This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chipmunkdavis (talk | contribs) at 16:48, 29 March 2011 (Revert spam). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:48, 29 March 2011 by Chipmunkdavis (talk | contribs) (Revert spam)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60Auto-archiving period: 15 days  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60Auto-archiving period: 15 days |
Template:VA Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
 | India is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2004. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Featured article | ||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
|
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 15, 2004 and August 15, 2005. |
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization: |
|
To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item. |
alternative lead by CarTick
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
Home to the Indus Valley Civilisation and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history. Four religions, including Hinduism—India's ancient and majority religion—and Buddhism, originated here. Other religions, arriving in the first millennium CE, became a part of the region's culture. Uniting large swathes of ancient India, the Maurya and Gupta empires, and some middle kingdoms of India, had a lasting cultural impact that reached well into the neighboring regions of Asia. Islamic invasions from Central Asia began in the early second millennium and Muslim rule rose to its height under the Mughal empire in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Colonised by the United Kingdom, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a non-violent independence movement led by Mahatma Gandhi.
--CarTick (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Support
- Support --CarTick (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support 1. Colonialism is linked via 'Colonised' 2. British East India Company is removed, hence a truncated statement on the British period 3. Indian independence movement is stated in a matter-of-fact way, i.e, "India became and independent nation..." Zuggernaut (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Support I don't agree with the way CarTick has gone about this process but this version is fine. I think Fowler's last sentence reads better but that's a nit. --rgpk (comment) 17:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Withdrawing support. I don't see the discussion as having ended yet and, since I'm going to be off-wikipedia for a bit, you guys figure this out. --rgpk (comment) 16:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Has CarTick violated a policy or a process? I am not aware that he has. There are about 2300 watchers of this page and yet we allow one or two people to dominate the discussion. If anything, CarTick's version balances the lop-sided participation in fixing the lead. I do want to say a genuine thank you for supporting CarTick's version. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Generally, commenting on the motivations of editors is a violation of WP:AGF. Also, as I said above about your lead, I think that it is disruptive to generate multiple leads when it makes more sense to focus on specific statements. However, I think there are reasons for his pique and all this is perhaps understandable. Perhaps we can all just focus on the contentious sentences and see where that takes us rather than going back and forth about motivations. (I'm striking out my earlier comment as a start.)--rgpk (comment) 00:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the sentiment but I would like to point out that of the 8 leads, 5 have come from Fowler, 2 from me and 1 from CarTick. Let's hope this one is the last one and we can keep the focus on the last sentence. A minor grammar fix and we are ready to wrap this up. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Generally, commenting on the motivations of editors is a violation of WP:AGF. Also, as I said above about your lead, I think that it is disruptive to generate multiple leads when it makes more sense to focus on specific statements. However, I think there are reasons for his pique and all this is perhaps understandable. Perhaps we can all just focus on the contentious sentences and see where that takes us rather than going back and forth about motivations. (I'm striking out my earlier comment as a start.)--rgpk (comment) 00:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Has CarTick violated a policy or a process? I am not aware that he has. There are about 2300 watchers of this page and yet we allow one or two people to dominate the discussion. If anything, CarTick's version balances the lop-sided participation in fixing the lead. I do want to say a genuine thank you for supporting CarTick's version. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Add (1)The British won Delhi from the Maratha's in 1803 after the Mughal emperor made Mahadaji Shinde his protectorate in 1788, for 15 years the Maratha Zari patka flew on the Red Fort], so it is Mughal's - Maratha's and then British. (2)Brezhnev reacting to Goa's liberation in 1961 urged Indians to ignore western indignation as it came "from those who are accustomed to strangle the peoples striving for independence... and from those who enrich themselves from colonialist plunder". Where is reference to British colonial plunder in this article?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, most authors agree that the British became prominent in India after the Third Anglo-Maratha War. But the reign of the Marathas was very brief. I would ask that you support CarTick's version of the 2nd paragraph of the lead. I will support the changes you are requesting regarding Marathas, British colonial plunder in appropriate articles where it is likely to be due. (I've been told that this article is a summary-style article and going in to details should be done in daughter articles). Zuggernaut (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support (1)Actually there is too much emphasis on Gandhi, wasn't it the Naval Mutiny that precipitated the British exit? Even Portuguese fought their way out despite been badly outnumbered but the British as they had won India through deciet and did not have the stomach to fight battle hardened WWII veterans? (2) Though the Maratha standard flew on the Red Fort only for 15 years between 1788-1803, Panipat 1961 happened because the Maratha's were protectors of the Mughal emperor who was threatened by Abdali, though they did not win, it was a phyrric victory for Abdali who never again crossed the Khyber (I am quoting Ninad Bedekar, heard him yesterday (2011-03-11/ @ Khopoli), if it is included in the article evidence compliant to RS norms will be furnished], (3)The British connection should be there only to suggest that the Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan inherited their boundaries and satellite states from the Colony of India, anything more would be wp:UNDUE Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Pdheeru (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC) A lead should not contain name of any individual. In this case Gandhi's name if not mentioned will be more apt. Also the mention of Marathas as reasoned by Yogesh and supported by Zuggernaut. Pdheeru (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose
| Part of a series on the |
|---|
| History of India |
 |
| Timeline |
Prehistoric
|
Ancient
|
Classical
|
Early medieval
|
Late medieval
|
Early modern
|
Modern
|
Related articles
|
- Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC) I'm opposing this version for the following reasons.
- First, after long sentences about the Mauryas, Guptas, and the Mughals, CarTick's sentence about the British rule, which is the period of Indian history secondary and tertiary sources write about by an astoundingly lop-sided ratio (See here for books on British India and here for books on Maurya India), is the shortest and most anonymous. The Maurya sentence talks about "uniting large swathes of India," and of cultural legacies extending into "neighboring regions of Asia." The Islamic/Mughals sentence talks about the onset of Islamic invasions from Central Asia and Muslim rule rising to its height of glory under the Mughals. The British period, which united swathes of India and Burma undreamt of by the Mauryas or the Mughals, is summed up in "four words", "Colonised by the United Kingdom"
- CarTick's version is a violation both of WP:LEAD ("The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources")
- and of Feature Article Criterion 1 (c), "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature."
- Second, the short mention of British rule in CarTick's lead's history paragraph is starkly different from:
- The history section of the India page on which it is based.
- The History of India page and,
- the History of India template (shown on the right) which appears in all Indian history related pages and
- the "History of South Asia template (also shown on the right),
- Third, CarTick's rationale that he feels that mentioning the East India Company, a private company, is both an insult to India and absolves Great Britain of responsibility for its misdeeds, introduces a dangerous personal and patriotic element into Misplaced Pages decision making and takes it away from the principles that Misplaced Pages has always stood for. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- First, after long sentences about the Mauryas, Guptas, and the Mughals, CarTick's sentence about the British rule, which is the period of Indian history secondary and tertiary sources write about by an astoundingly lop-sided ratio (See here for books on British India and here for books on Maurya India), is the shortest and most anonymous. The Maurya sentence talks about "uniting large swathes of India," and of cultural legacies extending into "neighboring regions of Asia." The Islamic/Mughals sentence talks about the onset of Islamic invasions from Central Asia and Muslim rule rising to its height of glory under the Mughals. The British period, which united swathes of India and Burma undreamt of by the Mauryas or the Mughals, is summed up in "four words", "Colonised by the United Kingdom"
(od)Fowler, except for the last two items, CarTick's lead is identical to yours. Could you tell us whether you're ok with the last sentence (about India and Gandhi)? and are you willing to propose an alternative to the sentence on the British period that doesn't directly mention the EIC? I understand your frustration and I personally am disappointed that CarTick has chosen to disrupt process and generate yet another lead. However, if this process has to come to a reasonable end, something has to give. My hope is that we can work by accepting that we're all agreed on the text upto the mughal empire and constructively work together on modifying the last two sentences. If you're willing to accept the Independence sentence or CarTick is willing to accept your version of it, we're down to one last bone of contention. I suspect that a formulation without mention of the EIC will be generally acceptable. --rgpk (comment) 21:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- RegentsPark, I'm afraid I can't and I don't agree with your formulation. The rest of the lead is identical only because we (including you) met the demands of CarTick and Zuggernaut which at the time didn't include anything about the East India Company. Like Chipmunk said upstairs to Zuggernaut, "That content was added to attempt to fix the perceived slant you thought the Lead gave to the British. We agreed to that, and now you're asking for more? You can't just say we have consensus for whatever you want in the article and continue to make your own demands." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Besides, CarTick's version is a violation of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages, one of which clearly says, "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, ..." There are 1 million 210 thousand books and 1 million 170 thousand scholarly articles that refer to the East India Company. In contrast, there are 72 thousand books and 9 thousand scholarly articles that refer to Maurya India, and most of the latter are not about the Mauryas. How then are we mentiong the Mauryas in the lead and not the Company? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- RegentsPark, I'm afraid I can't and I don't agree with your formulation. The rest of the lead is identical only because we (including you) met the demands of CarTick and Zuggernaut which at the time didn't include anything about the East India Company. Like Chipmunk said upstairs to Zuggernaut, "That content was added to attempt to fix the perceived slant you thought the Lead gave to the British. We agreed to that, and now you're asking for more? You can't just say we have consensus for whatever you want in the article and continue to make your own demands." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Given that CarTick doesn't even have a userbox about where he is or what he does, I don't think his version has anything to do with patriotism. It's just WP:UNDUE for the lead. No FA criterion has been violated because clearly the corpus of literature talks about Indian history before the British. Moreover, given that English is the language of the British, you will find more coverage about British rule. I think this is what we call systemic bias. Third, Misplaced Pages articles are not reliable sources. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- WP:Systemic bias is an essay; it is not Misplaced Pages policy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm glad you figured that out. Despite the Google statistics, EIC is WP:UNDUE. The Mauryas gave India and Indian culture many things, some symbolic ones like the Ashok Chakra and the Lion Capital have already been discussed. Further in the reign of Ashok, Buddhism reached Himalayan heights and the tradition of non-violence makes a significant jump here. That tradition would later make an influence on Gandhi and other world leaders. By comparison, what is the legacy of the EIC? The Bengal famine of 1770 in which 1/3rd of the population of Bengal perished while the EIC was busy raising and collecting taxes from the dying? But that's not the point. EIC just does not feature prominently in literature as do the earlier empires. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- EIC doesn't figure as prominently as the Mauryas? There are 2,080 scholarly articles that have "East India Company" in their title; there are 161 scholarly articles which have "Maurya" in their title. Having a topic in the title of s scholarly article is a sign of prominence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- EIC means many things including:
- A music band
- A living company after the original EIC was recently acquired.
