User talk:Jayanta Sen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Jayanta Sen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  (SEWilco 03:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC))

Contents

[edit] Oil proposal

An interesting proposal at Kyoto Protocol. There are a few problems.

  • The article is about the Kyoto Protocol.
  • The section is about the U.S. government.
  • Original research is not allowed. WP:NOR
    • You're assuming market forces would affect OPEC prices in a certain way. It is not an open market.
    • You're assuming a rise in taxes will produce a certain amount of tax income.
    • You're stating high gas prices will cause reduction in usage while also saying payments will offset those high prices.

— (SEWilco 03:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC))

"... $200 to $250. The US government would get an extra $167 a month..."

$167 from $50? (SEWilco 13:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Famine

Why don't you actuallyc provice some information on where Sen got his data, contemporary scholars disagree with his interpretation.--nixie 21:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Answered on "Bengal Famine" Discussion page Jayanta Sen 02:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Good work on Bengal famine, a big improvement to an important article. Still more to be done over the next few months but definitely now heading in the right direction. See my (brief) comment on that article's talk page. 86.142.232.45 04:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your kind comments. If you log in with a username I will be able to keep you informed. Best Regards Jayanta Sen 10:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Heinlein

I put the "dean" back in because it's true that he *was* occasionally called this. But I dunno if it's more than a publicity thing. I would be perfectly happy to see it gone. As for his science and engineering, I don't think you can pick on just *one* of his books and draw sweeping conclusions. He wrote 30 or 40 and the "hard" science in them is noticeable. (Also, "Glory Road" was more or less fantasy.) Read the other comments in the Discussion area by other people who have a lot to say about how he would spend days and days working out equations etc. They know more about it than I do. But I do know *this* -- he was widely considered to write hard, accurate S.F. -- and many, many S.F. writers tried to emulate both the way he wrote and how he tried to make it reasonably accurate. Certainly he was far more scientifically inclined than, say A.E. van Vogh. But you gotta remember one important thing: he was still writing *fiction* -- not science articles for "Scientific American".... Best, Hayford Hayford Peirce 23:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World cup 1938

[1]

You changed this part. Actually, I think the previous version was more accurate, showing both misinterpretation and the correct version. Please consider reverting to the prevoius version, i see no slander in that --Jollyroger 09:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am very very doubtful anyone really believed that Mussolini would have executed the Italian footballers if they did not win. Are there any other instances of Mussolini executing any other sportsmen due to their failure to win? The saying "Win or Die" sounds similar to "Live free or die" the official motto of New Hampshire
  1. These words were spoken by Antal Szabo himself, so someone (the goalkeeper of the match) actually misunderstood those words. The fact they could be just a poor excuse was cited as a possibility.
  2. There are no instances of sportsmen killed, but this don't matter here. The fact portrays clearly the widespread feeling about italian government in those years, when fascism was starting to be an enemy after being a positive example (Churchill himself repeatedly reported admiration for Mussolini)
  3. Vincere o morire is quite different from the motto you state. A misinterpretation is easy when translated (see talk), but the words "o morire" could sound like a threat if someone do not know the historical background
  4. The passage as is now is quite hard to understand and has lost some true informations. Nothing important, maybe, but a minor historical fact
  5. This fact is a quite famous trivia in italian soccer culture.

Definitely, I think a partial rollback could needed. --Jollyroger 21:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Check it out. I added a reference --Jollyroger 07:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famines in India

Hi, Jayanta Sen! I think it's pretty hard to come by the sort of concrete evidence you request. There is comparatively little info about Kerala, Malayalees, etc. in general and even less on the Web. However, I will try to see what specific figures I can find.

In the meantime, though, I propose a compromise. For now, we can keep most of the article as it is. In return, could you do the following?
(a) Include the paragraph I wrote in the "Possible Causes" section, and
(b) either delete the last sentence in the "Famines and democracies" section or change it to "There have been no famines though the population has almost tripled." Whether this is an "impressive" achievement depends on your point of view.

