring and shut the hell up, because he was doing a lot of harm - and I was absolutely spitting blood with fury when he didn't listen. By the "nuisances" comment I was referring to User:Bakasuprman, whom I've previously blocked (and who was the main user Wiki Raja was edit-warring with, and who is not involved here). The rest of you, and the users in that hilarious RFCU, are not users I have any experience with, and whom I have no feelings towards either way. My apologies that my wording in that comment made it sound otherwise.
Not caring two hoots for the subject matter is a positive attribute, as it means I have no yearnings to actually edit the page. As regards subject matter and users (unless others turn up whom I have interacted with, in which case I'll have to pass the baton over), I am completely ambivalent. Enjoy the unprotection. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I see you forgot to mention I was unblocked by a competent admin shortly after. I ran into with Wiki Raja very sparsely but did thwart his old sock Indrancroos in his shenanigans while the latter was uploading pictures of human feces onto martial arts pages. But that's not a nuisance is it?Bakaman 04:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Your backpedaling notwithstanding, it is clear that you harbor prejudices against us. And when you say that it was bakasuprman that wikiraja was fighting with you betray your ignorance even more. Wikiraja's singular obsession on wiki has been about hounding me. Dig, dig, dig and do your homework before you mouth off such gems. Ignorant as you were, I find it amusing that you sent Wikiraja a "vicious" mail. Goes to show that you can be "vicious" even when you dont have your facts right. And why a mail? Why not on-wiki? Was it because you didnt want to embarrass the troll or because you didnt want to be seen in public supporting me/us? What do you take us for? Fools? "Nuisances"?! Why? Because, we guys at WP:KARNATAKA have like a 100+ dyks and a dozen FAs in the last one year?! Because we are, along with a few Bengalis keeping WP:INDIA afloat while the likes of Fowler blog away on Talk:India? And why is Bakasuprman a nuisance, anyway? You harp on the arbcom upholding your methods. The same arbcom upheld Bakasuprman's credentials and threw out your(RA's) case. Is that why he's a nuisance? You obviously are seething with hate and prejudice against several users and you ought to get off of here pronto. Sarvagnya 21:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Not at all, and could we have less of the personal attacks? I really don't see why you're so opposed to a set of guidelines that are simply there to facilitate cooperative editing. If I'm not around to enforce them, other admins will, because they make sense. Most other things are irrelevant - the question is simply this - are you prepared to edit cooperatively? If so, fine. If not, then we have problems. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I am willing to enforce the guidelines. Do you have a problem with a particular guideline? —— Eagle101Need help? 21:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I am ok if you enforce the "guidelines". I am sorry but I have no faith in Moreschi. In my opinion, he has clear bias against some people and he cannot be in anyway involved in this. He has managed to promote an environment of distrust and hostility in less than a day. Thumbs down from me.--Blacksun 22:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Nobody has any problems with guidelines... as long as the "guidelines" have the community's support. Clearly, Moreschi's guidelines, malafide as they are, do not have the community's support. And therefore, yes. I do have a problem with the so-called "guidelines" Moreschi has proposed, for, they are at odds with the collective wisdom of the community and are not endorsed by anything in WP:ADMIN or any other wiki policy/guideline.
Moreschi very simply, does not have the right or the powers to "enforce" such guidelines without abusing his powers. "Special measures" are quite common on wikipedia and the ones at the Sri Lanka related articles is a recent example. But such measures are always arrived at by involving more than one admin and both/all parties. Not by a lone admin throwing his weight around and talking down to long standing editors.
Moreschi can reserve his "viciousness" for the likes of Wikiraja(who incidentally, is still on the loose and last heard was embroiled in some mess where he's supposed to have fabricated emails from an opponent in a failed joe-job) but he needs to bring down his arrogance several notches and treat editors with thousands of edits to their credit with the kind of respect tha Jimbo reserves for his best. Jimbo doesnt talk to us like that and Moreschi better be at his best behaviour too.
Like Blacksun says above, in less than a day Moreschi has only succeeded in creating a chilling effect and spoilt the atmosphere. He has done nothing to further 'collaborative editing'. Sarvagnya 23:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I should also note that focus should be done on content, not editors. In this case the content is the rules, is there a problem with one of them? If CM applies the rules unfairly we will discuss, otherwise the rules are good and needed at this point. Everyone here is now free to edit the article, which would not be the case if it were left protected. Disruption is blockable, but we already knew this before the clear cut rules. —— Eagle101Need help? 21:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I support user:Moreschi's approach. We have had too much of user:Sarvagnya and his incivility here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not insult other editors, focus on content not editors please. Consider this a warning. —— Eagle101Need help? 21:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry about the personal attack, which I have since withdrawn. I am nevertheless happy that user:Moreschi, you and Guy have chosen to step in (and focus on the content). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Fowler, you accuse someone of incivility by making your own personal attack? Oh, the irony. On topic: I agree with Moreschi's vision to end the sometimes pointless edit wars here, but I slightly disagree with his approach. I will see to it that some blatant offenses of revert warring and 3RR violations are dealt with accordingly. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLOCK and understand that blocking is not intended as a punitive measure. On other notes, I can only agree with earlier obseervations, ironically, about intellectual dishonesty and edit warring putting off well intended edits, but I will also note that it does,in some cases, it does raise the threshold of acceptable reference material, if not sometimes at the sad abuse of WP:TRUTH and WP:VERIFY. If anything, this article needs a thorough review of WP:OWN, since a number of editors (including myself) have opined in the past that a core group of editors are hogging the article with repeated reverts, edit-warring, trollish abuse, and abusibe mediation threats. The end result has been tha the India article is one of the least informative FA country article I have seen so far. This is what needs to be addressed if the article is to be improved. Taking puitive actions against any editor for having expressed his or her opinion (per WP:TALK) in this talkpage is itself an abuse of admin priviledges and should be considered carefully. Moreover, this is itself unlikely to help improve this article by creating an even worse atmosphere. Please think carefully before making well-intentioned but ill-thought recommenations.Rueben lys 22:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of comments from Talk page