- East India Company a computer video game
- East India Trading Co. (Pirates of the Caribbean), a fictional company in the Pirates of the Caribbean movie (and so aptly chosen)
- The East India Company Fine Food Limited, a London tea and coffee retailer
- Dutch East India Company, founded in 1602
- Danish East India Company, founded in 1616
- Portuguese East India Company, founded in 1628
- French East India Company, founded in 1664
- Swedish East India Company, founded in 1731
- Zuggernaut (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't make any difference! Clearly, the scholarly articles are not about the music band or the video game. As for the other Companies, you can easily do a binary search in which "Danish," "French," etc are excluded and English OR British are included. The Google Scholar search yields, 528,000 articles referring to the English or British East India Company and only 4,780 articles referring to either the "Mauryas," "Mauryan Empire," "Ashoka," or "Asoka." There is a good reason why the Misplaced Pages page East India Company is about the English East India Company, not the Dutch East India Company, which was the oldest and second largest. I know about the other companies, Your argument does not hold water. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- An accurate search with quotes around the term yields only 22,700 results. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't make any difference! Clearly, the scholarly articles are not about the music band or the video game. As for the other Companies, you can easily do a binary search in which "Danish," "French," etc are excluded and English OR British are included. The Google Scholar search yields, 528,000 articles referring to the English or British East India Company and only 4,780 articles referring to either the "Mauryas," "Mauryan Empire," "Ashoka," or "Asoka." There is a good reason why the Misplaced Pages page East India Company is about the English East India Company, not the Dutch East India Company, which was the oldest and second largest. I know about the other companies, Your argument does not hold water. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- EIC means many things including:
- EIC doesn't figure as prominently as the Mauryas? There are 2,080 scholarly articles that have "East India Company" in their title; there are 161 scholarly articles which have "Maurya" in their title. Having a topic in the title of s scholarly article is a sign of prominence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Zuggernaut has attempted to
cheat bytamperingwith evidence during a consensus building process. He as tried to make this edit, which "equalizes" the big topics, such as the "Company Rule," with the small topics, such as "Mangal Pande," in the "History of India" template (shown on the right), by increasing the size of the small text in a template that has remained stable for a long time and that is used widely in all History of India pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)- Yeah, take it to ANI if you really think so. Otherwise you need to withdraw words like 'cheat'. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have removed the word "cheat," but what you did is disruptive in the worst possible way. You have tampered with evidence in a consensus building process. It is hard to assume good faith with you after this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- No. What I did is not disruptive by any measure. Cut the legal lingo. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have removed the word "cheat," but what you did is disruptive in the worst possible way. You have tampered with evidence in a consensus building process. It is hard to assume good faith with you after this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, take it to ANI if you really think so. Otherwise you need to withdraw words like 'cheat'. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm glad you figured that out. Despite the Google statistics, EIC is WP:UNDUE. The Mauryas gave India and Indian culture many things, some symbolic ones like the Ashok Chakra and the Lion Capital have already been discussed. Further in the reign of Ashok, Buddhism reached Himalayan heights and the tradition of non-violence makes a significant jump here. That tradition would later make an influence on Gandhi and other world leaders. By comparison, what is the legacy of the EIC? The Bengal famine of 1770 in which 1/3rd of the population of Bengal perished while the EIC was busy raising and collecting taxes from the dying? But that's not the point. EIC just does not feature prominently in literature as do the earlier empires. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- WP:Systemic bias is an essay; it is not Misplaced Pages policy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
(od) Fowler, i agree with you that the process of gradual annexation of various parts of India by the East India Company during the 18th and 19th centuries is far more important in understanding modern India than were the Mauryas. However, I'm not so sure that we have to specifically name the EIC in the lead. Can't we just say something like: "Following the decline of the Mughal Empire, India was colonized by the British through a process of gradual annexation and consolidation. India became an independent nation in 1947 after a struggle for independence led by Mahatma Gandhi and marked by widespread non-violent resistance."--rgpk (comment) 13:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- RP, I highly value your opinions (as you well know), but it isn't just a question of not having EIC in the lead, it is a question of slant and undue weight. Saying, "Following the decline of the Mughal Empire, India was colonized by the British through a process of gradual annexation and consolidation." is too general; it pretty much doesn't tell us anything about the years 1765 to 1947. Contrast that with the corresponding portion of the lead of the History of India Page:
Given that we are describing the ancient empires in great detail ("Uniting large swathes of ancient India," "cultural impact reaching well into the neighboring regions of Asia") and they receive far less attention in the secondary sources, we can surely say something meaningful about the Company and about direct administration by the British. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)"The Mughal Empire suffered a gradual decline in the early 18th century, which provided opportunities for the Afghans, Balochis, Sikhs, and Marathas to exercise control over large areas in the northwest of the subcontinent until the British East India Company gained ascendancy over South Asia. Beginning in the mid-18th century and over the next century, India was gradually annexed by the British East India Company. Dissatisfaction with Company rule led to the Indian Rebellion of 1857, after which India was directly administered by the British Crown and witnessed a period of both rapid development of infrastructure and economic decline. During the first half of the 20th century, a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress and later joined by the Muslim League. The subcontinent gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1947, after being partitioned into the dominions of India and Pakistan."
- RP, I highly value your opinions (as you well know), but it isn't just a question of not having EIC in the lead, it is a question of slant and undue weight. Saying, "Following the decline of the Mughal Empire, India was colonized by the British through a process of gradual annexation and consolidation." is too general; it pretty much doesn't tell us anything about the years 1765 to 1947. Contrast that with the corresponding portion of the lead of the History of India Page:
- WP:Other Stuff Exists, i wonder who wrote all that. it only means History of India hasnt received the kind of editorial scrutiny this article is going through right now. --CarTick (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- it is misleading to use google scholar to define relevance to an article lead. see these results --140 results, -203 hits. compare this with -1200, -711. Google scholar results merely indicate an academic interest of people who can communicate in English. google scholar results and coverage in popular media are often skewed towards recent events. the more recent, the higher. See -3090 hits, -10,400
- i do not agree with RegentsPark that East India Company shaped modern India more than Mauryas. my feeling is one cant tell. (let us not forget the decision by post-independent Indian politicians to acquire nuclear weapons. see the fate of some countries that dont have them) it took thousands of years to figure out how to make fire and compare it with what happened in the last 10 years. for the sake of compromise, i will agree with RP's suggestion with the removal of the word "struggle". --CarTick (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- CarTick, No one uses the term "English East India Company" or "British East India Company," they simply use the term "East India Company" to mean the English East India Company; if they are talking about the Dutch or French or Danish East India Company they use those prefixes. I know because I (along with RegentsPark) were involved in the page move to East India Company for the English or British East India Company. The proper way to search on Google Scholar is to do a binary search for "East India Company" and exclude "Danish," "French," "Dutch" etc. That way you get 1,780 articles with the East India Company in their titles, in contrast, as you correctly say is, 1200 for "Ramayana" and 711 for Nehru. I am confident about this. You are welcome to challenge me on any forum on Misplaced Pages. The East India Company had received more attention in secondary sources that any ancient empire in India. Not just more attention, but a great deal more. Misplaced Pages is ultimately beholden to secondary sources. That is Misplaced Pages policy. You can complain all you want that there is systemic bias towards English language sources etc. etc. But this is the English Misplaced Pages. It is beholden to English language secondary sources. That is policy. If the policy changes, I will abide by it. It hasn't yet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- it is misleading to use google scholar to define relevance to an article lead. Google scholar results merely indicate an academic interest of people who can communicate in English. In general, information obtained from Google scholar results is considered to be more reliable than random web search. let us not strecth it beyond that. --CarTick (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- CarTick, No one uses the term "English East India Company" or "British East India Company," they simply use the term "East India Company" to mean the English East India Company; if they are talking about the Dutch or French or Danish East India Company they use those prefixes. I know because I (along with RegentsPark) were involved in the page move to East India Company for the English or British East India Company. The proper way to search on Google Scholar is to do a binary search for "East India Company" and exclude "Danish," "French," "Dutch" etc. That way you get 1,780 articles with the East India Company in their titles, in contrast, as you correctly say is, 1200 for "Ramayana" and 711 for Nehru. I am confident about this. You are welcome to challenge me on any forum on Misplaced Pages. The East India Company had received more attention in secondary sources that any ancient empire in India. Not just more attention, but a great deal more. Misplaced Pages is ultimately beholden to secondary sources. That is Misplaced Pages policy. You can complain all you want that there is systemic bias towards English language sources etc. etc. But this is the English Misplaced Pages. It is beholden to English language secondary sources. That is policy. If the policy changes, I will abide by it. It hasn't yet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- CarTick, could you comment on the reshaped sentence. --rgpk (comment) 15:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- it is a good suggestion. like i mentioned, i will support it. would like the word "struggle" removed. --CarTick (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- The problem with leaving out the EIC is that a huge part of the shaping of modern India is being skipped over. It was the company that began the process of uniting the divided kingdoms and weakening the power of the muslim rulers. Without it theres a jump from fractured kingdoms to british dominion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- wrong. mughal power was already declining. the company merely used the power vaccuum and devided Indians (who couldnt understand each other because of thousands of languages :)) to consolidate its power. In John Keay's words, The company was "sucked into" the power vacuum left behind by the declining Mughal empire. there was nothing benevolent about the company's motives. --CarTick (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Who said anything about benevolence? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- you said "It was the company that began the process of uniting the divided kingdoms and weakening the power of the muslim rulers". i thought the sentence implied benevolence. --CarTick (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, it didn't. I was simply noting its historical role. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- you said "It was the company that began the process of uniting the divided kingdoms and weakening the power of the muslim rulers". i thought the sentence implied benevolence. --CarTick (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Who said anything about benevolence? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- wrong. mughal power was already declining. the company merely used the power vaccuum and devided Indians (who couldnt understand each other because of thousands of languages :)) to consolidate its power. In John Keay's words, The company was "sucked into" the power vacuum left behind by the declining Mughal empire. there was nothing benevolent about the company's motives. --CarTick (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
comments
- Just what we needed. Another lead. I should add one of my own below. :) --rgpk (comment) 21:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly what we needed. More genuine participation, more constructive edits, no hypocritical positions and less sarcasm. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- CarTick and Zuggernaut, Thanks for that last sentence. Please read the verb tense section in the English Grammar page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- How about this version? "The India is the Land of the Aryans. Earlier, India extended up to the North Pole where Aryans originated. Over the millenniums, the Aryan religion was sullied by Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, and a few tribal religions, such as Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, and Christianity, from farther South. The first civilizations arose in India. The wheel was invented in India, as was its direct descendant, the number zero. Sugar were cultivated first in India; consequently, the dental drill was invented first in India. The horse was domesticated first in India; consequently, iron was invented first in India, as was the horseshoe. The Mauryas invented world's first hotel in India, the Maurya Sheraton in New Delhi. Gold was invented during the Golden Age of the Guptas. Cardiology was invented in India after the discovery of cholesterol by the Cholas. India became an independent nation in 1947 under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi after it non-violently ejected some unknown intruders." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Aryan migration theories have become more about politics than about history and they have no place in the lead. Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism actually made Hinduism better (which btw was not the same as the Aryan religion). The wheel was probably a Mesopotamian invention and the horse was likely domesticated in central Asia. Although about 30% of the world's gold is in India, it has nothing to do with the Golden Age of the Guptas. And the British did setup a colonial economy in India (as they did everywhere else) and they did plunder India but going in to the details of that in the lead is WP:UNDUE, perhaps we can do that in the body of the article. Claims about cholesterol and the Maurya Sheraton are bogus. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to perhaps humorously note that this new version gives less credit to the independence movement than the other one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- love the insults and implosion. --CarTick (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- That, at least, is obvious. --rgpk (comment) 12:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- If you take the hyperbole and irony away, (and anyways the AIT isn't on the same pedestal that it was, it has almost been flushed out like excrement is]), F&F's latest version looks the most sensible, (1)The horse manual was written in Sanskrit on the lands on the banks of the Tigris and the Euphrates], and so was the Laguna Copperplate Inscription the earliest historical record found in Philippines, half way round the world. (2)The Indian perception of the British remains as robbers, (3)Dr. Dean Ornish's, Clinically proven and FDA approved programme for combatting diseases has Yoga and dhyana as its mainstay.]. (4)Some have a great collection of information and a way with words but that does not make one wise.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- That, at least, is obvious. --rgpk (comment) 12:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- love the insults and implosion. --CarTick (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed the last sentence.
