Talk:India/Archive 33

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Request for Comment: Irrelevant Picture in a Featured Country Article

Questions by Nikkul (talk · contribs):

I'd like all of us, especially those favoring the Toda image, to answer these questions.

  • Are the Toda's the only Indians whose culture has been studied by foreigners?
  • Is their contribution to Indian culture soooooooooo strong that when one mentions Indian culture, their name pops up?
  • There are tribes of witches see here that survive throughout India in small numbers. Over the years they have formed a culture and traditions. Their population is tiny. If one follows Fowler's logic, are we justified in putting an image of witches dancing around a fire as representative of India's culture?
  • If small groups like the Todas can have their image on Wiki, then why cant the Chenchus, Konda Reddis, Kolams, Naikpods, Nishis, Apa Tanis,Khovas, Sherdukpens, Monpas, and all other tribes listed here? Who decides that the Toda's are going to have their image on Wiki and not the other tribes?
  • Instead of putting an image that applies to small small small minorities, wouldnt it make more sense to put an image of something that represents all of India (like Hinduism)?
  • Some editors are trying to represent all parts of India in the images displayed. Are the Todas spread out throughout India? Are the Todas representative of even South India?
  • If they dont deserve to be mentioned in the section, then do they deserve to have an image there?
  • Should the Toda image be present in a summary of a section when they represent .0001% of what that section is discussing?
  • Aren't there images that would better represent Indian culture than the Toda hut? Is there a paucity of images relating to Diwali, Cricket, literature, cuisine, dress (all of which are mentioned in the section)?

Reply to Nikkul questions

The logic in most of your questions in flawed Nikkul. I will demonstrate the fallacies by posting similar questions for the other images:

  • Is Gandhi the only major historical figure that has been studied by foreigners? Is the Indian peacock the only bird studied by foreigners?
  • If the Agni missile system isn't mentioned in its own section, does it deserve to have an image there? If the Secretariat Building doesn't deserve to be mentioned in its own section, does it deserve to have an image there? If the Bombay Stock Exchange isn't mentioned in its own section, does it deserve to have an image there?
  • Why should we have an image of the peacock when it is only one of the ~1260 species of birds in India (let alone the number of animals in total)

Do the Taj Mahal and Tagore represent ALL of Indian culture? Does the Taj Mahal represent Hindu temple architecture, Indian cuisine and dress? Does Tagore represent Hindi and South India literature?

  • Nehru isn't mentioned in the history section? Why do we have an image of him?

Now to reply to some of your questions, if we put an image of Diwali or cricket, that in now way would mean it "represents" Indian culture. One image can never represent one aspect of India. An image can only be an example of that aspect of India. As of now, the Toda hut is an example of tribal Indian culture (and they comprise 8.1% of the total population) and an example of rural India (70%). It is not the only example of tribal and rural India, but if it is replaced it should be replaced with something that does exemplify at least rural India. There is a fairly strong urban bias at the moment. The only images that can essntially represent "all" of India are the maps. :) GizzaDiscuss © 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Gizza, you have to realize that approximations are not transitive. The number 10 is almost 15, which is almost 20, which is almost 25, et cetera, but that cannot let you make a statement that 10 is almost 1,000,000. The Todas represent 0.0001%, you claim that this representation is approximately enough to represent the 8.1% tribal population, and you claim that the 8.1% tribal population is approximately enough to represent the 70% rural population, and you're implicitly claiming that this is enough to approximately represent all of India. At each step you're okay, (although I still find how 0.0001% can represent even the 8.1% tribal population very suspect), but your conclusion uses broken logic when you try to tie the steps up through transitivity. 10 is not approximately 1,000,000 even if each number N is approximately N+1. That said, I don't think anyone here is claiming we should find a image that perfectly represents India. The debate is over preferring pictures that are more representative of India by orders of magnitude than the Toda pic. It's not a bimodal "doesn't represent India" vs "does represent India", it's about degree and see WP:WEIGHT for more info. -- Thoreaulylazy 16:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
No DaGizza is not saying that the Toda dairy represents rural India because tribal India is an "approximation" of rural India, but rather that it represents rural India because tribal India is a part of rural India (or at least non-urban India). The relation which DaGizza is talking about is not approximation, but rather inclusion, which has the transitive property. I don't know why you keep making these ridiculous percentage arguments. Who does Tagore represent? How many Indians are upper-caste Bhadralok Bengalis who have won the Nobel Prize and written a national anthem or two? Zero at the present moment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please put Taj Mahal's Photo

please put Taj Mahal's Photo in Culture section........it is more good and a nice article can be written on it !(unsigned)

What are you trying to say??? KnowledgeHegemony 17:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Some queries

  • Many of those who support the removal of the Toda image often point to the numbers, arguing that they only represent 0.0001% of the population or something like that. Firstly, would you support the coverage of Uttar Pradesh on this article be 200 times greater than Sikkim under a similar line of argument? I know many will refute this statement by saying the numbers are far more extreme for the Todas which brings me to my second point.
  • The India itself states (cited) that 8.1% of the Indian population are tribal. That is more than the number of Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and every other religion combined apart from Islam and Hinduism in the article. If we were to say use the Toda image as an example of tribal India (not just the Todas) then we could add in the caption "one of the thousands of tribes in India" or something. There wouldn't be one image that represented tribal India. Hell no. We can only exemplify it, and why not do it with the most beautiful Indian tribal image available? Of course, some of you may even say 8.1% is quite small for an SS article.
  • There isn't one image on this page that shows rural India, and nearly 70% of Indians live in rural areas. We have a Bombay Stock Exchange tower and an Agni Missile parade, both of which show urban India. If not exemplifying tribal India, the Toda image also is an example of rural India. Again, there is no one image that can represent every rural Indian. This is probably the only FP that does show that very crucial part of India.
  • If the Toda image is removed, I would like another rural image to replace it, not Tagore. Tagore represents the historical side of India, which is already covered by Gandhi. I firmly believe the rural side needs to be adressed since they represent more than half of India. GizzaDiscuss © 10:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, Tagore represents literature, dance, and to a lesser extent, art and music, in addition to being the most notable and visible representative of Indian Culture. I've suggested compromises that have more images and are inclusive, rather than 'either, or', 'black, white', 'good, bad'. If there are only two images, Tagore represents the widest spectrum of Culture, and notability. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
You have a point, but I think the problem is coming down more to mistaking ethno and demographics for culture. The Agni missile is in the foreign relations and military section, Toda hut is similarly apt in a section that says that India has a number of tribal societies which forms a large part of its minority population.( ie, demographics) Culture of rural India is probabaly a different kettle, but again, with regards to what I've said above re music, performed arts, festivals etc, you will find are applicable to rural India too. Tagore influenced literature, but I would've had him in a different section. Half the problems in this article arises of the lack of consensus to expand, while the section themselves remain incredibily small and hardly enough info.Rueben lys 10:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Tagore represents history more than culture? you need to do more reading. Tagore apart from himself being the literary giant that he was, toiled a great deal to revive and rejuvenate many art forms. It was at Shantiniketan that Manipuri and Kathakali and Bharatanatyam came together. Manipuri, especially owes a great deal to him. But for Manipuri dance, I guess the only reason we'd ever hear of them would be when some assembly building gets burnt down or something or when a militant group functioning as a parallel government issues visitor passes to you and me. If it is the pristine beauty of the Manipuri dance that comes to mind when we think of Manipur, the credit must go Tagore. And as long as we cant decide to rotate photos worthy of the culture(and other) sections (something I'd suggested long back), Tagore remains the least controversial and least likely to cause revert wars. Sarvagnya 10:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Entirely agree with you DaGizza. In fact I would go further. Here is an extract from something I wrote somewhere upstairs, "We should expand the culture section by 30%, but about four-fifths of the expansion (i.e. 25% of the culture section) should be devoted to the culture of the Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes of India. Since according to the 2001 SC-ST Demographics Table the SC+ST add up to 16.2+8.2 = approximately 25% of the population, and since their culture is largely outside the mainstream culture of India, it is reasonable that we do this. That means that the current text (which is all about the mainstream culture will be expanded at most by five percent." Some thing along those lines, but in the culture section, not in demographics. That also means the most expansion will be in the realm of tribal/rural culture." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there should be some part of the culture section devoted to the culture of Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, but doing some sort of percentage quota system is not part of any Wikipedia policy that I know of. If it were, we should dedicate 80.5% of the article to Hindu culture. There actually does need to be some discussion of the influence of all religions in India on Culture, not just in passing as it's done now. And it should be more than in increase of 5% because of the relevance of religion on Indian Culture. I've had the sense this issue is being avoided due to past disputes along these lines, but it does need to be addressed in this article, IMO. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Entirely disagree with you fowler? What is the culture of scheduled tribes and castes of India, huts? You've just accepted what you're trying to enforce (is the only word I can find) is not the culture of mainstream India, and what are you saying, you'e going to right a historical wrong, is it? Please look up what wikipedia is not. I have given above an outline of culture of India as given by the Indian high commissions in two countries, which is ideal for use as a template. Could you at all find me a brief summary of Indian culture then?Rueben lys 12:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
>>> Rueben lys stated" What is the culture of scheduled tribes and castes of India, huts?
I asked you if you consider Folk culture and Tribal culture to be a part of Culture and you referred me to your statement, "I think the problem is coming down more to mistaking ethno and demographics for culture." By "ethno" did you mean "ethnography?" If not, please explain what you meant. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No fowler, I meant ehtnicity in a broader demographic context, misinterpreting social culture as a representative of Regional culture. Please dont start playing with words because it will get tedious and deviate from the main issue here, which was and is if the Toda hut is an appropriate representative of Indian culture, and wether images of some festival or performing arts or similar will not be more appropriate. Incidentally, have a look at Kolkata#culture (although I would also put an image of a Bandh there). Rueben lys 14:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Also, if the section's expanded have look at the United States article, I thought it was very well structured and made sense. Rueben lys 14:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