By the way, my real name is Vijay. And finally, thank you! :) --Kuaichik 00:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all - thank you! I thought we needed some more detailed references to Sen's work in the article, which as it stood before largely ignored one crucial element of his thesis - namely the shift in exchange entitlements. Sikandarji 10:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amarnath

Just to finish off yesterday's stuff (and hope I am not boring you too much !). Wisden Asia Cricket ran a survey to select the best innings by Indian batsmen. Amarnath's 91 at Bridgetown came 23rd (Dec 2004 issue, p.53). The relevant comments on the innings read :

Rajan Bala : The best account of the remarkable courage in Barbados was given to me by Ravi Shastri. In the second innings, Amarnath had been hit a sickening blow on the mouth by Malcolm Marshall and was forced to go off the field. When Ravi went to the bat a little later, the first thing he saw on the pitch was blood. And at the same time, inside the dressing room, Amarnath was washing his bloodied shirt himself preparing to return to the crease. He joined Shastri when the fifth wicket fell. He was bounced again and he hooked again. (that's all; no mention of four or six)

Harsha Bhogle : Some years ago Amarnath told me the full story of the hook shot. When he saw the short ball, his first instinct was that it was going to hit him again. ... But he went at this one with his bat, and luckily it took the top edge and flew away to the boundary.

Individually these don't mean anything. Even when considered together with the scorecard, we don't have any proof to decide that he didn't hit a six, but I guess there is enough to raise some suspicion. Tintin (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just worried that if it is just a story, we should not help in perpetuating it. Tintin (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yelnya Offensive

Yelnya Offensive Nickmolo 14:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Stalingrad

Ah come now you've got to be kidding me. You've reinserted some rabidly point-of-view crap that barely qualifies as English. Do encyclopedias really talk about people having "character"? Do encyclopedias transparently plug an irrelevant book twice in the same paragraph? Shall we begin sentences with words like "Besides", "First", "Next", perhaps as a rule always preceding a sentence with a wholly superfluous, nondescript adverb? Discipline discipline discipline discipline? And why would you not link to Paulus, preferring to omit his first name?

There's simply too much ground to cover for us to converge, so curiously unreasonable I find your gesture to be. I'll leave to you the last word, anticipating a future passerby reasserting the objection: not because I think you're being reasonable, but because I suspect you're unreasonable.

I'm sorry, but the paragraph is logically inconsistent, horrendously inarticulate, poorly organized, and tragically moralistic. I cannot even imagine how it could be that you'd disagree, but I am confident we've both got better things to do than argue about it.DBaba 02:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly you find the movies more relevant than what actually happened in this war. Obviously your style of writing is different than mine, but somehow your post does not excite me enough to return insults. Jayanta Sen 02:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bengal famine

I'm not making a point about famines not happening in democracies. Many people are of the opinion that the British deliberately caused the Bengal famine, I'm not accusing you of this but the line about 'No famine after independence' is often used by some of proof of this. One can argue about the exact cause and whether the British response was appropriate but I don't think any balanced history would conclude that we deliberately caused the deaths of 3 million Bengalis.

There were doubtless many famines before the British arrived and a couple of near misses after we left. To me this suggests that India would probably have had some famines whether the British had been there or not. That's why I find the 'No famine after independence' line to be point of view.GordyB 07:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

99% of my edits are on sport and I'm generally not interested in history pages. However I belong to a forum where this article was seen as justifying the belief that the British caused the Bengal famine. I don't know if you can see this (as presumably you are not a member), if you can you can probably see my point [2].
As for facts, it is a fact that India did not have a famine after British rule ended. However, it is also a fact that democratic India did have problems with food supply. It is also a fact that Bangladesh which suffered greatly from the Bengal famine, had another famine post-British rule.
I think the use of one fact here can contribute to the article being seen as biased, I suggest that either analysis of British India versus independent democratic India is better left at the main Famine in India page or a more developed section should be written.GordyB 09:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you be interested in reconsidering the idea of Independent India never having a "famine"? At the very least, could you define "famine" and clarify this in the article (or let me clarify it once you have defined it)? --Kuaichik 18:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hello Kuaichik, What you suggest sounds reasonable. As a start I looked up the word famine in dictionary.com:

1. extreme and general scarcity of food, as in a country or a large geographical area. 2. any extreme and general scarcity. 3. extreme hunger; starvation. Taken together dictionary.com seems to suggest that a famine is a widespread food scarcity that happens in a "country or large geographical area" and leads to extreme hunger/starvation. This is not what others would define famine as, for example Amartya Sen would say a famine can be due to lack of purchasing power rather than "food scarcity" (FAD). I suggest that as a bottom line, we take famine to mean widespread extreme hunger leading to a significant number of deaths through starvation. If you agree with this definition, then we can examine whether such events have occurred in post-independent India. Regards, JS 20:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for leaving a post on my talk page, here, and in Bengal famine of 1943! I am watching this page.
If we are to see whether a famine, by the definition you seem to suggest ("widespread extreme hunger leading to a significant number of deaths [at least 0.5 million] through starvation"), has occurred in Independent India, we need to find figures for anything that may be considered a famine. These figures are terribly hard to find, especially since the Indian government (like any government) tries to maintain a positive image and withholds a good deal of information that might tarnish that image.
Also, as Imc asks: "Do livestock deaths count?" According to [3], 18 million cattle died in Saurashtra. --Kuaichik 22:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. With respect to livestock deaths, India is in a special position. Due to the consideration given to animals, and especially cows, most Indians do not eat beef. That results in an over-population of cattle, and in times of scarcity larger number of livestock deaths. I have seen many underfed cows roaming the streets of Delhi, whose owners do not have the means to provide for, yet will not slaughter. During times of livestock feed scarcity, sending off cows to the slaughterhouse is not an option for most. Regards, JS 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh, heh...true, most Indians don't eat beef...but most Malayalees do! In fact, it was once quite common to eat beef. Nowadays, it's not so common since chicken is cheaper.
So, does this mean that cattle deaths count or not? And what about in the case of what happened in Kerala; would cattle deaths count there? :) --Kuaichik 02:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I have heard that it was indeed a common practice even for Hindus to eat beef, there are parts in the Vedas that talk of cow sacrifice. The prohibition was introduced so that people would not eat the cows during the famines, and not have cows to plow fields with etc. in the later years. All this may just be stories, I cannot confirm its veracity. I think the "cow famine" that was referred to in the article was in Gujarat. There the religious prohibition amongst Hindus is rather strong. I am working on a project right now, and may be a bit tardy in replying. Hope you are having a wonderful Holiday Season! JS 07:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! You, too! Yes, I've heard that claim as well, but I think in Kerala this was mainly due to an exchange of beliefs between people of different religions. (Note also that even religious Christians in Kerala are sometimes worried about caste)...We'll see what figures we (or I!) can find. --Kuaichik 14:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 or 2007

It says so right in the logo: "BCS National Championship - Arizona 2007". link CrazyC83 21:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to BCS National Championship Game 1998

Your recent edit to BCS National Championship Game 1998 (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 04:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate, this however was a legitimate edit. JS 23:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Fort

Sorry, I put the wrong URL int he copy vio notice. The text of the article was lifted from http://library.thinkquest.org/11372/data/redfort.htm - I have fixed the copyright tag and listing to reflect this. Proto::► 21:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bengal Famine (Discussion, Part II)