@Zuggernaut: Seriously?? *slaps face* @YG: Wow! Read WP:Reliable source (Get a grip!) @Cartick: Support. (It doesn't count though) - 59.182.49.32 (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- IP One source is a website, two are links to wikipedia articles, and another is a scientist who has been quoted in the TOI. Reliable enough, moreover this is not an article page, better ones can be found, the point is that F&f we have here a classic case of Fowler's definition Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear &, shall not understand, & another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware both of that more & of the outsiders' incomprehension wonder what do you call irony that boomerangs?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have read Dr. Dean Ornish's book, don't have it at the moment or we would have had it from the horse's mouth.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- IP I haven't lost my balance rather one shouldn't be a kupamanduka.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- This “kupamanduka”—the well-frog—has a world view, but it is a world view that is entirely confined to that well. The scientific, cultural, and economic history of the world would have been very limited had we lived like such well-frogs. This is an important issue, since there are plenty of well-frogs around—and also, of course, many attorneys of well-frogs.(Ibid) I loved the attorney part the most.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- IP I haven't lost my balance rather one shouldn't be a kupamanduka.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have read Dr. Dean Ornish's book, don't have it at the moment or we would have had it from the horse's mouth.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- IP One source is a website, two are links to wikipedia articles, and another is a scientist who has been quoted in the TOI. Reliable enough, moreover this is not an article page, better ones can be found, the point is that F&f we have here a classic case of Fowler's definition Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear &, shall not understand, & another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware both of that more & of the outsiders' incomprehension wonder what do you call irony that boomerangs?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
End of the road
I'm sorry this is the end of the road for me as far as trying to find consensus for a new history paragraph in the lead. No consensus has been reached. The previous version of the history paragraph in the lead will remain in place. I believe Zuggernaut and CarTick have acted disruptively. If they try to edit war their sentences into place, and make the page unstable, I will take the India page to FAR and their edits and edit histories will get the editorial attention they deserve from the larger Misplaced Pages community. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- you can take it to FAR as you want. we can work out a compromise without your presence. i believe we have a strong case and therefore not worried about the larger wikipedia community. --CarTick (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you are dreaming. You have 3 votes in support and one against. The same as my version. Even if you get one more support or I get one more oppose, it is not consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Take it to FAR anyway. FAR is meant to improve articles, and as this article hasn't been through any community overview since 2006 it's probably about time. No harm can come from FAR. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- the fact you are backing out is an indication you have no argument to make. that would count towards consensus too. --CarTick (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- No it isn't, no it doesn't. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- the fact you are backing out is an indication you have no argument to make. that would count towards consensus too. --CarTick (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Take it to FAR anyway. FAR is meant to improve articles, and as this article hasn't been through any community overview since 2006 it's probably about time. No harm can come from FAR. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you are dreaming. You have 3 votes in support and one against. The same as my version. Even if you get one more support or I get one more oppose, it is not consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
(unindent) I think I will take it to FAR to improve it, Chipmunk. I will take about a week or thereabouts to prepare a critique. The history section, in particular, needs a lot of work, even with the rollback. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- No one has acted disruptively so you really need to quit making allegations like that. Please stop threatening taking the article to FAR because you cannot get consensus on your edits. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Editors are adviced to desist from getting personal, use of the word cheat is the latest example, please be civil, please understand that for many editors English is a second language, and seeming innocuous words or phrases are taken at face value as the local dialectical idiomatic meaning is unknown, kindly to be safe, editors are requested to be a little conservative with words so as not to trigger a slanging match or formal proceedings which would result in a waste of time and would divert attention from the subject. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- YK, I've retracted "cheat," but what Zuggernaut did was a poor example of deceptive disruption. It will be difficult to assume good faith with him after this. Does not his action raise your ire? Only my response? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think we should just go for Fowler&Fowler's verison from 02:15, 8 March 2011 at least for right now. I mean, the E>BEIC has been in the article the whole time we've had this discussion. So it's not as if Fowler&Fowler's latest suggestion is adding this in. Removing or otherwise changing the inclusion of the E>BEIC would be a new topic. On the the rhand, the claim above that "No one uses the term "English East India Company" or "British East India Company," they simply use the term "East India Company" to mean the English East India Company" is patently either false or a gross exaggeration as can be seen from any google searches e.g. , . Munci (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is a reasonable point and it has my support. --rgpk (comment) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- i understand your point and agree with you but if it is going to FAR, i would like the current version unchanged. i guess it is better to start from how the article has been for so long. --CarTick (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Munci. You are right I exaggerated, to make a point, but I don't think you understood the point. I was not suggesting that "British" should be removed from "British East India Company" in the lead. I'm aware that people use both "English East India Company" and "British East India Company," but, most often in the literature, they simply use "East India Company" to mean the English/British East India Company (i.e. the one that governed India from Calcutta) and not the Dutch East India Company (the first such company), nor the Danish, French, Swedish or Portuguese. That is the reason why its Misplaced Pages page is simply East India Company. I made the point upstairs to CarTick because I was trying to show him the proper way to do a binary search for the Company that ruled from Calcutta. I (along with RegentsPark) and others were involved in the page move from the Honourable East India Company to East India Company. At that time, there were suggestions that the Company page should be called the British East India Company or the English East India Company, but I compiled the statistics of usage, and, most often it was simply "East India Company." Please see the talk page of East India Company (or its archives). The proper way to do the search for the English/British East India Company is to do a binary search for East India Company and exclude "Dutch," "Swedish," "Danish," "French," and "Portuguese." That way you get all the references including the ones that explicitly use "English," "Honourable," or "British." Thus in your Google Scholar search, that way, you will get 223,000 articles in contrast to the 4,310 articles that you have. I'm not averse, as I've already said, to keeping the "British" in "British East India Company" in the lead. In fact, these days, as new generations of readers appear, unaware of the history of the Company, it is a common way of providing some context. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- "East India Company" gets puny coverage. Just 22,700 results from an accurate search? Zuggernaut (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK, my mistake, and thanks for pointing it out, but your's is not accurate either, and there was a mistake in my original formulation. If you do a search for "East India Company" (within quotes) you get 80,600 articles. If you do a binary search for "East India Company" -Dutch, (ie. exclude the word, "Dutch") you get: 46,700 articles. That would suggest that approximately 40,000 articles are about the Dutch East India Company. But when you do a search for the "Dutch East India Company," you get only 14,500 articles. That means that the vast majority of articles excluded in the search for "East India Company" -dutch are articles about the English East India Company that happen to have the word "Dutch" on a page somewhere along with "East India Company." The proper way to do this search, I realized after reading your post is to do a binary search for "East India Company" and exclude "Dutch East India Company, and so forth. That way one gets 65,300 articles for the English/British/Honourable East India Company. That is not "Puny coverage;" even 22,000 articles is not puny. This method is not completely accurate either (as it excludes articles that mention both the English and Dutch Companies, but it is accurate enough for our purposes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- "East India Company" gets puny coverage. Just 22,700 results from an accurate search? Zuggernaut (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Munci. You are right I exaggerated, to make a point, but I don't think you understood the point. I was not suggesting that "British" should be removed from "British East India Company" in the lead. I'm aware that people use both "English East India Company" and "British East India Company," but, most often in the literature, they simply use "East India Company" to mean the English/British East India Company (i.e. the one that governed India from Calcutta) and not the Dutch East India Company (the first such company), nor the Danish, French, Swedish or Portuguese. That is the reason why its Misplaced Pages page is simply East India Company. I made the point upstairs to CarTick because I was trying to show him the proper way to do a binary search for the Company that ruled from Calcutta. I (along with RegentsPark) and others were involved in the page move from the Honourable East India Company to East India Company. At that time, there were suggestions that the Company page should be called the British East India Company or the English East India Company, but I compiled the statistics of usage, and, most often it was simply "East India Company." Please see the talk page of East India Company (or its archives). The proper way to do the search for the English/British East India Company is to do a binary search for East India Company and exclude "Dutch," "Swedish," "Danish," "French," and "Portuguese." That way you get all the references including the ones that explicitly use "English," "Honourable," or "British." Thus in your Google Scholar search, that way, you will get 223,000 articles in contrast to the 4,310 articles that you have. I'm not averse, as I've already said, to keeping the "British" in "British East India Company" in the lead. In fact, these days, as new generations of readers appear, unaware of the history of the Company, it is a common way of providing some context. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- i understand your point and agree with you but if it is going to FAR, i would like the current version unchanged. i guess it is better to start from how the article has been for so long. --CarTick (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is a reasonable point and it has my support. --rgpk (comment) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
(unindent)CarTick, I haven't made the final decision to take the article to FAR. It will depend on the critique I prepare. I am still traveling and my time is erratic. If you are agreeable to the version of 8 March 02:15 (referred to by Munci) then we should go ahead with that version. A better lead in an article cannot be a disadvantage when people are trying to improve it during an FAR. It will, at least, keep the same issues from coming up again and discussed yet again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your pattern of edits seem to indicate that you are taking a "my way or the highway" kind of position. If you don't get consensus on your proposed edits, you threaten FAR. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- FAR is a standard procedure and is not a threat. A review of the relentless POV pushing is needed, and whether it's FAR or ANI, something will eventually happen. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, Johnuniq, I will ask for a review of POV-pushing in the FAR. Thanks for the suggestion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- :) Zuggernaut, Whose highway?
- I have agreed to not mention "Judaism, Zoraostrianism, Christanity, and Islam" in the lead.
- I have added "India's ancient and majority religion" after "Hinduism" per Chipmunk and "other religions" due to you.
- I have added the sentence about Mauryas, Guptas, and the Middle kingdoms of India (due to you and CarTick) including "uniting large swathes of India" due to Chipmunk and "impact reaching well into neighboring regions of Asia" (due in some version, with regards, the Cholas, to CarTick)
- I've added "led by Mahatma Gandhi" per RegentsPark's and your suggestions.
- I have added the sentence about the Mughals (due, I believe, in some version about Northern India to you.)
- I've agreed to not mention of "Kashmir."
- I have added the bit about "land borders" due to AshLin.
- What have you and CarTick given in on?? Please don't make me laugh. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- The three paragraphs that are already uploaded in the lead. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- :) Zuggernaut, Whose highway?
- Yes, Johnuniq, I will ask for a review of POV-pushing in the FAR. Thanks for the suggestion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- FAR is a standard procedure and is not a threat. A review of the relentless POV pushing is needed, and whether it's FAR or ANI, something will eventually happen. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The Golden Mean?