By "ethno" (a word not to be found in any dictionary), you meant "ethnicity in a broader demographic context misinterpreting social culture as a representative of Regional culture?" What exactly is "ethnicity in a broader demographic context?" As for your link social culture, which really is subculture, India is not a highly urbanized society like the US, where there are subcultures like "Crawford County Back-to-the-Landers" (urbanites in a certain area who gave up their city lives and started farming in middle age) etc. etc. India is a largely rural society (65-70%), a large percentage of which (30% of rural males, and 54% of rural females) is still illiterate. If you are going to give examples, why bother with the US, which is not an FA, why not go straight to the country FAs. Eleven of the fourteen include images of Folk culture, rural culture, and even subculture in their culture section. Please check them out in my RfC statement (collapsible box). Meanwhile I will await your explanation of "ethnicity in a broader demographic context" I should warn you that which each outburst like, "What is the culture of scheduled tribes and castes of India, huts?" you are digging your semantic hole ever so much deeper. Fowler&fowler

«Talk» 15:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  • My what outburst fowler!!! ethno I truncated from ethnic and am soooooooo mortified that it noffended your sensibillities. I bothered with the US, beucase it is a good article and it was well written, I have also mentioned calcutta which is an FA, if you're get you blind goggles out of the way. The Toda may have had a lot of references is the same (in fact worse) grounds as the Indian National Army having had a lot of references. Oh, and I am quivering in my shoes for you warning because I am so scared your going to scold me. If you're stupid enough not to see that I am trying to say that the Toda people, with their 1000 people tucked away in the Niligiris do not form Indian culture, then you really should go to special needs school. As for your rural and tribal culture, which form of rural and Indian culture have you so far found to be so distinct from Urban Indian culture that only the toda image can represent it? that they live in mud huts, is it? Well, here's what, they sing and listen to the same music, speak the same language, have similar performing arts, have similar social practices, eat similar food, have similar social customs and sensibilities, see the same movies, cheer for the same cricket team. I am not going to go into your idiotic rant about doing an amazon search in south america to tell me that only the Toda culture is representative of India. If in doubt I have given you a template from the Government of India sources, find me a reference that says the Toda are the culture of India or stop making idiotic arguments. Enough is enough!!!Rueben lys 16:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I am offering you eleven of the fourteen country featured articles. They all have images of Folk, Rural or Tribal culture in their culture sections. What do you offer in turn? The US, which, again, is not an FA. And Calcutta, which is not a country. It is a large city to be sure, but its urban or suburban environs would not be the best place to go looking for Rural, Folk, or Tribal culture. You can call me idiotic all you want (I've been called a lot worse), but the fact remains, Wikipedia works by producing reliable secondary sources, and you haven't produced any. A Government of India template is not a reliable secondary source for culture, unless one is trying to decide what date the annual Id holiday will fall on this year. As for your remarks about my "idiotic rant about doing an amazon search in south america," all I can say is this: I would love to go to the Amazon river and while away the hours watching the piranhas murky-up its lazy waters; however, I was actually only talking about doing a search for the keyword "Culture" on the on-line bookseller amazon.com Furthermore, I was pointing out that the second book that appears in that search is anthropologist Clifford Geertz's Interpretations of Cultures," which I would highly recommend. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Here we go with your disengenuity again!!! Fowler, no one is suggesting that Folk, rural tribal whatever other al-culture you might find appropriate should not be included, the US template I said(look above) was well written, and I found well structured. If you think breaking up into some other type is more appropriate do that. And a Govt. of India source is not reliable for the countries culture??? What land do you come from??? Sounds irritatingly patronising to say the least. And your anthropologist Clifford Geertz says Toda culture is an appropriate representation of Indian culture, does he? And I am loving how you're now hooked to secondary sources, tell you what, why dont you show me a secondary source that tells me what "Indian culture" is? And while you look for it, here's another site from your not so trustworthy Government of India, and here's one sourced from your beloved UCLA, the latter surprisingly similar to the untrustoworthy Govt of India webiste (copied no doubt!) but forms a good guide form what might be Indian culture, wont you say???Rueben lys 20:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Oh, and since when did Amzaon the best databse for good books? I thought it was a commercial bookretailing website with substantial competing interests. I would've personally preferred something you found on academic databases, or at least reviewed in it.Rueben lys 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Rueben lys, Reliable Sources, and my forthcoming IIM

I am reproducing below an exchange from a section upstairs.