It might also be useful to look at Myhrvold-Hanssen's paper Democracy, News Media, and Famine Prevention: Amartya Sen and the Bihar Famine of 1966-67, available in PDF format at[4]. Unfortunately, it does not provide very many specific numbers concerning the death rate. I'm not sure about the severity of the change in death rate, either...but it seems to include more detail we could perhaps use. --Kuaichik 07:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kuaichik, Thanks for the link. I read Myhrvold-Hanssen's paper. I find some problems with it. He starts off by saying that India has not had significant welfare increases. He writes "Although welfare-state-like aspirations from time to time, the overall poverty reduction is not by any means astonishing. About 47% of the Indian population lives below the international poverty line..." This begs the question "Why was the growth of population in the last 50 years of the British rule 35%, whereas in the 50 years following 183%?" If we are to play Myhrvold-Hanssen's game of death rates, then we should also consider the births that may have happened but did not due to food shortage during the British rule. If we extrapolate 183% - 35% = 148% less births, the number crosses a hundred million. It would be informative to look at birth rates and population growth in democratic countries like the US from 1891 to 1941 and compare them to the India. Basically I disagree with MH's initial assessment that welfare gains did not come with democracy. The post-independence population increase was directly a result of increase in food availability. Regards, JS 08:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Also the most important number in MH's paper is "13.9 per thousand". He hedges quite a bit when he writes "Excess mortality is always difficult to measure, but the Annual Report on Vital Statistics of Bihar 68, suggests a death rate of 13,9 per thousand in 1967, compared with a normal of about 10 per thousand." Note the words "suggests" and "about". Maybe it is just the nature of subject and better estimates are indeed impossible. Even if we accept his numbers, then there is an excess death rate of 0.39% of the population. Comparatively 3 million during the Bengal famine would have been approximately 5% of the population. This is a very crude calculation on my part, you may want to do it better, I am guessing the population of undivided Bengal was 60 million, about 17% of the total Indian population. So the percentages differ by an a factor of 13. Does this make one a famine and the other not? Lies in the eyes of the beholder I suppose.
Numbers should be looked at carefully. Note that MH compares 1967 to 1968. If indeed scarcity of food killed more people in 1967, it is possible that it may have disproportionately affected the old and the sickly. In that case the death rate for 1968 would have been lower than average. So comparing 1967 to 1968 would exaggerate the effect to 34%. The proper measure would be comparing 1967 to the average of many years (not just 1968), or even the average of 1967 and 1968 to many years. JS 08:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't replied in so long! We could probably discuss endlessly whether or not there was a famine after Independence. From what I understand, though, you acknowledge that many people died as a result of scarcity of food in several cases.
I am not (yet) disputing the idea that there has never been a famine after Independence as severe as the Bengal Famine. But would you consider adding (or allowing me to add) some sort of note indicating that there have indeed been several situations, after Independence, in which several people died due to a natural phenomenon (or a combination of natural phenomena)? To say simply that "though malnutrition and hunger remain widespread, there have been no famines" can be misleading. To say "there have been no famines" might give the impression that all of a sudden, there were no more situations in which (for instance) the inhabitants of an entire village were suffering from hunger. --Kuaichik 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello Kuaichik, Sure you are welcome to add any information you believe is accurate. Details are helpful. I am sure you will also not mind if I add clarifications. As for deaths due to malnutrition, I think that is quite widespread in the world. The critical question is "what does the word famine suggest to the reader?". Is it people dying due to malnutrition, or is it a million corpses lying by the side of the road? The life expectancy of an Indian is about 67 years, compared to an American's 77 years (approximate numbers). Part of this difference is due to malnutrition. Extrapolated to the entire Indian population it means over a hundred million extra deaths a year. Does it mean India is a permanent state of famine? What about the increase in life expectancy from 52 to 67 (again approximate numbers) in the last fifty years? Does it mean India was in a permanent state of famine and is coming out of it?
If you wish to cite MH as your source please be aware that he has really hedged a lot with words like "suggest" and "about". Also his comparison of 1967 to 1968 is bad statistics. It would be really interesting to examine his data and see if 1968 had a lower death rate than average. That could be interpreted as something good happened to Bihar during this time, but that again would be bad statistics.
Objectively I think the most important numbers are the growths in population: 35% from 1891 to 1941 and 183% from 1951 to 2001. This shows a tremendous increase in availability of food, while at the same time a Malthusian imperative leaving a portion of the population malnourished. It is hard for anyone to claim there were famines when the food availability and population were growing so rapidly. JS 22:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
JS 22:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/y/User_talk%7EJayanta_Sen_0b9d.html"