All this discussion over the last few weeks has been deeply disturbing to me. The Golden Mean, a term I'm using rather loosely for a balanced view between Fowler & Zuggernaut's position, eludes us. There is some merit to both sides. Zuggernaut's, Khandke et al want to be able to provide some kind of Indian perspective, but they go about it in a rigid, unyielding sort of manner, some of their actions clearly do not fit in with "gentlemanly" conduct as I have been brought up to understand the meaning of the term. Fowler follows the correct procedures, provides meticulous details and referencing, is often "NPOV" as WP understands it, has made concessions on his part to his credit - but I cant help feeling that the NPOV view which he scrupulously defends suffers from a certain systemic bias as the British viewpoint is dominant in historical scholarship. My own viewpoint about the historical legacy of the British in India is ambivalent - they did make very fine contributions in India, but what they did, they did in their own self-interest, not in "noblesse oblige", in particular as a colonial power they steadfastly enriched themselves reducing India from one of the richest economies to the impoverished giant in 1947. But all this is history - so theres is no need for "whitewashed" view a la Fowler or a jingoistic view a la Zuggernaut et al. Both sides need to be represented without embellishment, rancour and minimally, but accurately. Now how is all this relevant to WP? Because an editors actions reflect his beliefs, perhaps there is really no such thing as an NPOV (muse). In that context, I feel I have not played any constructive role in getting towards this so called Golden Mean. I do hope the FAR process helps us reach towards this Golden Mean rather than a scrupulous defence of the "Western viewpoint", while rejecting utterly some of the extreme edits favoured by Zuggernaut et al. AshLin (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I sympathize with your viewpoint, but to get into "systemic bias" is tricky. (I'm writing off the top of my head, in a sleepy state, so this might be long.) There was a phase in Indian historiography, between the early 1960s and the mid-1990s, where every British contribution was taken to task and many historians from India (and even from Great Britain) has a left-leaning or even Marxist perspective on the British period of Indian history. That has changed in the last fifteen years, as Indian historians themselves, have begun to question the earlier assumptions of Indian historiography. If you read historians such as Seema Alavi at Jamia Milia writing about Company rule, you get a more nuanced perspective. That is evident in the new NCERT history series as well, though not so much in the ISC syllabus, which perhaps because of its British antecedents, is still steadfastly maintaining a 70s perspective. It is true that many British civil servants were reimbursed generously, but if you examine the records of many of them such as James Prinsep or Lewis Rice, their contributions are staggering. There were many Indian courtiers in princely states who were making a great deal more money than British civil servants, but no contributions came from them. If you examine the record of Proby Cautley, who as a mere Major in the Bengal Presidency army (and not in the Army Engineers) took on the task of planning and directing the Ganges Canal, which was completed in six years, you realize that there was a lot more to the British contributions than the infamous ones such as Jallianwalla Bagh. It is also not at all clear that all these actions were driven by British self-interest. Actually, you don't get a true picture, until you've actually seen the Solani Aqueduct in Roorkee (in which the Ganges Canal flies over the tiny Solani River). This marvel of mid-nineteenth century engineering, constructed in the age before the invention of cement, is still standing, while the more modern bridges built by trained civil engineers in the Republic of India are collapsing around it. The Ganges Canal was built by the Company to bring relief to the famine belt in the middle Doab in UP, which had been especially hard hit in the Agra famine of 1837–38; it had been proposed much earlier, but approved by the Company only after the famine. In spite of Cautley's grand projections for the budget conscious Court of Directors before construction began, the Company never made a penny from the canal. While Cautley was honored by both Dalhousie and the British government, he never became a particularly rich man. His later years were marked by a dispute with Sir Arthur Cotton about the wisdom of some of the Ganges Canal works, in which the British government ultimately sided with a Cautley, a mere Major (actually, he retired as a Colonel), than with the more celebrated General Sir Arthur. The truth is complicated. Sure, India did have the Taj Mahal, but the Indian economy had been largely stagnant since the 1400s, and had extreme disparity (much like today). If India had had more equitable wealth, you would have seen more surviving examples of ordinary life and living in India (such as Anne Hathaway's Cottage in Stratford-on-Avon, or Issac Newton's rooms in Trinity College, Cambridge), not just Taj Mahal, Fatehpur Sikri, and Agra Fort, to take one set of examples. I've indicated before on this page, India never saw the kind of mercantile and scientific revolution that took place in Britain before Britain became involved in India. The "why" of it is complicated. Sure, Britain was no saint in governing India, but it wasn't the devil either. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- PS What I've written seems a little disconnected now, but I think it gets the idea across. Of course, if this page goes to FAR, I'll try to be sensitive to your concerns, which you've expressed very cogently. I mean, we all will, I hope, since an FAR is a collective enterprise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt Anne Hathaway's Cottage and Issac Newton's rooms in Trinity College, Cambridge are particularly representative of daily life in England seeing as most people were neither wife to a famous playwright nor studied at a college having (quoting the article here) "traditionally been considered the most aristocratic of the Cambridge colleges". The birthplace of Thunchaththu Ramanujan Ezhuthachan might be comparable "The Thunjan Parambu where the great poet and saint was bom is now protected as an archaeological monument.". Munci (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- PPS I should make clear that I'm not British (as some people seem to suppose). There was plenty wrong with the British in India. For one, the ordinary British civil servant very likely thought British culture superior to that of India, and his attitude came out in his dealings with Indians. But not all of it was simple racism; some of it was impatience, much like that displayed, as the New York Times once reported, by the road engineers from Andhra Pradesh state who were building a national highway in rural Bihar state. The point I am trying to make is that Britain was the world's sole super-power during the nineteenth century and the very early 20th, up to the first world war. In all the colonies of the British Empire, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, India, Malaya, Jamaica, ..., it was main news. But it itself was a small country, only slightly bigger than undivided Punjab, and its own main news was usually domestic, not the Empire. It was a nation in an exalted state of achievement. Nations in exalted states of achievement (such as Greece in the Athenian age, Rome a few centuries later, India a few centuries after that, ... or the US for much of the 20th century) generate synergies and leave lasting impact. They often display impatience with people and cultures which they perceive to not measure up. The Indian impact is evident not just in temples in Angkor Wat or Borobudur, but even in street names in Thailand and surnames in Indonesia. It is evident in the arithmetic, such as multiplication and long division, that children all over the world learn today. If only simple-minded national self-interest was driving the British enterprise in India, you would not have had the phenomenon of a William Jones, so early (1783) in the enterprise (notwithstanding Edward Said). The British empire in India (and elsewhere) was complex. Complexity should also be displayed in its assessment as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Belonging to a Corps that even today considers itself in continuity since 1780 and myself in continuity with the British who officered it since then till Independence, and which is responsible for constructing/developing so many facets of India ranging from India's dams, highways, canals, engineering colleges to postage stamps, telegraphy, the Mint, railways etc, etc, I am acutely aware of the net contributions of the British, the contributions by the rank and file of sappers and miners as well as individual contributions by well meaning Britishers. However, as I mentioned before, the negative parts were also there. I agree that India's history is complex but that complexity should show both sides, albeit briefly and accurately. I think that Fowler&fowler may on occasion be overly protective or generous to British motives. Let the issues represented be balanced and in perspective, neither adulating British rule nor making them out to be devils as Fowler&fowler put it. AshLin (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps the easiest way to avoid this is to not take into account British motives when developing the article. If we all manage to simply stick to showing the basic facts of what happened (of course making sure that they are both relevant and important), there shouldn't be any POV issues. An encyclopaedia shouldn't really be bothered with "positives" and "negatives" (whatever they are), but just stick to a description of what happened. There's no need to try and balance something if we make sure there is nothing to balance. If Fowler has been occasionally overly protective to British motives, I think that's understandable considering what else has taken place on this page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- AshLin - The net 'contributions' of the British were negative. What you are suggesting and what editors have gotten away with on Misplaced Pages is to balance and unbalanced history. Take a look as some of the following sources and decide for yourself every time you use the word 'balance' in the context of Indo-British history (Gandhi has called the British rule in India satanic, a robbery, a curse and an evil in the sources below):
- BRITISH RULE—AN EVIL The Interpreter is however more to the point in asking, “Does Mr. Gandhi hold without hesitation or reserve that British rule in India is altogether an evil and that the people of India are to be taught so to regard it? He must hold it to be so evil that the wrongs it does outweigh the benefit it confers, for only so is non−co−operation to be justified at the bar of conscience or of Christ.” My answer is emphatically in the affirmative. So long as I believed that the sum total of the energy of the British Empire was good, I clung to it despite what I used to regard as temporary aberrations. I am not sorry for having done so. But having my eyes opened, it would be sin for me to associate myself with the Empire unless it purges itself of its evil character. I write this with sorrow and I should be pleased if I discovered that I was in error and that my present attitude was a reaction. The continuous financial drain, the emasculation of the Punjab and the betrayal of the Muslim sentiment constitute, in my humble opinion, a threefold robbery of India. 'The blessings of pax Britanica' I reckon, therefore, to be a curse. We would have at least remained like the other nations brave men and women, instead of feeling as we do so utterly helpless, if we had no British Rule imposing on us an armed peace. 'The blessing' of roads and railways is a return no self−respecting nation would accept for its degradation. 'The blessing' of education is proving one of the greatest obstacles in our progress towards freedom.
- Source: Gandhi, Mohandas (2004), Freedom's Battle Being a Comprehensive Collection of Writings and Speeches on the Present Situation, Kessinger Publishing, ISBN 9781419120879
- Whilst, therefore, I hold the British rule to be a curse, I do not intend harm to a single Englishman or to any legitimate interest he may have in India. I must not be misunderstood. Though I hold the British rule in India to be a curse, I do not, therefore, consider Englishmen in general to be worse than any other people on earth. I have the privilege of claiming many Englishmen as dearest friends. Indeed much that I have learnt of the evil of British rule is due to the writings of frank and courageous Englishmen who have not hesitated to tell the unpalatable truth about that rule. And why do I regard the British rule as a curse? It has impoverished the dumb millions by a system of progressive exploitation and by a ruinously expensive military and civil administration which the country can never afford. It has reduced us politically to serfdom. It has sapped the foundations of our culture. And, by the policy of cruel disarmament, it has degraded us spiritually. Lacking the inward strength, we have been reduced, by all but universal disarmament, to a state bordering on cowardly helplessness...
- The terrific pressure of land revenue, which furnishes a large part of the total, must undergo considerable modification in an independent India. Even the much vaunted permanent settlement benefits the few rich zamindars , not the ryots . The ryot has remained as helpless as ever. He is a mere tenant at will. Not only, then, has the land revenue to...
- Source: Gandhi, Mahatma (1996), Dalton, Dennis (ed.), Mahatma Gandhi: selected political writings, Hackett Pub. Co., ISBN 9780872203303
- By 1920 he had come to feel that British rule was, as he put it, "satanic." But its evil lay not primarily, if at all, in the rule of one national group over another. He believed that it was wrong because it was morally destructive of India's ancient, traditional, and spiritual civilization that had enabled its people to journey after Truth in the context of a small-scale and rural society whose socioeconomic arrangements for their common life were compatible with Truth-seeking.
- Source: Johnson, Richard L. (2006), Gandhi's experiments with truth: essential writings by and about Mahatma Gandhi, Lexington Books, ISBN 9780739111437
- Zuggernaut (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- According to WP:RS, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Gandhi writings were neither academic, nor peer-reviewed; neither scholarly monographs, nor textbooks. If he had been alive, he'd be the first one to own up to that. He was a political genius, but not a reliable source as Misplaced Pages understands it. Why are you wasting everyone's time Mr. Zuggernaut?? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody cares if you are British, Pakistani, Parsi or whatever. It is the POV that you are propagating, not just here, but throughout Misplaced Pages that is a problem. Sure, Britain was the sole super power but you cannot compare the US or India with Britain at the 'height' of their power. It's good to see you finally say that Britain was no saint in governing India. But you soon follow that up by saying "it wasn't the devil either". Given that Gandhi was known to call British rule of India 'evil' on multiple occasions, I am sure people like the Mahatama (whom you admire enormously) would say that someone with this sort of a POV is a bigot. The Hindutva people like Savarkar would have much worse to say.