>>>The question, as I see it, is the quality and reliability of the product I produce on Wikipedia. Period. For example, when I am finished with my Short History of the Indian Independence Movement, I will be happy to write to any five historians (of your choice) from the list of references and ask them if they think the article is balanced and also if they have other constructive suggestions. How does that sound? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
>>>Silly, because I am neither going to go and check wether you really can or have written to them, nor going to verify what they said becuase, as I said I have enough confidence in my own knowledge and understanding as well as on my own associations and sources who I dont bandy about writing to, who have already told me what they think about the Indian movement. And lastly, I really dont care if its not published or verifiable. But yes, if they do suggest any constructive thoughts to them, by all means, incorporate that into your account.Rueben lys 11:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I am anticipating that user:Rueben lys is going to throw up all sorts of hurdles when my Indian Independence movement article is ready (its about 3/5 complete now), I would like readers to take another look at the list of references. There are 36 books, and I haven't added any papers yet. I am certainly not aware of a more thorough list in any Indian History article. Since user:Rueben lys doesn't want to take up my offer, I am willing to offer that editors on the Talk:India page select five authors from the reference list (and I'm happy to make it ten authors if you'd like.) and we can then have some reliable administrator (for example, from the Arbitration Committee) send these historians an email and ask if they think the article is balanced, and if not, how it should be altered. How does that sound to the readers of this page. I am mainly trying to pre-empt the kind of pointless enervating arguments we have had in the past. More importantly, user:Rueben lys's words, "I have enough confidence in my own knowledge and understanding as well as on my own associations and sources who I dont bandy about writing to, who have already told me what they think about the Indian movement. And lastly, I really dont care if its not published or verifiable," are incredible to me. They fly in the face of everything Wikipedia stands for. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Fowler, you've just created something out of nothing, so congratulations. I have left comments on the talk page of the project you're creating, and I am disappointed you see my comments as hurdles rather than constructive criticisms. I had no intention of throwing up hurdles and am quite offended that you hold such scant regards for a fellow editor's contributions.
My point about verfiabillity goes to Verfiabillity, which is a key wikipedia policy and does not fly in the face of anything that wikipedia stands for. Lastly, you ignored the last sentence where I said if they offer you constructive criticism, by all means incorporate that. Remember, not everyone is going to email a professor to ask if what is said is right or appropriate (and hence the wiki policy). Even administrators are wiki editors and do not have a high ground over other editors (see WP:ADMIN). My point is what you say should be thoroughly verifiable. You're welcome to email as many authors as you like, wether that email exchange concludes as a verfiable reference is a different issue. I have said before I appreciate the work you're doing in the IIM, does not neccessarily mean it is perfect or cant be improved. And yes, you have included a lot of books, but no papers, and you did criticise some of the opinions I sourced from peer reviewed journals in the last debate. If I may say so Fowler, you need to take a step back and see wether aggravating a perfectly calm situation to try and prove your PoV. Your work will always be open to scrutiny, and you have to be able to defend them and improve on them. I am really tired of your incessant bickering and chldish approach to every issue where I have corresponded with you.Rueben lys 12:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The papers I am planning to include are review papers (or rather papers on the topic of the entire independence movement). I remain firm that papers (or books) on a specialized sub-topic do not belong to a general history, as they will inevitably highlight the subject of their study. For example, the role of Scotsman George Yule (fourth president of the INC) in the Indian independence movement, will loom larger in a biography than in a book on the overall independence movement. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Replace 'independence movement' with 'Culture', and 'Scotsman George Yule' with 'Toda Huts', and you have exactly what we are saying above. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
(To Rueben lys):By "ethno" (a word not to be found in any dictionary), you meant "ethnicity in a broader demographic context misinterpreting social culture as a representative of Regional culture?" What exactly is "ethnicity in a broader demographic context?" As for your link social culture, which really is subculture, India is not a highly urbanized society like the US, where there are subcultures like "Crawford County Back-to-the-Landers" (urbanites in a certain area who gave up their city lives and started farming in middle age) etc. etc. India is a largely rural society (65-70%), a large percentage of which (30% of rural males, and 54% of rural females) is still illiterate. If you are going to give examples, why bother with the US, which is not an FA, why not go straight to the country FAs. Eleven of the fourteen include images of Folk culture, rural culture, and even subculture in their culture section. Please check them out in my RfC statement (collapsible box). Meanwhile I will await your explanation of "ethnicity in a broader demographic context" I should warn you that which each outburst like, "What is the culture of scheduled tribes and castes of India, huts?" you are digging your semantic hole ever so much deeper. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
(To Priyanath) Not quite. As I have already indicated the Toda have a large number of references (specialized) in the two main academic catalogs (US Library of Congress, British Academic and National Libraries (COPAC); more, for example, than Chola Temples. The Toda are also mentioned in pretty much every general book on Cultural or Social Anthropology (not specialized). George Yule, unfortunately has only two references: his inaugural speech to the INC and a collection of his speeches. The problem as I see it is that you and Rueben are excluding Folk, Tribal, and Rural cultures from Culture, as evidenced by Rueben's outburst above. BTW, most definitions of "culture" have been made by anthropologists. In fact if you do an amazon.com search on "Culture," the first or the second entry will be Clifford Geertz's Interpretations of Cultures, which is one of the classics of 20th century anthropology, and which, I highly recommend, if you have some time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The toda are not a notable part of general Indian Culture, and therefore should not take 50% of the image space in the Culture section. Your arguments for notability still rely on extremely narrow anthropological studies. You are also wrong in claiming that I am trying to exclude Folk and tribal cultures from the Culture section. I've offered three ways of including them during the last several days, without even a single acknowledgment or response from you. Other editors have responded. Your preference for invective and ad hominem attacks instead, suggests a strongly held ideology. It unfortunately is getting in the way of any resolution here, and in the proper application of Wikipedia policies (which have been extensively quoted above). ॐ Priyanath talk 17:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • My what outburst fowler!!! ethno I truncated from ethnic and am soooooooo mortified that it noffended your sensibillities. I bothered with the US, beucase it is a good article and it was well written, I have also mentioned calcutta which is an FA, if you're get you blind goggles out of the way. The Toda may have had a lot of references is the same (in fact worse) grounds as the Indian National Army having had a lot of references. Oh, and I am quivering in my shoes for you warning because I am so scared your going to scold me. If you're stupid enough not to see that I am trying to say that the Toda people, with their 1000 people tucked away in the Niligiris do not form Indian culture, then you really should go to special needs school. As for your rural and tribal culture, which form of rural and Indian culture have you so far found to be so distinct from Urban Indian culture that only the toda image can represent it? that they live in mud huts, is it? Well, here's what, they sing and listen to the same music, speak the same language, have similar performing arts, have similar social practices, eat similar food, have similar social customs and sensibilities, see the same movies, cheer for the same cricket team. I am not going to go into your idiotic rant about doing an amazon search in south america to tell me that only the Toda culture is representative of India. If in doubt I have given you a termplate from the Government of India sources, find me a reference that says the Toda are the culture of India or stop making idiotic arguments. Enough is enough!!!Rueben lys 16:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

>>>Said by Priyanath: "I agree that there should be some part of the culture section devoted to the culture of Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, but doing some sort of percentage quota system is not part of any Wikipedia policy that I know of. If it were, we should dedicate 80.5% of the article to Hindu culture. There actually does need to be some discussion of the influence of all religions in India on Culture, not just in passing as it's done now. And it should be more than in increase of 5% because of the relevance of religion on Indian Culture. I've had the sense this issue is being avoided due to past disputes along these lines, but it does need to be addressed in this article, IMO." ॐ Priyanath talk 15:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Very sorry, I didn't see this post until just now. I don't disagree with many of the things you are saying. Will reply in more detail later in a couple of hours. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't a Hindu (like Diwali) image represent rural and urban India?

Do we HAVE to separate rural and urban India? If we have an image showing Indian culture that applies to rural and urban india like the Diwali image, doesnt it make more sense to use that instead of separating rural and urban india and seperating it into groups it applies to? Why cant we use a Diwali image from rural India? Nikkul 18:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It would depend on the type of Diwali image if it would suffice. Three of the images on the Diwali page, namely Image:Diwali Jaipur.jpg, Image:Office Complex.jpg and Image:Knadil.JPG all show the modernisation of Diwali and would strengthen the urban bias already present on this article. The problem with most of the other Diwali images is that though they are "neutral," in that there is ambiguity in whether the photo was taken in a village or a metro, is that there are two images that purely show urban India. I don't ask for rural images to dominate this article (even though they represent 70% of India) but at least balance the urban images. The historical images and maps are not applicable when it comes to classifying them as rural/urban and the other images all show cities of India. Since Agra has a population of 1.4 million, even the Taj Mahal can be argued as an image tilted towards the urban side.
Just to let everyone know, I am not equating rural India with poverty, which people may be thinking of in an era of globalisation. There are plenty of enriching rural images of India and one of them is the Toda hut, despite its obscurity. I am not suggesting it is the only one of course. If there are other beautiful pictures of rural India already on Wikipedia or if someone is willing to upload some, I would appreciate them to add links to the images on this talk page. Thanks GizzaDiscuss © 02:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

One week after the RfC and what high-school students in India are reading

Well, it has been a week after the RfC began. I just read through all the comments. I also wondered what high-school students in India are reading about culture. As I had expected, their books were more sophisticated than I had thought. Here is chapter 8 "Culture in India" from NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training) text-book, "Structure of Indian Society." Notice the choice of words, "Culture in India," not "Culture of India." Please read through the chapter. This is not the New Series written after the change of government in India in 2005; the book was actually written in 2002 under the BJP government. Notice, how much emphasis it places on Folk and Tribal culture. I will propose something later.

Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. And here is chapter 5: The challenges of cultural diversity of the new series, published in 2006. Obviously, this is more sophisticated than the 2002 version, but the point I am making is the both versions take a broader view of culture than is being taken right now in the Wikipedia India#Culture section or the page Culture of India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

PPS As well as chapter 3: Social Institutions-Continuity and Change in the new series which talks about, caste, tribe, etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Fowler, the book reference you provided is a book on sociolology that itself says it focusses on the basic structure of the Indian society and on the social change development in India (per chapter 1, pg 6, it doesn't say it looks into Indian culture. It describes Demograpic (ch2), Building blocks of Indian society,castes tribes etc (Ch 3), socio-cultural dimensions of the market as an institution, chapter 5 on social inequality, chapter 6 (pg 7 says) deals with the strength and weaknesses of cultural diversity (communal and casteist issue etc), it looks at community identity (p 116), ideas of secularity, communalism etc. It is not a study of culture .

However, you're right in that chapter 6 it tries to examplify what constitutes cultural aspects of the different communities of India, but if you see again, it uses pictures of food, clothes, religious events (festivals as I interpreted), etc. I might have overlooked, but I saw no mention of distinct rural or Urban culture. I think this is actually more supportive of the view that music food, dance, clothings, customs etc are more representative of culture than the image of the Toda hut.

If you're suggesting that the cultural diversity be expanded under different subheadings, that is not the point of the mediation (I think most editors agree the section deserves to be expanded, as does the article). I haven't looked through the link you provide, but The issue of the RfC is wether the image of the Toda hut is significant and representative enough to deserve as much space as it does over those of other more prominent stuff that exemplify cultural aspects of India, and if not should it not be replaced with these oter images. You do realise the end result of all this bickering has been a waste of time when somebody could have written a replacement text. I get the feeling there is more storms in teacup going on in this page because useful contibutions are being "disallowed". Also on the issue of FA status and article space, note that the Battle of Normandy is more than 1MB long.Rueben lys 00:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I read through Chapter 8, and contrary to supporting a picture of a Toda dairy, it devotes considerably more text to Music, Dance, Theatre, and Mass Media. A single paragraph is devoted to 'Art and Architecture' whereas those other three topics are at least thrice as long, with Mass Media being an entire page. (See pages 103-105) I don't see how repeating art and architecture with a Toda hut, since the Taj Mahal is already an example of art and architecture, can be supported by your NCERT reference. If anything, the NCERT text supports a picture of Bollywood given the considerable weight to Mass Media. Next to that, Bharatanatyam, Banghra, or some other Indian music/dance form. I would suggest looking at your references more carefully before trying to cite them as supporting evidence. -- Thoreaulylazy 02:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Results of the RfC

The RfC, which started a week ago, is now closed. I would like to thank everyone for taking part and I am sure Priyanath will as well. I had framed my statement as a series of complex questions. Most people didn't answer those questions necessarily, but they got their point across whether they wanted the Toda image or not. I then conducted a straw poll to test for consensus as WP:DEMOCRACY allows. I am including the people who in the past had expressed their "vote" in some fashion or people who commented in the RfC, whether in their own comments or comments on other peoples comments. Before I give you the results, I should like to point out that Nikkul made some mistakes in the list he had presented as a part of his comments. Here they are:

There were two mistakes made in the "Against Toda" list:

  1. Univerese=atom explicitly said here that in the matter of the Toda image debate he was neutral. See his edit here. So he cannot be counted in for or against.
  2. A user nareshkumar.pj (talk · contribs) made only two Talk:India edits after the Toda image arrived on the page, edit1 and edit2 in neither of them did he express any thoughts about the Toda image. So he cannot be counted either.

On the other side of the ledger a number of people who had wanted to keep the Toda image were not listed. Here they are:

  1. dab (𒁳) 11:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC) made this) edit, but he was not included in Nikkul's list
  2. Sumanth|Talk 12:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC) made this edit, but it was not included in Nikkul's list.
  3. Seraphiel 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC) made [ this] edit, but it too was not included in Rueben's list

Here are the votes:

Against keeping the Toda image:

Votes cast during the RfC
  1. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. KNM Talk 17:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Samir 02:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Bakaman 23:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Nikkul 23:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Rueben lys (talk • contribs) 14:19, 6 October 2007 (This RfC)
  8. Thoreaulylazy (this RfC)
  9. Sarvagnya (this RfC)
  10. Blacksun (this RfC)
Votes "cast" in Talk page discussion during the period March to September 2007 i.e. before the RfC
  1. The Behnam (earlier)
  2. Gnanapiti (??)
  3. Amartyabag (talk · contribs) (earlier)
  4. Indianstar (earlier)
  5. Dwaipayan (earlier)
  6. apurv1980 (earlier)
  7. Holy Ganga [1] (see below)

(Total "Against Toda" votes at the time (08:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)) of RfC closing: 17)

  1. Amarrg —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC) (Added after RfC was closed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC))
Nice try, fowler. When did the RfC start, when did it end, and who closed it? How come you have counted votes in "For keeping the Toda image" which were made in April and May and chose to ignore mine. Smacks of bias... -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 06:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I posted the RfC on September 30 and I closed it a week later on October 8, when the pages were archived. No one is stopping you from adding your vote in the way it is displayed above; however, since the post-RfC discussion refers to the RfC results, it is not fair to change the actual results at the time the RfC was closed. I have now split the results into those cast during the RfC and those "cast" before it. Had I included only the "during RfC" votes, the decision would have been stronger for keeping the Toda image (as you can see in the new format). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

For keeping the Toda image:

Votes cast during the RfC
  1. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Wiki Raja —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Raja (talk • contribs) 01:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kathanar--Kathanar 02:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Pharaoh of the Wizards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk • contribs) 12:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Watchdogb 00:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. deeptrivia (talk · contribs) 17:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. GizzaDiscuss © 10:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC) (this RfC)
  8. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC) (This RfC)
  9. Taprobanus 13:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC) (This RfC)
  10. Sundar \talk \contribs 05:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC) (This RfC)
  11. Saravask 22:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC) (This RfC)
  12. Arvind 21:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC) (This RfC)
  13. Sinhala freedom 04:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC) see his/her edit here. Although this is not a straight vote for keeping the Toda image in the culture section, it certainly is vote for making a big effort to keep it in the article.
Votes "cast" before the RfC
  1. Abecedare 11:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC) (see his edit here)
  2. Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC) (see his edit here
  3. dab (𒁳) 11:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC) See his edit here
  4. Sumanth|Talk) 12:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC) See his/her edit here
  5. Seraphiel 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC) See her/his edit here

(Total "For Toda" votes at the time (08:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)) of the RfC closing: 18.

There is consequently no consensus for removing the Toda dairy image. The majority of the votes are for keeping it; and that goes for all votes (i.e. cast before the RfC and during it) as well as for votes cast or comments made during the RfC. (Each "for" vote has a time stamp and label that allows you to figure that out.)

Priyanath, I am now asking you in all good faith to restore the Toda image and remove that of Tagore until further options are clarified.

Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The split votes, not counting the fact that your("for toda" group) arguments for having it were unconvincing(to put it kindly) just go to show that there is no consensus to having the toda image... not for not having it! Nice try, though :) Sarvagnya 08:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Gee, after a Wiki-lifetime of crustiness you are showing me the smiley face? Methinks something is rotten in the State of Denmark. Just last week you left a not so smiley Only Warning on my talk page, which exhorted me to "stop edit warring against the consensus on the India page." When I took my discontent to ANI here, and the reviewing administrator agreed that the warning was unnecessary and removed it from my talk page, you not only slapped it back on again, but chose to expound on it on the admin's talk page. Why the new-found affability now? And where is that vaunted consensus that I was edit-warring against? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I see no consensus for keeping the Toda image. I believe a controversial image needs consensus for keep. Further, WP Policy, as quoted, clearly is against keeping a non-notable image that is not relevant to the article. RFC is not a 'vote'. And I certainly see no consensus for removing the Tagore image. I will not remove the Tagore image (and will replace if removed), but would consider my compromise proposals above for having more images in the Culture section. Short of those compromises, I propose an interim measure while the section is expanded and this can be discussed in the context of the expanded version: There is room in the section for three images - Taj, Tagore, Toda. I believe that sequence is also appropriate because they are in order of notability, and each image would be in the part of the article where they are mentioned (except for toda, which isn't mentioned at all in the article). This would also give the toda image 33% of the undue weight, less than it's current 50%. I'm asking you, Fowler, to show good faith also, just as I am showing. I'll wait for approval from others before taking this step. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
But how did the Tagore image get there in the first place. The way I remember it is that you couldn't stop chuckling when you stood in front of the mirror and mumbled India and Toda in one sentence. Here are your choices, (a) remove the Tagore image until all issues are resolved, (b) find me a Wikipedia policy that says chuckling in front of the mirror constitutes consensus (and be warned then that I can chuckle with the best of them). In other words, please remove the Tagore image as well. Let only the Taj image remain until all issues are resolved. If you don' remove the Tagore image I will take this to ANI. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. As for expansion etc., senior people like Nichalp, Ragib, Saravask, Sundar, and other regular contributors like KnowledgeHegemony, Blacksun, U=A, Abecedare, and any others that I might have missed need to be consulted how much the article or section can be expanded by. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a beureaucracy, and none of the so called "senior" members own this article. I have left the suggestion in this page. I will post the outline, when it is ready, for recommendations of improvement, and then I will add it. I see a pattern emerging here where everything gets opposed on the basis of "consensus" and "senior members" and "page space" etc etc that is stopping this page from getting improved, and a core group of editors, one or two most prominently is cleverly gaming the system to oppose anything and everything that they dont want included. This includes the process of using RfCs and then threatening arbitrations and issuing warnings and ANI and what not. This needs to stop. And lets get this clear, there is no "senior" members.OK? Knowledgable yes, not more equal, allright? Your argument and edits are only as good as your references. Rueben lys 17:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Rueben, what do you think "Senior" means? That they are older and get a higher salary? Obviously in the context of Wikipedia, it means more experienced with how the India page works and where it is headed. Please stop projecting your own sensitivities on other people. No one has been unwelcoming to you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
No body has been unwelcoming to me???!!!Fowler, when I remind you that you started reverting my first edits three months under various pretexts, intially accusing me of writing my own version of History, before dragging the matter out in an extended RfC with the most liberal utllisation of trolling I ever encountered, you're not about to suggest you wanted to make feel welcomed, are you? As for wikipedia working having more experienced editors determining the way an article is headed, you really do need draw the distinction between WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS. 19:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, Fowler, and show good faith. Please also discuss the merits of the proposal, rather than ad hominem attacks against the person making the proposal. I believe the article is improved with all three photos per my suggestion, rather than just one (taj). I think the last thing we need here is another RfC, this time on the relevance of the Tagore image, or on my good faith proposal. I repeat it here so others can comment:

Image Proposal (copied from above): "I propose an interim measure while the section is expanded.... There is room in the section for three images - Taj, Tagore, Toda. I believe that sequence is also appropriate because they are in order of notability, and each image would be in the part of the article where they are mentioned (except for toda, which isn't mentioned at all in the article)."

P.S. I believe Fowler's proposal to have only one image in the Culture section, the Taj Mahal, also has merit as a compromise and is worth discussing. But I sincerely believe the article is better having the three images that I mention, since two of them are actually mentioned in the Culture section, and the Tagore image covers a wide swath of different aspects of Culture - literature, poetry, dance, music. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Just saw this. Will be in touch in a few hours. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
There's no hurry. It would be good to have feedback from others here for a few more days. Since the RfC was so evenly divided, and showed no consensus either way, some sort of compromise will be needed. Another RfC would be unfortunate. Perhaps there are some other potential solutions - right now we only have the two above. ॐ Priyanath talk 18:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
No. The section is long enough for us to have only two pics and we will have two pics. There isnt enough room for three pics and therefore we wont have a third pic. Even if we were to have a third pic, it wouldnt be Toda... not in the culture section perhaps not anywhere in the article considering the amount of opposition it has attracted. The only compromise I can think of is to gather the best pictures from across all states/(state)wikiprojects and rotate them article wide. Rotation can be as frequent as once in 2 or 3 days so that pictures from across the country get represented and nobody has to wait in queue for an inordinate amount of time to get featured on this article. This would also mean that there would be nothing sacrosanct about a pic of the Taj or of Nehru and Gandhi or an ajanta cave painting. Each pic will have its couple of days under the sun and then will go back to join the end of the queue. The maps can be spared. All this can be automated(I think) on the lines of Saravask's edit that I reverted yesterday. This way, there'll be something new and of interest in the article each day and we'll be spared of any more futile and pointless debates by the likes of Fowler with regards to pertinence, weight, word count, etc etc.,. Sarvagnya 05:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I can see that there's not enough room for three pics, especially with the long captions that each has, and which the toda photo has by neccessity since it's not mentioned anywhere in the article. I keep going back to having a photo representing the tribal history/culture/demographic somewhere else in the article - or in an (appropriately) expanded Culture section. I haven't heard any opposition to the idea of having a representative image of the tribal demographic in a relevant place in the article. I believe that's the compromise that everyone would be happy with. There is so much opposition, from so many editors, to the unrepresentative toda image, that it's clearly not the appropriate one. That means finding a more representative image, and looking at where to place it. I'm not crazy about the rotation idea, because it will probably mean everyone wanting this or that non-relevant image at the expense of relevant ones. Is there an example of that being done somewhere so we can see? ॐ Priyanath talk 15:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
You cannot count the votes the way you want, fowler and take everyone for a jolly ride. We are not jokers here to fall to your pranks. Show good faith and see that the count is 18:18 and not 17(?):18 based on your biased and down right funny arguments. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 06:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
You "voted" 36 hours after the RfC was closed and archived (i.e. wasn't available to see on this page.) I've done two RfCs before this and each lasted a week. There are no specific Wikipedia guidelines about the length of the RfC, but you can't say that it wasn't advertised. It was advertised in three RfC lists (Societies, Arts and Media, and Religion); in addition it was advertised on the India notice board, on WikiProject Anthropology, WikiProject Music, WikiProject Arts, and on the Village Pump. A discussion had ensued here which referred to the results of the RfC. RfC are about building consensus and not about votes anyway. If I were playing by the book, I should have only included the votes cast during the RfC. Counting only those, the results are 13 to 10 for keeping the Toda dairy image. I included the previous "votes" because I was trying to be fair to the other side. Regardless of how you do your accounting there is no consensus for removing the Toda image, a Feature Picture that has already been on the India page for ten months. I think I am being fair in displaying your vote with the main results for everyone to see, but not including it in "count" which has already been referred to in the ensuing discussion. If you feel I am not, you are welcome to bring it up on WP:ANI. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
If you are starting an RfC, the ideal thing for you to do is to indicate when are you going to close the RfC, so that people will know. Landing up one fine day and suddenly announcing that you are closing the RfC, is not the right way. RfC are about building consensus and not about votes anyway - it was you who started counting the votes, it wasn't me... And please stop flashing the "Featured picture" card. The Toda Hut became a featured picture on various factors, least of which is its relation to India and its culture. It was featured more than an year ago and if I look at the Featured picture criteria, all points are related to the quality of the image and the only point where an article is mentioned is point no. 5 and if you look at the discussion which selected the Toda Hut image to be featured, the article mentioned is Toda people and not India. While its inclusion in Toda people article is perfectly relevant, its relevance to the India article is still questionable (will be questioned in future as well by new editors as and when they come in) as can be seen with the number of people who are against its inclusion. The image has already had sufficient advertisement in the India article for quite some time, its time we move on to better ones. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 14:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Amarrg's quote: "RfC are about building consensus and not about votes anyway - it was you who started counting the votes, it wasn't me..."
No, it wasn't me either. The "vote" or "straw poll" was begun by user:Nikkul in his Comments by Nikkul. Nichalp and others questioned the poll. I made my own entreaties with him to remove the list, not least because it was reducing the complexity envisaged in the RfC and confusing people into thinking that the voting was mandatory. However, Nikkul and other "Against Toda" editors like user:Bakasuprman insisted on having the poll, confident that they had the "votes." Eventually, I gave up. However, when the votes were tallied, and they came out "For Toda," the other side began to complain.
Your suggestion about having a preset expiration date on an RfC, is, unfortunately, unworkable in practice. What determines the "end" is the quantity and the nature of traffic in the RfC and not a preset date. The last official comment was made by Rueben lys on October 6. After that the discussion, both within the RfC and without, began to focus on how to expand the article and with what.
Anyway, this is as far as I go with explaining my actions. You are welcome to pursue the matter further in the manner of your choosing. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the disruption being caused by the drive-bys?