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

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

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

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

Vote or Joke?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also let us make it clear since Fowler has blurred the actual stats of the vote [6]:

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

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

Image rotation implementation proposal

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

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

Too many votes

Vote against any more votes on this page

Votes against this vote

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

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

Agreed wholeheartedly with Aksi.

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

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

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

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

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

Inappropriateness of the Kannada Writers/Jnanpith Edit Yesterday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fowler's specious arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

section break

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

Here are the responses to your points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

section break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inaccurate use of "highest" in Jnanpith Award

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

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

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

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

A Fly by Night FAR for India?

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

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

Culture Rotation Vote

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


AKSHARDHAM TEMPLE

Users For::

Users Against:

User Comments:

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


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

BUDDHA

Buddha
Alternative 2

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:


TODA HUT

Toda Hut

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:

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

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

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

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

TAGORE

Rabindranath Tagore

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:


CUISINE OF NORTH INDIA

Cuisine

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:

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

MYSORE PALACE

Mysore Palace
Mysore palace at dusk - Alternate 1

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:

Where are they? I haven't seen them. The one nominated for WP:FPC was abysmal. Quality is only one problem. No one has answered the numerous (four) discussions above why Mysore Palace is being included, when there are other more notable examples from Karnataka? See my post here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Alternate1, is, unfortunately, much worse. It is out of focus, has glaring JPEG artifacts, and purple fringing in numerous places. Sorry! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PRAYER FLAG

Prayer Flag

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:

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

SHAKANTULA

Shakantula

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:

THRISSUR POORAM

Thrissur Pooram

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:

I agree. --Lokantha 00:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Bleached--KeynesJohnMaynard 13:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

BULL TEMPLE

File:Bulltemple.jpg

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:



KONARK

Konark
Konark Alternate

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:

LOTUS TEMPLE

File:Picture-47.jpg
Lotus Temple

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:

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

MAHABHODHI TEMPLE

Mahabodhi Temple

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:


CUISINE OF INDIA

File:PICT0633s.jpg

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:


SHIVA

Shiva. See another alternative: [1]

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:

  • I'm all for an image that represents what this one does - a huge segment of Indian culture and population. I just think there might be a more artistic sculpture available - a bronze perhaps.ॐ Priyanath talk 21:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? This statue is not artistic enough?! Explain the bronze statue part too. --Lokantha 00:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I definitely wouldn't call it a work of art, even though it's a beautifully devotional representation of Siva. Here is an example of a Chola Bronze - poor photo, but right idea as art, religion, devotion all in one. [7] ॐ Priyanath talk 00:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Look at the size of this statue!! How can you compare it to the Natraja one? Smaller statues are definitely easier to mold compared to larger ones. And again, explain art, religion, devotion all in one. How does the Shiva image not depict these qualities compared to the natraja one? --Lokantha 00:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
'Art' is purely opinion, and that was mine. ॐ Priyanath talk 00:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm.. I agree --Lokantha 00:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

DIWALI

File:Diwalipuja.jpg
Diwali puja

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:


DIWALI 2

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:


LOTUS TEMPLE

Lotus Temple

Users For:

Users Against:


User Comments:

AUTO-RICKSHAW

Autorickshaw

Users For:

Users Against:

User Comments:

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


Taj Mahal

Taj Mahal

Users For: :

Users Against:


User Comments:

Other User Comments:

How about this? Lokantha 14:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. It just conveys the wrong image of a developing nation. And once the culture related image decisions are made, we need to work on other sections. Images in all sections should be on a rotation basis. No exceptions, unless absolutely necessary.Dineshkannambadi 20:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How about an image of the Indian army or air force helping with the rescue work in the Andamans after the Tsunami of 2004/5? I remember seeing these on the web. They are government images, so copyright shouldn't be a problem. If you do a google image search, you should be able to find them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:India/Archive_19&oldid=1160907774"