- (Reply to AshLin) My view is not jingoistic at all. Your motives in finding a golden mean are welcome but your generalizations and analyses are inaccurate and hence irritating.
- Zuggernaut (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently, some people do care. The first sentence was a response to CarTick's post which was retracted later. As for your musings, save those for the FAR, when I'll be asking for a review of POV-pushing, and you might need to muse frenetically in defense of your own. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, so Fowler not considering the British the devil means he has a bigoted POV? Wow. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently, some people do care. The first sentence was a response to CarTick's post which was retracted later. As for your musings, save those for the FAR, when I'll be asking for a review of POV-pushing, and you might need to muse frenetically in defense of your own. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
throwing procedures to the wind...
Reply to Ashnil and Fowler(1)I strongly disagree with Ashlin's allegations that I and Zuggernaut have thrown procedures to the wind, The previous phrase isn't a quotation from Ashlin but a summary of my intpretation of his edit I strongly suggest that he justifies his allegations with diffs. (2)On the other hand his summary My own viewpoint about the historical legacy of the British in India is ambivalent - they did make very fine contributions in India, but what they did, they did in their own self-interest, not in "noblesse oblige", in particular as a colonial power they steadfastly enriched themselves reducing India from one of the richest economies to the impoverished giant in 1947. is what the lead should convey. It is perfect. (3)Fowler please go through my edits, even though I share concerns with Zuggernaut, I have disagreed with his methods and he with mine when we have fallen foul with procedures. British infrastructure was established precisely to drain India, Henry Mayers Hyndman has written it with greater precision than anyone else not even Indians, (perhaps he didn't have to look over his shoulder). Like always Fowler your observations are brilliant, we apparently have none of these small things the 700 year old universities, and many other traditions, it was the British rule and Christianity that wiped them out or discredited them, but don't worry, there is revisionism most of the times too viril for someone like me, which is bursting out, we too will have a profusion of blue plaques and the like, we are an ancient civilisation but a young republic, fresh from evicting a trespasser, who has indulged in great vandalism, not just physical but to our minds too (If you wish I will supply wp:rs for each word in letter and spirit), by the way it is not just any street name, the reigning Thai king’s name is Bhumibal Atulyatej (my romanisation), which is lord of the earth of incomparable glory, the Malaysian capital is Putrajaya or the victorious son in Sanskrit, Singapur is the land of the lion (all Sanskrit words).Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- "thrown procedures to the wind"? Your words, not mine in the page or edit summary. AshLin (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- AshlinYou have written Fowler follows the correct procedures, provides meticulous details and referencing,..., isn't it implicit that Yogesh and Zuggernaut don't? If you read carefully Zuggernaut has most of the time carefully referenced his statements.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- You are putting your own words in my mouth. AshLin (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's not implicit, and italicising as you did other quotes is grossly misleading. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Would you kindly explain what you mean by that Chip?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- You placed a quote by AshLin in italics later, and also placed "thrown procedures to the wind" in italics, implying AshLin had said those exact words. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I gave another look to your statement and my edit and I got what you meant, but you beat me to the post (edit conflict) does it look better now?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- nods* Better. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I gave another look to your statement and my edit and I got what you meant, but you beat me to the post (edit conflict) does it look better now?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- You placed a quote by AshLin in italics later, and also placed "thrown procedures to the wind" in italics, implying AshLin had said those exact words. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Would you kindly explain what you mean by that Chip?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- AshlinYou have written Fowler follows the correct procedures, provides meticulous details and referencing,..., isn't it implicit that Yogesh and Zuggernaut don't? If you read carefully Zuggernaut has most of the time carefully referenced his statements.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Sticking to policies and procedure is pretty much the norm amongst the contributors here so I don't know what to make of AshLin's comments. Have we been 'unyielding'? We agreed to three out of four paragraphs suggested unilaterally by Fowler without any discussions. I did so because I thought it was fair to support those three paragraphs. Why should we yield to the inclusion of EIC when it is clearly WP:UNDUE. I haven't seen any rational arguments to convince any of us otherwise. What I have seen is only a threat to take it to FAR when the consensus is clearly leaning against Fowler's position on EIC. Fowler calls me a 'cheat', drives constructive contributors with long histories like King Zebu away by launching attacks on them, shows a lack of good faith in the IPs, has a very strong and unrelenting POV. Anyone capable of taking a step back and look at the big picture should be able to see this. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am sorry Fowler, please understand that this is not about you but about what you have written. (1)Ashlin One example of Fowler's non-compliance to wikirules is illustrated in the sub-section above Fowler's question No 1, So it is a little ironic that you find him a stickler for the rules (2) Zuggernaut aptly summarises the attitude as "my way or highway". (3)Ashlin do you consider such un-sourced allegations made by Fowler in this section as examples of good procedure and Zuggernaut's well researched replies as rigid? For lack of time and energy I cannot bring up the numerous other examples. (4)It is a pity Ashlin you talk about perspectives, do articles about Auschwitz have a German perspective and a Jew perspective?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to clarify this once and for all. WP:FAR is not a threat. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- In addition, I think it's wrong to say the three paragraphs currently added were added without discussion. They were initiated on the talkpage, and were changed before insertion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- An off the track point, User:Yogesh Khandke needs to be more careful when posting, he mentions me above as User:Ashnil, and User:Ashlin but not correctly as User:AshLin, (note the capitalisation). A honest mistake, I'm sure. AshLin (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody is saying that FAR itself is a threat since it only improves the article. They way Fowler says he will take it to FAR each time his POV is shot down is troublesome. The important point regarding there was or wasn't discussion for the other paragraphs is that Fowler has had his way with 3 out of 4 paragraphs with minimal discussion as compared to the 2nd paragraph. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Had his way? Really? They underwent discussion and came out in agreement by all parties. He did not simply have his way. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Pdheeru's changes
User Pdheeru is removing a line about Akbar from the history section. When he proposed doing it in August 2010, it was opposed by four other editors Talk:India/Archive_28#History. He proposed again in February and the discussion went nowhere (got lost in the flurry of recent discussions) - Talk:India/Archive 30#FAR.
He has removed it again now and has been reverted by Fowler and me. An established text that has been there for so long in this article cannot be changed without discussion and arriving at consensus first. So i am putting in this note. Dheeru do not remove the line UNTIL you get a consensus here to remove it. The established practice is to intiate discussion, arrive at consensus,then modify. You are going about it in the wrong order and this is the second time you are doing it. --Sodabottle (talk) 07:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Sodabottle, I only went in for the changes because there was no response to the discussion already initiated. Probably this was one-way of gaining attention to this issue which, as Sodabottle said 'got lost in the flurry of recent discussions'. Comments are welcome on this proposed change in the history section.Pdheeru (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Maratha’s may have made many mistakes, but to the Hindu citizens of India who had been crushed under Islam for over five hundred years they demonstrated by their action that Hindus could live with honour …(On the back cover of Tryambak Shankar Shejwalkar’s Panipat 1761, Rajahans, Pune. ISBN No. 80-7434-010-6), we don't need Akbar, it is undue.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I support Pdheru's edit and oppose Soda's revert, but cannot have this ping-pong match. Reason is Shejwalkar above.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Requesting editors to comment on this issue so that this can be speedly finalized. It has been pending for a while now. Pdheeru (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Maurya
Isn't it perplexing that you have foreign invaders being mentioned British, Mughals but no mention of Maurya's in the lead, look at this wikipedia map of the Maurya empire, bigger than the British colony of India, who drove the Greeks out and reoccoupied Gandhara and Kambhoj? We also need mention of the Hindu Shahi's of Kabul, the maritime Srivijaya kingdom, the Laguna Copperplate Inscription,
Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- We, in the lead, need to mention things which aren't in the article, or even actually in India itself?!? Wow, I need to go and read WP:LEAD WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:UNDUE all over again, as I'm obviously missing something big. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Chip, just as I had written about Bene Israel, these are the things that a person reading about India needs to know at first glance (IMO), I am not suggesting that we break rules, the inclusion in the lead can be preceded by adequate representation in the article.
- If something's not in the entirety of a Fine Article, I highly, highly, doubt it merits inclusion in the lead, even if now added. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Also Yoga and the global impact of Hindu spirutualism such as ISKON etc.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- If something's not in the entirety of a Fine Article, I highly, highly, doubt it merits inclusion in the lead, even if now added. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Chip, just as I had written about Bene Israel, these are the things that a person reading about India needs to know at first glance (IMO), I am not suggesting that we break rules, the inclusion in the lead can be preceded by adequate representation in the article.
We have four people supporting the uploading of the paragraph on Mauryas to the lead. RegentsPark provided support initially but has now withdrawn it because he is off Misplaced Pages. We have one person opposing the same paragraph (CarTick's version). I feel we should go ahead and upload CarTick's version of the 2nd paragraph in the lead. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- One of the supports opposes part of the paragraph, note "A lead should not contain name of any individual. In this case Gandhi's name if not mentioned will be more apt." So clearly even in the supports there is a dispute. At any rate, I highly doubt consensus achieved there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- (Reply to Zuggernaut) Besides there are four supports for my version as well: AshLin, Munci, RegentsPark, who not only didn't withdraw his support for my proposal, but also supported Munci's view that my version should be uploaded, and I. Even CarTick, himself seemed to agree with Munci's point but prefers to keep the current lead in case the page is going to FAR]. Please pinch yourself out of your dream. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
removed the disputed paragraph
seems unfair to continue to host the lopsided and disputed paragraph in the lead. even without that paragraph, it really doesnt sound that bad. gives everyone time to iron out a compromise. --CarTick (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, CarTick, whether you personally like it or not, you can't remove a paragraph that has been in place in the lead of an FA for over four years. You had plenty opportunity to dispute it earlier in all your time on Misplaced Pages. But you did not. It came only as an afterthought to you after one week of discussion about other aspects (whether and how to include religions) of the lead. The paragraph is the default paragraph. It stays in place until there is consensus on a new one, FAR or no FAR. An FA cannot have a truncated lead. What is to stop a third person from disputing the first, third and fourth paragraphs as well, and remove them all. We would then have an FA without any lead. Sorry, but you have to bide your time like everyone else. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Again, as I've reminded you earlier, Misplaced Pages policy, Misplaced Pages:Ownership_of_articles#Featured_articles states clearly:
That Misplaced Pages takes this injunction seriously is shown by the lack of sympathy for user:Zuggernaut's attempt to make a minor change in it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)"Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first."