I would also like the India page editors to look at this pagehistory utility. Please type: India and then wait a few moments. Notice that the total number of edits made by the "For Toda" team is almost ten times the total number of edits made by the "Against Toda" team. Notice also the large number of drive-bys, i.e. people who don't really work much on the India page but every once in a while come by and make a big splash. The last three disruptions have been caused by drive-bys. Rueben lys, Priyanath, and Throreaulylazy. When "in house" editors disagree like for example, Blacksun, or Indianstar, or others have done, it seldom causes any disruptions. user:Sarvagnya is, of course, by now a serial drive-by, the sum total of whose contributions to the India page are two ugly sentences: "Many classical dance forms exist, including bharatanatyam, kathakali, kathak, kuchipudi, manipuri, odissi and yakshagana," and a similar beauty about festivals. He held up work for many days in January with trying to get "yakshagana" in this list. After all that I found out yesterday, while I was reading the Britannica article on South Asian arts that the Sangeet Natak Academy (the principal official organization for music, dance, and theater, confers classical status on Indian dances. In the Britannica article which was from the late 70s only six dances were listed and Y. was not in it. Casually perusing the SNA web site, I discovered that they now award annual awards and fellowships in nine dances: bharatanatyam, kathakali, kathak, kuchipudi, manipuri, odissi, sattariya, mohiniattam, and something called chau. But Y. is not on that list. I have written to them to ask for a reliable source for the classical status. But my point remains: How come these people never want to help out with any real work? If this problem is not resolved, I see the India page getting bogged down in more and more recondite problems. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Do I need to dignify this benighted trash with a response? oh.. sheesh.. i just did. lucky you! huh. Sarvagnya 05:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
No the disruption is being caused by unscrupulous editors who are disallowing oters to make a contribution

Fowler, your dishonesty seems to sink lower and lower! In addition t the fact that you've categorised me as a drive by editor without understanding what drive by means, here's what I have to say. When I did start editing, you were the only person to repeatedly revert my edits by claiming they were controversial, too long in a short summary article, not well referenced, too long references etc etc. The result has come to be that I do not edit the India unless I see that it wont lead to a long drawn war of words with others, notably you. And BTW, my edits now are expressing opinions in the talk page, which is what it is meant for, it is not disruptive because I am not disrupting the article page.That it is entirely disagreeable with your strongly held opinion and to your dislike is not my problem. No doubt others will be forced to say the same thing.

You haven't yet shown us any reference secondary, teriary, qauternary, decanery whatever that says what culture in India is, all you've given is a class 12 sociology text book that tells us to be tolerant of each others cultre and not to start communal riots. I have. As for consensus on the RfC, I dont see any consensus, nor do I see the 1 week time as sufficuent for enough editors to express their opinion. Notably because you've overcrowded this page with your repeated and proggressively more disingenuous statements and dubious arguments on providing references.Rueben lys 11:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a free for all. If you want to have your contributions feature in a developed article, you need to deliver quality. F&f may come accross as rude sometimes, but without his constant criticism, this article would look much, much more dilettantic. You should thank him. dab (𒁳) 11:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you sir, Wikipedia is a free for all to whoever wishes to make a constructive edit and nobody, not fowler not my dad not George Bush owns it. I can and I will contribute in a manner I am capable of. If it is not up to the standards expected, improve it. And he comes accross as rude not sometimes, but all the times.And I should thank him for what??? For repeatedly being disruptive and picking fights and deleting other users contribs williy nilly??? Rueben lys 11:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
well said Nikkul 02:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
..."I am not taking part in this discussion of the Toda Hut image anymore because I am too tired of it. If any poll of some sort comes up about images in the "Culture" section, bitte (German for please) count me in it by reading what I have put in earlier posts (e.g. Mysore Palace discussion and others). Thank you"June 15... Quote from mysore palace discussion: "my alternative would be to replace the Toda Hut image with the Sari fabric image, partially because of its FP status (which is not a requirement but certainly a bonus), because of its high relevency to the text, and because of the beauty of the picture itself."(hence user favors replacing image with mysore palace. Nikkul 02:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
"I agree with Indianstar. There has been a lot of back and forth about which images are appropriate for the India page. One has to look revisit all the images on the India article. We can start with the what Indianstar has pointed out." he agreed with indiastar about what indiastar had said b4 "Current images does not fit relevance to contents and regional balance criteria.(E.g There are two tribal related images " when one agrees with another who opposes the image,he also opposes the image Nikkul 02:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

New section needed on Science and Technology

I proposed nearly a month ago adding a new section on Science and technology. I haven't had any responses to that. I will wait for a couple of weeks and if no suggestions are put forward, I will use Science and Technology in India as a template to add a new section. Rueben lys 00:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to add information. Addition of pertinent info can never be a bad thing for an encyclopedia... in fact, the whole point of an encyclopedia is to have information. So, go ahead and add all you've got and we'll take it from there. Sarvagnya 06:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Rueben, count me in to make contributions to this section. I dont think you need to wait sufficiently to get things moving. Science and Technology is a must where we can talk of Vedic Mathematics, Raman Effect, Ayurveda and the like. I am a late entrant in this article but have been closely watching the goings on. I think its time to move on to better things than dog kennel (read Toda Hut) related discussions -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 16:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this needs to be discussed more. I will sound out the others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Religion section

I propose adding a religion section which right now exists only as a part of demographics. Religion is an integral part of human life; more so in India. Also, India being the place where various streams of religious and philosophical thought coalesced, it makes sense to treat it at some length. Religion in india is more than just the oft-repeated 80% hindu, 15% muslim, 2% christian and 3% - the rest statistic. These religions (including the likes of Buddhism, Jainism have co-existed in India for over a thousand years, perhaps something that no other country in the world can claim. Religion has dictated social and political thought processes in India since ages and continues to do so (this in fact, is true in almost every other part of the world, perhaps in varying degrees) A crisp section, tracing the evolution and dynamics(social and political) of various strands of religious and philosophical thought will surely add to the quality of the article. As also will some information of how the coming together of various religions led to enduring developments in the area of fine art, culture and philosophic thought. The Karnataka article has Religion as a subsection of "Culture".. though it is far(very) from perfect, I feel it is a start and could perhaps serve as a template for the India article. Sarvagnya 06:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we are ready for a religion section (or, in fact even a sub-section). Many other things need to be stabilized first. Anyway, why don't we have a vote on it first? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

For a new religion section:

Against a new religion section:

  • Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The last thing we need is the inevitable cesspool of religious wikiwarfare invading this article as well.Bakaman 02:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral:

  • I believe we should wait until the article is expanded and see if there is a substantial amount of information religion at that time. Before then, I think religion should be expanded in the culture section along with the passing references in demographics and history. It is important, but I'm not sure how important relative to everything else. GizzaDiscuss © 08:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Misspellings

Jewellry should be Jewelry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.174.121 (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Tribal house

For those wondering about the image. The dwelling in question is located within the city limits of Mumbai in the Sanjay Gandhi National Park on the way to the Kanheri Caves. Tribals do inhabit the park. So this is for all those out there who feign their ignorance about tribal India. Fowler's guess is pretty close, and the lush environs is because it was taken in the month of August. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's amazing! I'm impressed by the raised foundations and the shingled roofs. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to to with tribes or 'tribal india'. Houses like this with tiled roofs are commonly found all over the south(i havent seen much of north, so i dont know) both in rural and urban(outskirts) areas. A more 'affluent' (and 'two-storeyed') version of the same type of 'building' would look like this or this. The two pictures are from Chikkamagalur in Malnad where these houses with tiled roofs is the norm. In fact, it is the signature style of all of Malnad. Such constructions are equally common in Kerala and some parts of rural Tamil Nadu and Andhra. Sarvagnya 01:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Is Malnad a hill station? I ask because such construction, especially of the kind shown in your photographs, would typically (in north and northeast India) be associated with hill-stations, and would likely be a British influenced style. (If I had to guess the provenance of the buildings, in your first photograph, I'd say 1930s British inspired.) It is found hill rural areas as well, but that too is a budget version of the urban style. The rural style (as seen in late 19th century British photographs of Himalayan villages) was different. Anyway, very interesting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
PS And no, neither Nichalp nor I was implying that the style had anything to do with tribal India, I was just expressing surprise that it has appeared in tribal India in the first place. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Malnad is a generic term used to refer to all those districts of Karnataka that fall in the Western Ghats. Yes, hills, streams, waterfalls and coffee estates dot the landscape wherever you go; Karnataka's tallest peaks are in the region(in fact, quite close to Chikkamagalur) but Chikkamagalur for example, isnt usually counted as a hill 'station' like Ooty or Darjeeling. Madikeri's got to be Karnataka's most popular/famous 'hill station'. As for that style of construction, its typical of all of Malnad, even the non-hilly parts of Malnad.. like coastal Mangaluru. And even outside Malnad, the style is quite common in rural areas of Karnataka and the rest of Southern India. Sarvagnya 05:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

