Talk:Culture of India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Culture of India was the Indian collaboration of the week for the week starting on May 8, 2006.

For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] More on Culture

This page needs a section on cultural history and since culture is so closely linked to religion in India, a note on Islamic and western influences. I think we also need more on the actual culture of India (or diversity of culture) and less about art (or it should be called 'Indian culture and art' and be a redirect from indian art and indian culture). Any thoughts? --Pranathi 05:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cuisine

This section elaborates how vegetarianism developed in India. While that's definately a part of the culture, I think it should concetrate on the different cuisines across the country, spices etc. I am not qualified to put it in myself but would love to see a contribution to that effect. --Pranathi 22:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC) Yes i think its true, because indian culture relates a lot to religion like islam and hinduisim.

[edit] cricket?!

how is cricket not mentioned in this entire article!! (bemused surprise here) although, i suppose the article could be intended only to discuss cultural aspects derived from only indian culture (as opposed to british imports). i dont think we can overlook the role the british played in shaping modern india, even if it was mostly for the worse. the influence of the english language, fabian socialism and its influence on Nehru, as well as sports like cricket and field hockey (india's national sport is not included??) should make an appearance in this article. --Gozar 8 July 2005 08:05 (UTC)

I definitely agree. Be bold and fix it. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} July 8, 2005 08:33 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I just realise that possibly being not exposed to Cricket (I presume because you're an American), you may not be able to contribute here. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} July 8, 2005 08:43 (UTC)

I see your point but I was not planning on going into great detail about cricket, I would basically just say that it is extremely popular both professionally and recreationally in India and that it was introduced by the British. I'm not sure a lot of exposure is a neccessity, but let me know if you think there needs to be more detail! --Gozar 8 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)

You're right. More detail doesn't belong here although it can help Indian Cricket. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:04, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Hell...

Someone tag this with a clean-up!

[edit] INCOTW

This is tough, very tough....;)--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I second that. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 15:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)~

D'uh

--Andy123(talk) 10:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organisation

The first thing that needs to be discussed is how the pag eshould be organised. There are a couple of strange headings like "Scientific culture," "Military culture" and "Overview" which should probably be merged with the introduction. Many topics have been stated but not yet finished. Yet haveing looked through the subcategories of Category:Culture, the topics which we haven't mentioned are clothing, festivals and general hisory of culture. Otherwise, everything else has been covered to an extent. Gizza^Chat ^© 11:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the political and military culture sections, they don't belong in an article on culture.--Sendrin 21:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

It is very unencyclopedic, there are places where it says "One would be surprised to notice that..." and there are claims all over the article with a huge POV. It pretty much says Indian art, traditions and everything else are the oldest in the world! Gizza^Chat ^© 11:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with you, sir. I also find the article writing very choppy and unorganised. Many of the paragraphs are not sourced properly. It would be better if we can find an expert to work on the subject. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, despite being a contributor to the article, it must be admitted the tone is at places unencyclopedic. The lack of references is conspicuous. Actually, the article recently was Indian collaboration of the week when several editors contributed, but, unfortunately, without supplying good references. The subject is so huge and complex, readying the draft in itself was tough enough. Hope we shall be able to modify the tone, and add references, soon. Help is needed from all interested editors. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title of the article

I have already explained in the edit summary of this change which I made to the article. This change was reverted by another user. I find that the word culture, in this article should be perceived in a capitalised sense. I need to have the views of other editors before I go ahead and make the change. Thank you all. --Nearly Headless Nick 12:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The correct form is "The culture of India", owing to the fact that "culture" is not a proper noun. robchurch | talk 13:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

who cares??

[edit] Arundhati Roy

I'm curious, isn't a Booker Prize something considered very prestigious, and a winner of a booker prize worthy to mention as a novelist here, along with the others mentioned here? I'm not comparing a Booker to a Nobel, but according to Booker Prize, (the Booker Prize) is one of the world's most prestigious literary prizes,. So, unless it can be shown how a Booker can be just ignored as yet another prize, we can consider her only qualification to be good enough to include here. I request comments from others in this issue. Thanks. --Ragib 06:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I do think that the Booker Prize is a substantial acheivement. I would argue that the list is incomplete right now and a number of other authors such as Bibhutibhushan, Tarashankar Bandopadhyay, Mahasweta Devi, Amrita Pritam, etc also deserve to be on the list. A good additional reference is The Gyanpith award. In any case how can anyone argue that a country of 1 billion people's literature is complete without having a SINGLE female writer??? And how many of the authors now are in any of the languages other than a handful of major ones? So in my opinion Arundhati should stay AND others should be added. Cheers.--Anirban 06:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Who said abt the exclusion of any female writers ?Amrita pritam , Mahasweta devi and others should surely be included. Bharatveer 07:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Then what's wrong with Arundhati Roy? Surely, the Booker Prize, as I mentioned above, is one of the most prestigious awards in the literary world. --Ragib 07:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

She is just a one book wonder. She should never be included in this list.Bharatveer 12:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Let her be. But, do we ignore a widely-recognised prize and exclude her based on your personal opinion? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a list of prize winners. This is a list of the great indian litterateurs.She is not qualified enough to make it into the list.Bharatveer 12:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My personal preference is generally not to mention specific names while discussing general subjects. Where we must include, there should be an objective criterion for inclusion and the sentence around the list should mention that. This requirement for an objective criterion can be relaxed where we intend to be "illustrative" instead of being "exhaustive". This is tenable only as long as there's no contention. I don't have a specific opinion on Arundhati Roy, but since there's a contention, I feel that a criterion needs to be defined. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Who decided on them being "Great"? What's your criteria for inclusion? I hope you have an objective criteria, as mentioned by Sundar above. Thanks. --Ragib 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A. Roy has 8 published books and several articles to her credit. Probably you have not considered her non-fiction works. Moreover, she is a Sahitya Akademi Awardee(2005). Please dont remove her name without giving valid and objective reasons. Panchhee 10:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cinema of India

This section starts with Hindi and then focusses on mostly Tamil films including a section on Nayagan (which was recently added). I propose that this be deleted since it doesn't add to the article. As much as I like the film, I think it would be better suited in the cinema section since it doesn't DEMONSTRATE any new point. I've reverted those edits by an anon IP, but if someone would like to add something about Tamil films without being POV, that would be great. --Antorjal 13:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] classical dances of india

I'm not rele sure but i dont think that bhangra can actually be called a classical dance of india, its more of a folk dance.88.109.12.134 13:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC) vaidehi

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/u/l/Talk%7ECulture_of_India_0542.html"

Categories: Past Indian collaborations of the week | B-Class India articles | B-Class India articles of Top-importance | Top-importance India articles