- well, i personally dont think the article is
FARFeatured Article quality with such lopsided history preview in the lead. you and a few apologists wrote this article a million year ago and had it passed whenFARFeatured Article guidelines were weak and you have been misusing the FA tag to fend off any effort to rectify the blunders. you would love to have no consensus because your favorite East India company is mentioned in the lead. that is all you care about. --CarTick (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)- that you even made sure that East India Company in wikipedia would always refer to your beloved British East India Company. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:East_India_Company_%28disambiguation%29#Requested_move. --CarTick (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether the article is "FAR (sic) quality" or not, whether I am an "apologist" or not, whether I wrote is a "million year (sic) ago" or not, whether I have been "misusing the FA tag" or not, we all have to bide our time until new consensus is reached. As for the page move to East India Company, I'm afraid you have the wrong link. The correct one is: Talk:East_India_Company/Archive_1#Requested_move. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- it doesnt change anything, you were the who proposed the page move. great. you got four support votes. surprise, RegentsPark is one of them. :) --CarTick (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- The page move went through CarTick, propose a move if you want. As for "FAR quality", that makes no sense. As a statement on the topic of this section, a dispute in the text is not a reason to remove it. WP:BRD. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Whether Fowler likes it or not, there are other people on Misplaced Pages who share CarTick's view. For example, take an IP's (possibly a regular admin on Misplaced Pages) post on RegentsParks talk page. About the policy, yes we need to encourage everyone to edit FAs, even IPs, newbies, and the not-so-crazy-university-professor types and all. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- it doesnt change anything, you were the who proposed the page move. great. you got four support votes. surprise, RegentsPark is one of them. :) --CarTick (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether the article is "FAR (sic) quality" or not, whether I am an "apologist" or not, whether I wrote is a "million year (sic) ago" or not, whether I have been "misusing the FA tag" or not, we all have to bide our time until new consensus is reached. As for the page move to East India Company, I'm afraid you have the wrong link. The correct one is: Talk:East_India_Company/Archive_1#Requested_move. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- that you even made sure that East India Company in wikipedia would always refer to your beloved British East India Company. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:East_India_Company_%28disambiguation%29#Requested_move. --CarTick (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- well, i personally dont think the article is
- Again, as I've reminded you earlier, Misplaced Pages policy, Misplaced Pages:Ownership_of_articles#Featured_articles states clearly:
(unindent) There are other people? I am shocked. I must be an apologist and a scary one at that if I reduce a "regular admin" to such a state of gutlessness that he takes to hiding behind the skirts of an IP address. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, and I feel some of them may not be coming forth because of your "university professor" userbox. Let us see if you can level the playing field by taking it off to have your edits stand by themselves. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
We have reached an impasse regarding the 2nd para of the lead. The current para in the article is very badly writen and needs to be changed. I request editors Fowler and CarTick to re-write their proposed versions of the 2nd paragraph with improvements suggested by various editors and them let us select one of the two proposed para.Pdheeru (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is a good suggestion. I support it. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, good suggestion. However as Zuggernaut should know, they have both already provided their proposed leads above, and no consensus was reached. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- No harm giving it another shot to try and form consensus. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, good suggestion. However as Zuggernaut should know, they have both already provided their proposed leads above, and no consensus was reached. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Alternatively I also suggest the below said version for consideration:
Home to the Indus Valley Civilisation and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history. Four religions, including Hinduism—India's ancient and majority religion—and Buddhism, originated here. Uniting large swathes of ancient India, the Maurya and Gupta empires, and some middle kingdoms of India, had a lasting cultural impact that reached well into the neighboring regions of Asia. Islamic invasions from Central Asia began in the early second millennium and Muslim rule rose to its height under the Mughal empire in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Colonised by the United Kingdom, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a non-violent independence movement.
I have deleted the name of Gandhiji and the statement saying other religions arrived in India, since this does not make any sense as in todays world every religion can be found in almost all country. Pdheeru (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I feel your last sentence is too verbose, Pdheeru, and too quick to acknowledge the British. How about: "Colonised, India decolonised?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- will you stop your patronizing everyone who disagrees with you? we all know you were the smartest kid in the block. Pdheeru's last sentence gives exactly the right amount of weightage to British. we also know you would love to spend an entire paragraph describing East India Company. --CarTick (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- No they wouldn't. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm pretty sure, he would. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is frankly pathetic. Just because someone wants to mention the EIC does not mean they are a huge supporter of the EIC and what it did, and does not mean they believe it is all-important. You are not helping your arguments at all by trying to grossly exaggerate and over-represent the arguments of others. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm pretty sure, he would. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- No they wouldn't. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- will you stop your patronizing everyone who disagrees with you? we all know you were the smartest kid in the block. Pdheeru's last sentence gives exactly the right amount of weightage to British. we also know you would love to spend an entire paragraph describing East India Company. --CarTick (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Pdheeru (and Yogesh) Gandhi was a central figure in the independence movement; he enjoys world-wide recognition for his role and deserves a place in the lead. However since non-violent non-cooperation with inhuman and evil regimes is synonymous with Gandhi, I am OK to drop the name from the lead, though reluctantly.
- support - I support your version of the lead. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- support per previous reasoning by fowler why name of leaders dont necessaily need mention in the lead. sounds reasonable. --CarTick (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Additions and Modification to Introduction to India (Beginning article para)
Part 1:
- The way it looks now:
- India is a federal constitutional republic with a parliamentary system consisting of 28 states and seven union territories. It is a member of the United Nations, the Non-Aligned Movement, the World Trade Organization, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, the East Asia Summit, the G20, the G8+5, and the Commonwealth of Nations; and is one of the four BRIC nations. India is a pluralistic, multilingual, and multiethnic society. It is also home to a diversity of wildlife in a variety of protected habitats.
- How it should be modified:
- India is a federal constitutional republic with a parliamentary system consisting of 28 states and seven union territories. It is a member of the United Nations, the Non-Aligned Movement, the World Trade Organization, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, the IBSA Dialogue Forum, the East Asia Summit, the G20, the G8+5, and the Commonwealth of Nations. It is one of the four BRIC nations and a member state of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. India is a pluralistic, multilingual, and multiethnic society. It is also home to a diversity of wildlife in a variety of protected habitats.
The reasons why it should be modifies as it is written:
- If you see in economics much of the organisations are much like forums and are forums but does not end with named like "XXX forums" Like BRIC represents 4 countries in the world. This was though originally a concept made by an Goldman Sachs economist; its not taken into consideration as really a organisation like the UN, NATO or other western organisation. I am not saying BRIC is not important but its importance will be known in the future years. So if you see the functioning its almost like a forum where 4 countries come and meet to discuss the future of the world and economy.
With the same reason, even IBSA Dialogue is a forum which is also very important. It should also be important. Likewise the SCO has also to be mentioned because India is a part of it. I dont care if it is not a full member but it is still a member state. The respresentative of Indian Govt does attend their organisation meeting, I cant understand why are they two excluded completely from the paragraphs. Obmission is like India is not even a part of the two respective IBSA Dialogue Forum and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation organisations.
- India is not a member of the SCO, so that can't be included. Furthermore, organisations in the lead must be mentioned in the text, which these aren't. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Vital, Strong and Historical pictures should be added
- DO NOT DELETE THIS SECTION: More pics will be posted down soon for considerations and finalization for pics to be put up and posted in final article of wiki article - India.
- I personally feel after reading articles on various countries, India has text but misses lot of historical, nature and vital pictures that define, portray, distinguish and speak of India. The article of India is though a top class article but is not a complete one. I believe pictures speak a lot on their own which just a body of paragraph, text and link to articles can't. See China, UK, USA, Brazil even Pakistan has so many good pics; why is India fail to portray its image and reality?
- I put down pictures I believe are good to be put on the final official wiki "India" article. I do not know where exactly and to which part of paragraphs to be put on. However I give a collection to it might be agreed to further the article's to a higher level of aesthetics and rating to a number one article in wiki.
Anyways, the pics below are of great clarity and high resolution with great detail and significant value to aesthetic value and vitaliliity of article. Hence, I presume that everyone will vote for to include all the pics below to India. Thanks, Chindia (China-India) (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is images should reflect and extend on the article text, standalone images are pointless. Furthermore, as an article is not a repository for images, and needs to follow WP:MOSIMAGES, the number and arrangement of images in the article is restricted. As for those other country articles, only the USA is slightly comparable (being a GA) but at any rate all those articles need to follow this one, not the other way around. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
-
The Victoria Memorial Hall in Kolkata, former capital of British India. It was designed by Sir William Emerson intended to serve as a tribute to the success of the British Empire in India. The architecture is a unique mix of both British and Mughal.
-
Munnar, a hill station in Kerala. It is one of the most beautiful places in the Western Ghats. A view of a tea garden in the morning mist is shown here. The place is pallivasal panchayat and the builgings visible are in Chithirapuram.
-
Arambol beach in Goa.
-
The Drang-drung glacier, the largest glacier in Ladakh, situated near the Pensi-la.
-
The National Library of India in Kolkata which previously was the residence of Viceroy of India currently hosts one of the most impressive collection of vintage books and manuscripts in the world. In the post independence period, it is one of the best public libraries in the world.
-
Leh in the Leh District in the state of Jammu and Kashmir in India viewing of mountains, trees and houses.
-
The Buddha statue at the Hussain Sagar in Hyderabad, Andra Pradesh.
- I made a point for adding more images (specifically to the Geog section) a few months ago. Any reader would not find out the diverse climate from the single image of the Himalayas currently used in the article. Many other articles, such as the China article outline the diversity of their respective countries, I would like to see this in the India article as well.--RaviC (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- All of these pics are terrible. Please do not add. Nikkul (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Upper House and lower house in india
RajyaSabha is the assembly made at state level. Elected MLA of Rajyasabha called as "Aamdaar" and Loksabha is Upper legestive house of indiaShekharsaad (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Shekhar Shinde, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
- What?? Where did you get these informations from? Rajya sabha is the upper house and Lok sabha is the lower house. And, what the hell is "Aamdaar"? Shovon (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, a member of rajya sabha would be an MP not an MLA, unless you are referring to his office before election —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.163.17.65 (talk) 09:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
removal of disputed content
the disputed paragraph that includes east india company in the lead is not mentioned in this December 3, 2004 version which featured on the main page. Please see Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/India. apparently, the content was added later. Second, Fowler who proposed to take the article for FAR doesnt seem to take any effort in that direction. Due to these two reasons, i am removing the disputed paragraph until a new consensus emerges. --CarTick (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't be ridiculous. The paragraph has been in place since late 2006 when a large number of editors headed by user:Nichalp, who headed the page's FA drive earlier, and including user:Saravask, user:Ragib, .... revised the India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- A number of sections, including Flora and Fauna, were added at that time. The lead was in place, when the last FAR, nominated by user:Sarvagnya, was conducted in the Summer of 2007. The article milestones are incorrect, the last FAR was in 2007, not May 2006. An FA, Mr. CarTick, can't be without a lead! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- The deletion of the disputed content by CarTick makes perfect sense. Misplaced Pages articles are never set in stone and can always be improved. An example is the removal of a huge error that went undetected in this FA for many years. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- If they are not cast in stone, why is antiquarian CarTick looking for stones from 2004? It is the usual case of WP:Main article fixation. Neither CarTick, nor Zuggernaut have made substantial contributions to this page, but yet, with limited prose skills, they want to write the lead of this FA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think either of us has "limited prose skills". To those whose first language is not Enlgish: don't let people like Fowler scare you away from editing this page. You can always recruit the help of the copy editors guild. And English skills are the least important of skills in comparison to the understanding of fundamental Misplaced Pages policies. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm talking about the lead of an FA. That does require prose that "is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;" (see Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria). Even GAs require decent prose as you no doubt know from your last review. How are people who have made minimal contributions to this page, zero contributions to the History of India page, nevertheless leading the battle charge in rewriting the history paragraph in the lead of this FA?? If you say anything to them, they start waving AGF, OWN, "anyone can edit," and the usual dogmatic claptrap in your face. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, Zuggernaut, Judaism, mainly did arrive in India in the first millennium or even later. The myths, of the Cochin Jews and the Bene Israel, that a handful of them arrived in 500 BC, are just that, myths. The latest DNA evidence has shown that the main Jewish migration to India took place much later. So, please don't gloat over your major discovery of this error. I let it go because most people on this page were of the opinion that the Jewish numbers were and are too small to merit mention. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm talking about the lead of an FA. That does require prose that "is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;" (see Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria). Even GAs require decent prose as you no doubt know from your last review. How are people who have made minimal contributions to this page, zero contributions to the History of India page, nevertheless leading the battle charge in rewriting the history paragraph in the lead of this FA?? If you say anything to them, they start waving AGF, OWN, "anyone can edit," and the usual dogmatic claptrap in your face. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think either of us has "limited prose skills". To those whose first language is not Enlgish: don't let people like Fowler scare you away from editing this page. You can always recruit the help of the copy editors guild. And English skills are the least important of skills in comparison to the understanding of fundamental Misplaced Pages policies. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- If they are not cast in stone, why is antiquarian CarTick looking for stones from 2004? It is the usual case of WP:Main article fixation. Neither CarTick, nor Zuggernaut have made substantial contributions to this page, but yet, with limited prose skills, they want to write the lead of this FA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand what's "disputable" about the EIC/British Empire section of the lede. It's an integral part of Indian history and definitely merits mention in the lede. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for a dispute or removal. —SpacemanSpiff 06:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Gupta, Maurya, Vijayanagara, Maratha, Chola, Chalukya, Pallava, Kadamba, Rashtrakuta, Pala, Chera, Pandya, Thuglaks, Lodis and several othere were parts of Indian history. Spacemann, the question has always been why the Undue mention of East India Company. The question gained further traction when it was later found out that it may have been sneaked in by Fowler who has worked favorably to British East India company all over wikipedia. --CarTick (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Like I said, the article was revised in late 2006 and directed by user:Nichalp; there were many admins involved including user:Ragib and user:Saravask and I believe also user:Sundar. If you have evidence that I "sneaked it in," please produce it; otherwise you are just lying through your teeth in the service of your distended world view, which you, apparently, aren't skillful enough to render into FA-grade prose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just because you believe that the EIC has an UNDUE mention in the lead does not mean you remove the entire sentence leaving a giant hole in the history section of the lead and does not mean you make that change without consensus once it has been reverted. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fowler: that is a ridiculous argument. being skilful in prose has nothing to do with generating unbiased content. we dont need biased English professors for that, plenty of copy editors around. you need to show us the previous conversation where British East India company was chosen to be included in the lead over all other rulers i mentioned above. i would like to know the rationale why this decision was made.