New NCERT Books and History Section

To: Rueben lys, Dab, Dwaipayan, Nichalp, Da Gizza, Abecedare, Sarvagnya, Hornplease, Knowledge-Hegemony, Priyanath, any others I might have missed. I thought it might be good to get our minds of the bickering and focus on something else: History. As many of you probably know the new NCERT books (for high-school students in India) for history and other fields have been coming out for some time now. They were written up in the New York Times about a month ago. They are available free on-line (go to: http://www.ncert.nic.in and then look for online textbooks) and I have added links to a number of chapters below. Obviously, they are not reliable secondary sources, but they are based on reliable secondary sources; just go to the last page and see their references. It seems that after 60 years of independence, (as with the Indian economy), the official historiography in India, after many ideological incarnations, finally has been floated on the market of international scholarship. For example, in the Indus Valley Civilization chapter, there is no more of the tongue twisting mumbo-jumbo of Saraswati-Sindhu-Gagghar-Hakra. It is simply Harappan or Indus. Same with many of the other topics. No more the "First war of independence," it is now simply the "Revolt of 1857." Finally also, after 60 years, there is a belated acknowledgment of the partition and its emotional cost. I am leaving them for perusal below. Their structure is not always linear, and they don't always focus on one topic, but they still might be useful as a general benchmark. It would be great if you could take a look at them, and feel free to leave comments about how Wikipedia might benefit from them. They are quite sophisticated for high-school. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Here they are. (BTW, these are not the controversial books of the BJP era.) And I am not suggesting, even by a long stretch that we use these as references, but that our articles be at least at the level of sophistication (especially methodological sophistication) displayed in these book chapters. That is currently not the case. Consider two WP pages: Indus Valley Civilization (a former FA) and Vijayanagara Empire (a current FA) (and related articles, Vijayanagara, Vijayanagara Architecture, Hampi). The corresponding book chapters below (although concentrating on a few things) nonetheless display a great deal more methodological sophistication. The Wikipedia IVC article is still in shambles because of various ideological wars; and the Wikipedia Vijayanagara Empire although an FA is a straight forward linear narrative (with a lot of facts but with no analysis or broad themes), and unaware, apparently, of Burt Stein's classic on the subject (that the high-school book references).

I think it would serve only to undermine Wikipedia's credibility if High school level textbooks are used as reference. There have also been newspaper reports about various inaccuracies in these books. In any case, I suggest NOT to use school level textbooks as references in any form here, when we have a sea of scholarly references available. Thanks. --Ragib 02:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Will we be scanning NCER-certified kindergarden level books in the future to see if the Toda's are represented in there too? Nikkul 04:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

why the hostility? These are citable sources like any other. We cannot treat anything in them as fact, but we can certainly refer to them. These will be valuable mostly for referencing uncontroversial statements, while of course more difficult topics will need a closer look based on scholarly sources, but even there, it might be useful to refer to the NCERT take on things as a first approximation. dab (𒁳) 09:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

See NCERT controversy. Not that the new books mentioned by Fowler fall under this, but NCERT books, like the school text books in most South Asian countries, are often re-written according to the current Government. Also, this shows that NCERT books are often not RS, as they contain misstatements. So, it is urgent that we keep ourselves limited to scholarly work when looking for references. --Ragib 09:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of the "NCERT controversy". Just because the BJP government turned "education" into a farce doesn't necessarily mean each subsequent government is doing the same. We'll have to rely on academic reviews of these books just as for any other publication. dab (𒁳) 10:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Text book in Indian schools. It is now the propaganda tool for most political parties. America is evil is some books. It's better not to talk about them. Chanakyathegreat 12:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Chanakyathegreat 12:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

let's wait until we can cite some reviews of these books. If they are good, we can cite them here. If they are just another round in childish state propaganda, we can cite them at NCERT controversy. Deciding this is up to academic reviewers, not to us. dab (𒁳) 15:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Replacing Taj image

It's for a long time the Taj image is there. I am replacing it with the Bodh Gaya image. Give an opportunity to readers to know about the other Indian architectures. Chanakyathegreat 12:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your change. The Taj Mahal is an icon of Indian culture. Perhaps you want to petition for your image to be ADDED, but I can't see there being consensus for the removal of the Taj Mahal. 13:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangek (talk • contribs)
readers interested in Indian architecture are advised to visit Indian architecture (doh). --dab (𒁳) 15:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Taj Mahal is not only the icon of Indian culture. Consider Bodhgaya. It's as iconic as the Taj Mahal. That image need a change since it is there for a long time.. Those who support the change with Bodhgaya image can vote here. Chanakyathegreat 12:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, on many levels. Bodhgaya is not as iconic as the Taj Mahal. If it is, you need reference to back that up. My assertion is backed by the fact that the current consensus, as determined by the historical record of this article, indicates that the Taj Mahal is among the most important icons of Indian culture. If something is the most important, or best, or whatever the criteria is for having an image in an article, then there will be one image that meets those criteria best. That will most likely not change with time. The concept of "rotation" is simply broken. The article should be in its best shape possible every time someone visits it-- not arbitrarily changing from time to time. Rangek 19:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems you don't know the significance of Bodhgaya. It's the birth place of Buddhism. It's an UNESCO world heritage site. Is there any rule that state that Taj Mahal being iconic can only be represented in the article and everything else is anathema. Don't think that other architectural marvels are not worth since they don't get the publicity. Since there are other architectural marvels that are unknown to most people and since Taj is there for a long time, I prefer a change. Let there be opinion and voting and changes can be made accordingly. Chanakyathegreat 14:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that Bodhgaya was not notable, or important, or anything. I merely said it is not as iconic as the Taj Mahal. Not having the Taj Mahal image on the India page is like having an article on lions without a picture of a male lion with a full mane. Most lions don't have manes, but that picture of the dominant male with a full mane is what people think of first when they think lion. As dab stated above, "readers interested in Indian architecture are advised to visit Indian architecture". Rangek 16:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The iconic image is what appears in the media. Wikipedia must not be restricted to just what the media portrays. It must reflect all possibilities and culture of India. Hence the rotation policy is necessary. From the iconic point of view we have many such marvels like the Taj, which don't get enough publicity and hence is unknown to many. Chanakyathegreat 03:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What the page most needs in light of the recent RfC

Here are my proposals in light of the recent RfC.

  1. Since there was certainly no consensus to remove the Toda image, and there is no consensus to keep the Tagore image (it hasn't even been considered), I am proposing that until the following issues are sorted out, we rotate the Toda and Tagore images on a daily basis as implemented by user:Saravask in this edit.
  2. I am proposing that during the next 30 days we first work on copy-editing (back to FA quality prose in summary style) and sourcing the following sections:
    1. Government. (The sources are probably OK, but the prose needs to be upgraded.)
    2. Politics. (Prose + Sources).
    3. Foreign relations and the military. (Prose + Sources).
    4. Subdivision. (Needs labeled area template as in FA Peru: Regions).
    5. Economy. (Prose needs an upgrade and the sources need to be double checked)
    6. Demographics (Prose + Sources-double check)
    7. Culture (Prose + Sources)
    8. History (Sources. I will have the IIM article ready in two weeks time.)
  3. Concurrently, we should have a discussion on what new sections (if any) or expansions might be needed. However, nothing new should be attempted until the basic work of prose improvement and sourcing is finished (which shouldn't involve more than a 10% expansion). We do not want an India page with the core sections in poor shape, and in addition, new sections in various states of dress and undress.
  4. Lastly, the daughter articles, like Geography of India, Religion in India, Culture of India, and others need work. Any new section or sub-section addition should come from a daughter article that already exists and in reasonably good shape, and not, for example like Science and Technology in India, which is still in the works, or Folk and Tribal Culture in India, which hasn't even begun yet.

I urge you to think it through with a cool head. In my opinion it is the best of the options we have. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs work, and much along the lines Fowler mentions above. It also needs some new sections that other users have suggested. Messy as it will be, I think both can proceed at the same time, if the other editors can't wait. While the work is being done, I believe the Tagore image should remain, since it's arguably the one image that covers the widest swath of material in the Culture section. One of the projects we can take on is finding an image that is representative of the tribal/minority demographic, and then placing it in the appropriately re-written/expanded section. Perhaps editors can propose a variety of potential images showing dance, art, festivals, as Rueben Iys has suggested. As the article is written now, the toda image is not appropriate, or appropriately placed, but I believe that an appropriate image can be found and agreed upon.
P.S. Personal attacks and incivility, such Fowler's attack against Sarvagnya above, will not help this process. I suggest a retraction would be appropriate, and further attacks stopped.ॐ Priyanath talk 16:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to copy-edit once the article structure has been sorted out. Saravask 23:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
PS I have removed the remarks and apologized, but the Tagore image has no consensus; as you know there were more votes for keeping the Toda dairy image than for removing it and replacing it by any other image. It has to be (a) only Taj Mahal, (b) the rotation I mention, and (c) all three, which will likely be too crowded. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
There was no consensus for the toda image. It was evenly split, which is not consensus. There hasn't been an RfC on the Tagore image, so we haven't determined that yet. I would be happy to start that process, but I think it would be a waste of time. Far better would be to proceed with improving the article, adding to the culture section, and finding an image representing the tribal culture/demographic that will have strong consensus. It will continue to waste our time that could be better spent with improvements. Look how much interest there has been in seriously working on the article now that we have (hopefully) moved forward from the toda image.
P.S. Fowler, I think everyone greatly appreciates the removing of those comments. I think if everyone stays cool(er), there will be much more real editing. ॐ Priyanath talk 00:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Priyanath. The Toda image was there as a result of a previous consensus a year ago. No objections were voiced until Nikkul started the drumbeat in March. There were more votes for keeping the Toda image than for removing it. That means there is no consensus for removing it. You cannot say there is no consensus for keeping something that has already been there for one year. You replaced the Toda image unilaterally with Tagore and with edit summaries that were laced with contempt and parody. You kept repeating "grass hut" over and over again. It wasn't me who came up with "putting the culture back on the culture page," it was you. This is the last time I will request you to either (a) remove Tagore, or (b) agree to the rotation implemented by Saravask. If you don't do either by tomorrow morning, I will take this not only to ANI, but eventually to Arbcom. I have frankly waited long enough, have apologized, when you saw no need to apologize (and still haven't) for your contemptuous humor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC) (Removed ambiguity. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC))
I think we should replace the Ajanta Caves image with the Taj image since the Ajanta image is very unclear. This has been proposed before,and there has been mention of moving the Taj image (to the history section) because the Taj has more to do with History than with culture. If we do this, we can then free up the culture section images. Nikkul 16:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
While the current sections do need improvements, I see no need for waiting to add new sections. Not all people might be interested to edit the Culture section where as they may have interesting things to add into say a Science and Technology section. As long as the new sections are maintained in an FA quality, I dont see much issue. And I see no point in the reasoning that the daughter articles of the new sections should be in a good shape before they make it into the India article; since conversely a well written section in the India article can be a starting point for a good daughter article. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 17:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fowler that improving the prose and references is a good thing to do, but wouldn't neccessarily say this is an overwhelming priority such that everything else should be put on hold. Moreover, one or afew editors can work on the prose and references thing. As for new section on things like science and technology or religion, I dont see why the state of the daughter article should have any bearing whatsoever on the inclusion of such a subsection. In fact a number of FA articles (eg Satyajit Ray) has daughter articles that are probably start class or stub class. Including these is both a good source of drawing contribution, as well as improving the India article itself. Also on the issue of new sections, a section on religion, I believe is a very good idea, and would definitely improve the article and also emphasise the diversity that Fowler mentioned earlier. Rueben lys 19:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No, a section on religion is not a good idea. At present status, the article tells about religious demography. And some religious festivals have been touched in culture. Any other aspect of religion (such as communal riots etc) can be added in History, if those deserve mention. Please see Religion in India for potential religious topics. However, no separate section on religion is needed. Country articles usually should not have religion section. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Dwaipayan, the current India article is in anyways not following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries in toto. For example, the article does not talk of communications and transportation (mentioned in the WikiProject) while it does talk of Foreign relations and military. With India's and Indian's close association with religion, a good representation on the aspects of religion in India is a must in the article. If not a section, atleast a decent paragraph on the lines of Indonesia. The same goes for transportation, as well, which is currently zilch in India article -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 01:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to confess I didn't notice this, and I agree with Dwaipayan. One more thing is, I think the Government section might benefit with some inclusion of local governments, ie, the Panchayati govts that exists in some (or all???) states.(I might have overlooked this). Also in foreign relation and millitary, it mentions the sino-Indian war, but doesn't mention the impact on Sino-Indian relationship and the changes happening now. Given that these two are now quite prominent, it might deserve a sentence. One other thing is, United States was quite close to India till the 1970s (It had quite a significant role in the Indian Space Program), so it is not entirely black and white.Rueben lys 23:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Those specific expansions/additions sound reasonable to me. Saravask 23:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with Dwaipayan that a separate religion section isn't needed. I do think, and suggested earlier, that religion has such a big impact on Culture that it needs a much stronger and articulated mention in the Culture section. For example, the list of festivals doesn't even mention that nearly all are based on religion. Much of art, dance, and architecture (temples) has strong religion influences. I think this can be done in a non-controversial way, and just in the Culture section. ॐ Priyanath talk 00:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fowler&folwer«Talk» on putting things on hold during the next or so until the basic work listed above is taken care of. Also, I would like to point out the name of the daughter articles. Shouldn't the following articles have an s at the end? For example:

  • Religions of India
  • Cultures of India
  • Folk and Tribal Cultures of India

The reason being is that there are more than one religion in India namely Hinduism including it's various sects, Jainism, Sikhism, Buddhism, and Islam? Also, I understand that there is only one India and one Indian nationality, but within India itself are different cultures. For example, Punjabi culture, Tamil culture and Assamese culture each have their uniqueness. Also, the same can be said about the numerous Folk and Tribal cultures throughout India (ex: certain tribals of Tamil Nadu and Nagaland). Lastly, in my opinion the Toda hut picture should remain on the India page to show the diversity. Regards. Wiki Raja 07:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It should either be "Religions of India" or "Religion in India." (I guess I would prefer the latter.) Those two have slightly different meanings to be sure, but IMO they are better than "Religion of India." The other two, I think, would be better worded as "Culture in India" and "Folk and Tribal Culture in India." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The religion article is in fact called Religion in India but the culture article is currently at Culture of India. GizzaDiscuss © 08:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

fwiiw, we also have Culture of the United States. I suppose this is just "culture" as an uncountable. Conversely, "tribal cultures" should be considered countable. dab (𒁳) 09:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Right discussions starting new sections should be put on hold and improving what we already have should be done. Its better if we do things one at a time. The guideline on what work is needed where, has already been mentioned many times. Hence I feel, still a lot of work is needed on improving what we already have. KnowledgeHegemony 12:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Here are some links that show extremely fine examples of folk and tribal art. I think there is general agreement that there needs to a relevant representation in the article. If we can find a good PD image (Nikkul, can you help?), it would add real value to the article. If these don't qualify, they do show that there must be an excellent image that could represent folk and tribal culture. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)