- Chipmunk: when are we going to get consensus and how are we going to achieve this? Fowler said he was going to take it to FAR. it has been two weeks. if he is not interested and doesnt have time, he should let other people take care. By the way, what is your argument for the inclusion. you, by your own admission, have no sufficient knowledge of Indian history. are you fowler's sidekick or what? you just agree with him on everything and revert things on his favor without an argument of your own. --CarTick (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are numerous steps in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution I suggets you look at. In addition, why don't you ask Fowler yourself if they still intend to take it to FAR, and when (I'm waiting as much as you are). Where did i say I don't have "sufficient knowledge" to work on this article? I'm not an expert in Indian history, I'll freely admit that, I doubt many of us are. Do you want my reasoning? Would it make a difference? Just to appease you, the EIC was responsible for bringing the British into India. The EIC is thus responsible for British rule. British rule is a massively important part of Indian history, where a common Indian identity was developed, and determined the current borders of the country, as well as providing a base for many of the political, judicial, and governmental systems of the country. Leaving it out leaves a large hole in the steps of history that led to modern India. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- here is the bottomline. whether British played a role in Indian history? yes. decisive role? yes. Was British entirely responsible for everything that is Indian today? no. Should British Raj be mentioned in the lead to convey this message? yes. Should both British East India company and British Raj be mentioned in the lead to convey this message? no. too much for the lead. we are not mentioning Mamluks, Thuglaks, Lodi and other Islamic dynasities that preceded Mughals.
- Here is the to when Fowler added this sentence on 18 November 2006. His rationale is Incorporating mention of British empire in lead from user:Saravask's version of 14th Nov. 2006. unquestionably, added by Fowler and now defended by Fowler. --CarTick (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not going to argue about the EIC ad nauseum, so suffice to say I disagree with your argument. So do others. As for when Fowler added it, do more digging if you wish, but his rationale seems to say it was added by someone else first. Even if he did add it first, considering other's support that sentence it doesn't really matter. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- yes, he mentions, Saravask added it first. but, i cant find 14th Nov 2006 edit of Saravask that added it. i would like to know what Saravask added. apparently, this seems to be the first time the exact point in question is ever under any scrutiny. 12:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not going to argue about the EIC ad nauseum, so suffice to say I disagree with your argument. So do others. As for when Fowler added it, do more digging if you wish, but his rationale seems to say it was added by someone else first. Even if he did add it first, considering other's support that sentence it doesn't really matter. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are numerous steps in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution I suggets you look at. In addition, why don't you ask Fowler yourself if they still intend to take it to FAR, and when (I'm waiting as much as you are). Where did i say I don't have "sufficient knowledge" to work on this article? I'm not an expert in Indian history, I'll freely admit that, I doubt many of us are. Do you want my reasoning? Would it make a difference? Just to appease you, the EIC was responsible for bringing the British into India. The EIC is thus responsible for British rule. British rule is a massively important part of Indian history, where a common Indian identity was developed, and determined the current borders of the country, as well as providing a base for many of the political, judicial, and governmental systems of the country. Leaving it out leaves a large hole in the steps of history that led to modern India. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Gupta, Maurya, Vijayanagara, Maratha, Chola, Chalukya, Pallava, Kadamba, Rashtrakuta, Pala, Chera, Pandya, Thuglaks, Lodis and several othere were parts of Indian history. Spacemann, the question has always been why the Undue mention of East India Company. The question gained further traction when it was later found out that it may have been sneaked in by Fowler who has worked favorably to British East India company all over wikipedia. --CarTick (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
(unindent) It's not for me to find evidence for your statement, Mr. CarTick. You said above, "The question gained further traction when it was later found out that it may have been sneaked in by Fowler who has worked favorably to British East India company all over wikipedia." You are either lying through your teeth or you should be able to provide evidence that I "sneaked it in." Anyway, here the evidence for what it is worth. Next time, CarTick, if you don't know, ask, but don't talk through your hat.
- Nichalp had been away for about six months in summer and fall of 2006. The India page had degenerated in his absence and I found it in poor quality when I arrived on Misplaced Pages in October 2006. I copy-edited the lead and brought it to this condition by 12 November 2006. As you will see, there was no mention of British anything, only of ancient India's contributions.
- My first version of the lead was rolled back by Saravask in this edit of 14 November, and that brought the "British" into the picture. Saravask also made a a post on this talk page. As you will see in the link, I was appalled by the rollback and protested.
- Nichalp, upon his return, was not happy with the state of the article. He made a post here about the poor quality of the lead. I was not happy with Nichalp's version.
- I went and look at the various history texts and copy-edited his version (mind you the British stuff was his idea; mine had nothing originally about the British) and came up with this version, which was more complete and added the bit about the East India Company and the direct administration by the British Crown, and
- I then made this post to which Nichalp responded in "blue" Notice that he said, "the current draft is better," in response to my revision of the British edit.
- I had originally favored, "Politically controlled by the East India Company from the early 18th century, and directly administered by the British Crown from the mid nineteenth century," but it didn't stay over the many discussions about that sentence over the next six or seven weeks.
- In the end "annexed" was suggested by Nichalp and "gradually" either by me or user:Dab, and the "colonised" stayed (against my version). It took a lot of work, CarTick, some six weeks of back and forth. So, next time, when you go about shooting in the dark, without having contributed a damned thing to the article itself, give other people some credit. At least don't judge others by your compromised standards. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- PS, In the end also, as you will see in the "Improvements" discussion. I had to take out all the "decimal number system," "Ajanta," "Taj Mahal," stuff because Nichalp was of the view (and rightly so) that the lead of an FA is not the place for lists. In the process, I learnt something about writing on Misplaced Pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- PPS The reason for adding the East India Company, and therefore, a more accurate description of the British period, was to distinguish India from other colonies in the empire, in some of which, such as Egypt, the British stayed only a few decades. Here is the exchange from this talk page section. The italics is Nichalp's version of the lead; the roman is my comment; the blue text is Nichalp's reply. He states that my draft (current) is better:
- "Colonised as a part of the British Empire ..." India was colonised by Great Britain and consequently became a part of the British Empire. Again, given the size of the British Empire at its height, it doesn't distinguish India, for example, from Zimbabwe, Botswana, Sudan, or Egypt--countries that the British arrived in late in the 19th century.
- "...after an intense struggle for independence" When was any struggle for independence not intense?
- The current draft is better
- Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- it demonstrates the following clearly. 1) you (Fowler) are the one entirely responsible for Company being in the lead. 2) Through Nichalp's reservations about the lead proposed by you, you bulldozed him, with your aggressive POV pushing and poor-prose writing accusation, to agree half heartedly with your edit 3) none of these explains why company was included in the lead over many other indian rulers. --CarTick (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- All it demonstrates clearly is that you seem to be having issues in understanding English prose, not just in writing it. What, then,
- explains my lead of 12 November 2006 which I had worked on for a month?
- Where is the mention of East India Company there?
- Where is the mention of anything British?
- Why didn't I put anything about the East India Company when I had a month long carte blanche?
- Nichalp, by the way, was no slouch. He was a bureaucrat on Misplaced Pages with a strong personality (and someone I respected, unlike some latter-day pretenders much in evidence today). When he disagreed with me, as he did about the list of contributions (decimal number system, Ajanta, Taj Mahal, influence of Indian culture in South East Asia and East Asia), he told me in no uncertain terms. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and, by the way, I couldn't have
- intimidated him with any "professor" stuff on my user page, because my user page then had only one line.
- And, I was still some nine months away from editing the Company rule in India page, so an ulterior motive wouldn't be easy to rig up.
- Why only fixate on the Company, dear CarTick? Why didn't you question the replacement of my beautiful version of 12 November 2006, that had nothing about the hated British and everything about ancient India, by a version that had nothing about ancient India and everything about the hated British? Why O Why, CarTick? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- shows that you introduced company in the lead on 18th Nov 2006 refering to 14th Nov revision by Saravask. shows he introduced british empire, while he did not mention company. am i missing something. pls help me. i would really like to know who introduced company in the lead first. if it is not you, i would like to withdraw my "sneaked in" accusation. please also keep your replies brief and to the point. --CarTick (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- What you are missing, and continue to miss, is that
- shows that you introduced company in the lead on 18th Nov 2006 refering to 14th Nov revision by Saravask. shows he introduced british empire, while he did not mention company. am i missing something. pls help me. i would really like to know who introduced company in the lead first. if it is not you, i would like to withdraw my "sneaked in" accusation. please also keep your replies brief and to the point. --CarTick (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- All it demonstrates clearly is that you seem to be having issues in understanding English prose, not just in writing it. What, then,
- it demonstrates the following clearly. 1) you (Fowler) are the one entirely responsible for Company being in the lead. 2) Through Nichalp's reservations about the lead proposed by you, you bulldozed him, with your aggressive POV pushing and poor-prose writing accusation, to agree half heartedly with your edit 3) none of these explains why company was included in the lead over many other indian rulers. --CarTick (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- PPS The reason for adding the East India Company, and therefore, a more accurate description of the British period, was to distinguish India from other colonies in the empire, in some of which, such as Egypt, the British stayed only a few decades. Here is the exchange from this talk page section. The italics is Nichalp's version of the lead; the roman is my comment; the blue text is Nichalp's reply. He states that my draft (current) is better:
If you don't withdraw the "sneaked in" allegation, I will take you to ANI and let the people there decide. I've had enough of your nonsense. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- whether your original version had east india company or not doesnt matter. what matters is you are the one who included company in the lead as it stands now with available information, unless, there is another diff which will prove otherwise. i am not withdrawing the accusation unless you prove me wrong. --CarTick (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- But how did I "sneak it in?" "Sneak" in the English language means "to put, bring, or take in a furtive or artful manner." What did I do that was furtive or dishonest? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe you don't understand the meaning of "sneak in." But now that I've explained it, you need to withdraw it. Otherwise, as I've said, I'll take you to ANI and they will then explain the meaning to you again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- i love the sarcasm and persistent attempts at insulting. Incorporating mention of British empire in lead from user:Saravask's version of 14th Nov. 2006) is the edit summary you used to incorporate the company in the lead. here are two reasons why i think you "sneaked it in". 1) according to the edit summary, you are introducing british empire, but in reality, you added British Raj and East India Company 2) according to the summary, you are refering to Saravask's previous edit. but, in reality, he had not mentioned the word company in his edit. --CarTick (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Here are the two sections of the British Empire page devoted to India: a) Rise of the "Second British Empire" (1783–1815): Company rule in India and Britain's imperial century (1815–1914): East India Company in Asia, British Raj. According to that page, British Empire in India = Company rule + British Raj. In fact they mention the Company more than the Raj. Why is that deceptive? "Incorporate" doesn't mean copy without alteration. It means "To combine or unite into one body, to mix or blend thoroughly together (a number of different things or one thing with another)." (OED) How have I not incorporated mention of the British Empire in India (which was = Company + Raj)? I then discussed the edit with Nichalp and it was debated for a full month afterwards. How was I being deceptive? If I had introduced it deceptively, wouldn't six weeks of open discussions, in which every word was debated, not have brought it out? Again, now that I have explained what the British Empire in India was and what "incorporate," means, you need to withdraw "sneaking in" otherwise, as I have explained, I will take you to ANI, and they will explain the meaning of the three words all at once to you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- i love the sarcasm and persistent attempts at insulting. Incorporating mention of British empire in lead from user:Saravask's version of 14th Nov. 2006) is the edit summary you used to incorporate the company in the lead. here are two reasons why i think you "sneaked it in". 1) according to the edit summary, you are introducing british empire, but in reality, you added British Raj and East India Company 2) according to the summary, you are refering to Saravask's previous edit. but, in reality, he had not mentioned the word company in his edit. --CarTick (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe you don't understand the meaning of "sneak in." But now that I've explained it, you need to withdraw it. Otherwise, as I've said, I'll take you to ANI and they will then explain the meaning to you again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- But how did I "sneak it in?" "Sneak" in the English language means "to put, bring, or take in a furtive or artful manner." What did I do that was furtive or dishonest? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
This has been pointed out on several occasions - we do not go in to the details of other empires so why make an exception to the British Empire? Mentioning EIC is an unnecessary detail which is completely out of place given that we don't mention how the Maurya Empire (or any of the other empires) was built or how it has influenced the modern Republic of India. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly Zuggernaut. Why even mention the British Empire when the Mauryas, the Guptas, and all the other Indic empires go unmentioned. That's why in my
- everyone understands British empire means both company and raj. but, mentioning the empire is not the same as mentioning both. it is not a minor edit that you didnt need to explain. the fact (as you admit) that you discussed it with Nichalp only after you added it doesnt help your cause. please take it to ANI.
- By the way, your responses at 13:13, 13:38 and 14:06 (see above) to my simple question whether you were the one who added company in the lead first were while verbose, quite confusing and misleading. please dont confuse verbosity with correctness. --CarTick (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Everyone understands British Empire means both Company and Raj, but, mentioning the Empire is not the same as mentioning both." Why are you not upset that I mentioned the British Raj, why only the Company? CarTick, I suggest, that you not increase your burden of inaccurate allegations. Now you are calling my explanation "misleading." What I said upstairs was:
Where have I misled anyone?? Now you need to withdraw both your "sneaking in" as well as "misleading." Why are you making life more difficult for yourself at ANI, CarTick?? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)"I went and look at the various history texts and copy-edited his version (mind you the British stuff was his idea; mine had nothing originally about the British) and came up with this version, which was more complete and added the bit about the East India Company and the direct administration by the British Crown, and I then made this post to which Nichalp responded in "blue" Notice that he said, "the current draft is better," in response to my revision of the British edit."
- "Everyone understands British Empire means both Company and Raj, but, mentioning the Empire is not the same as mentioning both." Why are you not upset that I mentioned the British Raj, why only the Company? CarTick, I suggest, that you not increase your burden of inaccurate allegations. Now you are calling my explanation "misleading." What I said upstairs was:
- I just realized that I've got CarTick to admit that" Everyone understands British Empire means both Company and Raj." Then, in the Alternative version of the Lead, why is he only mentioning the Raj?? Isn't that deceptive? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- i guess you are very angry. you might want to take some time off. anyway, if you are willing to accept this version with a different link? --CarTick (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I just realized that I've got CarTick to admit that" Everyone understands British Empire means both Company and Raj." Then, in the Alternative version of the Lead, why is he only mentioning the Raj?? Isn't that deceptive? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm angry at your naked lying and blatant dishonesty. I had no idea you could sink this low. It shows that Misplaced Pages's basic weakness. That an editor like you, who has made minimal contributions to this page, none whatsoever to History of India page, who has apparently been seething with resentment and only resentment, for a very long time, takes hostage a page, and others have to stand by and watch. As for what I need to do with my time, Dr. Freud, if your psychological knowledge is as complete as your historical, please keep it to yourself. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
We need to stop this worthless argument which is taking us no where. Requesting both Folwer and carTick to stop throwing allegation against each other and be constructive. Regarding the second paragraph in the lead, kindly see this discussion which had taken place a few months ago regarding the use of Mahatma Gandhi's full name. Talk:India/Archive_28#Mahatma_Gandhi Pdheeru (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Also regarding the second paragraph in the lead, the disagreement is only whether to include the EIC or not. Other sentences in the second para seem to have consensus. Since we are headed nowhere regarding this EIC issue, I suggest a voting for or against including EIC in the lead. The voting should be open for a reasonable period of time.Pdheeru (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
CarTick's inaccurate allegations
| Shutting this down before it turns into another boxing match. Points have been clearly made by all, no progress will be made at this spot. Continue elsewhere if necessary. General consensus to get back to work anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I'm listing CarTick's problematic statements for future ANI reference, but also giving him one more opportunity to retract:
It seems to me that having found yourself in a soup with your allegations, you are now making up reasons and explanations on the fly. It is better to cut your losses, and retract your "sneaking in" statement. Otherwise, you will only make my task at ANI easier. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Copy editing for grammar and choppiness before FAR
I'm copy editing the page before nominating it for FAR. Since the article is now going to FAR, it will be worked on by many people. It is one time when everyone gets to have a go at it. I have to do copy-edit, because the FAR rules say, "Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies," and "Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement." I can't very well turn in something shabby knowing fully well that it is shabby. People at FAR, who take time to work on an article, tend to get irritated if the page hasn't been minimally checked for choppiness, grammar, cohesion and coherence. Nothing that I do now is etched in stone. I am listing below any significant changes that I make. You are welcome to post objections or improvements either now or during the FAR process.
- "India, which lies within the Indomalaya ecozone, displays significant biodiversity with three hotspots located within its area." --> "Lying within the Indomalaya ecozone, with three hotspots located within its area, India displays significant biodiversity."
- "One of the seventeen megadiverse countries, ..." --> "As one of the seventeen megadiverse countries, ..."
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Politics section (up to the Government subsection) is poorly written. I have just copy-edited the first paragraph. Here is the dif for it. Since, most sources use "Congress" instead of INC, I have done so as well. Since I don't know the names of all the political parties, please make sure I haven't made any major mistakes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just copy-edited the second paragraph for choppiness and coherence. I've made it more complete and story-like. Here's the diff for that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've now completed the Politics section (up to just before the Government subsection). Here the diff. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The Government sub-section seems well written. No changes needed there. Will attend to the rest later in the day.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)- Copy-edited "Politics" for residual choppiness (diff).
- Copy-edited "Government" subsection. Please correct if I have introduced any errors. This section is on the abstract side, and I expect editors at FAR will want some of the terms explained better. (diff). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Light copy edit of the Judiciary subsection. (diff). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Light copy edit of Administrative Divisions subsection. (See diff.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Copy edited first paragraph of "Foreign Relations" (diff). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Copy edited second paragraph of "Foreign Relations" (diff). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Finished copy editing the "Foreign Relations" section. (See diff). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Copyedited first paragraph of Military. (See diff). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Copyedited the second and final paragraph of Military thereby finishing section 4. (see diff) Sections 3 and 4 are now done. Will work on the remaining sections later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- One more light copy edit "Foreign relations." diff. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- One more light copy-edit "Military" (diff) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Copy edited first two paragraphs of economy. (See diff). Stopping for now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
notice to India page watchers
it may sound like a crazy conspiracy theory, but please watch for this. there is a subtle but elaborate attempt by some users to separate India and Indian history from South Asian history for reasons i still cant very well understand. Look at this Template:History of India, like history of India starts only from British Raj? Template:History of South Asia shows all history you would have expected in History of India template. I also would like to bring to notice (without any prejudice about the merit) of the attempt (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_Indian_inventions_and_discoveries#Requested_move) to move Indian discoveries to South Asian discoveries. Consider all of these with the lead of this article which mentions hardly anything about Indian history other than the British time and IVC. how fancy it is to think India and Indian history start with British intervention? --CarTick (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- This would have sounded like a conspiracy theory to me a few months back. Now that I have worked with Fowler for months, it is clear that he has an agenda on Misplaced Pages and a very strong POV. He initiated the move request (from "List of Indian inventions and discoveries" to "List of South Asian inventions and discoveries")and then encouraged User:Mar4d to game the system to achieve his goal of deleting 'India' and replacing it with 'South Asia' when he saw that people voted against his move request. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just looking at this, the history of India template is titled History of Modern India, in which case starting from the Raj seems appropriate (not starting from the EIC, which I suppose should make some happy). It has see alsos to the wider history.
- The requested move looks good if considered in its wider goal, which is to standardise the lists of Indian and Pakistani inventions. From what I gather, even if it was moved, a new list of Indian inventions would be made, covering post-1947, which would be the same as the Pakistani list. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Template:Part of History of India exists as well. i am more interested in the History of South Asia template. let us step back and look at it from a larger perspective. --CarTick (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, yeah, yeah. More paranoid musings. Please consider relaxing with a fine chilled chablis.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose CarTick you could argue for a renaming of Template:History of India to Template:History of Modern India, or even better, Template:History of the Republic of India, but in terms of the actual appearance of the template, there isn't a problem. The template name is not shown to the reader anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Template:Part of History of India exists as well. i am more interested in the History of South Asia template. let us step back and look at it from a larger perspective. --CarTick (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Misplaced Pages articles that use Indian English
- Selected anniversaries (August 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2005)
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused